Report from the Commission - Twelfth annual Report on the Structural Funds (2000)
Date: 2001-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU regional policy, Structural Funds, activity report, regional planning

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 03.10.2001
COM(2001) 539 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

Twelfth annual report on the Structural Funds (2000)

This report has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, in collaboration
with the Directorates-General for Employment and Social Affairs, Agriculture and Fisheries,
and  with  contributions  from  the  Directorates-General  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,
Competition,  Energy  and  Transport,  Environment,  Information  Society,  Internal  Market,
Budget and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

Following the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999, the financial amounts in this report
are all expressed in euro, including those relating to operations before that date. The ‘€’ used
in the report refers to the ecu where the amounts related to the period before 1 January 1999
and to the euro after that date.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER 1: THE MAJOR EVENTS OF 2000 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW

PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2000-06 ......................................................................... 8

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

1.5.

Adoption of the remaining Objective 2 lists ................................................................ 8

Adoption of the CSFs/SPDs/OPs 2000-06................................................................... 8

The guidelines for the Community Initiatives ............................................................. 9

The draft guidelines for the innovative actions.......................................................... 11

Winding up of earlier programmes ............................................................................ 12

CHAPTER 2 : IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING IN THE MEMBER STATES 14

2.1.

General overview ....................................................................................................... 14

2.1.1.

Implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3 ................................................................... 14

2.1.2.

Implementation of the Community Initiatives ........................................................... 17

2.1.3.

Innovative actions and technical assistance ............................................................... 17

2.1.4.

The ex-ante verification of additionality.................................................................... 20

2.2.

Implementation of programming in the Member States ............................................ 24

2.2.1. BELGIUM ................................................................................................................. 24

2.2.2

DENMARK ............................................................................................................... 27

2.2.3. GERMANY ............................................................................................................... 28

2.2.4. GREECE .................................................................................................................... 31

2.2.5.

S P A I N .................................................................................................................... 33

2.2.6.

FRANCE.................................................................................................................... 36

2.2.7.

IRELAND .................................................................................................................. 39

2.2.8.

I T A L Y.................................................................................................................... 41

2.2.9.

LUXEMBOURG ....................................................................................................... 44

2.2.10. NETHERLANDS....................................................................................................... 45

2.2.11. AUSTRIA .................................................................................................................. 47

2.2.12. PORTUGAL .............................................................................................................. 50

2.2.13. FINLAND .................................................................................................................. 51

2.2.14. SWEDEN ................................................................................................................... 54

2.2.15. UNITED KINGDOM ................................................................................................ 57

4

2.3.

Coordination with the other financial instruments..................................................... 59

2.3.1. Coordination with the Cohesion Fund ....................................................................... 59

2.3.2. Coordination with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European

Investment Fund (EIF) ............................................................................................... 61

2.3.3.

Financial assistance for the trans-European networks (RTE) .................................... 62

2.4.

Coherence with other Community policies (within the meaning of Article 12 of the
general Regulation on the Structural Funds).............................................................. 63

2.4.1.

The Structural Funds and employment policy ........................................................... 63

2.4.2.

Structural Funds, rural development policy and fisheries policy............................... 64

2.4.3

Structural Funds and environmental policy ............................................................... 65

2.4.4.

The Structural Funds and competition policy ............................................................ 67

2.4.5.

Structural Funds and public procurement .................................................................. 68

2.4.6.

Structural Funds and equality for men and women ................................................... 68

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL............................................. 70

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

Ex-ante evaluation of Objective 2.............................................................................. 70

Final evaluation of the ESF (1994-99)....................................................................... 72

The Edinburgh Conference on evaluation ................................................................. 74

Checks carried out...................................................................................................... 76

CHAPTER 4: DIALOGUE AND INFORMATION ............................................................... 80

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

European Parliament .................................................................................................. 80

Fund Committees ....................................................................................................... 81

Dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions....................................................................................................................... 83

Social partners............................................................................................................ 84

Information and Publicity .......................................................................................... 85

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 89

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

Annex 2: Financial implementation in 2000 - technical assistance

Annex 3: Budget implementation

5

GENERAL SUMMARY

This  report  is  compiled  in  accordance  with  Article  45(2)  of  the  general  Regulation
governing  the  Structural  Funds  (Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/1999).  It  presents  the
application  in  2000  of  the  rules  on  the  Structural  Funds,  particularly  the
implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and the Community Initiatives.

In addition to the statutory  requirements, the  first chapter of the report  looks at the
major events of 2000, in particular the adoption of the programming documents and
the start of the first assistance on the ground.

2000

The past year was marked by two major topics in the field of the policy on economic
and social cohesion:

1.       The  adoption  of  the  programmes  for  2000-06  and  the  guidelines  for  the

Community Initiatives and the innovative measures

Following the final preparations completed in 1999 (see the 11th annual report), the
Commission  was  able  to  adopt  a  large  number  of  programming  documents
(CSFs/SPDs/OPs) in this first year of implementation.

The  situation  is  particularly  satisfactory  as  regards  the  Objective  1  programmes
(regions whose  development  is  lagging  behind),  since  all  the  7  CSFs  and  19  SPDs
were  adopted,  with  only  one  exception  (the  French  national  programme  for
computers).  About  half  the  OPs  under  the  CSFs  were  adopted  (46  in  2000;  51  are
still to be adopted in 2001).

In the  case  of Objective 2 (areas undergoing economic conversion),  only  the  SPDs
for Finland, Sweden and Denmark could be adopted, 8 in all, because most plans did
not reach the Commission until early in 2000.

All the CSFs/OPs or SPDs for Objective 3 (human resources) in the Member States
concerned were adopted during 2000.

In  all,  111  forms  of  assistance  (SPDs  and  OPs)  for  Objectives  1,  2  and  3  were
adopted during 2000.

During  the  year,  the  Commission  adopted  guidelines  for  the  four  Community
Initiatives: INTERREG III, URBAN II, EQUAL AND LEADER+.

INTERREG 
cooperation and interregional cooperation.

III  has 

three  strands:  cross-border  cooperation; 

transnational

URBAN II seeks to regenerate certain urban areas in crisis.

The EQUAL Initiative seeks to promote equal treatment on the labour market and the
promotion of equality between men and women.

LEADER+,  following  on  from  Leader  I  and  II,  is  designed  to  promote  rural
development.

6

The draft guidelines for innovative actions were adopted by the Commission in July.
Following  amendments  requested  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  final  version  of
the guidelines was adopted in January 2001.

Following adoption of the programming documents for Objectives 1, 2 and 3, some
programmes  could  start  in  the  first  year  of  programming.  This  meant  that  13%  of
total appropriations were committed and 5% paid by 31 December 2000. These
rates  of  implementation  are  similar  to  those  recorded  in  1994,  the  first  year  of
programming for the previous period (1994-99).

2.       Closure of old programmes

A large number  of  programmes  from  earlier  periods  were  closed  during  2000.  The
number  of  programmes  still  to  be  closed  relating  to  assistance  before  1989  was
reduced  from 89 to  35.  A particular effort was made to  close  programmes  in  Italy,
which were the most numerous.

Of the programmes for period 1989-93, some 73 programmes were closed during the
year;  101  still  remain.  Progress  was  particularly  significant  in  the  case  of
programmes in Italy and the United Kingdom.

The closure of Objective 2 programmes (1994-96) also began during the year 2000.

7

CHAPTER 1: THE MAJOR EVENTS OF 2000 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW
PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2000-06

1.1.

ADOPTION OF THE REMAINING OBJECTIVE 2 LISTS

Following  the  definition  on  1  July  1999  of  the  ceilings  of  eligible  population,  the
Commission invited the Member States concerned to send it their proposals for areas
eligible  under  Objective  2  before  31  August  1999.  They  were  in  fact  received
between 16 August and 3 December 1999.

As a result, in 1999 the Commission took decisions of principle on certain lists: those
for Finland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and
Spain.  For  the  first  five  of  these  Member  States  final  decisions  were  also  taken  in
1999.

On 18 January 2000, the Commission adopted decisions of principle on the  lists of
Objective 2 areas  in the  other Member States  concerned  by  this  Objective  (France,
Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg), with the notable exception of Italy, on whose lists a
decision in principle was taken in July. Final decisions on the lists awaiting approval
were taken in the first quarter of 2000, apart from Italy (third quarter).

1.2.

ADOPTION OF THE CSFS/SPDS/OPS 2000-06

Since the vast bulk of the plans for Objective 1 reached the Commission before 31
December  1999,  all  the  CSFs  and  SPDs  could  be  adopted  in  2000,  apart  from  the
French  national  programme  for  computers,  which  was  adopted  early  in  2001.  As
regards  the  OPs  under  the  CSFs,  the  situation  differed  from  one  Member  State  to
another (see table below).

The  lists  of  areas  eligible  under  Objective  2  were  drawn  up  later  (see  point  1.2
above) and no plans had reached the Commission  by  31 December  1999. Virtually
all  arrived  between  1  January  and  30  April  2000.  The  SPDs  adopted  in  2000
concerned  only  three  of  the  twelve  Member  States  concerned  by  Objective
2 (Finland,  Sweden,  Denmark).  Most  of  the  assistance  under  Objective  2  for  the
other Member States was adopted during the first quarter of 2001.

As regards the programming for Objective 2, France is the only Member State to opt
to integrate rural development measures (financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section,
which  is  not  a  Structural  Fund)  into  the  SPDs.  In  all  the  other  Member  States,  all
rural development measures are integrated into a specific ‘rural development plan’.

It  should  also  be  noted  that  some  Member  States  have  chosen  not  to  integrate  the
ESF  into  the  programming  for  Objective  2,  and  have  preferred  to  call  on  support
from  this  Fund  exclusively  through  programming  under  Objective  3  (co-financed
exclusively by the ESF).

All  the  CSFs/OPs  or  SPDs  for  Objective  3  for  all  the  Member  States  concerned
(since Portugal, Greece and Ireland are  entirely covered  by  Objective  1  transitional
support  under  Objective  1,  they  are  excluded)  were  adopted  during  2000.  They
totalled 39 items of assistance (25 OPs for Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom and
14 SPDs for the other Member States).

8

Nine SPDs concerning assistance from the FIFG outside Objective 1 (Germany,
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, United Kingdom, Sweden) were
adopted in 2000. The three countries entirely covered by Objective 1 or transitional
support under Objective 1 (Greece, Ireland and Portugal) are not concerned. The two
SPDs for Italy and the Netherlands are still to be adopted. No assistance is planned in
Luxembourg.

In  all,  111  items  of  assistance  (SPDs  and  OPs)  were  adopted  in  2000  under
Objectives 1, 2 and 3. Of these, 64 concerned Objective 1: 18 SPDs, and 46 OPs (the
vast majority of the OPs for Italy, Portugal and Germany were adopted while no OPs
have yet been adopted for Greece and a large number still remain to be adopted for
Spain). Eight SPDs concern programming under Objective 2 and 39 assistance under
Objective 3.

Assistance adopted during 2000:

CSF/SPD

OBJ. 1

OP

OBJ. 1

SPD

OBJ. 2

OBJ. 3

To be
adopted
in 2001

Adopted in
2000

To be
adopted in
2001

Adopted
in 2000

6 SPDs

1 SPD

MEMBER
STATE

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden
United
Kingdom

TOTAL

Adopted
in 2000

1 SPD

1 CSF

1 CSF

1 CSF

1 CSF

1 CSF

1 SPD

1 SPD

1 CSF

2 SPDs

2 SPDs
5 SPDs
1 CSF
7 CSFs
18 SPDs

6

5

6

12

17

1 SPD

3 SPDs

4 SPDs

3

25

17

1

2

2

1

OPs
adopted

7

15

To be
adopted
in 2001
7 SPDs

11 SPDs

7 SPDs

22 SPDs

14 SPDs

1 SPD

4 SPDs

8 SPDs

CSF/
SPD
adopted
5 SPDs

1 SPD

1 SPD

1 CSF

1 SPD

1 CSF

1 SPD

1 SPD

1 SPD

2 SPDs

1 SPD

14 SPDs

1 CSF

3

1 SPD

46 OPs

51 OPs

8 SPDs

88 SPDs

3 CSFs
14 SPDs

25 OPs

1.3.

THE GUIDELINES FOR THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

On  28  April  the  Commission  adopted  the  guidelines  for  the  new  Community
Initiative Interreg III (2000-06)1 and the indicative financial breakdown by Member
State.  Total  assistance  from  the  ERDF  for  the  whole  period  amounts  to  €4  875
million (at 1999 prices).

The Interreg Initiative began in 1990 to promote cross-border  cooperation and help
the  regions  located  on  the  Union’s  internal  and  external  borders  to  overcome  the

1

OJ C 143, 23 May 2000, p.6.

9

                                                
problems resulting from their isolation. The new Interreg III Initiative for the period
2000-06  is  broader  in  scope  because  it  also  provides  support  for  interregional  and
transnational  cooperation.  This  means  that  Interreg  III  operates  at  three  territorial
levels:

(cid:1)  Strand  A:  cross-border  cooperation  between  adjacent  frontier  communities  to
develop  cross-border  economic  and  social  centres  and  strategies  for  territorial
development;

(cid:1)  Strand  B:  transnational  cooperation  between  national,  regional  and  local
authorities  to  promote  a  greater  degree  of  integration  within  larger  regional
groupings. Thirteen programmes throughout the Union are planned;

(cid:1)  Strand  C:  interregional  cooperation  to  make  the  regional  development
instruments  more  effective,  mainly  by  networking  the  regions  and  public
authorities responsible for regional policies. This strand also concerns cooperation
between non-adjacent regions.

Urban II: Following the favourable opinion of the European Parliament, at the end
of  April  the  Commission  adopted  the  guidelines  on  the  new  Urban  II  (2000-06)
Community Initiative, which were published in OJ C 141 of 19 May 2000.

Equal follows on from the Employment and Adapt Community Initiatives and builds
on  the  lessons  learned  from  these  programmes.  It  is  distinct  from  the  mainstream
Social  Fund  programme  by  its  focus  on  testing  new  ways  of  delivery  for  policy
priorities  and  by  its  emphasis  on  partnership  in  a  context  of  transnational
cooperation. The main principles of Equal are:

(cid:1)  partnership:  including  public  authorities  (in  particular  at  local  and  regional
level),  representatives  of  workers  and  employers,  the  equality  commissions,
education and training communities, the voluntary and community sectors and the
management authorities for the countries;

(cid:1)  thematic  approach:  to  explore  new  ways  of  tackling  the  problems  common  to
different types of discrimination and inequality, rather than focusing on a specific
group;

(cid:1)  transnationality:  to  work  in  cooperation  with  partnerships  from  other  Member
States,  learning lessons and developing new  methods and  approaches to training
and job creation;

(cid:1)  empowerment/participation: those targeted for support will have the opportunity
to influence the design and evaluation of the activities proposed to help them;

(cid:1)  innovation:  including  new  methods  of  delivery,  new  systems  or  innovative
actions  to  address  gaps  identified  in  key  reports,  from,  for  example,  the  Social
Exclusion Unit;

(cid:1)  dissemination  and  mainstreaming:  to  help  inform  policy  developments  at  a

national and European level.

10

The financial resources allocated to Equal are modest, €2 847 000. Nevertheless, its
strategic  character  and  visibility  are  more  extensive  because  of  the  innovative
approach  and  the  transfer  to  more  “traditional”  programmes  (mainstreaming  –
dissemination of best practice).

Leader+: On 14 April the Commission approved guidelines for the Member States
on  the  new  Community  Initiative  for  rural  development,  Leader+2.  The  total
Community  contribution  to  Leader+  in  the  2000-06  period  will  be  €2 020  million,
financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

As its name implies, Leader+ will not be a simple continuation of the existing Leader
II Initiative but will be more ambitious, aiming to encourage and support high quality
and  ambitious  integrated  strategies  for  local  rural  development.  It  will  also  put  a
strong emphasis on cooperation and networking between rural areas. All rural areas
of the EU will, in principle, be eligible.

The  four  priority  themes  proposed  at  European  level  concern  key  aspects  of
development  in  rural  Europe:  improving  the  competitiveness  of  rural  products  and
services  through  the  use  of  new  know-how  and  new  technologies;  improving  the
quality  of  life  in  rural  areas;  better  promotion  of  local  products  through  collective
marketing  approaches;  enhancement  and  protection  of  the  natural  and  cultural
heritage.

1.4.

THE DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE INNOVATIVE ACTIONS

Under Article 22 of the general Regulation, up to 0.4 % of the annual ERDF budget
may  be  set  aside  to  co-finance  innovative  actions.  The  proposal  for  the  new
guidelines for ERDF innovative actions was approved by the Commission on 12 July
2000. The guidelines reflect the desire outlined in the general Regulation for greater
efficiency in the use of the Structural Funds mainly through the proposals for :

(cid:1)  a programme rather than a project approach;

(cid:1)  a reduction in the number of strategic themes from 8 to 3;

(cid:1)  closer cooperation between the innovative actions and the mainstream Objectives

1 and 2 programmes;

(cid:1)  decentralised management and implementation at regional level.

The  principal  aim  of  the  new  regional  programmes  of  innovative  actions  is  to
improve the quality of the Objective 1 and 2 programmes in relation to the following
three strategic themes:

(cid:1)  regional  economies  based  on  knowledge  and  technological  innovation:  helping

less-favoured regions to raise their technological level;

(cid:1)  e-EuropeRegio: the information society at the service of regional development;

2

OJ C 139, 18 May 2000, p.5.

11

                                                
(cid:1)  regional  identity  and  sustainable  development:  promoting  regional  cohesion  and
competitiveness  through  an  integrated  approach  to  economic,  environmental,
cultural and social activities.

Under the new system described in the guidelines, all regions in the EU are invited to
submit an individual programme application which sets out a strategy for promoting
innovation in the context of regional development. The strategy should be drawn up
by a partnership consisting of all regional actors and should be based on an analysis
of the region’s particular strengths and weaknesses. The regional programmes should
be seen as a laboratory for experimentation offering the regions a chance to test new
ideas  in  ways  that  may  not  always  be  possible  in  the  mainstream  Structural  Funds
programmes. Nevertheless, the ultimate aim should be to transfer successful results
to the operational programmes where they can be replicated on a wider scale. For this
to  work,  there  will  have  to  be  close  cooperation  between  those  responsible  for
innovative actions and the authorities responsible for Objectives 1 and 2.

In  contrast  with  past  practices,  the  Commission  will  no  longer  select  individual
projects. Since the regions are best placed to determine what is innovative for them,
it will be up to regional steering committees to choose individual projects. These can
be  wide-ranging  and  may  include  studies,  pilot  projects,  preparation  of  strategic
plans, networking, etc. Pilot projects should be aimed at small and very small firms.

Networking is very important and participating regions should set aside between 1%
and 3% of their budget for this purpose. In addition, the Commission is prepared to
co-finance a limited number of specific network programmes involving at least five
regions  from  five  Member  States  who  wish  to  set  up  new  networks  to  promote
innovation related to the three strategic themes outlined above.

The Commission amended the  draft  guidelines to  take account of suggestions from
the  ERDF  and  the  European  Parliament’s  Committee  on  Regional  Development,
Tourism  and  Transport  and  formally  adopted  them  in  January  2001.  The  first
programme  applications  are  expected  by  end-May  2001.  Each  year  between  2001
and 2005, the Commission will select programmes for co-financing based on a set of
objective  criteria  with  an  emphasis  on  quality  and  the  innovative  character  of  the
proposal.  The  ERDF  contribution  will  vary  from  a  minimum  of  €300  000  to  a
maximum  of  €3  million  for  up  to  two  years.  Once  the  regional  programmes  are
underway,  the  Commission  will  organise  two  competitions  to  identify  the  best
projects or actions which contribute to promoting innovation in relations to regional
development.

1.5. WINDING UP OF EARLIER PROGRAMMES

Work  on  winding  up  earlier  programmes  continued  apace  during  2000.  A  survey
carried out at the beginning  of March 2001  determined  the number  of  programmes
closed for each programming period. The main points were that:

–  for assistance prior to 1989, the number of programmes to be closed fell from 89
(30  June  2000)  to  35  (end  February  2001).  The  amount  involved  was  €124
million.  The  items  wound  up  included  a  large  number  of  programmes  in  Italy,
which accounted for the vast bulk of the programmes awaiting closure (75 out of
89  in  mid-2000).  This  meant  that  by  the  end  of  February,  only  24  Italian
programmes still awaited closure;

12

–  of the programmes for 1989-93, the number wound up since 30 June 2000 totalled
73,  involving  a  total  of  €516  million.  At  the  end  of  February  2001,  some  101
items,  involving  €714  million  still  remained  to  be  closed.  Progress  was
particularly  significant  for  the  programmes  in  Italy  (33  items  closed)  and  the
United Kingdom (26 items closed). Work is continuing and during the first half of
2001 it is expected that 17 items in Spain and 11 in France will be wound up;

–  as  expected,  the  winding  up  of  the  Objective  2  programmes  (1994-96),  which
amounted to 65 in number and €759 million, began. The items under Objective 2
for 1994-96 which raise no particular problem should be wound up by the end of
summer 2001.

13

CHAPTER 2 : IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING IN THE MEMBER
STATES

2.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW

This  Chapter  deals  solely  with  the  implementation  of  the  new
programming for 2000-06. Continuation of the programmes for 1994-
99 is presented briefly by Member State in Chapter 2.2, where its main
features  so  merit.  Innovative  actions  will  be  covered  in  this  chapter
since  they  do  not  fall  under  the  breakdown  of  appropriations  by
Member State.

2.1.1. Implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3

2000 saw the gradual implementation of assistance for period 2000-06 while most of
the programmes for 1994-99 continued to be implemented on the ground.

Commitment appropriations from the  Structural Funds for  2000-06  in  million
euros (1999 prices), excluding Community Initiatives and innovative actions:

Member
State

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland (2)

Italy

Luxemb

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden (3)

UK (2)

EUR15

1

0

0

19 229

20 961

37 744

3 254

1 315

21 935

0

0

261

16 124

913

722

5 085
127 543

Transition
al support
Objective
1

625

0

729

0

352

551

1 773

187

0

123

0

2 905

0

0

Objectives

2

368

156

2 984

0

2 553

5 437

0

2 145

34

676

578

0

459

354

Transition
al support
Objective
2

65

27

526

0

98

613

0

377

6

119

102

0

30

52

3

737

365

4 581

0

2 140

4 714

0

3 744

38

1 686

528

0

403

720

FIFG (Non-
Objective
1)

Total

34

197

107

0

200

225

0

96

0

31

4

0

31

60

1 829

745

28 156

20 961

43 087

14 794

3 088

28 484

78

2 635

1 473

19 029

1 836

1 908

1 166
8 411

3 989
19 733

706
2 721

4 568
24 224

121
1 106

15 635
183 738

(2) Including appropriations for Peace (2000-04)
(3) Including appropriations for the special programme for Swedish coastal areas

14

Implementation of appropriations for all Objectives:

Since  some  115  items  of  assistance  (OPs  and  SPDs)  were  adopted  in  2000,  some
measures could begin on the ground during the first year of the programming period
(details by Member State in chapter 2.2.). In any case, as provided for in the general
Regulation,  expenditure  on  most  programmes  is  eligible  retroactively  to  1  January
2000.  However,  the  small  number  of  programmes  adopted  under  Objective  2
prevented the overall implementation rate for the year reaching a satisfactory level.

Taking  all  the  Objectives  together,  13%  of  the  appropriations  for  2000-06  was
committed and 5% paid. These implementation rates were similar to those recorded
in  the  first  year  of  the  previous  programming  period,  1994-99.  In  2001
implementation  will probably  speed up  substantially  since  in that  year  work on  the
Objective  2  programmes  will  begin.  The  7%  advance  and  automatic  annual
commitments should facilitate implementation.

Annex  1  shows  the  implementation  of  the  Funds  by  Member  State  and  by  Fund
(commitments and payments made in terms of total appropriations allocated).

Annex  3  also  shows  financial  implementation  of  the  budget  (i.e.  commitments  and
payments made in terms of the budget available for the year).

Budgetary implementation shows that overall 51.8% of the appropriations available
for  all  the  Objectives,  Community  Initiatives  and  innovative  actions  for  2000  were
committed.  Consumption  of  appropriations  varied  widely  by  budget  heading:
Objective 3 used 94.6% of the appropriations available for the year while Objective 2
used  only  4.6%  (see  explanations  below).  The  FIFG  (non-Objective  1)  also  used  a
very  large  proportion  of  the  commitment  appropriations  available.  The  situation  is
similar  as  regards  payment  appropriations,  with  Objective  3  and  the  FIFG  (non-
Objective  1)  using  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  appropriations  available  while
Objective 2 used very little and the Community Initiatives none at all. This failure to
use  all  the  appropriations  in  2000  means  that  some  will  have  to  be  carried  over  to
following years.

Commitment appropriations carried over from 2000 to subsequent years:

Since some items of assistance could not be adopted or implemented in 2000, in May
2001  the  Commission  proposed,  and  the  European  Parliament  approved,  a
reprogramming of commitment appropriations from 2000 to 2002-06. The amount in
question  totals  €6  152  million  in  commitment  appropriations:  €3  589  000  for
Objective 1; €864 million for Objective 2; €4.5 million for the FIFG non-Objective 1
and  €1  695  million  for  the  Community  Initiatives.  2000,  the  first  year  of
implementation in the 2000-06 programming period, is the only one when this type
of transfer is possible.

Implementation of Objective 1 (regions whose development is lagging behind):

Almost  all  the  SPDs  and  all  the  CSFs  were  adopted  in  2000.  About  half  the  OPs
under  CSFs  were  adopted  in  2000  (46  OPs  were  adopted  while  51  are  still  to  be
adopted in 2001). This  meant  that  appropriations  could  be  committed  and  work  on
many measures could begin so that all the Member States, with the notable exception
of  Greece,  could  begin  implementing  their  programmes  in  2000.  In  the  various

15

Member  States  the  progress  of  the  programmes  was  fairly  uniform  in  terms  of  the
commitment of appropriations although at 21% the rate in Ireland was considerably
higher than the Community average of 9%, mainly because of better preparation in
terms  of  the  partnership  (establishment  and  consultation  of  the  Monitoring
Committee)  and  the  prior  existence  of  eligible  projects  ‘in  reserve’,  awaiting  co-
financing.  The  disparities  regarding  payments  were  greater:  while  most  Member
States  recorded  a  rate  of  around  7%,  corresponding  to  the  advance  paid  when  the
programme  was  adopted,  there  was  a  delay  in  some  Member  States  (Germany,
France and, particularly, Spain), mainly because the programmes were adopted at the
very  end  of  2000  (the  end  of  December  in  some  cases),  which  meant  that  the
corresponding payments could not be made that year. The first payments were made
early in 2001. As a result, the average rate of payments under Objective 1 was 3.3%.

Implementation  of  Objective  2  (conversion  of  areas  facing  structural
difficulties):

The SPDs  for only  three  Member  States  (Denmark,  Finland  and  Sweden)  could  be
adopted  in  2000  which  meant  that  only  those  Member  States  could  actually  begin
work  on  their  programmes.  However,  the  Objective  2  SPD  for  Sweden  was  not
adopted  until  the  end  of  December  2000 so  no  payment  could  be  made  that  year.
Both Denmark and  Finland recorded payment rates of 7%, which, as in the case of
Objective 1, corresponds to the advance paid when the programmes were approved.
The Commission adopted  the  bulk  of the programmes for  the other  Member  States
during the first quarter of 2001, so that work could begin immediately, which means
that the measures are likely to make satisfactory progress in 2001. The overall rate of
commitments is 15%, and 4% for payments.

Implementation of Objective 3:

Objective  3  supports  human  resource  activities  in  all  areas  outside  Objective  1.
Around 75% of ESF funding under Objective 3 will go to just four Member States:
Germany,  France,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Diversity  in  the  scale  of  ESF
support within Member States played a key part in both the negotiations and content
of  programmes.  Larger  programmes  are  typically  allocated  within  existing  active
labour market policies whereas for smaller scale ESF programmes, there tends to be
a  greater  emphasis  on  targeting  a  narrower  range  of  (often)  more  innovative
activities.

During 2000, many programming documents were adopted under Objective 3 so that
implementation  on  the  ground  could  begin  in  the  first  year  of  programming.
However, for the three Member States (Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom) which
opted  for  programming  through  a  CSF  divided  into  a  number  of  OPs  (unlike  the
others, which opted for programming through an SPD), the CSF was adopted in 2000
but the corresponding programmes were not adopted until 2001. That explains why
the  rate  of  implementation  for  Objective  3  is  lower  than  for  Objectives  1  and  2,
particularly as regards commitments: the overall rates are 10% for commitments and
4.5% for payments.

16

2.1.2. Implementation of the Community Initiatives

Interreg III:

Following adoption of the guidelines for Interreg III, the Member States were invited
to submit detailed proposals within six moths of the date of publication of the final
notice in the Official Journal3.

Towards  the  end  of  2000,  the  Commission  received  46  cross-border  programmes
(strand  A)  and  7  transnational  programmes  (strand  B).  The  Commission  started
consideration  of  a  large  number  of  these  programmes  and  negotiations  with  the
regions concerned so that the various programmes could begin as soon as possible, in
fact in 2001.

Urban II:

Following the publication of the guidelines for Urban II, the Commission helped its
partners  in  the  Member  States  to  prepare  the  new  programmes,  mainly  through  a
Vademecum which was put on the Inforegio Internet server in September 2000.

The  Member  States  sent  the  Commission  applications  for  a  number  of  towns  well
above  the  55  originally  planned.  The  Commission  made  a  special  effort  so  that  70
towns could be supported by the Urban programme. However, by 31 December, only
28 programmes had been submitted.

Equal:

The  guidelines  for  Equal  were  signed  in  Lisbon  on  14  April  2000  during  the
Portuguese presidency of the Union. The arrival of draft programmes in September
saw the start of negotiations between the Commission and the Member States which
continued throughout the autumn and winter and culminated in March 2001 with the
adoption of  17 programmes  (Belgium  submitted two  separate  programmes:  one  for
the  French-  and  German-speaking  part  and  one  for  the  Dutch-speaking  part and
Northern Ireland has a special programme within the United Kingdom).

Leader+:

The Leader+ Community Initiative will be implemented through 73 programmes, 12
at national level and 61 at regional level. They were approved during the first half of
2001.

2.1.3. Innovative actions and technical assistance

Innovative actions:

No new innovative actions or  projects were  launched  in  2000.  The  implementation
and  winding-up  of  the  ‘old’  projects  approved  in  1994-99  continued  alongside
preparation of the new guidelines for 2000-06. At the beginning of 2000, 295 of the
original  329  projects  were  in  operation.  By  end-2000,  this  had  dropped  to  252:  a
large number of these will be closed in 2001 and the remainder in 2002.

3

OJ C 143, 23 May 2000, p.6.

17

                                                
Events of particular interest related to these projects during 2000 were:

(cid:1)  After 10 years, the final Europartenariat at the initiative of the Commission took
place  in  Palermo,  Sicily,  in  December.  Henceforth,  events  of  this  type  may  be
organised by the regions in the context of the Objective 1 and 2 programmes.

(cid:1)  A  seminar  for  participating  RIS/RITTS  (information  technology)  regions  took
place  in  Madrid  in  June.  Over  200  representatives  from  nearly  100  European
regions,  including  accession  countries,  took  part  in  the  seminar,  which  provided
an  opportunity  to  exchange  good  practice  and  develop  further  inter-regional
cooperation in the field of innovation promotion.

(cid:1)  RINNO (technical assistance for the development of a regional innovation policy
measures resource base) is a €1 million joint project between DG Regional Policy
and  DG  Enterprise,  which  started  in  January  2000  and  will  last  for  two  years.
RINNO is a central resource for regions to obtain information and good practice
on  what  others  are  doing  in  the  field  of  (technological)  innovation  promotion,
particularly with respect to SMEs.

(cid:1)  Implementation  of  the  action  plans  of  the  Regional  Innovation  Strategies  (RIS)
continued  in  30  regions;  six  inter-regional  technology  transfer  projects  (RTTS)
have developed in the latest stages of their implementation phase.

(cid:1)  RISI 1/RISI 2/RISI+ (regional information  society initiative) projects:  6 projects
ended in 2000; 22 projects are still ongoing. Among these, 13 RISI+ projects were
successful  in  helping  the  regions  to  incorporate  the  results  of  the  pilot  projects
into  the  mainstream  Objective  1  and  2  programmes.  A  conference  was  held  in
Sovia,  Spain,  in  July,  attended  by  some  50  regions.  The  objective  was  to
familiarise  regions  with  ways  of  developing  a  regional  information  society  on  a
larger scale. These actions are supported by either the ERDF or the ESF.

(cid:1)  Ecos-Ouverture (interregional cooperation with non-member countries): a seminar
for participating regions was held in Brussels in January. At present all 63 projects
are ongoing.

(cid:1)  A seminar on territorial employment pacts was held in Naples in July, attended by
some  400  participants.  Examples  of  TEP  experiences  which  had  been
incorporated into mainstream programmes were discussed. Funding for technical
assistance  for  the  pacts  provided  under  Article  10  of  the  ERDF  Regulation  will
end  in  December  2001  at  the  latest.  Some  of  the  pacts  have  already  secured  a
continuation  of  their  activities  in  the  new  SPDs  and  Operational  Programmes
2000-06.

(cid:1)  Culture: most of the 37 projects have  now  been  closed.  However,  three  projects
are still to send in their final reports and on 11 other projects further information
is needed. One of the projects runs until mid-2001.

An  evaluation  of  the  1994-99  projects  carried  out  in  1999  showed  that  a  large
proportion  had  produced  sound  results.  Their  success  can  also  be  measured  by  the
fact  that  activities  of  this  type  are  now  firmly  embedded  in  the  mainstream
programmes.  This  has  allowed  the  Commission  to  launch  a  new  generation  of

18

innovative  actions,  based  on  the  strategic  approach  used  by  RIS  and  RISI,  which
concentrates on the demands of the new economy.

In the human resources domain (Article 6 of the ESF Regulation), progress was also
made in 2000:

(cid:1)  New  sources  of  employment:  The  majority  of  the  projects  originally  selected  in
1996 and 1997 had come to an end by December 2000. Given the closeness of the
content  to  the  Third  System  and  Employment  Pilot4,  a  selection  of  the  projects
took  part  in  the  ‘capitalisation’  process  initiated  for  the  Third  System  projects.
This has so far produced outputs which are sectoral (e.g. culture or neighbourhood
services);  horizontal  (e.g.  job  creation,  new  information  technologies)  or
instrumental (development tools and financing).

At the beginning of 2000, the Commission published a Project Directory containing
descriptions and contact information for the 82 projects funded under the 1996  and
1997  calls  for  proposals5  This  was  distributed  to  a  wide  range  of  organisations
including the ESF missions in the Member States.

(cid:1)  Local Social Capital: The 30 projects in 12 Member States under the Local Social
Capital pilot measure began on 1 September 1999. The pilot measure will allow
the  identification  of  good  practices  for  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of
Article  4(2)  of  the  ESF  Regulation  concerning  Objectives  1  and  3  programmes.
The  local  social  capital  intermediary  bodies  are  non-profit  organisations  that
provide financial and technical support to micro-projects aimed at restoring social
cohesion,  reinforcing  local  networks  and  groups  promoting  social  inclusion  and
the start-up of micro-firms and cooperatives.

A  ‘Summer  School’  which  brought  together  representatives  of  all  the  intermediary
bodies, the external evaluators and the European  Commission was held in Belgium
on  8-11  July.  It  focused  on  specific  practical  issues  such  as  the  selection  and
monitoring  of  micro-projects  and  the  management  of  partnerships,  building  on
discussions started on the CIRCA electronic discussion forum. The Summer School
also  provided  a  general  opportunity  for  project  promoters  to  meet  and  exchange
information and experiences.

In November the first year report was submitted by the external assessors responsible
for  the  on-going  and  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  pilot  project  as  a  whole.  The  report
concluded  that  in  general  the  pilot  project  is  now  fully  established  and  operational
(including  financial  management  systems),  has  a  substantial  volume  of  micro-
projects  and  well-functioning  local  partnerships.  The  report  was  presented  to  the
European Social Fund Committee at its meeting on 15 December 2000.

(cid:1)  Labour mobility: To promote innovation in support of the aims of the Action Plan
for the reinforcement of free movement of workers (COM(97) 586), ESF support
has  been  provided  to  13  projects  linked  to  industrial  change  and  restructuring.
They  focus  on  the  impact  of  barriers  to  freedom  of  movement  and/or  on

4

5

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/3syst/index_en.htm
“ESF  Article  6  96/97  Project  Directory  -  New  Job  Sources”,  ISBN  92-828-7728-0.  This  information
can also be found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/actions/index_en.htm

19

                                                
supporting geographic and occupational mobility. These projects are currently in
their final stages.

(cid:1)  Inter-professional  and  sectoral  social  dialogue:  Following  a  call  for  proposals  at
the  beginning  of  1999  addressed  to  the  European  social  partner  organisations,
support  is  being  provided  to  nine  projects  in  the  areas  of  new  forms  of  work
organisation, new training methodologies and new forms of dialogue.

Technical assistance:

Apart  from  the  technical  assistance  measures  financed  under  the  CSFs,  OPs  and
SPDs, the Commission may undertake technical assistance operations of Community
interest to meet specific needs relating to the implementation of the Structural Funds.
Sometimes  the  Commission  has  to  undertake  tasks  which  it  cannot  accomplish
without the aid of outside experts. Such aid may take the form of contracts or grants.

For the programming period 2000-06, this technical assistance at the initiative of the
Commission  is  defined  by  Article  23  of  the  general  Regulation,  which  limits  the
maximum amount of technical assistance to 0.25% of the annual allocation of each
Fund.

Financial implementation of technical assistance at Community level in 2000 was as
follows (€million):

Commitments

Payments

ERDF

12.154

3.762

FIFG

0.794

0.418

TOTAL

12.948

3.762

Annex 2 lists the types of measures and the amounts committed.

At the beginning of the year, in accordance with Article 48(3)(c) of the Regulation,
the Directorate-General for regional policy, which is responsible for management of
the  ERDF,  sent  the  forecasts  of  consumption  during  the  year  to  the  Committee  for
the  Development  and  Conversion  of  Regions  (comprising  representatives  of  the
Member States) for its opinion.

2.1.4. The ex-ante verification of additionality

Since 1989, the rules governing the Structural Funds have provided for application of
the principle of additionality, which requires the Member States to maintain at least
the same level of national structural expenditure (excluding the EU contribution), in
real  terms,  from  one  programming  period  to  another.  Public  structural  expenditure
includes both expenditure which is co-financed under Structural Funds programmes
and those which would have been eligible for such finance.

For the period 2000-06, the process of evaluating additionality has been simplified.
Instead of the previous  annual  verification  there  will  be  three  stages:  ex-ante,  mid-
term  (2003)  and  before  the  end  of  2005.  Furthermore,  the  expenditure  level  to  be
maintained in 2000-06 by comparison with 1994-99 takes account of the prevailing
general  macro-economic  conditions  in  each  Member  State  and  certain  specific
situations  such  as  privatisations,  exceptional  levels  of  structural  spending  in  the

20

previous period and any reduction in Structural Fund assistance in 2000-06 compared
with 1994-99.

Additionality is verified if:

–  with  the  exception  of  certain  cases  mentioned  in  Article  11  of  the  general
Regulation  on  the  Structural  Funds,  the  ex-ante  evaluation  shows  that  average
annual  expenditure  planned  for  2000-06  is  at  least  as  high  as  average  annual
expenditure during the previous period;

–  the evaluation at the end of 2003 shows that average annual expenditure in 2000-
02 is at least as high as the average annual expenditure for 2000-06 agreed during
the ex-ante evaluation;

–  the evaluation at the end of 2005 shows that average annual expenditure in 2000-
04 is at least as high as the average annual expenditure for 2000-06 agreed during
the ex-ante evaluation or revised at mid-term.

This condition must be met by each Member State, overall in the case of expenditure
for all the Objective 1 regions. In the case of those eligible under Objectives 2 and 3,
it is the expenditure undertaken at national level which is taken into account.

Link between programming and additionality

Additionality  is  linked  to  programming  and  the  various  stages  of  evaluation  of  the
Structural  Funds  programmes,  ex-ante,  interim  and  final  evaluation,  and  so  it  is  a
factor in the various decisions taken by the Commission during programming:

–  under  Article  11  of  the  general  Regulation,  the  Commission  cannot  approve  the

CSF/SPD unless additionality has been verified ex-ante;

–  the Commission has included a clause in the CSFs/SPDs, under which it will not
approve  mid-term  reprogramming  unless  by  the  end  of  2003  the  Member  State
has provided  relevant data concerning the mid-term  verification  of  additionality.
In  exceptional  and  duly  justified  cases,  and  to  avoid  excessive  delay  in  the
programming  process,  the  Commission  may  include  in  the  decision  on  the  mid-
term re-examination a clause permitting the suspension of new commitments until
full information on the mid-term verification of additionality has been provided;

–  at the end of 2005, if the information it has available shows that a Member State is
not  in  fact  complying  with  the  principle  of  additionality  (because  it  is  not
maintaining its level of expenditure rather than failing to provide information), the
Commission  may  consider  reducing  planned  Structural  Funds  allocations  to  that
Member State in the following period.

Ex-ante verification 2000-06

The  ex-ante  verification  of  additionality  had  to  be  concluded  before  any  Member
State’s  programme  for  the  new  period  could  be  adopted.  This  exercise  was  carried
out separately for the Objective 1 regions on the one hand, and for Objectives 2 and 3
together on the other, which means that the methodology of verification has changed
radically compared to the previous programming period.

21

Objective 1

For Objective 1, the regulation stipulates the need to determine the level of public or
equivalent  structural  expenditure  that  the  Member  State  is  to  maintain  in  all  its
Objective 1 regions. In general, the level of this expenditure shall be at least equal, in
real terms, to the amount spent in the previous period. The main outcomes of these
calculations,  which  were  provided  by  the  Member  States  and  scrutinised  by  the
Commission, can be seen in the table below.

in  different  Member  States.  Moreover, 

In  interpreting  the  table,  a  comparison  between  the  Member  States  is  difficult,  not
least because of the varying sizes  of the  populations and  economies  of Objective 1
regions 
institutional
arrangements  in  each  Member  State  require  appropriate  methodologies  and
assumptions  in  order  to  keep  the  administrative  costs  of  verification  within
reasonable  proportions.  For  this  reason,  when  defining  the  methodologies,  more
emphasis has been put on the comparability of data over time within a Member State
than on full comparability between Member States.

the  different 

The  crucial  figures  are  those  in  the  column  for  2000-06,  which  gives  the  level  of
average  annual  expenditure  that  Member  States  have  to  achieve  and  that  will  be
verified  before  the  end  of  2003  and  again  before  the  end  of  2005.  Expenditure  in
1994-99 provided some guidance in determining the level for 2000-06 although, due
to  the  timing  of  the  ex-ante  verification  which  was  to  be  concluded  at  the  end  of
1999 or in early 2000 for most Member States, many figures for the years 1998 and
1999 were still provisional. When comparing the percentage changes between 1994-
99 and 2000-06, it should be noted that:

–  the Commission considered Germany’s 10% decline in expenditure as in line with
additionality  requirements.  This  is  because  the  regulation  states  that,  when
determining  ex-ante  the  level  of  expenditure  to  be  achieved  during  the  period,
“account should be taken of (…) an exceptional level of public structural effort or
equivalent  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Member  State  during  the  previous
programming  period”.  This  was  clearly  the  case  in  the  aftermath  of  German
unification;

–  in  the  cohesion  countries,  substantial  increases  arise  both  from  the  co-financing
requirements and from the efforts needed to close further the gaps in physical and
human  capital  relative  to  the  rest  of  the  EU.  In  the  specific  case  of  Ireland,  the
planned increase of nearly 100% is due to a very ambitious National Development
Plan  which  was  set  up  to  reduce  development  bottlenecks  and  allow  continuing
high growth;

–  in  Italy,  the  20%  increase  in  expenditure  is  to  be  considered  in  relation  to  the
lower  than  expected  level  of  spending  in  1994-99,  and  is  based  on  the
government’s commitment to increasing capital expenditure in order to stimulate
the economic development of the South;

–  elsewhere, the economic and social problems in the Objective 1 regions are often
less  pronounced  and  do  not  necessarily  justify  substantial  increases  from  one
period to the next.

22

Table: Annual average national public or equivalent structural expenditure in Objective 1 and
Objective 1 transitional regions (in €million, at 1999 prices)

1994-99

2000-06

Change in %

Belgium

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

906.3

27 146.1

6 884.0

12 690.0

2259.7

2258.2

939.3

24 474.5

8 952.0

13 917.0

2325.1

4464.6

16 308.03

19 591.55

372.8

138.0

4 496.0

893.0

2776.2

5260.5

406.0

138.2

5 109.0

899.0

2776.2

5547.7

+3.6

-9.8

+30.0

+9.7

+2.9

+97.7

+20.1

+8.9

+0.1

+13.6

+0.7

0.0

+5.5

For Objectives 2 and 3 together:

The  Member  States  must  provide  the  national  expenditure  relating  to  the  active
labour market policy and, where appropriate (as demonstrated by the Member State),
other expenditure required to implement Objectives 2 and 3. Accordingly:

–  a single verification, based on the same data, is carried out for Objectives 2 and 3;

–  expenditure concerns the whole of the country, including the Objective 1 regions.

The data are therefore derived directly from statistics at national level.

To facilitate the development of a transparent benchmark for public expenditure, the
Commission  encouraged  Member  States  to  draw  on  data  on  active  labour  market
policies (ALMPs) collated by the OECD. For over a decade, the OECD has produced
an annual series of data on expenditure on ALMPs in Member States. The series is
internationally recognised, has a proven track record, and Member States themselves
provide the data to agreed definitions. Most Member States chose to adopt the data as
the  starting  point  for  discussions  over  trends  in  expenditure  to  help  assess
additionality.

23

However, in promoting the use of a common dataset, the aim was not to have a rigid
system  for  reviewing  additionality.  Where  Member  States  provided  a  convincing
case  that  the  data  did  not  fully  reflect  the  range  of  labour  market  programmes
(Sweden) or the  underlying  changes  in  economic  circumstances  (Finland),  then  the
additionality  tables  were  modified  to  take  account  of  these  factors.  Over  the
programming period, the use of the OECD data will provide a valuable benchmark to
assess  Member  States’  commitment  to  the  principle  of  additionality  in  Structural
Fund programmes under Objectives 2 and 3.

2.2.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING IN THE MEMBER STATES

2.2.1. BELGIUM

1994-99

The final outturn of commitments under the Objective 1 SPD for Hainaut, closed at
the end of 1999, shows a rate exceeding 98%. The measures providing direct aid to
firms  (aid  for  investment  and  research)  and  indirect  support  (preparing  industrial
areas) were the main beneficiaries of the Structural Funds. The development of and
facilities for research centres and centres of excellence also continued. The number
of jobs created may be considered a success since the only measure providing aid for
investment had already resulted in the creation of 6 692 jobs as compared with the 4
800  originally  expected.  The  evaluations  available  suggest  that  12  000  jobs  may
reasonably be expected.

their 

implications 

Measures to modernise education continued. These measures were linked with, and
more importantly preceded by training of, teaching staff in both the new technologies
information  and
and 
communications  technologies  were  given  pride  of  place  both  in  schools  and  in
contacts  with  job  seekers  and  workers  in  small  firms.  This  measure  resulted  in  the
emergence of new structures such as the CEMI (Centre d’excellence en maintenance
industrielle  -  Centre  for  excellence  in  industrial  maintenance),  the  Centre  de
technologies avancées (Centre for advanced technologies) and CEqual.

for  schools.  The 

fields  of  new 

The measures under the Objective 2 SPD for Meuse Vesdre continued. By mid-June,
906 jobs had been created and 63 research projects supported. Work on most of the
infrastructure  projects  (improved  access,  reception,  R&D,  tourist  projects  and
restoration  of  waste  land)  was  continuing  or  completed.  In  the  Aubange  SPD,
construction  of  the  distance  support  centre  on  the  triple  point  industrial  area  began
and the economic development projects were continuing.

In  Flanders,  after  the  last  amending  decisions  in  1999,  all  available  funds  were
committed. The rhythm of payments indicates that the two Objective 2 programmes
are on schedule. For both areas (Limburg and Turnhout), the programmes  focus on
encouraging  the  services  sector,  in  particular  services  which  are  expected  to  create
additional jobs for women.

As  regards  human  resources,  the  short-term  training  measures  for  workers  and  job
seekers  and  the  training  measures  in  the  field  of  the  new  technologies  were  very
successful.  The  ESF/ERDF  integrated  measures  concerning  improvements  to
research centres achieved satisfactory results. The measures  for the development of

24

the social economy did not really begin until 2000, so the results are expected to be
satisfactory, but well below expectations.

Objective  3: in Flanders, the  available  resources were  used  mainly  for  measures  to
help the long-term unemployed, ex-convicts, immigrants, the handicapped and those
with poor educational records.

In the French Community (Wallonia and Brussels), the establishment of pathways to
integration brought results. The “Training Carrefour” played its full part in providing
information and advice, so ensuring transparency in supply and the dissemination of
information to all those operating at local level.

In Brussels, the bulk of the resources for the Objective 3 programme went to develop
supporting  and  accompanying  measures  and  centres  to  promote  social  assistance
(local missions).

Objective  4:  in  Flanders,  extra  efforts  were  made  as  regards  training.  The  sectoral
Funds  asked  consultants  to  carry  out  promotional  work  and  draw  up  potential
training dossiers in firms. These plans came to fruition in 2000 and became training
projects.

Almost  all  the  funds  for  the  French  Community  were  used  by  the  end  of  2000,
despite  initial  problems.  The  Walloon  employment  observatory,  which  was
established  under  Objective 4,  produced  studies  and  surveys  on  sectors  undergoing
change  and  conversion,  the  new  sectors  and  the  non-merchant  sector.  The  various
measures  for  small  and  very  small  firms  continued,  including  the  PLATO  project
which combines a management training programme for small firms with sponsorship
by  managers  in  large  firms  to  train  managers  in  small  firms,  so  facilitating  the
exchange of experiences and know-how.

2000-06

The Commission approved the Objective 1 SPD for Hainaut (transitional support) on
15 May 2000. The Community Structural Funds will provide €645 million.

The six priorities selected are:

(cid:1)  focussing growth through development of the productive base,

(cid:1)  developing  and  exploiting  local  potential  for  research  and  technological

innovation,

(cid:1)  exploiting the potential of agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and the countryside,

(cid:1)  making the area more attractive by restoring and promoting its image,

(cid:1)  preventing unemployment, and

(cid:1)  encouraging a skilled labour force and improving professional reintegration.

A task-force to examine the match between the priorities of the SDP and the projects
submitted by operators began work and  will, early in 2001,  send its  findings  to the

25

Walloon  Government,  which  will  select  the  projects  to  receive  support  from  the
Structural Funds.

The  projects  under  the  Objective  2  SPD  for  the  Meuse-Vesdre  basin  (assistance
from the ERDF and the ESF totalling €158 million) and for the rural area of Dinant-
Philippeville  (assistance  from  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF  totalling  €58  million)  were
submitted  to  the  Commission  and  judged  acceptable  in  July  2000.  Negotiations  on
these two SPDs took place during second half of the year 2000.

The same was true of the Objective 2 SPD for Brussels-Capital (assistance from the
ERDF  of  €43  million)  which  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  and  judged
acceptable in May 2000.

Flanders  proposed  four  Objective  2  programmes,  each  of  which  includes  a
transitional component as well: Limburg, Antwerp, West Flanders and East Flanders.
The  total  allocation  for  these  programs  (ERDF  and  ESF)  is  €148.2 million  for  the
new Objective 2 areas and €38.2 million for the transitional areas. The programmes
focus on the  development of tourism in rural  areas,  increasing  the  attractiveness  of
industrial  city  districts  for  business  and  potential  inhabitants,  the  reutilization  of
former mining sites and measures to increase the potential of the local labour force.
The  negotiations  on  the  four  programmes  are  about  to  be  completed  and  they  are
expected to be adopted during April-May 2001.

The  Commission  adopted  five  programmes  under  Objective  3  in  Belgium  for
vocational training and employment for a total de €737 million and a programme of
transitional support for Hainaut with an ESF contribution of €192 million.

Federal Ministry of Employment and Labour SPD: €9.1 million. Half the budget will
go  to  measures  to  reintegrate  disadvantaged  groups  into  the  labour  market.  Other
measures  will  concern  the  consolidation  of  employment  and  measures  to  promote
equality for men and women at work.

Flanders SPD: €376.2 million. The labour market in Flanders suffers from a shortage
of  skilled  labour,  a  low  rate  of  employment  among  older  workers  and  high
unemployment among young people, women and immigrants.

Wallonia/Brussels  SPD:  €285.5  million.  The  priority 
reducing
unemployment. Social and vocational exclusion also affects a large number of men
and women.

remains 

Brussels-Capital SPD: €23.7 million. Although it is the major source of employment
in  the  country,  Brussels  has  the  highest  unemployment  rate  in  Belgium.  The
measures adopted concern the socio-professional integration of job seekers.

German-speaking  Community  SPD:  €10.7  million.  This  assistance  is  intended  to
reduce long-term unemployment, encourage the integration into the labour market of
disadvantaged groups, promote training and education, develop capacity to adapt and
the business spirit and promote equality for men and women.

Hainaut SPD: €191.9 million. These resources  will be used mainly under  two  ESF
monofund  priorities:  a  preventive  approach  to  the  labour  market  and  improving
vocational reintegration and social inclusion.

26

Non-Objective  1  FIFG:  The  programme  adopted  includes  an  allocation  of  €35.3
million for fish processing and the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet.

2.2.2 DENMARK

1994-99

The  Objective  2  programmes  for  Lolland  and  Nordjylland  1997-99  are  in  the  final
phase of implementation.

Both programmes performed well in 1997-99 in terms of both financial and physical
implementation.  Job  creation,  for  example,  exceeded  the  targets  set  out  in  the
programme.  Demand  was  also  high  for  these  programme  and  consequently  all  the
funding available was committed by the end of 1999.

In  the  fisheries  sector,  the  programme  continued  as  planned  during  2000.  The
Commission has effected all payments to this programme, except the final payment,
which is not due until the programme has been wound up.

2000-06

On  9  November  2000  the  Commission  took  the  final  decision  on  the  Objective  2
programme  for  Denmark  for  2000-06.  The  programme  totals  €617  million,  €189
million  of  which  (including  €27  million  for  the  transitional  areas)  comes  from  the
EU.

In general, the Commission found the programme proposal to be of a high quality but
suggested some amendments concerning mainly the SWOT analysis and the focus of
the  strategy.  The  Danish  authorities  agreed  to  these  adjustments  and  revised  the
programme accordingly.

The  programme  aims  to  create  the  conditions  for  self-sustaining  growth  in  the
regions  of  Denmark  that  are  facing  structural  difficulties.  Most  importantly  the
programme will – in an environmentally sustainable way – create and safeguard over
6 000 jobs, decrease the income gap, increase the capacity for innovation in new and
existing  small  businesses  and  provide  training  for  thousands  of  people  thereby
increasing the educational level (especially of women).

The  programme  combines  measures  under  the  European  Regional  Development
Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF), which will receive respectively
71% and 29% of the Community resources.

Three priorities have been selected to achieve this objective: 1) Development of the
region – focusing on the conditions for  growth (infrastructure, counselling,  studies,
etc.),  2)  Business  development  –  primarily  development  of  SMEs  (investment
support,  counselling,  development  plans  etc.)  and  3)  Development  of  skills/human
resources  (more  specifically  development  of  skills  in  companies,  development  of
strategic infrastructure and optimising usage of ESF resources). In addition funding
is  made  available  for  technical  assistance  (monitoring,  evaluation,  information
campaigns, seminars, etc.).

The first meeting of the Monitoring Committee for the Objective 2 programmes took
place on 6 March 2001 when the programme complement was presented.

27

Objective  3:  A  €379  million  programme  to  support  education,  training  and
employment in Denmark for the next seven years was approved by the Commission
in 2000.

The programme sets out five priorities, which reflect the objectives of the country’s
1999 National Action Plan for Employment:

(cid:1)  improving active labour market policies to prevent long term unemployment and

to improve labour market structures;

(cid:1)  promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market;

(cid:1)  developing skills and training;

(cid:1)  encouraging entrepreneurship and innovativeness.

(cid:1)  A  further  3%  of  the  budget  (€12  million)  is  set  aside  for  technical  assistance  to

manage, implement and evaluate the results of the programme.

The overall budget for the Danish programme is €758 million, of which €285 million
will  be  contributed  by  the  public  sector,  €379  million  by  the  EU  and  €94  million
from other sources.

Responsibility for day-to-day coordination, management and monitoring of the SPD
lies with the National Labour Market Authority within the Ministry of Labour. The
Regional  Social  Fund  Committees  of  the  counties  will  also  play  a  role  in  the
implementation of measures and projects. The Monitoring Committee will comprise
representatives of the relevant ministries, the European Commission, the Association
of County Councils, the Association of Local Councils, the social partners and other
relevant interest groups.

€205 million is available from the FIFG for the  Fisheries programme. The major
focus  areas  will  be  processing,  port  facilities  and  the  fleet,  which  is  in  need  of
modernisation in order to improve working conditions and selectivity of the fishing
gear.

2.2.3. GERMANY

1994-99

By the end of 1999 the last commitments under the 1994-99 programming period had
been  made.  Implementation  of  the  most  recently  selected  projects  continued
throughout  2000  and  should  be  completed  by  the  end  of  2001.  On  the  basis  of  the
expenditure  incurred  under  the  different  programmes,  the  Commission  was  able  to
commit the total available amount of funds, with the exception of two programmes
(Saarland  Objective  5(b)  and  Nordrhein-Westfalen  Objective  5(b)).  Full
commitments were achieved for all the Community Initiatives.

The situation as regards ERDF payments from the Commission is best for Objective
1,  where  on  average  93%  of  the  funds  available  from  the  ERDF  has  already  been
paid  to  Germany.  For  some  Objective  2  programmes  (1997-99)  and  some  specific
Community  Initiative  programmes,  the  rate  of  payments  by  the  Commission  is

28

behind schedule and  needs  further  attention  during  2001,  which  is  the  last  year  for
payments.

2000-06

Objective  1:  the  negotiations  on  the  Community  support  framework  (CSF)  were
concluded in 2000. Ten years after German unification, the new Länder are entering
a  critical  phase  in  their  structural  adjustment,  when  the  process  of  catching  up  has
virtually  stalled.  By  committing  a  substantial  aid  package  to  the  new  Länder,  the
European Union  will  help  to  develop  and  realise  the  available  potential  in  order  to
overcome the economic and social problems in these regions. The federal and Land
governments  will 
(including  one
transitional  programme  for  east  Berlin)  within  the  Community  support  framework
for the new Länder and east Berlin:

implement  nine  operational  programmes 

–  a regional multi-fund programme  for  each  Land,  in  which  the  contribution  from

the ERDF, ESF and EAGGF Guidance Section is co-ordinated;

–  three  sector-specific  monofund  programmes  for  the  whole  eligible  region:
transport  infrastructure  measures  of  supra-regional  importance  (ERDF);  federal
development programme for employment (ESF); restructuring programme for the
fisheries sector (FIFG).

The  total  EU  contribution  amounts  to  €20.7  billion.  The  main  change  compared  to
the  previous  CSF  is  the  shift  (in  relative  terms)  from  productive  investment  to
infrastructure  (basic  infrastructure,  R&D,  education  and  urban  infrastructure).  The
most important priorities in the CSF are infrastructure (receiving 27.7% of Structural
Funds assistance) and human resources (27.1%), followed by productive investment
(19.3%),  agriculture  and  fisheries  (17%),  the  environment  (7.2%)  and  technical
assistance (1.8%).

The  CSF  should  result  in  up  to  370  000  jobs  being  maintained  and  created  and
265 000  full-time  equivalent  temporary  jobs.  Around  1.35  million  people  will  be
trained  under  ESF-supported  schemes.  One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  human
resources  measures  is  to  reduce  the  number  of  long-term  unemployed  (at  present
around 31% of total unemployed).

In the agricultural and rural development domain, priority is given to investments in
renovation  and
agricultural  holdings, 
development  of  villages  and  protection  and  conservation  of  the  rural  heritage.
Assistance  for  early  retirement  and  financial  engineering  are  of  less  importance  in
the programmes.

forestry  measures, 

reparcelling, 

the 

The programme for fisheries is particularly focused on investment in fishing ports.

Within  the  framework  of  the  CSF  approved,  the  negotiations  on  the  different
operational programmes continued in all but two cases and were finalised before the
end of 2000. Negotiations on the transport infrastructure OP were finished and those
on  the  human  resources  OP  almost  finished  before  the  end  of  the  year.  Approval
followed early in 2001.

The first Monitoring Committees for the new programmes met in 2000 and discussed
their  rules  of  procedure  and  the  draft  programme  complements.  By  the  end  of  the

29

year  it  appeared  necessary  to  introduce  a  first  amendment  to  the  CSF  in  order  to
ensure  that  financing  table  in  the  CSF  was  fully  consistent  with  those  in  the  nine
underlying programmes.

Objective  2:  for  the  programme  period  2000-06  Germany  is  entitled  to  €3  096
million for Objective 2 and €530 million for the transitional areas (eligible until the
end of 2005).

During  the  first  half  year  of  2000  the  Commission  received  11  proposals  for
Objective  2  programmes.  Eight  programmes  were  submitted  before  30  April  2000
and accepted by the Commission for negotiation: expenditure on these programmes
is  therefore  eligible  from  1  January  2000.  The  draft  programmes  for  Baden-
Württemberg, Hamburg and Berlin were not received or assessed as complete before
30 April: the starting date of eligible expenditure for these programmes is therefore
the date of receipt of the last element required for the document to be complete.

The  Commission  gave approval in principle to six programmes  at  the  beginning  of
2001 and commitments from the budget year 2000 could be carried forward to 2001
for these programmes. Negotiations on the other five programmes (Hesse, Hamburg,
Schleswig-Holstein,  West  Berlin  and  Bavaria)  continued  into  2001;  for  these  five
programmes  the  budget  year  2000  had  to  be  split  up  and  divided  across  the  other
budgetary years.

In addition to the topics already mentioned under Objective 1, discussions between
the Commission and the German authorities on the Objective 2 programmes focused
on:

(cid:1)  the introduction of multi-fund priorities in the programmes where ESF and ERDF
measures  are  integrated  in  the  same  priority  and  where  the  ESF  measure  are
tailor-made  for  the  Objective  2  strategy  (in  contrast  to  the  broader  horizontal
measures under Objective 3);

(cid:1)  the partnership principle: role of the different partners before and after approval of

the programmes;

(cid:1)  the introduction of new financial instruments in the programmes 

(cid:1)  the focus of the business development priorities on SMEs;

(cid:1)  the differentiation in strategies between the Objective 2 areas and the transitional

areas under the same programme;

(cid:1)  the  differentiation  in  strategies  between  Länder  covering  cities  (Hamburg,
Bremen),  Länder  with  a  large  share  of  urban  areas  covered  by  Objective  2  and
Länder with a larger share of rural areas covered by Objective 2: specific attention
has been paid to urban problem areas.

The German authorities had presented one single programming document (SPD) for
Objective  3  which  regroups  all  activities  by  the  federal  Government  and  the  11
Länder  concerned  by  this  Objective.  Negotiations  which  had  already  started  at  the
end of 1999 continued until summer 2000 and focussed on the following points:

30

(cid:1)  reinforcing  the  preventive  approach  to  long-term  unemployment  at  federal  and

Land level;

(cid:1)  improving skills for older workers;

(cid:1)  improved services;

(cid:1)  reducing the risk of dropping out of school

(cid:1)  improving the systems of monitoring and evaluation.

Because  of  its  importance  with  respect  to  the  European  Employment  Strategy,  the
first  topic  (reinforcing  the  preventive  approach)  dominated  the  negotiations.  As  a
result  of  the  negotiations  the  Commission  acknowledged  the  efforts  made  in  the
German  labour  market  policy  to  reinforce  its  preventive  thrust  while  the  German
Federal and Land authorities gave an undertaking to increase the proportion of short-
term unemployed in ESF-assisted measures during the programme.

The  improvement  of  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  was  another  important
result of the negotiations with agreement on a “common minimum” of output data to
be  collected  in  the  monitoring  process.  Most  important  is  the  agreement  to  collect
data  on  each 
training  provider
(Stammblattverfahren).  Work  relating  to  monitoring  and  evaluation  will  be
coordinated  by  a  pilot  group  made  up  of  representatives  from  the  Federal
Government, 
include
representatives of Objective 1 administrations.

the  Commission,  which  will  also 

individual  beneficiary,  enterprise 

the  Länder  and 

and 

The SPD was eventually approved on 10 October. ESF assistance amounts to €4 756
000,  95%  of  which  will  finance  the  five  policy  fields  of  the  ESF  Regulation.  In
addition, 1% is set aside for small-scale projects to promote employability and local
social development, with a further 4% earmarked for technical assistance measures.
The  SPD  also  describes  how  the  horizontal  themes  -  local  employment  initiatives,
information  society  and  gender  mainstreaming  -  have  been  taken  into  account  in
developing the strategy for Objective 3 and in selecting priorities.

The non-Objective 1 fisheries measures (€111.1 million)  focus on the  processing
and marketing of fish and on the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet.

2.2.4. GREECE

The year was primarily a period for negotiations, as regards both the CSF for 2000-
06 and the 24 operational programmes it includes - 11 for specific sectors at national
level and 13 regional operational programmes, one for each region of the country.

The conclusion of the negotiations for the CSF enabled the Commission to approve
the  CSF  in  November.  It  provides  an  overall  development  strategy  for  the  use  of
€22.71 billion in grants  from  the  Structural  Funds  and  €3.32  billion  in  grants  from
the Cohesion Fund). The total investment plan, also taking into account the national
contribution and private funds, exceeds €50 billion.

The  main  priorities  of  the  development  strategy  under  the  CSF  for  2000-06  are  as
follows:

31

(cid:1)  improving skills (around 10% of total investment under the CSF);

(cid:1)  continuing  efforts  to  complete  the  main  communications  infrastructure  (around

27%);

(cid:1)  increased competitiveness of the productive sector (around 18%);

(cid:1)  development of rural areas and agriculture (around 8.5%);

(cid:1)  improved quality of life for the country’s citizens (around 4%);

(cid:1)  access to and use of information society technology (around 4%);

(cid:1)  measures to promote the balanced development of the regions (26%).

Both the  Commission  and  the  Greek  authorities  are  fully  aware  that  this  ambitious
CSF  is  a  major  challenge  for  the  management  capacity  of  implementing
organisations.  The  Structural  Funds  Regulation  requires  Greece  to  introduce  new
management structures to manage the CSF and the ensuing operational programmes.
Success will depend to a great extent on their effectiveness and, more particularly, on
the quality of the project development and selection process.

On  31  October,  the  Greek  Parliament  passed  a  law  on  the  organisation  of  the
management of the CSF. This is an important step forward, and creates the new legal
framework which is necessary for efficient and transparent management of the CSF
and its operational programmes.

As far as these programmes are concerned, negotiations made substantial progress by
the end of 2000. Most of the operational programmes were approved during the first
quarter of 2001, and a small number in April. At the same time, the Greek authorities
should  have  made  substantial  progress  in  establishing  and  making  operational  the
new managing authorities and structures, on the basis of the procedures provided by
the new law referred to above. The new Management  Information System covering
all  CSF  and  Cohesion  Fund  projects  should  also  be  operational  by  then.  This  will
permit implementation of the CSF in Greece to start on a sound basis and in a way
which  will  best  guarantee  the  success  of  this  huge  investment  and  development
effort.

The  ESF  measures  are  particularly  concentrated  in  two  operational  programmes
(‘employment  promotion  and  continuing  training’  and  ‘education  and  initial
vocational  training’).  The  main  objectives  of  these  measures  are:  to  prevent  long-
term  unemployment  through  active,  preventive  and  individualised  assistance;  to
promote  equal  opportunities  for  all  in  access  to  the  labour  market;  to  promote  and
improve training and education; to promote entrepreneurship and the adaptability and
performance of the workforce and to improve women’s access to the labour market.

As  regards  agriculture  and  rural  development,  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  will
contribute  a  total  of  €2  260.3  million  to  co-finance  the  Agriculture  and  Regional
Development priorities throughout the period 2000-06.

32

The EAGGF Guidance Section acting  alone will contribute €1 233.4 million to the
Agriculture  priority  and  €1  026.9  million  with  the  other  Funds  to  the  Regional
Development priority. The main measures are intended to achieve:

(cid:1)  enhanced competitiveness of agriculture through integrated assistance to holdings,
assistance  for  the  processing,  standardisation  and  marketing  of  agricultural  and
forestry products and assistance for agricultural products,

(cid:1)  sustainable and integrated development of rural areas and the restoration of social
balance, improved support mechanisms to inform and raise awareness among the
rural population and plans for the integrated development of rural areas,

(cid:1)  the maintenance of the environment and social cohesion through the development

and protection of natural resources and the environment.

No forecast expenditure was committed during 2000.

The  guidelines  for  the  fisheries  programme  (FIFG  contribution  €211.1  million)  are
similar  to  those  for  the  previous  period  except  that  there  is  more  emphasis  on
improving  the  quality  of  fish  products  and  working  conditions  as  well  as  fighting
environmental pollution.

2.2.5. S P A I N

1994-99

Objective  1:  Since  all  the  resources  for  programmes  for  the  period  1994-99  have
been  committed,  all  that  remains  to  be  paid  are  the  closing  balances  for  the
programmes. The  Commission already  has  an  initial assessment  of  the  work  of  the
ERDF during this period carried out by an independent assessor at the request of the
Spanish authorities.

The  overall  view  of  the  report  is  clearly  positive,  stressing  the  results  achieved,
which  are  in  line  with  the  initial  needs,  effectiveness  in  terms  of  the  objectives
sought, the degree of efficiency in using resources and compliance with Community
policies and principles.

Nevertheless,  the  report  also  points  to  a  number  of  shortcomings  regarding  mainly
the  complexity  of  the  system,  inter-institutional  coordination,  the  excessively
traditional  nature  of  the  assistance,  the  inadequate  resources  for  non-material
investment by firms and the lack of sensitivity by managers to the principle of gender
equality. Negotiations on the current CSF have taken all these points into account.

Objective 2: Reprogramming decisions for the 1997-99 programmes were signed in
May  (OPs  for  the  Balearic  Islands,  La  Rioja  and  Navarre),  June  (OP  Aragon)  and
October  (OP  Basque  Country);  the  remaining  two  decisions  were  signed  in  2001
(OPs for Catalonia and Madrid).

Payments  made  by  the  ERDF  at  the  end  of  2000  for  the  seven  items  of  assistance
concerned ranged from 50% for the Basque Country to 84% for Aragon.

As regards the programmes for 1994-96, following completion of the closure reports
for ERDF assistance, by the end of 2000 all payments had been completed except for

33

the  Madrid  OP  (final  payment  in  2001).  In  four  cases  (Aragon,  Catalonia,  Navarre
and the Basque Country) all the available Community appropriations were used and
in two cases (Balearic Islands and La Rioja) virtually all.

2000-2006

Objective  1:  The  Commission  approved  the  CSF  for  Spain  for  2000-06  on  19
October; at current price and excluding the performance reserve, it contains €39 548
million in Community appropriations, almost 28% of the resources of the Structural
Funds allocated to Objective 1, for total investment of €84 754 million. With finance
from  the  Union’s  four  Structural  Funds  (ERDF  61.2%  of  the  total,  ESF  22.4%,
EAGGF  12.6%  and  FIFG  3.8%),  it  is  the  largest financial  instrument  for  structural
assistance for the period 2000-06. The regions of Spain eligible under this Objective
are  the  same  as  in  the  previous  period  (Andalusia,  Asturias,  the  Canary  Islands,
Cantabria, Castile-León, Castile-La Mancha, Extremadura, Galicia, Murcia, Valencia
and Ceuta and  Melilla); however, Cantabria is eligible  for  only transitional support
under Objective 1.

The programme priorities are: improving the competitiveness of and developing the
productive  fabric;  innovation,  R&D  and  the  information society;  the  environment,
countryside and water resources; development of human resources, employment and
equal  opportunities;  local  and  urban  development;  transport  and  energy networks;
agriculture and rural development; fisheries and aquaculture structures.

The most significant innovations compared with the previous CSF are:

(cid:1)  strengthening of the principle of partnership as regards both programming and the
management  of  the  funds.  In  the  regional  OPs,  this  involves  giving  practical
expression  to  the  concept  of  coresponsibility  shared  by  the  central  and  regional
authorities in the functions allocated to the managing authority and, as regards the
economic  and  social  partners,  through  their  attendance,  for  the  first  time  in  the
implementation of the Funds in Spain, at meetings of the Monitoring Committees
for the CSF and the various OPs;

(cid:1)  integration  of  the  various  Funds  (ERDF,  ESF,  EAGGF)  at  regional  level  in  the
‘Integrated  Operational  Programmes’  which  increases  their  coordination  in
practical terms, their efficiency and their flexibility on the spot;

(cid:1)  in  consequence,  there  is  a  significant  reduction  in  the  number  of  forms  of
assistance  in  the  current  CSF  (23  as  compared  with  73  in  the  previous  period).
This both simplifies the management instruments and improves the concentration
of resources at regional and sectoral level;

(cid:1)  in  terms  of  the  main  sectoral  balances,  development  options  have  given  greater
priority  to  measures  concerning  the  knowledge  society  and  the  environment,
mainly at the expense of transport and energy networks.

The ex-ante evaluation of the CSF suggests extra annual average growth in GDP of
0.34%, which should mean by the end of the period that GDP in the eligible regions
of Spain is 2.4% higher than it would have been without the CSF. The same forecast
suggests an annual average of 219 000 jobs created or maintained in 2000-06 thanks
to the CSF.

34

The CSF will be implemented through 23 operational programmes: twelve regional
programmes, one for each of the regions eligible under Objective 1 and eleven multi-
regional programmes. On 29 December 2000 the Commission approved the OPs for
Andalusia, Extremadura, Murcia and Ceuta and Melilla. Technical reasons prevented
the  remaining  programmes  for  which  negotiations  had  been  completed  from  being
adopted  on  the  same  date.  They  were  approved  in  the  first  quarter  of  2001,  apart
from the information society programme which the Spanish authorities sent later than
the others.

Objective 2: the Spanish authorities again opted for a CSF divided into seven OPs,
one  for  each  of  the  seven  areas  eligible  under  Objective  2.  All  these  programmes,
apart from the one for Madrid, were approved in principle by the Commission on 29
December.

Community  assistance  for  the  eligible  areas  amounts  to  €2  649  000,  or  12.93%  of
total  assistance  from  the  Union  for  the  areas  eligible  under  Objective  2,  the  same
percentage as the eligible population of Spain in terms of the Community total. The
breakdown  of this  amount  among  the  seven  OPs  is  in  proportion  to  the  percentage
population covered in each in terms of the total for Spain.

Planned Community assistance for the transitional areas is €99 million.

The  seven  OPs  comprise  five  priorities  for  assistance,  plus  a  sixth  priority  for
technical  assistance measures:  improving  competitiveness  and  employment  and
developing the productive fabric; the environment, countryside and water resources;
the  knowledge  society  (innovation,  R&D,  information  society);  development  of
communications  and  energy  networks;  local  and  urban  development  and  technical
assistance.

The measures to be co-financed by the ESF in the six items of assistance amount to
5%  of  total co-financing by the  Funds  for five  OPs  and  7%  in  the  case  of  Madrid.
These  measures  are  the  responsibility  of  the  central  administration.  The  ESF
percentage exceeds 21% in the Catalonia OP. The ESF has three priorities for action:
increasing  entrepreneurial  capacity; 
in
employment and support for local initiatives to create jobs.

increasing  stability  and  adaptability 

On  27  September  the Commission  took a  decision  approving  the  Objective  3  CSF
for Spain. The CSF will be implemented through 12 operational programmes, eight
of which were approved on 9 November. Seven of the programmes are regional (one
per Autonomous Community) and will be implemented by the regional government
in  question  (Aragon,  Balearic  Islands,  Catalonia,  Madrid,  Navarre,  the  Basque
Country and La Rioja). The  other  five  programmes are thematic  and  multiregional,
and are intended to promote employment,  vocational  training systems, the business
spirit and life-long learning, social inclusion and technical assistance.

The European Social Fund will contribute €2 221.8 million to financing Objective 3.
The  largest  OPs  in  financial  terms  are  the  two  multiregional  programmes:
‘Promoting  employment’  (36.2%)  and  ‘Business  initiative  and  continuing  training’
(20.4%).

The  priorities  for  Objective  3  lie  in  the  following  fields:  integration  of  the
unemployed  into  the  labour  market;  expanding  business  skills,  promoting  non-

35

salaried  employment  and  the  creation  of  small  and  medium-sized  firms;  promoting
the adaptability of the workforce and  stability of employment for  those  whose  jobs
are  most  at  risk;  improving  vocational  training;  developing  human  potential  in
research, science and technology, with particular stress on improving the transfer of
results  to  industry;  increasing  the  participation  of  women  in  the  labour  market;
integrating disadvantaged groups into the employment market and promotion of the
local economy.

Non-Objective 1 fisheries measures will receive support from the FIFG of €207.5
million.  The  investments  planned  concern  mainly  the  processing  and  marketing  of
fisheries products and the restructuring and renewal of the fleet.

2.2.6. FRANCE

1994-99

Objective  2:  The  Commission  wound  up  12  of  the  19  SPDs  from  the  1994-96
programming  period.  Applications  for  payment  of  the  balances  for  the  SPDs  for
1997-99 were submitted on 30 June 2001.

2000-06

The  Commission  approved  the  6  SPDs  for  Objective  1  and  transitional  support
under  Objective  1  between  October  and  December.  The  regions  concerned  are  the
four  overseas  departments  (Martinique,  Guadeloupe,  French  Guiana  and  Réunion),
which  are  fully  eligible  under  Objective  1,  and  the  two  regions  of  metropolitan
France eligible for transitional support: Corsica and part of Nord/Pas-de-Calais  (the
districts of Douai, Avesnes  and Valenciennes).  Total  assistance  from  the  Structural
Funds for these six programmes amounts to about €4 billion.

Overall  these  SPDs  will  result  in  the  creation  of  over  55  000  net  jobs  and  provide
direct  aid  to  about  10  000  small  firms  and  finance  for  over  560  000  individual
training measures.

to  modernisation  and
The  main  measures  concerning  agriculture 
diversification. In the overseas departments, the stress is on support for those sectors
of agriculture  which have  a  market  organisation  (banana  and  the  sugar  cane-sugar-
rum industry).

relate 

The  priorities  for  fisheries  in  the  overseas  departments  are  improvements  to  port
facilities,  better  marketing  of  products  and  the  development  of  aquaculture.  In
Corsica  the  priorities  are  the  preservation  of  employment,  rationalisation  of  the
fishing effort and increasing aquaculture capacity.

The  Commission  also  took  a  decision  in  principle  on  28  December  on  a  multi-
regional  and  multi-objective  (Objectives  1  and  2)  computer  science  programme
(‘Présage’)  submitted  by  the  French  authorities.  This  programme  entails  the
allocation  of  €19.3  million  of  Community  resources  towards  investment  totalling
almost €34.7 million. The programme will permit the management, monitoring  and
evaluation  of  Community  assistance  totalling  over  €10  billion  through  a  single
software  used by  the  26  regions  of  France.  The  national  computer  programme  will
provide  the  managing  authorities  with  a  powerful  tool,  help  solve  some  of  the

36

difficulties  encountered  in  the  past  and  strengthen  the  partnership  through
transparency in management, monitoring, evaluation and surveillance. 

Objective 2: the draft SPDs were sent at the end of April, the partnership meetings
were  concluded  at  the  end  of  September  and  the  Commission  took  a  decision  in
principle on 28 December. The SPDs concern the 21 regions of metropolitan France
(since the whole of Corsica is eligible for transitional support under Objective 1, it is
not eligible under Objective 2).

The population of the eligible areas is about 19 million, 31.3% of the population of
France compared with 41.3% in the previous period (1994-99).

The French  authorities proposed to  the  Commission that 15% of the appropriations
for the EAGGF Guarantee Section should go to the Objective 2 SPD.

Total  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds  (ERDF  and  ESF)  and  the  EAGGF
Guarantee  Section  for  these  21  regional  programmes  and  the  computer  programme
Présage for 2000-06 is about €7 billion.

Together,  these  SPDs  will  permit  the  creation  or  maintenance  of  several  hundred
thousand direct jobs, direct assistance to several tens of thousands of small firms and
the financing of several hundred thousand individual training measures.

Of the Commission’s priorities included in the SPD, special mention must be made
of  the  effort  to  spread  the  new  information  and  communications  technologies,  the
measures  to  protect  the  environment  and  support  equal  opportunities  for  men  and
women,  and  a  political  option  to  support  the  creation  and  the  maintenance  of  jobs
and  develop  human  resources  in  general  in  close  coordination  with  the  European
employment strategy by means of a genuinely integrated approach.

In  the  case  of  human  resources,  the  ESF  measures  are  not  combined  in  a  single
priority  but  spread  throughout  the  SPD  priorities  to  promote  integration  and
complementarity  with  the  other  Funds.  France’s  priority  for  assistance  concerns
measures  for  very  small  firms  and  those  taken  as  part  of  urban  policy.  However,
their
complementarity  with 
compatibility  with  the National  Action  Plan  for  employment has  been  checked  and
respected. 
three  horizontal  priorities,  gender  equality,
training measures and local initiatives, are well integrated.

the  measures  financed  under  Objective  3  and 

In  addition, 

the 

As regards implementation, it should be noted that the partnership has been extended
to all the institutions and those active in economic and social life. The strengthening
of this partnership is also reflected in the fact that the Monitoring and Programming
Committees  are  co-chaired  by  the  Prefect  of  the  region  and  the  President  of  the
Regional Council.

Objective 3: The main feature of 2000 was the negotiation and adoption of the SPD.

During the period 2000-06 France will receive co-financing for Objective 3 totalling
€4 713.56 million.

The Objective 3 SPD stressed a preventive approach using six priorities:

37

(cid:1)  Priority 1 ‘Active labour market policies’ accounts for 20.5% of total funding and
is intended to offer a new start to young people and the adult unemployed, fight
unemployment by improving guidance  and  the definition of training projects  for
job seekers and to develop skills training for the ‘New departure’ public.

(cid:1)  Priority  2  ‘Equal  opportunities,  social  integration’  concerns  those  worst  affected
by unemployment, and all the different problems which prevent them securing a
job. It accounts for 26% of total funding.

(cid:1)  Priority 3 ‘Life-long education and training’ represents 23% of total funding and
is intended to help young people succeed in sandwich training, promote access to
the  validation  of  professional  and  personal  experience  and  provide  a  training
system which systematically validates the professional experience acquired.

(cid:1)  Priority  4  ‘Adaptation  of  workers,  business  spirit,  research,  innovation  and
technology’ will absorb 22.5% of total funding and is designed to modernise work
organisations  and  enhance  skills,  develop  the  business  spirit  in  all  sectors  of
activity  and  encourage  innovation,  research  and  technology,  creativity  and
measures on an international scale by promoting investment in skills.

(cid:1)  Priority 5 ‘Improving access to and participation by women in the labour market’
concerns specific measures to offset inequalities between men and women on the
labour market and supplements the integrated horizontal approach of the first four
priorities.  Along  with  priority  6  (local  initiatives  for  equal  opportunities)  it  will
absorb 5% of total funding.

The development and utilisation of information and communications technologies
occupies  an  important  place  in  supporting  and  supplementing  the  measures  in  the
national action plan for employment.

Inclusion  of equal opportunities  for  men  and  women  is  another  key  point  of  the
programme.  Particular  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  horizontal  dimension.  The
quantified objectives regarding the proportion of women have been specified in the
various measures in the first four domains.

The  promotion  of  local  initiatives  for  employment  is  consistent  with  the  efforts
made  to  develop  a  regional  approach  further  and  takes  account  of  the  specific
responsibilities for employment and training which the local administrations have.

For the first time, Regional Steering Committees, co-chaired by the Prefect of the
region and the President of the Regional Council (or their representatives) have been
set up. Their composition is identical to that of the national Monitoring Committee.
The  Regional  Steering  Committees  bring  together  the  representatives  of  the
decentralised  departments  of  the  State,  the  Region,  the  other  territorial  bodies,  the
social partners, those active in the economy and the cooperative sector.

Non-Objective 1 fisheries measures (€233.7 million) concentrate on the long-term
management of fisheries resources, modernisation of firms to enable them to increase
value added  and improving the socio-economic environment of areas dependent  on
fishing.

38

2.2.7. IRELAND

1994-99

By the end of 1999, the final adjustments to the programmes for 1994-99 had been
made.  Implementation  of  the  remaining  projects  continued  throughout  2000  with
completion planned in 2001. In a number of cases, short extensions to the period for
the completion of payments were granted by the Commission. The annual reports for
1999 for most programmes were received by the Commission during 2000.

2000-06

For  the period  2000-06, in  Ireland, the  Border,  Midlands  and  Western  region,  with
26.6% of the country’s population, remains eligible for Objective 1 funding. The rest
of the country, in the Southern and Eastern region previously covered by Objective 1,
will  benefit from  gradually decreasing  transitional support during the programming
period.

The  National  Development  Plan  (NDP)  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  in
November  1999  and  covered  the  whole  of  Ireland.  The  plan  includes  not  just  co-
financed  expenditure  but  also  the  very  substantial  non-co-financed  spending  of  the
Irish  authorities.  The  co-financed  element  amounts  to  €7  billion,  including  a
Structural Funds contribution of €3.2 billion, out of total spending of the order of €57
billion.

This integrated approach means that the advantages of the programming system will
now  be  enjoyed  by  other  areas  of  public  spending.  Many  of  the  non-co-financed
areas  will  be  supportive  of  and  closely  related  to  the  Structural  Funds;  some  will
indeed  be  in  areas  eligible  under  the  Regulations  but  which  cannot  be  co-financed
because of the reduced level of EU assistance.

Main features of the Community support framework

The  Commission  transmitted  the  negotiating  mandate  for  the  Community  support
framework  to  the  Irish  authorities  at  the  end  of  January  2000.  The  mandate
underlined the key messages the Commission wished to highlight in the negotiations,
notably  the  need  to  avoid  overheating  in  the  Irish  economy  in  view  of  the  very
ambitious  spending  programmes  contained  in  the  NDP;  the  welcome  emphasis  on
“balanced regional development” through the regional programmes and the proposed
national  spatial  strategy;  the  need  to  tackle  bottlenecks  throughout  the  economy,
notably in infrastructure and the labour market, through investment but also by way
of  horizontal  measures  to  improve  the  performance  of  the  sectors  and  finally  the
priority attached by the Commission to environmental questions and in particular the
protection of Natura 2000 sites.

The formal negotiations on the contents of the Community support framework took
place  in  February  and  March  2000  and  resulted  in  a  number  of  changes  to  the
original  Irish  proposals.  In  terms  of  the  organisation  of  the  CSF,  the  support  for
agriculture  and rural development was transferred from the national  to  the  regional
level.  Also,  in  view  of  the  presence  in  the  programmes  of  non-co-financed
expenditure, special care was taken to highlight the co-financed expenditure, through
the inclusion of separate financing tables on co-financed and overall expenditure. On

39

the substance of the proposals, there was  a greater concentration of the co-financed
expenditure in the research and development area on a number of key measures. The
research and development effort at the regional level was also strengthened.

Six programmes out of a total of seven were adopted in 2000.

The first meeting of the NDP/CSF Monitoring Committee took place in October. It
undertook a brief overview of developments to date and agreed to the preparation of
a  common  template  for  reports  to  future  meetings  of  Monitoring  Committees.  The
NDP/CSF Monitoring Committee also agreed to the establishment of four horizontal
coordinating  committees  covering  the  environment,  equal  opportunities  and  social
inclusion, rural development and employment and human resources.

Political  priorities  for  assistance  in  human  resources:  The  transformation  of  the
Irish  labour  market  over  the  last  six  years  has  required  a  decisive  shift  in  policy,
resulting  in  some  significant  changes  in  emphasis  for  the  ESF.  While  a  more
preventive approach to unemployment has been evident in the National Action Plans
for  Employment  to  date,  the  policy  emphasis  now  is  re-weighted  towards
mobilisation of labour supply. This approach is coupled with more intensive efforts
to improve employability through education, training and lifelong learning. There is
also  emphasis  on  a  more  generalised  effort  to  raise  the  amount  and  quality  of  in-
company training, and strong support for the implementation of a life-long learning
operational framework. In addition, the need to improve labour market participation
rates for all, and especially women, takes on a new prominence. The ESF, along with
the ERDF, is co-financing significant investment in childcare (€115 million through
the  regional  OPs),  the  lack  of  which  is  seen  as  a  particular  barrier  to  women’s
participation in work and education.

The  allocations  to  the  four  pillars  of  the  European  Employment  Strategy  is  as
follows:  over  50% of  the  ESF  will  be  allocated  to  support  employability  of  people
and  over  17%  will  be  dedicated  to  both  entrepreneurship  and  adaptability.  About
12% of the ESF will be used to strengthen gender equality and childcare provision in
Ireland.  Under  the  2000-06  Community  support  framework,  the  ESF  will  provide
slightly over €1 billion to Ireland, about 34% of the total Structural Funds available
(a higher proportion than in other Objective 1 regions). A further €32 million in ESF
funding is available under the EQUAL Community Initiative.

The  agricultural  and  rural  development  measures  under  the  priority  ‘Balanced
regional  development’  form  part  of  two  regional  operational  programmes  (Border,
Midlands and Western Regions and Southern and Eastern Regions) for  priorities in
‘Local  enterprise  development’  (Forestry)  and  ‘Agriculture  and  rural  development’
and  under  a  Peace  operational  programme.  The  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  will
contribute €182.0 million to the Irish CSF (2000-06).

The co-financed measures form a part of larger package of measures to be financed
under  the  relevant  programmes  by  national  means.  EAGGF  Guidance  Section
funding for the year 2000 was fully committed.

During the year 2000 a plan for a Peace programme was submitted jointly by Ireland
and the United Kingdom.

40

In the fisheries sector, the FIFG contributes to the two regional programmes and the
‘Productive  sector’  horizontal  programme.  The  total  FIFG  contribution  amounts  to
€67.6  million.  The  priorities  are  mainly  the  development  of  aquaculture,  the
modernisation of ports and enhancing the quality and safety of the fishing fleet

2.2.8. I T A L Y

1994-99 and earlier periods

Italy has by far the greatest backlogs in the closure of assistance co-financed by the
Structural Funds (particularly the ERDF) in the periods before 1989 and from 1989
to 1993.

At  the  beginning  of  2000  88  forms  of  assistance  still  awaited  closure,  of  which  35
were in fact closed during the year. It is expected that the rest will be closed in 2001.

As regards the 1994-99 programming period, the latest financial information sent to
the  Commission  by  the  Italian  Government  suggest  that,  except  in  the  case  of  the
Community  Initiatives,  most  of  the  delay  in  implementing  the  Structural  Funds  in
Italy  has  been  made  up:  all  the  funds  available  were  committed  by  the  authorities
managing the programmes before the deadline of 31 December 1999 although care is
still  required  to  ensure  that  the  projects  still  open  are  completed  and  expenditure
carried out in the time allowed (by 31 December 2001), which will require the pace
of expenditure to accelerate.

2000-06

The  Commission  approved  the  Objective  1  Community  support  framework  for
2000-06  on  1  August.  The  amount  allocated  to  Italy  for  the  Objective  1  regions  is
€23 758 million plus a further €201 million for transitional support, making a grand
total of €23 959 million.

The  CSF  contains  six  development  priorities:  1)  natural  resources;  2)  cultural
resources;  3)  human  resources;  4)  local  development  systems;  5)  cities;  6)  service
networks  and  forums.  It  includes  a  series  of  specific  objectives  to  be  achieved
through the 14 operational programmes: 7 regional programmes (Campania, Apulia,
Basilicata, Calabria, Sicily, Sardinia and, receiving transitional support, Molise) and
seven  multiregional  programmes.  The  Commission  approved  12  operational
programmes  (the  seven  regional  programmes  and  five  multiregional  programmes
‘Local development’, ‘Research, technological development and advanced training’,
‘Public safety for the  development  of  the  Mezzogiorno’,  ‘Schools’  and  ‘Fisheries’)
during 2000.

This was a substantial achievement, the fruit of long and profitable negotiations. The
strategy  for  the  assistance  presupposes  a  fundamental  rebalancing  between  policies
to improve the context and schemes providing direct aid to firms. This entails:

a)

b)

c)

the gradual reduction of the share of resources used for aid and the introduction
of more competitive methods of securing such aid;

integrated assistance in the economic context on uniform territorial systems;

the use of targeted rather than broadcast aid.

41

Implementation of the operational programmes approved began late in 2000 with the
first  meetings  of  the  Monitoring  Committees  and  submission  of  the  programme
complements.

The  year  was  a  turning  point  for  the  Objective  1  regions  of  Italy  as  regards  the
strategy  for  ESF  assistance  there.  For  the  first  time,  programming  could  take
account  of  and  implement  in  practical  terms  the  four  pillars  of  the  European
Employment Strategy. Programming for the new period gave expression in the CSF
and OPs to the Council’s recommendations to Italy on employment policy.

The innovations which were the subject of negotiations during the first half of 2000
and incorporated into the programming approved by the Commission include first of
all stress on the preventive approach, which is difficult to implement in regions hard
hit by rates of unemployment which are very high in general and particularly so as
regards  long-term  unemployment.  The  special  attention  given  to  promoting  equal
opportunities and reducing the amount of undeclared  work  is also closely  linked to
the  features  of  the  labour  market  in  the  Mezzogiorno.  Other  innovations  include
support for the reform of public services for employment and the establishment of a
system  of  accreditation for training  centres.  The  programmes  approved  in  2000  for
the whole period contain a total of €4 092 million in ESF assistance of which €2 931
million  will  go  to  the  seven  regional  programmes  and  €1 161  million  to  the  five
programmes managed nationally.

In the field of agriculture and rural development, the EAGGF Guidance Section
will contribute €2 983 million alongside the other Funds to co-financing the priorities
‘Natural resources’, ‘Cultural resources’ and ‘Local development systems’. The main
measures are intended to assist the modernisation and  improved  competitiveness of
agricultural  holdings  and  the  agri-food  industry  with  due  regard  for  environmental
constraints.  Assistance  for  diversification  will  also  be  provided  so  that  firms  have
extra  or  alternative  income.  Other  measures  concern  rural  populations  and  areas  to
develop both agricultural resources and those related to the environment, history and
culture. Assistance should give rise to new employment possibilities, e.g. in tourism
or  forestry,  and  hence  to  higher  incomes  for  those  concerned.  The  amounts  in  the
financing plans for 2000 have been committed for six of the seven regions; those for
Calabria were carried over to the first quarter of 2001.

In the fisheries sector, the operational programme has €122 million from the FIFG
allocated to fleet measures. Strategic priorities include adjusting fishing effort to the
fish resources available, renewing and modernising the fleet and technical assistance.
Other  fisheries  measures  for  Objective  1  regions  are  contained  in  separate
programmes for each of the regions concerned.

The Commission did not receive from the Italian authorities a proposal for zoning for
Objective  2  which  it  regarded  as  acceptable  until  21  June  2000  (the  previous
proposal, sent on 1 October 1999, was not acceptable because it did not respect the
statutory obligation to include at least 50% of the population under the Community
criteria).  The  Commission  immediately  established  an  accelerated  procedure  for
examining the new proposal and was able to approve the Objective 2 zonage in only
three weeks.

As  compared  with  the  previous  programming  period,  the  population  eligible  under
Objective  2  fell  from  11  150  million  to  7  402  million  (because  of  the  safeguard

42

clause  which  limits  the  fall  in  the  population  eligible  compared  with  the  previous
period to one third). The 14  regions of central and northern Italy are partly eligible
under Objective 2.

The  total  allocation  to  Italy  for  Objective  2  is  €2  228  million  plus  €377  million  in
transitional support giving a total of €2 605 million.

Despite the delay in approving the zoning for Objective 2, the regions made progress
in preparing the new draft SPDs in order not to delay implementation subsequently.
The proposed SPDs officially reached the Commission by the statutory deadline.

Objective 3: The rationale for ESF assistance in Italy was provided by the European
Employment Strategy. The Council recommendations to Member States  provided a
blueprint for addressing problems and a  clear goal to achieve. The philosophy is to
become  the  financial  arm  of  the  European  Employment  Strategy.  In  operational
terms, the rationale is to implement the Strategy at regional level. One of the gaps in
the  Italian  NAPs  is  the  implementation  side.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  division  of
responsibilities  between  the  various  administrations:  employment  policies  are  the
responsibility  of  the  regions  while  the  Ministry  of  Labour  draws  the  NAP  at  the
central level. The funding provided for by the ESF is thus a useful instrument to push
the Italian regions to implement the European Employment Strategy at local level.

ESF assistance in Italy for 2000-06 is quite different from that in 1994-99. First, the
number of programmes: in the Objective 3 areas, taking the then Objectives 2, 3, 4
and  5(b)  together,  during  the  1994-99  period  there  were  54  programmes.  Today
Objective  3  areas  will  be  covered  by  15  programmes,  14  regional  ones  and  one
national programme. Second, the regional weight: in 1994-99 the regions had 83% of
the total ESF funds. In 2000-06 they will manage 95%. The national role will be that
of coordination and system building, while in 1994-99 it largely overlapped the work
of the regions. Third, the scale of the programmes: at 1999 prices the central northern
regions  were  allocated  €2  243  million,  while  in  2000-06  the  amount  will  rise  to
€3 887  million.  Fourth,  the  objectives  of  the  programmes:  while  in  the  previous
programming period the bulk of the assistance concerned training, today the ESF has
shifted to being an instrument to promote participation in the labour market through
various  mechanisms:  training,  counselling,  enterprise  creation,  employment  aids,
support  to  public  employment  services,  research  and  development,  university
courses, etc.

In the Objective 3 regions, ESF assistance will be implemented through one CSF and
15 operational programmes, one national and one for each of the 14 regions.

The main problems the ESF will address reflect the three phases  employment went
through  during  the  nineties.  At  the  beginning  of  the  decade,  there  was  a  severe
recession, in the middle the situation was stagnant and in the final years it started to
show  signs  of  recovery.  These  phenomena  are  only  partially  linked  with  the
economic situation as a whole. The employment situation has been widely influenced
by  changes  in  the  productive  sector  (growth  in  the  services  sector,  conversion  of
large  companies,  etc.)  and  by  changes  in  the  labour  supply  (demographic  effects,
etc.). Active labour market policies played a great role in moderating the net loss of
labour and, in the last years, in encouraging the recovery of employment.

The objectives set out in the CSF are twofold:

43

(a)

increasing  the  employment  content  of  economic  growth,  particularly  in  the
regions where unemployment is highest;

(b)

increasing the occupational integration of disadvantaged groups.

This will help improve social cohesion among the regions and cohesion among social
groups.

Non-Objective  1  fisheries  measures:  Italy  will  receive  €99.6  million  from  the
FIFG. The main priority is renovation and reduction of the fishing fleet.

2.2.9. LUXEMBOURG

1994-99

Objective 2: The study on industrial waste land was used to select the four sites to be
restored first where preparatory work for conversion had been carried out. Drainage
work is being carried out on the Belval site.

The measures to support growth through the development of human resources have
aroused considerable interest and all the funding available has been used. The present
rate  of  expenditure  suggests,  however,  that  some  measures  (e.g.  raising  awareness
and  technological  assistance  and  the  measure  to  stimulate  productive  investment)
will not spend all the money available.

Objectives 3 and 4: all the projects for the period 1994-99 were closed at the end of
1999 and the approximately €23 million in ESF assistance was fully used. At the end
of  the  1994-99  programming  period,  the  Luxembourg  employment  market  was  in
good shape with both growth in internal employment as industry picked up speed and
a  fall  in  unemployment  which  stood  at  2.3%  in  1999,  with  unemployment  among
young people at only 2.3% and among women at 3.3%.

2000-06

By  its  decision  of  25  February  2000,  the  Commission  adopted  the  list  of  areas
eligible  under Objective 2 in  Luxembourg for 2000-06. On  13  December  the  draft
SPD  covering  the  measures  to  be  carried  out  in  the  three  areas  selected  and  in  the
areas receiving transitional support was sent to the Commission, which considered it
acceptable.

The  Commission  adopted  a  programme  on  education,  training  and  employment
containing €39 million for Luxembourg, to be financed by the European Social Fund
under  Objective  3.  Despite  the  high  levels  of  growth  in  employment,  the
Luxembourg labour market still faces some persistent problems, mainly the low rate
of  employment  among  older  workers  and  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  those  of
working age depend on invalidity benefits and minimum income programmes.

The  Luxembourg  programme  has  four  main  priorities:  (1)  the  prevention  of
unemployment  and  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  people  depending  on  ‘passive’
schemes, such  as early retirement and invalidity (28%); (2) the promotion of social
integration (35%). The measures will include training, if possible in computers, and
help  to  integrate  into  the  social  economy  and  the  open  labour  market;  (3)  the

44

promotion  of  education  and  life-long  training  and  the  business  spirit  (30%);  (4)
greater equality for men and women on the labour market (5%).

2.2.10. NETHERLANDS

1994-99

Objective 1: It is too early to draw up a final assessment of the 1994-99 programme
but it may be noted that most of the indicators targeted have already been reached. A
few examples are the creation of new companies (target: 10% of existing businesses,
outturn 17% on average) and the number of those attending training courses (target:
11 353, outturn: 19 591).

The  previous  programming  period  included  5  Objective  2  areas:  Zuid-Limburg,
Zuid-Ooost-Brabant, Arnhem-Nijmegen, Twente and Groningen-Drenthe.

Most of these programmes have requested an extension of the payment period for the
programming  period  1994-96.  The  final  reports  for  these  programmes  and  the
corresponding requests  for  final payment  were submitted to the Commission in  the
course  of  1999  (ZO-Brabant  and  Groningen  Drenthe)  and  2000  (Z-Limburg,
Arnhem-Nijmegen and Twente).

For the programming period 1997-99, the eligible period for commitments ended on
31 December 1999. Accordingly 2000 is to be considered as an operational year in
which projects which were adopted in earlier years were monitored and concluded.

Objective 3: The irregularities in a number of ESF projects that were found in 1999
also  caused  major  problems  in  2000.  The  Dutch  authorities  carried  out  a  large
number of checks, which led to the discovery of even more irregularities. The total
amount  that  will  have  to  be  reimbursed  for  the  old  period  can  only  be  determined
once all the checks have been completed. The Dutch authorities also set up a special
independent investigation committee led by the former president of the Dutch Court
Auditors, Mr Koning, who will deliver his report in June 2001.

Objective 5(a)-Fisheries: some  80% of  the total FIFG  allocation  was  committed. A
large number of projects were not committed until the end of 1999. The total FIFG
funds paid to final beneficiaries by the end of 2000 were therefore only about 20% of
the  total  commitment.  However,  it  is  expected  that  the  ‘final  sprint’  will  result  in
large expenditure in 2001.

2000-06

The major event of the year 2000 was of course the launch of the new Objective 1
phasing out programme covering the years 2000 to 2006. The plan was submitted to
the  Commission  in  November  1999  and  negotiations  were  held  from  February  to
March 2000.

This new programme for Flevoland was drafted in the context of a Dutch economy
that is performing very well, reducing the national unemployment rate to acceptable
proportions.  Although  Flevoland  also  benefits  from  this  favourable  economic
climate, the region’s economic structure is still underdeveloped. This manifests itself
particularly in a negative commuting balance. The programme contains €126 million
in Community finance.

45

There  are  four  broad  areas  of  activity  or  priorities  in  the  single  programming
document  which  was  approved:  development  of  urban  areas  (€39.1  million),
development  of  rural  areas  (€23.7  million),  strengthening  of  production  structures
(€39.5 million) and social cohesion and the labour market (€20.2 million).

The  programme  for  Flevoland  aims  to  promote  investment  in  business  or  business
support activities with high growth potential in some areas. Small and medium-sized
enterprises will get special attention through support for research  and development,
development  of  e-commerce  and  the  internationalisation  of  their  activities.  An
interesting aspect of the programme is the development of city outskirts through the
stimulation of tourism and recreation activities.

The  contribution  of  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  amounts  to  €10  million.  This
programme  concerns  the  continuation  of  an  active  renewal  policy  in  Flevoland.
Coherent activities will be supported which will strengthen the rural area. Survival of
the agricultural activity is vital for the provincial economy, as is the preservation of
the rural landscape. Recreation and tourism are becoming more and more important
in the transition of the urban area to the rural area, the city outskirts. Another aim is
to improve the viability and nature values of the rural area.

An  amount  of  €6  million  has  been  allocated  to  fisheries  measures.  The  planned
investment concerns mainly the adjustment of fishing effort and the processing and
marketing of fish.

On 22 December 1999 the Commission  formally  approved the  list of areas eligible
under Objective 2 for the Netherlands. In April 2000, the Dutch authorities notified
nine  Objective  2  programmes  to  the  Commission  for  the  period  2000-06.  At  the
request of the Commission, the number of Objective 2 programmes was reduced; a
programmes were grouped by region and the number of operational programmes was
reduced to four.

These four programmes were all negotiated in the course of 2000 and will be adopted
in the first half of 2001.

A significant part (46%) of the Objective 2 allocation for the Netherlands went to the
‘Noord-Nederland’ programme. The programme  will receive an EU contribution of
€329 million. The programme involves only ERDF funding and aim to stimulate the
industrial  and  economic  conversion  of  the  region.  Its  operational  priorities  are  the
promoting the traded sector, the development of urban  centres  and  the  operation of
the labour market.

The  second  programme  ‘Urban  areas  in  the  Netherlands’  involves  an  EU
contribution  of  almost  €200  million.  The  programme  concerns  urban  areas  in
difficulties  and  includes  districts  of  different  cities  in  a  single  programming
document.  It  reflects  the  priority  given  to  the  urban  areas  issue  by  the  Netherlands
and  inclusion  of  this  issue  in  the  EU  Structural  Funds  mainstream  policy.  The
programme  covers  11  urban  areas  in  nine  cities;  it  involves  the  four  largest  cities
(Amsterdam,  Rotterdam,  Utrecht  and  The  Hague)  and  five  medium-sized  cities
(Eindhoven,  Maastricht, Arnhem, Nijmegen  and  Enschede).  The  Dutch  Ministry  of
Internal  Affairs  selected  the  eligible  areas  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  of  ‘poverty
level’ and ‘long-term unemployment’.

46

The final two programmes ‘Zuid-Nederland’ and ‘Oost-Nederland’ are more rural in
character. The EU contribution amounts to €152 and €122 million respectively. The
SPD ‘Zuid-Nederland’ comprises different sub-areas; the core of the programme is a
rural  area  covering  parts  of  the  provinces  of  N-Brabant  and  Limburg.  The
programme includes also transitional areas in ZO-Brabant, Z-Limburg and Zeeland.
The core of the SPD “Oost-Nederland’ is a rural area covering parts of the provinces
Gelderland,  Overijssel  and  a  very  small  part  of  Utrecht.  The  programme  also
includes  the  Objective  2  transitional  areas  of  Twente  and  Arnhem-Nijmegen.  Both
programmes  involve  only  ERDF  funding.  The  operational  priorities  are:  spatial
development, economic stimulation and social cohesion.

Objective 3: in order to avoid irregularities during the new period, a large number of
measures  have  been  taken  to  improve  selection,  monitoring  and  surveillance.  The
Minister  of  Social  Affairs  and  Employment  has  also  decided  to  take  the  ESF
implementation  unit  (ESF-Nederland)  out  of  Arbeidsvoorziening  and  to  place  it
within his own Ministry in the form of an Agency.

The new SPD for Objective 3 was approved by the Commission on 8 August 2000. It
contains a total of €1 750.4 million. The Commission has also paid the advances for
the  new  period  2000-06.  However,  because  of  the  problems  in  the  old  period  the
Dutch authorities have not yet started with new projects. The expected starting date
is 1 April 2001.

Non-Objective  1  FIFG:  The  structural  programme  for  fisheries  for  the  regions
outside  Objective  1  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  on  29  December  2000  and
provides for FIFG funding of €32.1 million. The programme is being considered in
2001.

2.2.11. AUSTRIA

1995-99

The  successful 
implementation  of  Austria’s  only  Objective  1  programme,
Burgenland,  continued  in  2000.  The  whole  of  the  ERDF  and  ESF  budgets  was
allocated to projects. The measures covering the fields of industry and business and
R&D  (telecommunication  investments)  had  the  main  impact  on  the  positive
implementation of the programme at the end of the period.

The  original  objective  of  the  programme  was  to  create  7  300  new  jobs;  this  figure
was adjusted to a more realistic level of 1 200 new jobs (net) following the on-going
evaluation.  The  results  show  that  173  new  firms  have  been  supported  or  secured,
2 400  new jobs have been created  and over 6 200  secured.  Investment  support  was
given to over 1 000 individual firms.

The  four  Austrian  Objective  2  programmes  showed  satisfactory  progress  in  2000.
The  main  changes  at  the  end  of  the  period  consisted  of  financial  adjustments  to
allocate the funds to the measures with the best performance.

The largest Objective 2 programme, Styria, is expected to create 2 338 new jobs and
to  secure  a  further  21  551  through  the  projects  approved.  Lower  Austria  forecasts
1 474 new jobs and 9 840 secured. In the smaller programmes for Upper Austria and
Vorarlberg, the creation of respectively 490 new jobs (plus 2 960 secured) and 752

47

new jobs (4 742 secured) is expected on the basis of the budget committed at the end
of  1999.  The  overall  objective  for  the  Objective  2  programmes  is  to  create  5  054
jobs.

Measures  aimed  at  productive  and  direct  investments  in  firms  show  the  highest
tourism;
implementation  rates  among  ERDF  measures.  Measures  aimed  at 
innovation and technology transfer and soft aid to firms (consultancy) lag behind the
planned targets.

2000-06

Burgenland  is  still  eligible  under  Objective  1  for  the  period  2000-06.  The  total
Structural Fund allocation of €271 million will stimulate total investment of almost
€853  million  -  of  which  private  co-financing  is  expected  to  provide  over  €490
million. The programme was approved by the Commission on 7 April 2000.

On 22 May, the first meeting of the Monitoring Committee, in Eisenstadt, adopted its
rules of procedure and the programme complement.

The  first  payment,  equivalent  to  3.5%  of  the  EU  contribution  (€6.8  million),  was
made in August.

Three basic aims have been defined for the new Objective 1 programme Burgenland:

–  to develop Burgenland into a modern Central European region;

–  to  prepare  Burgenland  for  enlargement  of  the  EU  (especially  cooperation  with

Hungary);

–  to reduce internal disparities within Burgenland.

The  ESF  part  of  the  programme  had  been  established  in  partnership  between  the
regional  PES,  the  Austrian  federation  of  trade  unions,  the  Austrian  federation  of
employers,  the  institute  for  business  promotion  in  Eisenstadt  and  various  other
organisations. The ESF part adds some new approaches to the mainstream emerging
from the former programming period. There is a new measure for the promotion of
life  long learning,  exploiting the potential of the new  ESF regulation.  The  measure
consists of the promotion of training in the ICT-sector, networking between training
centres and enterprises and projects to train trainers.

Under the SPD, the EAGGF Guidance  Section will  provide a total of  €41 345 471
over  the  period  2000-06.  The  main  measures  concern  the  modernisation  of
agriculture,  agricultural  training,  the  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural
products, forestry measures and rural development and nature protection. Some 27%
of the appropriations will go to rural development (diversification, quality products,
renovation  of  villages,  small  rural  infrastructure),  23%  to  the  processing  and
marketing  of  agricultural  products,  18%  to  the  modernisation  of  agriculture  (farm
investments,  the  installation  of  young  farmers),  13%  to  forestry  measures,  13%  to
protection  of  the  natural  heritage  and  6%  to  training  (agricultural  skills,  vocational
retraining,  especially  for  services  close  to  agriculture,  activities  concerning  nature
protection and  the development  of rural  skills networks). All the  appropriations for
2000 were committed (at Community level).

48

Eight Länder, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Styria, Salzburg, Vorarlberg,
Tirol and Vienna are partly covered by Objective 2 for the period 2000-06. The total
Structural Fund allocation of €703 million is divided into €600 million for Objective
2  areas  and  €103  million  for  transitional  areas.  The  Austrian  ceiling  is  about
1 994 853  people  living  in  Objective  2  areas  and  1  098  794  people  living  in
transitional areas.

The new Objective 2 programmes for the regions of Carinthia, Lower Austria, Upper
Austria, Styria, Salzburg, Vorarlberg and Tirol were sent to the Commission in April.
All seven programmes were accepted at the end of April and beginning of May. The
programme  for  the  city  of  Vienna  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  in  June  and
accepted in July 2000.

The ESF is also contributing to the programmes in Carinthia, Vienna and Styria.

Except for Vienna, the negotiations with all these regions finished in July.

Objective  3:  Austrian  labour  market  policy  has  been  confronted  by  various
challenges,  some  old  and  others  very  new.  The  concentration  of  unemployment  in
special groups and the segregation of the labour market between men and women are
phenomena  which  have  been  apparent  for  many  years.  New  problems  have  been
created by more flexible labour market structures, new forms of work organisation,
new demands for skills and shifts of economic activity between sectors and regions.
The  National  Action  Plan  2000  contained  all  the  policy  instruments  available  to
tackle these challenges.

The new Objective 3 ESF  programme for  which  negotiations between  the  Austrian
authorities and the Commission stated on 8 December 1999 and which was approved
by the Commission on 8 of August is the main EU financial instrument to underpin
the Austrian labour market strategy.

It  builds  on  the  experiences  of  the  last  assistance  period  1995-99.  Assistance
instruments  should  be  further  developed  and  optimised.  What  is  new  in  the  period
2000-06 is first of all the introduction of a priority for life-long learning which will
be implemented by the Ministry for Education, Science and Culture. The ESF is also
the gateway for implementation of the gender mainstreaming approach, which means
that the reduction of gender-related discriminations should be targeted in all branches
of the Austrian labour market policy.

Section 3 of the SPD outlines how ESF assistance will contribute to implementation
of the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy:

–  Employability:  This  pillar  attracts  most  resources.  The  preventive  approach,
offering  early  assistance  to  help  people  who  become  unemployed,  is  a  basic
principle in this context.

–  Entrepreneurship: 1% of Objective 3 resources are earmarked for assistance to the
Territorial  Employment  Pacts  which  are  designed  to  exploit  job  opportunities  at
the local level.

–  Adaptability:  Experience  of  the  former  Objective  4  SPD  has  led  to  a
concentration  of  effort  on  selected  target  groups  most  threatened  by  structural

49

change, to give assistance for staff development plans and to anticipate trends on
the labour market.

–  Equal  opportunities:  The  development  of  female  employment  in  non-traditional
and  new  professions,  the  improvement  of  career  opportunities,  especially  in
science and technology, is supported.

The  principle  of  partnership  is  an  integral  element  of  the  implementation  process.
The social partners, regional authorities and  NGOs  are  members  of  the  Monitoring
Committee, which had its first meeting on 26 July. The operational arrangements for
the years to come were agreed.

2.2.12. PORTUGAL

1994-99

Since all  the  resources  were  committed,  implementation  proceeded  at  a  good  pace,
reaching about 95% by the end of 2000. The balances have still  to be paid  and the
programmes closed, which will be done in some cases in 2001.

The  initial  assessment  carried  out  by  the  mid-term  evaluation  shows  that  the
Structural Funds have had a substantial impact in Portugal, both at macro-economic
level and in terms of employment and the trend of regional disparities.

The best results were achieved in the fields of infrastructure and the environment but
those in innovation and research and development are less apparent. As a result, this
sector received particular attention during negotiation of the CSF for 2000-06.

2000-06

The Commission approved the CSF for Portugal for 2000-06 on 30 March 2000; at
current prices it contains €20 535 million in Community appropriations, about 15%
of the resources of the Structural Funds allocated to Objective 1. Total investment in
this CSF amounts to €42 199 million.

Assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds  breaks  down  as  follows:  ERDF  64.8%;  ESF
23%; EAGGF Guidance Section 11.1% and FIFG 1.1%.

The regions of Portugal covered by Objective 1 are the same as for the period 1994-
99  (the  whole  country) but  the  region  of  Lisboa  e  Vale  do  Tajo  is  receiving
transitional support.

The  strategy  of  the  CSF  is  based  on  four  priorities:  (1)  raising  the  level  of  skills,
promoting  employment  and  social  cohesion;  (2)  directing  production  capacity
towards future-oriented activities; (3) asserting the importance of the country and its
position  in  the  world  economy;  (4)  promoting  the  sustainable  development  of  the
regions and national cohesion.

As  regards  assistance  directly  related  to  the  development  of  human  resources,  the
ESF represents 23% of Community assistance, virtually the same figure as that in the
CSF for 1994-99.

50

The EAGGF Guidance Section will contribute €2 284 million to agriculture and rural
development. The main  measures  implemented  are intended to promote sustainable
agriculture  and  support  activities  in  the  agri-rural  and  agri-forestry  productive
sectors.

In  the  field  of  fisheries,  the  FIFG  will  provide  €217.5  million  for  all  the  regions
concerned. The main measures financed concern the protection and development of
aquatic  resources,  port  facilities,  modernisation  of  the  fleet  and  the  processing  of
catches.

This CSF includes the following innovations compared to the current one:

(cid:1)  considerable  decentralisation  of  Community  appropriations  towards  the  regions:

about 47% of the funds programmed are allocated to regional programmes;

(cid:1)  integration of the four Funds in the regional programmes, which will permit better
coordination  at  regional  level  of  the  measures  carried  out  and  a  more  effective
response to problems encountered on the spot;

(cid:1)  at  sectoral  level,  the  information  society,  research  and  innovation  have  assumed
priority status in the CSF while support for the energy sector has been reduced;

(cid:1)  in accordance with statutory requirements, the regional and local authorities have
more  responsibility  for  the  management  and  monitoring  of  assistance.  This
suggests 
the  systems  for  monitoring,  management,  evaluation  and
surveillance will be improved.

that 

The CSF expects to create or maintain 68 000 jobs per year.

The CSF will be implemented through 19 OPs (7 regional programmes and 12 multi-
regional  programmes).  The  technical  assistance  programme  was  negotiated  during
the fourth quarter of 2000 and approved early in 2001.

During the last quarter of 2000, the various Monitoring Committees met to approve
their rules of procedure and the programme complements.

2.2.13. FINLAND

1995-99

By  the  end  of  1999  the  last  commitments  under  the  previous  programme  period
1995-99  had  been  made.  Implementation  of  the  last  selected  projects  continued
throughout  2000  with  completion  planned  for  the  end  of  2001.  The  Commission
received the annual reports for 1999 by June 2000.

The mid-term evaluation found that the regional development strategy chosen for the
Objective 6 region was correct. The initial programme targets were, however, found
to be too  ambitious in relation to the programme resources  and have been  adjusted
accordingly.  Also  the  financing  plan  was  slightly  adjusted  at  the  end  of  1999,  as
confirmed by a Commission decision in April 2000.

According to the annual report 1999, 79.8% of total public funding had been paid to
projects by the end of 1999. The programme has created over 19 000 new jobs and

51

2 600 businesses. Migration from the Objective 6 (and 2 and 5(b)) areas, which had
been the trend during the programming period, continued.

The Objective 2 programme was implemented by two SPDs in 1995-96 and 1997-99.
The  final  payment  was  made  by  the  Commission  in  spring  2000  after  some
additional information for the  purposes  of  closing  the  accounts  for  this  programme
was submitted in late 1999 and early 2000. By the end of 1999 50.5% of total public
funding for the 1997-99 programme had been paid to the projects.

According  to  the  mid-term  evaluation,  the  Finnish  Objective  2  programme  had  a
notable effect on growth in the number of firms and employment in the programming
area,  where  new  firms  were  set  up  as  briskly  as  in  the  reference  areas  of  Southern
and  Central  Finland.  It  was  estimated  that  by  the  end  of  1999  the  programme  had
created  almost  15  000  new  jobs  and  over  1  400  new  businesses.  New  enterprises
were set up mainly in the service sector, especially in business services as well as in
social, health and other services. However, the evaluation observed that for the most
the  projects  were  qualitative.  The  observations  and
part 
recommendations  of  the  interim  evaluation  were  also  taken  into  account  in  the
preparation of the new Objective 2 programmes 2000-06.

the  effects  of 

2000-06

The programme negotiations for the new Objective 1 and 2 programmes were held at
the end of 1999 and early in 2000 in Helsinki between the Finnish authorities and the
Structural  Funds  Directorates-General.  The  main 
issues  discussed  were
quantification  of  expected  results  and 
indicators,  monitoring  and
surveillance systems, additionality, the performance reserve, inter-regional  projects,
Finnvera (the state-owned special risk financier) loan schemes, the environment and
Natura  2000,  and  the  information  society.  The  Commission  sought  in  particular  a
sharper  focus  in  the  development  of  small  firms,  human  resources  priorities  on
defined competence and skills shortages, and rural development (as far as Objective
1 is concerned). These adjustments were taken into account in the final SPDs.

impacts 

Both Finnish Objective 1 programmes (Eastern Finland and Northern Finland) were
approved by  the  Commission  on  31  March  as  the  first  regional  programmes  of  the
new programming period 2000-06. The total EU contribution is €913 million (1999
prices).  The  line  of  development  rests  on  know-how,  new  technology  and
information  society.  The  programme  measures  aim 
increase  business
competitiveness and economic growth and the creation of new jobs and businesses,
reduce  unemployment  and  slow  down  the  depopulation  of  rural  areas  and  of  the
regions as a whole.

to 

The  human  resources  measures  are  in  accordance  with  the  ESF  policy  frame  of
reference. In total, ESF assistance amounts €273 million for both programmes. ESF
priorities  include  strengthening  competence,  skills  and  labour  employability and
business development.

EAGGF Guidance Section assistance for agriculture and rural development amounts
to 197.1 million. The main measures include the development of rural areas, forestry,
training and the setting up of young farmers.

52

In  the  fishing  sector,  the  FIFG  will  contribute  €6.85  million;  the  main  measures
include processing, fishing ports and aquaculture.

The first Monitoring Committee meetings held in Oulu and Mikkeli in May opened
the  new  period  by  approving  the  rules  of  procedure,  project  selection  criteria,
programme  complements  and  a  publicity  plan.  The  second  Monitoring  Committee
meetings  were  held  in  November  in  Kajaani,  where  the  programme  complements
were completed and the Committee discussed the implementation process and status,
the monitoring system, information and publicity actions, and the new loan schemes
for ERDF co-financing. Press conferences and visits to projects were organised in the
context of the Monitoring Committee meetings.

The Western and Southern Finland SPDs were approved by the Commission on 30
June  as  the  first  Objective  2  programmes  of  the  new  period.  The  first  Monitoring
Committee meetings held in early October were preceded by a preparatory meeting
in  June.  In  their  December  meeting  in  Jyväskylä  the  Monitoring  Committees
discussed the same topics as the Objective 1 meetings referred to above and observed
that programme implementation had begun satisfactorily.

The  Åland  Islands  Objective  2  programme,  which  was  submitted  separately  to  the
Commission,  was  approved  on  20  December  2000.  The  Åland  Islands  are  an
autonomous, Swedish-speaking Finnish province comprising more than 6 500 islands
and  skerries,  65  of  which  are  inhabited.  The  programme  aims  to  increase  the
competitiveness of businesses, to achieve population growth in the archipelago areas,
to  integrate  the  region’s  population  into  the  information  society  and  to  increase
environmental awareness.

The  total  EU  contribution  to  the  Finnish  Objective  2  programmes  is  €489  million
(1999  prices).  The  Southern  and  Western  Finland  SPDs  are  designed  to  promote
entrepreneurship and employment by increasing competitiveness and diversification
of  the  regional  economy.  To  this  end  they  focus  on  growth  sectors,  clusters  and
competitiveness  based  on  know-how.  Both  programmes  make  considerable
commitments to the information society and put emphasis on SME development.

the  development  of  skills  and  new 

In  Western  Finland  ESF  assistance  is  concentrated  on  business  development  and
economic  restructuring, 
technologies,
infrastructure  modernisation  and  improvement  of  the  living  environment.  In
Southern  Finland,  ESF  measures  are  concentrated  on  business  competitiveness  and
the  attractiveness  of  the  business  environment, the  development  of  know-how  and
human  resources  and  the  development  of  sub-regions,  urban  areas  and  the
attractiveness of local communities.

The  Commission  approved  the  Objective  3  SPD  for  non-Objective  1  areas  on  1
August. ESF funding for the programme totals €416 million. The SPD sets out four
policy priorities in accordance with the ESF policy frame of reference:

1.

2.

exploiting  labour  demand  and  improving  employability  (29%  of  the  ESF
allocation);

promoting  equality  and  equal  opportunities  in  working  life  (19%  of  the  ESF
allocation);

53

3.

4.

improving  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  education  and  training,  promoting
occupational  mobility,  and  strengthening  the  integration  of  education  and
working life (19% of the ESF allocation);

developing  human  capital  to  support  entrepreneurship  and  the  quality  of
working  life  and  exploiting  research  and  technology  (29%  of  the  ESF
allocation).

In addition, there is a priority for technical assistance (4% of the ESF allocation)

In the field of the Ministry of Labour, the share of commitments out of the planned
allocation  for  year  2000  was  80%.  Aid  was  granted  to  some  350  projects  and  the
number of persons started in projects was 9 000.

A  separate  Objective  3  programme  for  the  autonomous  Åland  Islands,  with  €2.6
million funding from the ESF, was approved on 27 September.

The main labour market problems the ESF programme aims to address are the high
rate  of  unemployment,  the  danger  of  exclusion  of  certain  groups  (e.g.  long-term
unemployed,  young  unemployed,  ageing  and  handicapped  people)  from  the  labour
market  and  increasing  labour  market  bottlenecks.  A  relatively  low  rate  of
entrepreneurs, skill shortages concerning especially ageing workers with a low level
of  education  and  outdated  skills,  gender-based  segregation  in  the  labour  and
research,
educational  market,  need 
education/training  and  working  life  and  to  increase  life  long  learning  opportunities
and practices.

relationship  between 

improve 

the 

to 

As before, the Ministry of Labour is both the managing and the paying authority for
ESF  operations  in  Finland  during  the  new  programming  period.  Implementation  of
the  programmes  has  been  mainly  decentralised  to  the  regional  level.  New  national
legislation has been prepared for the implementation of SF programmes in Finland.

Non-Objective  1  fisheries:  the  FIFG  contribution  is  €32  million,  of  which  55%  is
devoted to the protection and development of aquatic resources, aquaculture, fishing
port facilities, processing and marketing and inland fishing. 11% will go to the Aland
islands, which have a separate programme.

2.2.14. SWEDEN

1995-99

By the end of 1999 the last commitments under the previous programme period had
been  made  for  the  five  Objective  2,  the  Objective  6  and  the  eight  Interreg  II  A
programmes. Implementation of the last selected projects continued during 2000 with
completion planned before the end of 2001. Annual reports for 1999 were received in
June 2000.

2000-06

Complete versions of the Norra Norrland and Södra Skogslänsregionen Objective 1
single programming documents were submitted to the Commission on 23 November
1999. The decisions in principle were taken on 12 and 17 May respectively and the
programmes were finally adopted on 24 May 2000.

54

The Structural Funds will contribute €748 million for the period 2000-06, of which
52% will go to Norra Norrland and 48% to Södra Skogslänen. Together with national
public  and  private  co-financing,  over  €2  billion  in  investment  will  be  mobilised.
There  are  separate  budgets  for  the  inland  areas  and  the  coastal  areas  (the  special
programme) in each programme.

The two Objective 1 programmes cover vast and sparsely-populated areas that face a
harsh climate and are remote from the main economic centres. The main targets are
to  create  20  000  jobs  and  3  500  new  businesses  by  developing  a  knowledge-
intensive, competitive  business sector  using  the  benefits  of  modern  technology  and
by improving the attractiveness of the area as a place to live and work, which means
safeguarding  the  unspoilt  environment,  ensuring  high  standards  of  education  and
reinforcing the cultural heritage in order to attract firms to locate there. 4 000 firms
and  40  000  people  will  participate  in  training  activities.  Each  programme  contains
special  measures  to  promote  the  development  of  Sami  culture  and  traditional  Sami
industries.

In  2000  there  were  two  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  per  programme,  in  Luleå
and  Östersund  in  mid-June  and  in  Umeå  and  Höga  Kusten  in  October.  The  main
points  on  the  agendas  were  adoption  of  the  rules  of  procedures  for  the  Monitoring
Committees  and 
including  selection  criteria,
monitoring  indicators  and  information  and  communication  plans.  The  programmes
became  operational  as  from  the  summer  and  the  first  selections  were  held  in  the
autumn. Some 250 projects were selected by the end of the year. Demand has been
high from the very start of the programmes, so compared to the previous programme
period the situation is significantly better.

the  programme  complements, 

In  2000  the  Commission  put  special  emphasis  on  information  and  publicity.  Press
conferences  and  project  visits  were  organised  alongside  Monitoring  Committee
meetings.

The EAGGF Guidance Section allocated a total of €115.3 million to agriculture and
rural  development.  The  main  measures  concern  investments  in  agricultural,
horticultural  and  reindeer  holdings,  sustainable  development  of  rural  areas  through
the
diversification,  further  processing  and  marketing,  on-farm 
preservation of the rural heritage.

tourism  and 

For the fisheries sector, FIFG assistance amounts to €11.5 million, concentrated  on
investments  in  aquaculture,  processing  and  the  protection  and  development  of
aquatic resources.

The  draft  single  programming  documents  (SPD)  for  the  four  Swedish  Objective  2
areas  (Norra,  Västra,  Södra  and  Öarna)  were  declared  admissible  on  26  April.  The
negotiating meeting with representatives from the regional partnerships, the Swedish
government, and the DGs for Regional Policy and Employment was held on 19 June
and negotiations were concluded by a subsequent exchange of letters. The decisions
in  principle  on  all  four  programmes  were  taken  in  October.  Final  decisions  for  the
SPDs  were  taken  on  15  and  20  December,  and  the  first  Monitoring  Committee
meeting for each of the four programmes were held during December in Karlskoga,
Gävle and Jönköping.

55

The Structural Funds commitment for the period 2000-06 is €423 million, with 87%
coming from the European Regional Development Fund and 13% from the European
Social  Fund.  Altogether  this  EU  funding  will  mobilise  about  €1.5  billion  from  the
EU, national and private funds.

The  problems  facing  the  areas  covered  by  the  four  SPDs  are  much  the  same,  i.e.
higher than average unemployment, a lower level of education and mature industries
with structural difficulties. The main objectives of the programmes are  therefore to
create a favourable business climate, encourage entrepreneurship, develop businesses
and improve educational/skills levels,  thereby increasing employability  and helping
industry  to  become  more  knowledge  intensive  and  competitive.  Competitiveness  is
also  enhanced  by  promotion  of  cooperation  between  industry  and  universities.  An
attractive  living  environment  is  promoted  in  more  or  less  all  programmes,  with
measures for culture and improving services and local participation (empowerment).
Local initiatives are encouraged and supported.

All  programmes  give  special  attention  to  youth  and  women  and  have  sustainable
development,  equality  and  integration  of  immigrants  as  horizontal  priorities.  The
goal of the programs are 29 400 new or maintained jobs and 5 900 new businesses,
and  in  addition  training  will  be  provided  to  increase  the  employability  of  several
thousand people.

Objective 3: the single programming document (SPD), the result of seven months of
negotiations between the Swedish authorities and the Commission, was approved by
the  Commission  on  27  September.  With  the  exception  of  the  regions  covered  by
Objective  1,  Sweden  is  eligible  for  €747  million  in  ESF  funds  within  the  overall
budget  of  €2  780 million,  of  which  co-financing  of  €729 million  will  come  from
national  public  funds  and  €1  303 million  from  private  sources.  The  programme
complement finalised by the end of the year completes the SPD and sets out in more
detail the measures to be taken. The five key priorities are as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Skills enhancement for workers. The priority is to be carried out in agreement
between  employer  and  employees.  Sweden  is  funding  workers’  skills  more
than for any other EU Member State. This priority is targeted at employees in
the public and private sectors with an emphasis of firms employing fewer than
50 staff.

Increased  employability  and  entrepreneurship.  Target  groups  include  the
employed  and  the  unemployed  (budget:  €258 million  or  34.5%  of  the  ESF
allocation).

Integration, multiplicity and equal opportunities.

Local development.

Technical assistance.

The  Swedish  ESF  Council  has  been  set  up  by  the  Swedish  Government  as  an
independent  managing  authority  for  the  programme.  The  National  Labour  Market
Board  (AMS)  is  the  paying  authority.  The  Monitoring  Committee,  a  broad
partnership  to  oversee  the  SPD,  met  twice  in  2000  to  approve  the  programme
complement, set up structures for monitoring and start up the programme.

56

Despite  the  late  start  of  the  programme,  altogether  1  100  projects  with  30  000
participants had been approved by the end of 2000.

Non-Objective  1  fisheries,  the FIFG allocation amounts to  €2  million  and  focuses
on the restructuring of the processing industry and modernisation of the fleet.

2.2.15. UNITED KINGDOM

1994-99

Objective  1:  by  the  end  of  1999,  the  final  adjustments  to  the  programmes  for  the
period 1994-99 had been agreed with the relevant authorities. The implementation of
the  remaining  projects  continued  throughout  2000  with  completion  planned  by  31
December 2001.

The funds allocated to the Objective 3 and 4 programmes were fully committed for
1994-99. No final payment claims have yet been received.

2000-06

The  United  Kingdom  contains  six  Objective  1  regions:  one  region,  Merseyside,
retains Objective 1 status from the 1994-99 period; three regions, Cornwall and the
Isles  of  Scilly,  South  Yorkshire  and  West  Wales  and  the  Valleys,  are  covered  by
Objective 1 for the first time, while two regions, Northern Ireland and Highlands and
Islands, lose full Objective 1 status but will receive transitional support until 2005.

In the case of the five Objective 1 regions in Great Britain, the Structural Funds are
through  single  programming  documents  (SPDs).  The  regional
implemented 
development plans were therefore submitted in the form of draft SPDs. In the case of
Northern  Ireland,  the  Funds  are  implemented  by  way  of  a  Community  support
framework and operational programmes based on a regional development plan.

The negotiations relating to the Objective 1 SPDs for Great Britain took place from
December  1999  to  April  2000.  In  the  case  of  Northern  Ireland,  while  the  regional
plan was submitted at the end of 1999, the CSF was adopted only in December 2000
and adoption of the OPs was not completed until early 2001. This longer period arose
from political and administrative developments in Northern  Ireland  during 2000, in
particular the devolution of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Objective 1 SPDs for Great Britain each identify between four and six areas for
priority  measures.  These  areas  may  be  grouped  as  follows:  support  for  small  and
medium-sized businesses, support for business modernisation, Community economic
resource  development  and  development  of  strategic
regeneration,  human 
infrastructure.  In  addition  one  programme  addresses  more  specifically  the  issues
facing rural areas; another tackles the concept of regional distinctiveness.

In  the  case  of  Northern  Ireland,  the  CSF  is  implemented  through  two  operational
programmes:  the  transitional  Objective  1  programme  (‘Building  sustainable
prosperity’) and the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland
and  the  Border  Region  (Peace  II)  2000-04.  The  CSF  is  implemented  through  the
following main priorities: economic growth and competitiveness, employment, HRD
and  social  inclusion,  urban  and  social  revitalisation;  agriculture,  rural  development
and fisheries and environment.

57

The EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border
Region (Peace II) 2000-2004 is a continuation of the special support programme for
peace  and  reconciliation  (Peace  I)  1995-99.  It  is  intended  to  build  on  the
achievements  of  Peace  I  through  a  broad  range  of  actions  under  the  following
priorities: economic renewal, social integration, inclusion and reconciliation, locally-
based regeneration and development strategies, outward and forward-looking region
and cross-border cooperation.

The transitional Objective 1 programme (‘Building sustainable growth’) is the largest
component  of  the  Northern  Ireland  Community  support  framework,  accounting  for
approximately  two-thirds  of  the  total  structural  funding  allocated.  This  programme
will,  therefore  be  the  main  instrument  for  achieving  the  economic  and  social
transition  identified  in  the  CSF.  The  following  priorities  have  been  adopted:
economic growth and competitiveness, employment, urban and social revitalisation,
agriculture, rural development, forestry, fisheries and the environment.

In  the  agricultural  and  rural  development  sector,  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section
allocates  a  total  of  €388  million  to  the  five  eligible  regions.  The  priorities  are
different in each region: small firms and micro-business support and rural structural
adjustment  in  Cornwall,  assistance  to  rural  communities  in  Highlands  and  Islands,
developing  niche  sectors  in  Merseyside,  modernising  business  and  helping
communities with the transition to economic renewal in South Yorkshire, sustainable
use of natural  resources in West Wales and balanced urban and rural development,
economic growth and renewal in Northern Ireland.

FIFG assistance for the fisheries sector amounts to €60.3 million.

The  United  Kingdom  contains  fourteen  Objective  2  regions:  Gibraltar,  West
Midlands,  Yorkshire  and  Humberside,  East  Midlands,  North  East  England,  North
West England, East of England, South East England, London, South West England,
South of Scotland, East of Scotland, Western Scotland and East Wales. All but two
of the regions also contain areas with transitional status. The negotiations relating to
the Objective 2 SPDs took place from July to December 2000.

All  programmes  are  centred  around  six  themes:  small  and  medium-sized  firms,
strategic  development  opportunities,  skills,  rural  and  fishery  areas,  community
economic  regeneration,  employment  growth.  Throughout  these  themes  and  issues,
attention  is  paid  to  environmental  sustainability  as  well  as  to  equal  opportunities.
These two issues are integrated in the activities and are part of the project assessment
and the evaluation of the programme progress.

Out  of  the  14  UK  Objective  2  regions,  six  have  decided  not  to  include  an  ESF
element  in  their  programmes.  Those  regions  will  address  human  resources  issues
through  establishing  direct  linkages  with  the  Objective  3  programmes.  The  other
eight  Objective  2  plans  contain  an  ESF  element  ranging  from  10%  to  20%  of  the
total Structural Funds contribution  to those  programmes. The ESF  measures  within
those  plans  focus  specifically  on  social  inclusion  for  all  and  adaptability  and
entrepreneurship.  During  the  negotiations  the  Commission  ensured  that  the  ESF
measures  programmed  in  Objective  2  areas  met  the  dual  tests  of  being  integrated
with  the  local/regional  development  strategy  and  coordinated  with  the  ERDF
assistance in that area whilst not duplicating provision under Objective 3.

58

In respect of the Objective 2 programmes for the previous round, all regions are fully
committed for ESF, and payments to date amount to 64% of the total committed.

The  impact  of  devolution  has  changed  the  structure  of  the  UK’s  Objective  3
programme for 2000-06. In the 1994-99 round there was one SPD covering the entire
country.  In the new round there is a UK CSF and separate operational programmes
for England, Scotland and Wales. Furthermore, the English OP will be implemented
at the regional level. There are, however, many similarities between the priorities of
the old Objective 3 and 4 SPDs and the new Objective 3 CSF. Reflecting the general
downward  trend  in  the  numbers  of  unemployed  in  the  UK,  there  has  been  a
significant increase (31.6% to 40.0%) in the emphasis in the programmes on lifelong
learning,  adaptability  and  entrepreneurship.  At  the  same  time,  a  substantial  sum
(53%) is still reserved for tackling unemployment and encouraging social inclusion.
The proportion of the budget allocated to specific actions to promote gender equality
has almost doubled (3.6% to 7.0%).

The  English  OP  is  structured  along  the  five  policy  field  approach  of  the  ESF
Regulation and closely follows the approach set out in the UK CSF. The total value
of the programme is €4 111 million, representing  87% of the total UK  Objective 3
allocation.  The  split  between  policy  fields  is:  active  labour  market  policies  -  25%,
equal opportunities for all, promoting social inclusion - 26%, lifelong learning - 26%,
adaptability  and  entrepreneurship  -  14%,  improving  women’s  labour  market
participation - 7% and technical assistance - 2%.

The  Scottish  OP  has  a  value  of  €498  million  and  places  heavy  emphasis  on  social
inclusion  problems  experienced  in  inner  city  areas,  particularly  Glasgow.  The
breakdown  by  policy  fields  of  the  ESF  Regulation  is  as  follows:  raising
employability (23%),  addressing  social exclusion (37%),  lifelong  learning  (10%),  a
competitive  economy  (22%),  addressing  gender  imbalances  (7%)  and  technical
assistance (1%).

The total value of the Wales OP is €132 million and greater  emphasis is  placed on
the entrepreneurship and adaptability fields than in the other OPs. The split between
policy  fields  is:  active  labour  market  policies  -  25%,  promoting  social  inclusion  -
21%,  lifelong  learning  -  22%,  adaptability  and  entrepreneurship  -  23%,  improving
women’s labour market participation - 7% and technical assistance - 2%.

Non-Objective  1  fisheries  will  receive  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €125.5  million.
Decommissioning of fishing vessels receives high priority, followed by aquaculture,
fishing  port  facilities  and  processing  and  marketing.  Following  the  approval  of  the
programme,  the  programme  complement  and  administrative  procedures  need  to  be
prepared.  Thus  selection  of  projects  for  FIFG  is  unlikely  to  take  place  before  the
second quarter of 2001.

2.3.

COORDINATION WITH THE OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

2.3.1. Coordination with the Cohesion Fund

2000 was the first year of operation of the new rules on the operation of the Cohesion
Fund. Since the Fund had operated satisfactorily in 1994-99, only a few amendments
were made to the basic rules going back to 1994.

59

The  new  Regulations  were  adopted  on  21  June  1999  and  came  into  force  on  1
January 2000. They contain changes to take account of the introduction of the euro,
simplify  management  and  improve  efficiency.  The  main  changes  concern  both  the
basic principles (Regulation) and the implementing measures (Annex II to the basic
Regulation).

Cohesion  Fund  assistance  helps  finance  infrastructure  projects  in  the  field  of
transport  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the  trans-European  networks  and
projects in the field of the environment which help these countries achieve the goals
laid  down  in  the  Union’s  environmental  policy.  The  Cohesion  Fund  helps  the  four
beneficiary Member States to maintain a high level of public investment in these two
fields of common interest, while meeting targets for reductions in budget deficits set
in  the  convergence  programmes  set  up  in  preparation  for  economic  and  monetary
Union.

The main instrument for coordinating  assistance from the Cohesion Fund and  from
the Structural Funds is the Strategic Reference Framework. The presentation by the
Member States to the Commission of a strategic reference framework is the logical
corollary  to  the  new  legal  arrangements  governing  the  operations  of  the  Cohesion
Fund. Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No
1265/1999, states that “Member States shall also provide the results of the environmental
impact assessment in conformity with the Community legislation, and their consistency with
a general environmental or transport strategy at administrative unit or sectoral level,”.

The  “Cohesion  Fund  Vade-mecum  2000-2006”,  distributed 
the  national
administrations of the four beneficiary Member States states “this strategy should be
defined and set down formally in a set of guidelines which will provide the “frame of
reference” for assistance from the Fund.

to 

This frame of reference, to be defined at the most appropriate level, should include:

–  a definition of the long term objectives;

–  a list of individual projects;

–  the interim objectives which could be achieved by 2006;

–  the projects to be carried out to achieve those objectives;

–  for  each  project,  an  initial  indication  of  the  investment  costs  and  an  indicative

plan of sources of finance.”

their  strategic  reference  frameworks  for 

the
The  four  countries  submitted 
environment and transport sectors at an information meeting for the Member States
organised  by  the  Commission  on  18  December  2000.  In  some  cases,  these
frameworks form an integral part of the operational programmes approved as part of
the programming of the Structural Funds for 2000-06, which improves coordination
between assistance from the Cohesion Fund and that from the Structural Funds.

60

2.3.2. Coordination  with  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  and  the  European
Investment Fund (EIF)

On 19 January 2000 a  cooperation  agreement was  signed  between  the  Commission
and  the  EIB  on  Community  structural  action  in  2000-06.  It  covers  greater
cooperation  between  the  Bank  and  the  Commission  in  the  following  fields:
preparatory  phases  of  programming  and  negotiations  on  structural  operations,  co-
financing of structural assistance and the evaluation of major projects.

To  implement  this  agreement,  on  7  June  a  framework  agreement  between  the
Commission (DG for Regional Policy) and the EIB covering the period 2000-06 was
signed. This covers the evaluation by the Bank of some major projects submitted for
financing from the Structural Funds by the beneficiary countries.

In addition, a system for contacts between the Commission’s geographical units and
the EIB has been established. It is working well and resulted in a high-level meeting
in Luxembourg on 4 December attended by Director-General of the Regional Policy
DG and  the Directors-General  of  the  Bank. The conclusions  of the meeting  set  out
the fields in which close cooperation between the two institutions should be pursued.
Working parties were set up to implement these guidelines.

As  regards  the  priorities  for  cooperation,  particular  attention  was  paid  to  the  i2i
initiative  and  to  innovative  financial  products,  i.e.  venture  capital  and  global  loans
contributing to the main priority of effective support for regional development.

During 2000, the Bank devoted €30.6 billion to projects in the Union compared with
€27.8  billion  in  1999.  Support  from  the  Bank  for  the  most  disadvantaged  regions
amounted to €13.7 billion in individual loans and €6.2 billion in global loans (with a
substantial  increase  in  finance  for  small  firms).  The  main  countries  receiving  EIB
loans  were  Germany  (19.7%),  Italy  (18.4%),  Spain  (13.7%),  the  United  Kingdom
(10.8%) and France (10.8%).

Work of the EIB in the Union

Regional development

2000

30.6 %

> 66 %

1999

1998

27.8 %

25.1 %

61%

71%

On  7  December  2000  the  EIF  and  the  European  Investment  Bank  signed  a  Master
Agreement strengthening the relations between the two institutions and streamlining
the type of operations offered by each of them.

This  agreement  concerns  the  transfer  of  the  management  of  all  existing  EIB  risk
capital investment to the EIF and the transfer of the EIF’s infrastructure guarantees
portfolio to the EIB.

Within the EIB Group the EIF is now dealing exclusively with all venture capital and
SME portfolio guarantee transactions (European Community resources and EIB/EIF
resources).

61

Within  these  two  fields  of  EIF  assistance  the  following  important  guidelines  have
been approved:

–  The  European  Community’s  venture  capital  scheme  "ETF  Start-up"  will  be
expanded  and  reoriented  towards  the  financing  of  incubators  and  seed-capital
funds.

–  The  SME  guarantee  activity  of  the  EIF  will  be  extended  towards  guarantee  of
microcredit, guarantee of equity, guarantee  investments  of SME’s  in the  field of
information and communication technologies (ICT).

–  The  Council  of  20  December  confirmed  the  role  of  the  EIF  as  the  specialist

financial instrument for small firms in the European Union.

Further,  since  September  2000,  the  EIF’s  Board  has  approved  10  venture  capital
operations  totalling  €186  million  and  11  guarantee  operations  for  a  total  of  €206
million.

2.3.3. Financial assistance for the trans-European networks (RTE)

Coordination  between  the  trans-European  transport  and  energy  networks  (TENs)
budget  and  the  Structural  Funds,  in  particular  ERDF  resources,  is  important  in
Objective  1  and  2  areas  and  the  Cohesion  countries  because  these  Community
financial instruments take into account the need for regions suffering from handicaps
of a structural nature or because of their insular, landlocked or peripheral location to
have links to the central regions of the Community.

The TENs Regulation does not in principle allow the same phase of a single project
to be financed both from the TENs budget and from other Community sources but, in
some cases, feasibility studies financed from the TENs budget may  be followed  by
support  from  the  ERDF  and  the  EIB  for  the  (co-)financing  mainly  of  construction
works  for  the  actual  investment.  In  the  area  of  transport,  the  ERDF  frequently
finances works designed to give access to the trans-European transport network, the
components of which are themselves financed from the TENs budget line and/or the
Cohesion Fund.

In  2000  the  TENs  budget  line  had  €14  million  in  commitment  and  €11  million  in
payment  appropriations  for  energy  and  €594  million  in  commitment  and  €486
million in payment appropriations for transport.

The TENs financial Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 was amended by Regulation (EC)
No  1655/1999  to  provide  for  medium-term  planning  via  indicative  multi-annual
investment programmes (MIP), for the encouragement of public-private partnerships
and  use  of  a  small  amount  of  the  budget  line  (1-2%)  to  support  projects  involving
risk  capital.  During  2000  the  Financial  Assistance  Committee,  which  assists  the
Commission in implementing the TENs Regulation, delivered a positive opinion on
the MIP for the period 2000-06, which will be revised in 2003. The current proposal
that  will  be  adopted  by  the  Commission  before  summer  2001  contains  about  €2.8
billion  for  11  priority  projects  (Essen  projects),  the  Global  Navigation  Satellite
Systems project (“Galileo”) and four groups of projects of common interest.

A  joint  initiative  was  launched  in  1997  by  the  Directorates-General  for  the
Information Society and Regional Policy to improve the quality of local information

62

on  tourism  and  SMEs  through  a  critical  mass  of  interoperable  and  reliable
information. Under this initiative 15 projects were co-financed by the TEN-Telecom
programme. The projects aimed to promote the use of electronic commerce through
an Internet network amongst SMEs operating in the tourism sector and located in the
less  favoured  regions  of  the  Union.  In  2000  the  Commission  carried  out  an
assessment of these projects with the help of external experts. The overall conclusion
was  that  they  contributed  significantly  to  a  pioneering  measure  toward  e-Europe,
integrating  actions  at  local  level  with  those  at  European  level,  while  respecting  the
principle of subsidiarity.

2.4.

COHERENCE WITH OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES (WITHIN THE MEANING OF
ARTICLE 12 OF THE GENERAL REGULATION ON THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS)

2.4.1. The Structural Funds and employment policy

In line with the Amsterdam Treaty, at the Luxembourg  Summit  in  November 1997
the  Heads  of  State  and  Government  agreed  a  framework  for  action  based  on  the
commitment from Member States to establish a set of common objectives and targets
for  employment  policy  based  on  four  pillars:  employability,  entrepreneurship,
adaptability  and  equal  opportunities.  The  so-called  Luxembourg  process  comprises
several  components:  the  Employment  Guidelines  for  Member  States’  employment
policies,  Member  States’  National  Action  Plans,  the  Joint  Employment  Report  and
country-specific recommendations. In this way, the Luxembourg process is a rolling
programme  of  yearly  planning,  monitoring,  examination  and  re-adjustment.  The
NAPs provide an important occasion for reporting on the links between the work of
the Structural Funds and employment strategy. It emerged from the NAPs for 2000
that some initial adjustments for the 1994-99 programming period had been made by
reallocations  towards  preventive  action  and  other  EES  priorities  within  the  target
groups identified for ESF support. In 2000-06, all the  Member  States will  be using
the European Social Fund to underpin the European Employment Strategy.

Analysis6 of programming documents agreed so far shows that new ESF programmes
will make an investment in people of around €60 billion as part of the modernisation
and reform of the labour markets. Negotiations on ESF programmes have shown the
commitment of the Member States to allocate Community funding in line with their
employment policies as established in the framework of the Luxembourg process. In
this sense, the ESF has shifted its focus from an essentially training programme to a
policy  oriented  instrument  with  a  wide  range  of  measures  to  invest  in  people.  The
most  clear-cut  example  is  the  priority  given  to  preventive  measures  in  ESF
programmes, 
long-term
unemployment.  The  new  programmes  make  firm  commitments  to  gender  equality,
social  inclusion,  promoting  the  knowledge-based  economy  and  wider  access  to  the
benefits  of  information  and  communication  technologies.  ESF  support  under
Objectives 1 and 37 will support the four pillars of the EES in the following ways8:

to  stop  people  sliding 

i.e.  early  assistance 

into 

6

7

8

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and
Social  Committee  on  European  Social  Fund  support  for  the  European  Employment  Strategy  (COM
(2001)16.
Until negotiations are complete it is not possible to present figures on how the remaining Funds under
Objective 2 will support the employment strategy.
Figures 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of support for each of the four pillars of the EES by each Member
State.

63

                                                
(cid:1)  Employability:  Around  60%  (€34  billion)  of  the  European  Social  Fund  budget
will be allocated to improve employability across  the  Union. Particular  attention
will  be  paid  to:  preventing  long-term  unemployment,  improving  the  transition
from  school  to  work  for  young  people,  education  and  training  for  adults  and
modernisation of the public employment services. Some €9 billion is earmarked to
fight social exclusion.

(cid:1)  Entrepreneurship:  The  promotion  of  entrepreneurship  will  receive  €8  billion
from  the  ESF  to  provide  the  essential  leverage  for  new  business  start-ups,  the
promotion  of  local  employment  initiatives  and  job  creation  in  the  service  sector
and social economy.

(cid:1)  Adaptability: Almost €11 billion will be allocated to invest in the adaptability of
the  European  labour  force,  with  the  main  priorities  being  the  development  of
continuous  learning,  ICT  use,  and  SME-oriented  activities.  In  addition,  other
actions address the issues of alternative and flexible forms of work organisation.

(cid:1)  Equal  opportunities:  the  mainstreaming  of  equal  opportunities  throughout  the
entire  strategy  means  that  there  is  no  precise  amount  devoted  to  equal
opportunities.  The  budget  for  specific  actions,  however,  accounts  for  around  €4
billion.  Gender  mainstreaming  has  gained  momentum  in  connection  with  the
implementation of the NAPs since 1998 and will be further developed.

The overall package of support provides a sound basis to underpin both the European
Employment  Strategy  and  the  policy  commitments  made  at  the  Lisbon  European
Council. The ESF will also be used to support the measures taken to comply with the
Council’s  Recommendations  on  the  implementation  of  Member  States’  policies,  in
all  cases  where  such  support  would  be  eligible.  Using  its  own  instruments,  the
Commission  will  try  to  identify  the  scope  of  new  themes  and  institutional,
operational and procedural approaches, e.g. the development of a local dimension for
the  EES  through  Article  6.  The  challenge  is  now  for  national,  regional  and  local
authorities, the social partners and the Commission to make the programmes work.

Improving links between ESF and the NAPs

The regional and local authorities have traditionally played a very important role in
the  implementation  of  ESF  assistance.  Their  involvement  in  the  formulation  of  the
main  policy  priorities for  ESF  support  has  enabled  regional  diversities  and  locally-
tailored needs to be taken into account in the programmes within the framework of
the National Action Plans. However, there is still room for improvement and national
administrations  should  endeavour  to  fully  exploit  the  synergies  between  the  policy
formulation  on  one  hand  and  EU-supported  financial  instruments  on  the  other.
Evidence  on  the  NAP  process  reported  in  2000  suggests  that  the  main  points  for
improvement  are  therefore  firstly  more  visible  and  ambitious  contributions  by  the
other  Structural  Funds;  secondly,  implementation  of  the  programmes  now  decided
and the NAP process could more closely be linked at national level.

2.4.2. Structural Funds, rural development policy and fisheries policy

Rural development policy, with assistance from the EAGGF Guidance Section (for
Objective  1  and  the  Leader+  Community  Initiative)  or  the  EAGGF  Guarantee
Section (for Objective 2 and the national rural development plans), aims primarily at

64

making rural regions more competitive and helping protect and  create jobs in those
regions.

As part of the reform of the common agricultural policy, rural development measures
support and complement its market policies.

They help promote the adaptation of agricultural structures as part of the reform of
the common agricultural policy designed to encourage  a multifunctional agriculture
and seek to diversify economic activities in rural areas.

Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development by the
EAGGF states that support may be provided only  for measures which comply  with
Community law. Such measures must also be consistent with the other Community
policies and the measures implemented under them and with measures implemented
under the other instruments of the common agricultural policy (market organisations,
and agricultural quality and health).

The  priority  for  the  structural  policy  for  fisheries,  an  aspect  of  the  common
fisheries  policy,  is  the  search  for  a  lasting  balance  between  fisheries  resources  and
their exploitation. It must also help ensure the stability and sustainable development
of  firms  in  the  sector,  further  improve  supply  and  the  exploitation  of  fisheries  and
aquaculture products and contribute to revitalising areas dependent on fisheries.

In no case may aid for the fishing fleet, whether Community or national, contribute
to an increase in the fishing effort. Apart from aid for decommisioning, which is still
available, public aid for the construction of new vessels is authorised only if there is
definitive  withdrawal,  without  public  aid,  of  an  equivalent,  or  in  some  cases
substantially higher, amount of fishing capacity.

Assistance  co-financed  by  the  FIFG  must  also  help  all  components  of  the  sector
(fleet,  processing  and  marketing  of  products,  aquaculture,  port  facilities)  to  meet  a
number  of  challenges:  globalisation  of  economies,  more  stringent  consumer
requirements as regards product quality, higher hygiene standards and better working
conditions on vessels.

2.4.3 Structural Funds and environmental policy

The Regulations on the Funds and a bigger role for the environment

The Regulations on the Funds for 2000-06 provide for more systematic attention to
be  paid  to  environmental  aspects:  sustainable  development  and  the  protection  and
improvement  of  the  environment  are  now  considerations  which  run  through  all  the
Objectives  of  the  Structural  Funds  and  which  must  be  incorporated  in  the
preparation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes.

This principle is to be found in the provisions on the designation of the partnership,
the  compatibility  of  operations  financed  by  the  Funds  and  the  modulation  of
contribution rates, mainly by  application of the principles  of precaution, prevention
and the polluter-pays.

Plans  and  assistance  must  also  include  an  ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  environmental
situation  of  the  region  concerned,  including  a  quantified  description  of  the
environmental situation, an estimate of the impact expected from the strategy and the

65

that  situation  and 

assistance  on 
include  environmental
considerations in the assistance and ensure compliance with Community rules on the
environment.

the  provisions 

to 

In  addition,  the  ‘Guidance  for  the  programmes  for  2000-06’  stress  the  need  to
include the environmental dimension in all sectors. This approach is in line with the
two  horizontal  principles  of  the  guidance:  sustainable  development  and  equal
opportunities.

Participation  in  the  Structural  Funds  Monitoring  Committees  of  the  authorities
responsible  for  the  environment,  at  both  national  and  regional  level,  is  an
achievement which has enriched programming for the new period.

Environmental legislation and the Structural Funds

Assistance from the Structural Funds must ensure compliance with the main aspects
of  Community  legislation  on  the  environment,  particularly  in  the  fields  of  the
protection  of  nature  and  watercourses  and  the  assessment  of  the  impact  on  the
environment.

Nature

There are two basic directives on nature protection: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora9 (the
‘habitats’  Directive)  and  Council  Directive  79/409/EEC  of  2  April  1979  on  the
conservation of wild birds.10

The  first  provides  for  the  establishment  of  a  European  network  of  protected  sites
(Natura  2000)  including  the  protection  areas  designated  in  the  two  directives.  To
some extent,  the problems and delays encountered in implementing programmes  in
1994-99  (several  Member  States  had  not  designated  the  sites  to  be  protected)
improved to some extent during 2000.

Nevertheless,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  rules  governing  the  period  2000-06,  Mr
Barnier  (the  Member  of  the  Commission  responsible  for  regional  policy),  in
agreement  with  Ms  Walström  (the  Member  of  the  Commission  responsible  for  the
environment),  reminded  the  Member  States  of  their  obligations  in  this  respect  and
told them that the programming documents for  the  new  period  had  to  include  clear
and  irrevocable  commitments  to  ensure  that  this  programming  included  the
protection  of  sites  which  forms  part  of  Natura  2000.  Where  necessary,  a  clause  to
that effect was included in the CSFs, SPDs and OPs.

To  the  same  end,  the  Member  of  the  Commission  responsible  for  agriculture,  Mr
Fischler,  asked  the  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  programming  documents
included commitments concerning compliance with the ‘Nitrates’ directive.

9

10

JO L 206, 22.7.1992.
JO L 103, 25.4.1979.

66

                                                
Water

The main event of 2000 was the adoption on 23 October of the framework-directive
for a Community water policy (2000/60/EC); it has two main aims: to ensure that all
water(surface  and  ground  water  and  protected  areas)  is  of  good  chemical  and
ecological  quality  through  integrated  management  at  water  basin  level  and  to  ask
Member  States  to  take  account  of  the  principle  of  recovering  the  costs  of  services
related  to  water  use  (including  environmental  and  resource  costs)  and  the  polluter-
pays principle.

As  regards  the  treatment  of  urban  waste  water,  Directive  91/271/EEC,  as  amended
by Directive 98/15/EC, set two main deadlines for implementation  the  end  of  1998
and the end of 2000. Throughout 2000 the Structural Funds continued to co-finance
infrastructure  which  helps  implement  the  principles  concerning  sensitive  areas  and
the  main  agglomerations; 
to  complete
implementation of this Directive, with the provision of adequate structures in smaller
agglomerations.

the  period  2001-05  will  be  used 

Waste management

In 2000, the Commission adopted Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament
and of  the  Council on the  incineration of waste.  This  Directive  seeks  to  prevent  or
reduce,  as  far  as  possible,  the  pollution  of  air,  water  and  soil  resulting  from  the
incineration and co-incineration of waste and the resulting risks to human health. The
year  also  saw  progress  in  work  on  defining  the  technical  criteria  for  implementing
Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. The European waste catalogue and the
list of hazardous waste was thoroughly revised by Decision 2000/532/EC resulting in
a new  and  more exhaustive list  of wastes which will come into force on  1  January
2002

Evaluation of environmental impact

Directive  97/11/EC  on  the  assessment  of  effects  on  the  environment,  amending
Directive 85/337/EEC, came into force on 14 March 1999 but its impact only really
began  to  be  felt  during  2000.  The  number  of  types  of  infrastructure  projects  under
Annex I - for which an environmental impact assessment is compulsory - grew and
the  types  of  projects  under  Annex  II  -  which  also  grew  -  must  be  assessed  in
accordance with the procedure set out in Annex III to the Directive.

2.4.4. The Structural Funds and competition policy

At the end of 1997, the Commission adopted new Guidelines on national regional aid in the
Community in which it sought to strengthen checks on this important category of State
aid. The new Guidelines consolidated the criteria used to assess the compatibility of
national  regional  aid  measures.  The  Guidelines  also  clarified  the  rules  for  the
demarcation of regions qualifying for regional aid under Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of
the EC Treaty.

In  the  beginning  of  1998,  the  Commission  informed  Member  States  of  the  new
Guidelines and invited them to bring their existing regional aid systems in line with
the new rules by 2000. A key element of the exercise was the review of the regional
aid  maps  of  each  of  the  15  Member  States.  The  difficulty  of  this  exercise  was

67

exacerbated by the fact that the Commission wanted to use the opportunity to reduce
substantially the coverage of the regional aid maps in the Community

In the course of 1999-2000, new regional aid maps were established for each of the
15 Member States. The Commission considers that it has attained the main objectives
it had set out to achieve with this exercise. All maps have been defined on the basis
of  a  transparent  and  objective  method  ensuring  equal  treatment  for  all  15  Member
States.  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  has  succeeded,  with  the  help  of  the
Member States, in reducing significantly the population coverage of the regional aid
maps, from 46.7% to 42.7% of the Community’s population. A strict application of
the  eligibility  criteria  has  resulted  in  a  tighter  demarcation  of  the  assisted  regions.
This  should  enable  the  Member  States  to  focus  their  regional  assistance  on  the
regions suffering the most severe economic problems. The Commission is convinced
that  a  greater  degree  of  concentration  will  enhance  the  incentive  quality  of  the
regional aid granted, thereby increasing its overall effectiveness.

2.4.5. Structural Funds and public procurement

Under  Article  12  of  the  general  Regulation  on  the  Structural  Funds  (((EC)  No
1260/1999),  ‘Operations  financed  by  the  Funds  ...  shall  be  in  conformity  with  the
provisions  of  the  Treaty,  with  instruments  adopted  under  it  and  with  Community
policies  and  actions,  including  the  rules  on  ...  the  award  of  public  contracts.’  The
management  of  the  Structural  Funds  has  been  more  decentralised,  which  increases
the responsibility of the Member States,  and in particular the managing authorities,
when  awarding  contracts  financed  by  the  Community  Funds.  To  ensure  that  these
procedures comply with Community rules, the Commission, without prejudice to its
powers  to intervene when Community law  is  infringed,  is  encouraging  the  national
authorities to take preventive measures, such as adequate training for staff involved
in awarding such contracts and the production of guides and handbooks for the award
of contracts.

The  Commission  checks  that  the  procedures  for  awarding  contracts  comply  with
Community  law  by  ensuring  that  the  relevant  Community  directives  have  been
transposed into national law and by using its powers to intervene when Community
law is infringed.

2.4.6. Structural Funds and equality for men and women

As a result of the new legal framework introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and the
European  Employment  Strategy,  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  has  been  more
firmly rooted in the new Structural Funds Regulations. The new regulations propose
an  integrated  equality  strategy.  Together  with  horizontal  integration  of  equal
opportunities  (gender  mainstreaming),  specific  measures  to  promote  women  are
needed  in  order  to  reduce  continuing  inequalities.  This  new  legal  framework  is  of
major  importance  as  a  legal  basis  and  as  an  incentive  to  implement  the  policy
incorporating  equality  into  the  Structural  Funds.  The  Commission  has  drawn  up  a
Technical Paper on this issue which sets out guidelines on practical arrangements for
implementing  gender  mainstreaming  in  operations  co-financed  by  the  Structural

68

Funds.11  The  equal  opportunities  dimension  has  also  been  incorporated  into  the
Methodological  Working  Papers  drawn  up  by  the  Commission  services  on
programming, ex-ante evaluation, monitoring and evaluation.12.

In the negotiations with the Member States on the content of the new programmes,
the  Commission  stressed  the  need  for  more  effective  measure  on  equality.  A  more
comprehensive  approach  taking  into  account  gender  mainstreaming  and  specific
measures  has  been  introduced  in  the  new  Community  support  frameworks  (CSFs)
and single programming documents (SPDs). There is, for instance, a more in-depth
analysis  of  socio-economic  inequalities  between  women  and  men.  However,  the
analysis has not always been followed up with quantified targets for greater equality.
In  a  number  of  programmes,  there  are  provisions  for  integrating  the  gender
dimension  in  the  Monitoring  Committees,  for  example  by  a  gender-balanced
composition,  by  ensuring  the  participation  of  bodies  promoting  equality,  or  by  the
setting up of working groups on equal opportunities. In a number of Member States,
more  attention is devoted  to  the development  of  childcare  services  as  a  measure  to
reconcile work and family life.

Since  gender  equality  is  mainstreamed  throughout  the  entire  strategy,  it  is  not
possible at this stage to calculate exactly how much is devoted to it. An assessment
of  the  programme  complements  for  Structural  Funds  programmes  will  provide
further details on the scale of funds going towards gender mainstreaming.

It  is  important  now  that  gender  equality  is  taken  into  account  in  implementing  the
operations.

The  Structural  Funds  should  be  a  catalyst  for  Community  and  national  policies  on
equal opportunities. Improving the use of the Structural Funds for the promotion of
gender equality is one objective of  the Community Framework  Strategy on Gender
Equality  (2001-2005)13.  Under  the  Strategy,  the  Commission  will  undertake  to
propose  a  Communication  on  the  implementation  of  gender  mainstreaming  in  the
new  programming  documents,  including  highlighting  of  best  practice.  In  order  to
strengthen  cooperation  within  its  services  and  among  those  responsible  at  national
level, the Commission will set up an ad hoc group on equality in the Structural Funds
within  the  Commission  Interservice  Group  on  Gender  Equality  and  a  network  of
persons responsible  in the  Member  States  for  incorporating  equality  issues  into  the
Structural Funds.

11

12

13

Technical  Paper  3  "Mainstreaming  equal  opportunities  for  women  and  men  in  Structural  Fund
programmes and projects" (http://inforegio.cec.eu.int)
Annex 4 of Working Paper 2 "The ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  Structural  Funds  assistances"  deals  with
equality  between  men  and  women.  Sheet  I  of  Working  Paper  3  "Indicators  for  Monitoring  and
Evaluation".  (http://inforegio.cec.eu.int).  Guidelines  for  systems  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  ESF
assistance in the period 2000-2006.
Communication  "Towards  a  Community  Framework  Strategy  on  Gender  Equality  (2001-2005)"  and
Proposal for a Council Decision on the Programme relating to the Community Framework Strategy on
Gender 
2000.
final, 
COM(2000) 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/news/arsenal_en.htm

(2001-2005), 

Equality 

June 

335 

7 

69

                                                
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

3.1.

EX-ANTE EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVE 2

The  purpose  of  and  requirements  for  the  ex-ante  evaluation  are  set  out  in  the
regulations  on  the  Structural  Funds  adopted  in  1999.  Article  41  specifies  that  each
authority responsible for preparing the plans, assistance and programme complement
will also be responsible for organising the ex-ante evaluation. The ex-ante evaluation
is  an  integral  part  of  the  plans,  assistance  and  programme  complements.  It  was
therefore essential in all Objective 2 single programming documents (SPDs).

Process and contents of ex-ante evaluation

The Commission’s working paper on ex-ante evaluation provided guidance on what
the  ex-ante  evaluation  should  contain  and  how  it  should  be  undertaken.  The  key
components are:

(cid:1)  analysis of previous evaluation results;

(cid:1)  analysis  of  the strengths, weaknesses  and  potential of  the  State,  region  or  sector

concerned;

(cid:1)  assessment of the rationale and the overall consistency of the strategy;

(cid:1)  quantification of objectives;

(cid:1)  evaluation of the expected socio-economic impacts and justification of the policy

and financial resources allocation; and

(cid:1)  quality of the implementation and monitoring arrangements.

The  concept  of  the  ex-ante  evaluation  includes  the  process  through  which  it  is
undertaken,  as  much  as  the  contents  of  the  evaluation  report.  The  Structural  Fund
regulation makes clear that the evaluation forms part of the programming document.
The  Commission’s  guide  to  the  ex-ante  evaluation  suggests  that  the  evaluation
should be an interactive process between the evaluator and those responsible for the
preparation of the plans, with the evaluators providing expert input and engaging in
constructive dialogue with the planners. The ex-ante evaluation is therefore not only
the  content  of  the  evaluation  report,  but  also  the  process  through  which  the
evaluators  interacted  with  the  planners.  The  ultimate  objective  is  to  enhance  the
quality  of  the  programming  documents  and  thereby  enhance  the  effectiveness  and
impact of the assistance supported by the Structural Funds.

Organisation of the ex-ante evaluations

Ex-ante evaluations of all 95 Objective 2 SPDs were carried out and were submitted
to  the  Commission  together  with  the  SPDs  or  they  formed  part  of  the  SPDs
submitted  during  2000.  The  great  majority  of  the  ex-ante  evaluations  were
undertaken  externally  by  independent  evaluators  selected  through  public  calls  for
tender. Some of the evaluations in Spain and Italy involved a combination of internal
evaluation  work,  with  elements  contracted  out  (e.g.,  macro-economic  analysis,

70

environmental  analysis,  etc.).  In  France  too,  one  of  the  ex-ante  evaluations  was
undertaken  using  internal  expertise.  Further  variation  was  evident  in  the  degree  to
which  the  Objective  2  SPDs  and  ex-ante  evaluations  were  coordinated  centrally  at
Member State level as opposed to being undertaken autonomously in the regions.

A  large  number  of  evaluators  were  involved  in  the  ex-ante  evaluations  across  the
entire Objective 2 area. The same evaluator was involved in three evaluations at most
in different regions  within the  Member  State  in  the  UK,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,
Sweden,  Germany  and  France.  Given  that  95  ex-ante  evaluations  were  carried  out,
this demonstrates a relatively open evaluation market.

In  the  majority  of  cases,  the  ex-ante  evaluations  followed  the  Commission’s
guidelines  as  regards  content,  although  there  was  variation  in  how  they  were
presented. In some cases the evaluation was integrated into the SPD, while in others
the whole evaluation was annexed.

Perhaps  the  most  significant  innovation  of  ex-ante  evaluation  was  the  emphasis  on
the  interactive  process  as  an  important  element  of  the  exercise.  There  was
considerable  variation  in  the  degree  of  that  interaction  across  the  different  regions,
ranging from the ex-ante evaluation being a short desk exercise undertaken after the
SPD  was  drafted,  through  the  limited  use  of  evaluators  for  the  provision  of
information and empirical  evidence to support the strategy decided on for  or in  the
region,  through  to  evidence  of  real  interaction  taking  place  between  the  evaluators
and the planners. Given the novelty of the concept, this range of approach was to be
expected; however, it represents a significant development in evaluation practice in
Objective 2 regions which can be built on in the future.

Impact of the ex-ante evaluations

The impact of the ex-ante evaluations depended on two factors:

(cid:1)  the quality of the evaluation including the ability and willingness of the evaluators

to constructively challenge those preparing the SPDs; and

(cid:1)  the  willingness  of  the  national  or  regional  authorities  to  engage  in  a  dynamic

process of development of the SPD through the ex-ante evaluation process.

The quality of the ex-ante evaluations varied within and between Member States, as
did the attitude of those responsible for preparing the draft SPDs. In the best cases,
the  ex-ante  evaluation  was  actually  a  process,  and  the  outcome  was  an  enhanced
SPD, rather than an evaluation report which may have met the content requirements
for the ex-ante evaluation but was not integrated into the SPD. In these cases, there
was  a  constructive  dialogue  between  the  evaluators  and  those  responsible  for
developing the SPDs.

The  impact  of  the  ex-ante  evaluations  is  most  clearly  evident  in  the  improved
technical aspects of the SPDs. The most significant added value is seen in the quality
of  the  socio-economic  analysis,  the  SWOT  analysis  and  the  quantification  of
objectives:

71

(cid:1)  The  socio-economic  analyses  were  enhanced  through  the  work  of  the  ex-ante
evaluations, leading to a clearer presentation of the baseline situations which the
SPDs aim to address. One difficulty for the evaluations and indeed the SPDs arose
where Objective 2 regions were very small and detailed data were not available at
the relevant level. In some cases data for larger regions had to be presented with
the situation for the Objective 2 areas being deduced.

(cid:1)  Through  their  contribution  to  the  SWOT  analyses,  the  ex-ante  evaluations  were
instrumental  in  strengthening  the  linkages  between  the  socio-economic  analysis
and the strategy of the SPDs, thus improving the coherence of the entire planning
process.

(cid:1)  The  ex-ante  evaluations  had  a  particular  impact  on  the  quantification  of
objectives.  In  general,  the  Commission’s  guidance  on  indicators  –  using  output,
result  and  impact  indicators,  as  well  as  core  indicators  in  some  regions  –  was
followed,  which has led to a  greater  coherence  and  comparability  of  data  across
the Objective 2 regions.

The ex-ante evaluations also contributed to the quantification of baselines in relation
to equal opportunities, the environment, employment and the information society, all
key Commission priorities. In some cases, however, more work had to be undertaken
either  by  the  experts  contracted  to  undertake  the  ex-ante  evaluation  or  by  other
experts  to  fully  meet  the  Commission’s  requirements  in  relation  to  equal
opportunities and the environment.

We  can  conclude that the impact  of  the  ex-ante  evaluations  on  Objective  2  was  an
improvement  in  the  quality  of  programming.  The  ultimate  impact  of  that
improvement  should  be  seen  in  the  enhanced  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the
assistance co-financed by the Structural Funds under Objective 2 between 2000 and
2006.

3.2.

FINAL EVALUATION OF THE ESF (1994-99)

Conclusions of the final evaluations of the ESF: Objectives 1, 3 and 4

The final evaluations of assistance from the ESF, carried out n the Member States in
partnership  with  the  Commission  (summarised  at  Community  level14),  cover  all
assistance  from  the  ESF  under  Objectives  1,  3  and  4  and  the  theme  of  equal
opportunities for men and women.

The  main  feature  of  programming  for  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  in  1994-99
was innovation, for example, concentration on those most remote from employment
and  the  new  Objective  4.  The  ESF  permitted  the  development  or  expansion  of  the
strategic  aspects  of  national  policies.  The  programmes  achieved  their  financial
objectives. In the case of Objectives 1 and 3, targeting the most vulnerable sectors of
the population (the long-term unemployed, women and  other  less-favoured  groups)
was only relative (the beneficiaries were  young people and the skilled unemployed,
men  were  over-represented).  Objective  4,  which  targeted  small  firms  and  those
threatened  with  unemployment,  trained  primarily  managers,  heads  of  firms  and

14

‘Conclusions of the ESF final evaluation’, Employment and Social Affairs 2000.

72

                                                
skilled  workers  with  the  aim  of  achieving  a  multiplier  effect  on  all  the  employed.
Women were under represented.

For all the Objectives, the ESF financed primarily training measures, although these
were diversified and included better integration among different types of measures.

The impact  on the  direct beneficiaries is felt  through  their  enhanced  employability
and/or their integration into the labour market.

(cid:1)  Gross  placement  rates  on  the  labour  market  increased  in  1994-99,  principally  in
line  with  the  improved  situation  on  the  labour  market.  These  rates  tend  to  be
higher  for  young  people  and  those  who  have  been  unemployed  for  only  a  short
time. Women are principally represented in temporary and part-time jobs, which
tends to promote gender-related occupational segregation.

(cid:1)  These  results  change  somewhat  when  net  placement  rates  are  considered.  These
demonstrate that  measures which target  the more disadvantaged  or  those  remote
from  the  labour  market  are  more  effective  (the  unemployed  who  are  older,  less
skilled or who have been unemployed for a long time). The rates of moving on or
transition are higher for women than for men.

(cid:1)  Integrated measures (pathways  to integration)  produce  better  rates  of  integration

and progress than training measures alone.

(cid:1)  In the  case of employed  workers improvements  in  employability  (a  reduced  risk

of unemployment) are few and inconclusive.

The impacts on the systems vary by Member State and Objective:

(cid:1)  In all Member States, the ESF has helped improve active labour  market  policies
by  encouraging  innovative  approaches,  reaching  groups  traditionally  outside  the
scope of such policies, increasing the resources  available  for  such  measures  and
structuring the supply of on-going training and the ability to anticipate.

(cid:1)  In Objective 1 regions, the ESF has helped improve the quality of the educational
and  training  systems,  manly  for  certification  and  accreditation  and  to  bring  the
educational and training systems closer together.

Recommendations made in the reports:

(cid:1)  to  improve  targeting  on  labour  market  problems  and  concentrate  assistance  to
ensure a certain “visibility” and value added by the ESF compared with national
provisions and policies;

(cid:1)  to  improve  the  identification  of  individual  problems  and  encourage  integrated

approaches;

(cid:1)  to  structure  training  and  educational  systems  more  flexibly  and  deal  with  issues
regarding  the  quality  of  the  systems  (education,  training)  after  dealing  with  the
capacity questions which arise mainly in the large Objective 1 areas;

73

(cid:1)  defining arrangements for implementation which permit  more  flexible  assistance
and  bring  the  mechanisms  for  implementing  the  policy  objectives  more  closely
into line;

(cid:1)  improving  the  systems  for  monitoring  and  evaluation  so  that  they  constitute  an

instrument which assists the taking of policy decisions.

Conclusions of the final evaluations of the Employment and Adapt Initiatives

A  specific  evaluation  was  made  at  Community  level  of  the  Community  Initiatives
under the ESF covering trans-nationality, innovation and mainstreaming into national
policies.  On  the  first  point,  the  survey  of  transnational  partnerships  resulted  in  the
identification of several models of transnational cooperation and the reasons for their
success.

The work of the assessors resulted in a number of recommendations:

(cid:1)  The projects could be improved through the establishment of activities providing
information  on  the  submission  of  projects,  a  development  phase  for  projects,
including  the  possibility  of  financing  the  search  for  partners,  synchronisation  of
the selection of projects across the Member States and a greater role for support
structures (NSS).

(cid:1)  Administrative procedures should be simplified through clearly defined selection

criteria, use of less complex payment procedures, etc.

(cid:1)  Closer  cooperation  between  those  concerned  with  national  labour  markets  and

those responsible for the Community Initiatives should be encouraged.

(cid:1)  A  strategy  for  transferring  results,  particularly  the  dissemination  of  results  and
products  on  a  broader  scale,  at  local,  regional,  sectoral,  national  and  European
level should be laid down.

The  recommendations  were  discussed  and  to  a  very  large  extent  included  in  the
design of the new Equal Initiative and the Communication about it. There are three
phases  for  the  implementation  of  projects:  the  construction  of  partnerships,  their
development  and  their  dissemination.  The  types  of  innovations  expected  were  also
defined on the basis of the results of the evaluation.

3.3.

THE EDINBURGH CONFERENCE ON EVALUATION

The  Commission’s  fourth  conference  on  evaluation  was  organised  by 
the
Directorate-General for Regional Policy in Edinburgh in September 2000. This series
of  conferences,  which  started  in  Brussels  in  1995,  aims  to  contribute  to  the
development  of  a  European  “culture  of  evaluation”.  The  fourth  conference  was
entitled  “Evaluation  for  Quality”  and  it  placed  the  issue  of  evaluation  in  the
framework of administrative reform. It had two main objectives:

(cid:1)  the promotion of quality in evaluation and good practice across the Union with a

view to improving the management of the Structural Funds, and

74

(cid:1)  developing  closer  contacts  between  administrations  managing  the  Funds  and
experts  in  evaluation,  in  order  to  enhance  the  value  of  the  results  and
recommendations of evaluations

The conference was attended by 370 participants, of whom 206 were involved in the
administration of evaluation, rather than being evaluation experts. All Member States
were  represented  (some  more  strongly  than  others)  as  well  as  six  of  the  candidate
countries.  Representation  included  the  social  partners,  some  NGOs,  the  European
Investment Bank and the Court of Auditors as well as evaluators and representatives
of  the  administrations  in  the  member  States.  The  presidents  of  the  four  national
evaluation societies in the EU also played an active part in the conference.

The themes addressed in the conference were:

(cid:1)  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  large  plans  –  focusing  particularly  on  the  need  to
develop and improve the techniques for evaluation of the macro economic impact
of  such  programmes.  The  Commission  has  strongly  supported  developments  in
this area and has supported the harmonisation of macro-economic analysis in the
four Cohesion countries (the Hermin model).

(cid:1)  Evaluation  of  operational  programmes  and  SPDs  –  where  there  has  been
considerable  progress  in  the  quality  and  impact  of  evaluations  in  recent  years,
supported  by 
the
Commission. A number of speakers at the conference addressed the issue of how
to enhance  the debate  on  evaluations  such  that  they  lead  to  real  changes.  It  was
proposed that evaluations should present their conclusions more clearly avoiding
the use of technical language where it is not necessary.

technical  documents  and  guidelines  provided  by 

the 

(cid:1)  Cost-benefit  analysis  –  which  has 
improvements in 2000-06 established.

improved  and 

the  basis  for  further

(cid:1)  Thematic evaluations – where research and development and equal opportunities
are  two  areas  where  evaluations  have  had  a  particular  impact.  Initiated  by  the
Commission, thematic evaluations  have  greatest  effect  at  national  level.  At  both
Community and national level, thematic evaluations contribute to the refinement
of  the  priorities  of  programmes,  while  they  also  help  to  establish  Community
value added. Two priority themes for evaluation in the near future are sustainable
development and the information society.

(cid:1)  Quantification  of  objectives  and  benchmarking  –  in  relation  to  quantification  of
objectives,  standardisation  of  terminology,  an  acceptance  of  the  principles  and
real progress in the programming documents for the 2000-06 period were the key
results  recorded.  In  relation  to  benchmarking  progress  is  slower  and  more  work
needs to be undertaken.

The conference itself and the themes which it debated corresponded to the priorities
of  the  Commission  Communication  on  evaluation  under  the  title  of  administrative
reform  (measure  16).  In  addition  to  examining  means  of  improving  the  current
situation  in  relation  to  the  practice  and  use  of  evaluation,  the  conference  sought  to
open the debate on more political questions, particularly those related to the theme of
governance. Issues discussed included the processes which should be put in place to
ensure  the  coherence of evaluations undertaken in partnership, the definition  of the

75

added  value  of  each  party  and  the  ethics  of  this  interaction  between  policy  makers
and  evaluators  in  the  private  sector.  Both  the  Member  of  the  Commission  with
responsibility for regional policy, Mr Barnier, and the Director-General, Mr Crauser,
addressed the conference, emphasising the political dimension of evaluation.

3.4.

CHECKS CARRIED OUT

The ERDF

Under  the  Commission  decision  of  12  July  2000,  the  Directorate-General  for
Financial Control, which was responsible for the control of ERDF expenditure, was
transferred  and  integrated  into  the  Directorate-General  for  Regional  Policy.  During
the first part of the year, as part of the Financial Control Directorate-General, the unit
carried out 9 audit missions. In the second part of the year, following implementation
of the Commission decision, 7 further audit missions were executed. Two missions
were carried out in Greece, Italy, Portugal and the UK, and all other Member States
except Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg were visited once.

The  principal  aims  of  the  audits  were  to  check  the  accuracy  of  expenditure
declarations  from  Member  States  by  verifying  the  audit  trail,  and  to  examine  the
adequacy of the management and control systems.

The main recurrent errors and irregularities identified during the audits were :

(cid:1)  the  inclusion  of  non-eligible  expenditure  in  declarations  (e.g.  bank  charges,

VAT);

(cid:1)  the  failure  to  follow  correct  procedures  for  the  award  of  contracts  or  their

subsequent amendment;

(cid:1)  the absence of a clear audit trail, including failure to have  a  separate accounting

system;

(cid:1)  non-respect of deadlines for the eligibility of expenditure;

(cid:1)  non-compliance with the rules on publicity.

The follow-up of  all  recommendations  and  actions  required  as  a  result  of  the  audit
findings must be completed before the closure of programmes takes place.

The E S F

In  2000  the  Commission  carried  out  52  inspections  on  the  use  of  appropriations
allocated to the ESF. The slight decline in the number of inspections from 1999 was
the  result  of  the  transfer  in  July  of  responsibility  for  ex-post  inspections  from
Financial  Control (DG  Audit) to the Directorate-General for Employment,  with  the
consequent redeployment of staff. The missions programme was revised in October
to take account of these changes.

The  annual  inspection  programme  drawn  up  by  the  Directorate-General  for
Employment  was  sent  to  the  Member  States  and  then  discussed  with  the  national
inspection  authorities  at  various  coordination  meetings  so  that  it  might  have  the
greatest impact.

76

In  the  case  of  financial  audits,  special  priority  was  given  to  checks  on  items  of
assistance to which the ESF has contributed over €10 million.

The audits of monitoring and certification systems concentrated on the mechanisms
for closing assistance used during the 1994-99 programming period under Regulation
(EC) No 2064/97.

A large number of the inspections carried out in 2001 also dealt with these two topics
and permitted checks on the information collected in 2000. In view of the provisions
taken  by  the  Member  States  in  this  regard,  particular  attention  will  be  paid  to
assessing  the  eligibility  of  the  certificates  required  under  Article  8  of  Regulation
(EC) No 2064/97.

The main problems detected during the inspection missions concerned:

the reliability of declarations of expenditure (in particular the incorrect application of
the  rules  on  eligibility  and  the  principle  of  annuality,  the  lack  of  supporting
documents and the over-declaration of expenditure);

the lack of visibility and publicity for assistance co-financed by the ESF;

the  failure  of  certain  promoters  to  respect  the  rules  governing  calls  for  tenders  and
competition;

double  financing  and  overlapping  with  assistance  financed  by  other  European
programmes.

Several  of  these  inspections  resulted  in  financial  corrections  by  the  Member  States
concerned  and  the  implementation  by  the  Commission  of  Article  24  of  Regulation
(EEC) No 4253/88 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2082/93.

The EAGGF Guidance Section

In  2000,  22  inspection  missions  were  carried  out  to  check  on  the  use  of  EAGGF
Guidance  Section  appropriations  managed  by  the  Member  States.  The  main  aims
were to assess the management and inspection systems used (particularly on the basis
of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97)  and  to  check  that  the  financial  and  accounting
reports  and  actual  implementation  complied  with  Community  rules,  the  decisions
granting  assistance  and  the  expenditure  declared  to  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section.
As representative as possible a selection of regions and administrations was sought.
Particularly  at  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  attention  turned  to  the
programmes  where  the  management  systems  at  regional  level  had  not  yet  been
inspected or where they had been altered.

Some types of irregularity were detected in several Member States and applied to a
number  of  measures.  These  included  non-compliance  with  Community  rules  on
public  contracts,  the  granting  of  aid  for  expenditure  which  was  ineligible  (by  its
nature  or  date  of  payment),  substantial  delays  in  payments  to  beneficiaries,  lack  of
publicity  and  information  on  Community  co-financing,  inadequate  inspections  and
incorrect use of conversion rates. The weaknesses, and indeed failures in the systems
for managing payments were drawn to the attention of the administrations concerned.
After these problems had been detected, the declarations of expenditure were revised
downwards and, where appropriate, the Community co-financing was reduced.

77

Particular attention was  paid  to  the  measures  managed  directly  by  the  Commission
(pilot projects under Article 8) and a comparatively large number of inspections were
carried out. The Commission the took a number of decisions to recover funds granted
to pilot projects by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

The FIFG

During 2000, the Commission carried out FIFG on-the-spot inspections in Germany,
Portugal,  Greece  and  Austria.  These inspections concerned mainly  projects  relating
to  aquaculture,  processing,  modernisation  of  fishing  vessels  and  studies.  The
inspection in Austria also covered closure of the Objective 5(a)-fisheries programme
for 1995-99.

The inspections had the following aims:

(cid:1)  correspondence of the administrative or organisational procedures with those laid

down by the inspection systems of the Member State;

(cid:1)  correct financial charging and implementation of the projects;

(cid:1)  implementation of the projects in accordance with the rules and procedures;

(cid:1)  selection process and implementation rate;

(cid:1)  compliance with the rules on on-the-spot inspections by the competent authorities.

Inspections by OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office)

In 2000 OLAF opened 33 new enquiries into cases of fraud or suspected fraud and
carried out 15 inspections concerning structural measures.

For nine of those inspections, OLAF used as their legal basis Regulation (Euratom,
EC)  No  2185/96  concerning  on-the-spot  checks  and  inspections  carried  out  by  the
Commission  in  order  to  protect  the  European  Communities’  financial  interests
against fraud and other irregularities15 and in two cases the sectoral basis, Article 23
of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2082/93.

Four  of  these  missions  were  to  assist  the  judicial  authorities  in  enquiries  begun  in
earlier  years  which  had  resulted  in  the  matter  being  referred  to  them  (Regulation
(EC) No 1073/1999).

It  should  be  noted  that,  besides  the  operational  enquiries  and  their  coordination  at
Community level, the OLAF provides all possible assistance for the coordination of
investigations begun  by  the  competent  national  authorities,  both  administrative  and
judicial.

Almost half the inspections concern enquiries begun earlier; the rest were new cases.

The enquiries cover all the Structural Funds, but principally the ESF followed by the
ERDF.

15

Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p.2.

78

                                                
The enquiries revealed networks for falsifying documents, over-invoicing, ineligible
expenditure, etc.

In addition, for  2000, pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC) No  1681/94,  the Member  States
notified  the  Commission  of  some  1  217  cases  of  irregularity  or  fraud  involving  a
total of some €114.2 million (as against some €120.6 million in 1999).

This  means  that  the  number  of  cases  of  irregularities  notified  is  greater  than  in
previous years but there is still a lot of work to be done if the Member States are to
comply  with  all  their  obligations  under  the  legislation.  The  sums  in  question  are,
however, smaller despite the increase in the number of cases.

Furthermore,  significant  progress  was  made  in  2000  on  application  of  Article  5  of
this  Regulation  which  requires  the  Member  States  to  inform  the  Commission  in
every case of the action taken on the irregularity detected. However, some cases are
still notified without this information, even though the time for the closure of certain
programmes has elapsed.

According  to  Art.  24  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  4253/88  as  amended  by  Regulation
(EEC)  No  2082/93  the  Commission  may  trigger  a  procedure  to  reduce,  suspend  or
cancel  assistance  from  the  Funds.  In  such  case,  the  Commission  has  to  assess  the
seriousness of any irregularity before it takes a decision based on the said regulation.

These cases may firstly relate to bad financial management. In 2000 the Commission
started to investigate on several cases in this respect.

Furthermore the Commission has suspended assistance from the Funds with a view
to  cases  related  to  the  infringement  of  other  Community  legislation  such  as  on
environmental protection and public procurement. An exemplary case in this respect
is the suspension of payments of the Cohesion Fund to a railway project with a view
to  the  failure  to  submit  the  project  to  an  environmental  impact  assessment  in
accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC.

79

CHAPTER 4: DIALOGUE AND INFORMATION

4.1.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The dialogue with the European Parliament normally takes place through the sectoral
parliamentary committees, particularly the Committee for Regional Policy, Transport
and Tourism. This Committee made a number of reports on its own initiative which
were adopted by the whole house:

(cid:1)  draft  guidelines  for  a  Community  Initiative  concerning  the  economic  and  social
regeneration  of  cities  and  of  neighbourhoods  in  crisis  in  order  to  promote
sustainable urban development (Urban II) ;

(cid:1)  draft  guidelines 

trans-European
cooperation intended to  encourage harmonious and balanced development of the
European territory (Interreg III);

Initiative  concerning 

for  a  Community 

(cid:1)  the tenth annual report on the Structural Funds (1998);

(cid:1)  the 1998 annual report on the Cohesion Fund;

(cid:1)  the outermost regions of the European Union;

(cid:1)  enlargement and structural policy;

(cid:1)  draft guidelines for innovative measures under the ERDF.

As soon as he was nominated as Member of the Commission responsible for regional
policy,  Mr  Barnier  undertook  to  keep  the  European  Parliament  regularly  and
personally informed about progress on the various issues.

On three  occasions  (27 January, 22 May  and  11  September  2000)  he  presented  his
work programme: progress on programming for Objective 1, zoning for Objective 2
and  implementation  of  the  budget,  the  Interreg  III  and  Urban  Initiatives,
implementation of ISPA, guidelines for the innovative actions and the progress of the
second report on economic and social cohesion.

On  a  number  of  occasions  throughout  the  year,  the  European  Parliament  held
emergency debates on the various natural disasters which hit certain Member States.
A broad debate on climate change was held on 25 October.

It is mainly the new code of conduct on the implementation of the structural policies,
signed  on  6  May  1999  by  the  Presidents  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the
Commission, which  governs  relations  between  these  two  institutions.  During  2000,
the Commission sent Parliament the plans (draft programmes) of the Member States
and the documents adopted under the various programming for 2000-06.

The ESF also has close contacts with the European Parliament, in particular with the
Committee  on  Social  Affairs  and  Employment. The  ESF  sent  Parliament  the  draft
guidelines  for  the  innovative  action  and  will  take  Parliament’s  opinion  into
consideration. The ESF also met the Members of the Committee on Social Affairs in

80

the  Parliament/ESF  informal  working  group  which  discussed  several  aspects  of
progress in ESF programming.

Most  of  the  discussions  with  the  European  Parliament  on  rural  development
concerned  the  Leader  +  programme.  Parliament’s  Committee  on  Agriculture  and
Rural Development drew  up a  report  proposing  amendments which  was  adopted  at
Parliament’s  February  part-session.  The  Commission  took  some  account  of
Parliament’s opinion in the final version of the guidelines on the application of this
Community Initiative sent to the Member States.  Members  of  Parliament asked  the
Commission 69 written questions and 4 oral questions on rural development.

4.2.

FUND COMMITTEES

In  2000,  the  Committee  for  the  Development  and  Conversion  of  Regions
(CDCR), which, as specified in Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, is both
a management and a consultative committee, met eleven times.

As  a  management  committee,  the  CDCR  gave  favourable  opinions  on  the  Interreg
and Urban Community Initiatives and on the guidelines for innovative actions by the
ERDF in 2000-06. The CDCR also began work on interregional cooperation Interreg
III C.

As  a  consultative  committee,  the  CDCR  gave  opinions  on  the  areas  eligible  under
Objective 2, the single programming documents (SPDs) and the Community support
frameworks (CSFs).

The CDCR also approved the Regulations on:

–  the use of the euro in the budgetary implementation of the Structural Funds,

–  information  and  publicity  measures  to  be  taken  by  the  Member  States  on

assistance from the Structural Funds,

–  the eligibility of expenditure in operations co-financed by the Structural Funds,

–  the 

implementation  procedure  and  guidelines 

for  determining 

financial

corrections,

–  the  systems  of  management  and  control  of  assistance  granted  by  the  Structural

Funds.

The  Committee  welcomed  inclusion  in  the  Structural  Funds  programmes  and
projects of the policy of equal opportunities for women and men and the financing by
Interreg  III  and  the  guidelines  for  2001-06  for  the  European  network  for  territorial
analysis (ORATE).

The CDCR began work  on  the  role  of  the  Spatial  Development  Committee  and  on
the establishment of a group of experts on territorial and urban development.

The ESF Committee met four times in 2000. The members of the Committee gave
their opinion on the CSFs and SPDs to which the Social Fund was contributing.  In
doing  so, 
the  presentation  by  certain  members  representing
Governments  of  the  new  ESF  programming  (taking  account  of  the  priorities  of  the

they  attended 

81

Social Fund and of the employment strategy and of the link with the National Action
Plans). The members of the ESF Committee were also consulted about the types of
measures which could be financed under technical assistance and gave their opinion
on  the  Commission’s  draft  guidelines  on  the  various  types  of  innovative  actions
(which  was  then  sent  to  the  European  Parliament)  and  on  the  draft  financial
regulations  on  the  management  and  control  of  the  Structural  Funds  and  financial
corrections under Article 39 of Regulation 1260/1999.

The  ESF  Committee  also  discussed  the  programme  of  social  actions,  relations
between  the  ESF  and  the  employment  services  and  enlargement  (with  particular
regard  to  preparations  by  the  candidate  countries  for  the  European  Employment
Strategy and the ESF).

On  the  thematic  front,  there  was  a  discussion  on  equal  opportunities  in  the  new
programming,  continuous  training  and  local  capital  for  social  purposes  and  the
‘social dialogue’ measures under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation.

The  report  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  and  the  conclusions  of  the  evaluations  of  the
Social Fund were presented to the Committee. During the  year  members were kept
informed  about  the  general  development  of  all  aspects  of  the  employment  strategy
and its implications for the Social Fund.

The  Committee  on  Agricultural  Structures  and  Rural  Development  (STAR
Committee) met 15 times in 2000 and acted as a management committee under the
procedure  provided  for  in  Article  47(3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/99  on  the
following issues:

a)

favourable  opinion  on  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  2075/2000  of  29
September  2000  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1750/1999  laying  down
detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on
support for rural development from the EAGGF. This regulation concerns the
conditions of eligibility of certain measures financed by the EAGGF Guidance
and  Guarantee  Sections  with  particular  reference  to  aids  for  agricultural
holdings  of  a  very  small  economic  size.  It  extends  the  scope  of  Regulation
(EC)  No  1685/2000  of  28  July  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 to certain measures
financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section under Objective 2;

b)

favourable  opinion  on  the  guidelines  on  the  Leader+  Community  Initiative,
given on 22 February.

The Committee operated as a consultative committee under the procedure provided
for in Article 47(2) when it considered the following matters:

a)

b)

establishment of  the  list  of  areas  which  could  benefit  under  Objective  2.  The
Committee gave its opinion ten times on the various proposals for lists;

the  part  of  the  assistance  concerning  agricultural  structures  and  rural
development  in  the  draft  Commission  decisions  on  the  Community  support
frameworks  and  corresponding  information  in  the  single  programming
documents  for  the  areas  eligible  under  Objectives  1  and  2.  The  Committee
gave 26 opinions;

82

c)

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  448/2001  of  2  March  2001  laying  down
detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
1260/1999  as  regards  the  procedure  for  making  financial  corrections  to
assistance granted under the Structural Funds and the Commission Regulation
laying  down  the  implementing  arrangements  concerning  the  systems  for  the
management and control of assistance granted under the Structural  Funds and
the form and content of accounting information which the Member States must
keep  available  for  the  Commission  for  inspection  of  the  Structural  Funds
accounts.

The Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture issued favourable opinions on:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

the “fisheries” part of the Objective 1 CSFs and SPDs;

the list of areas eligible under Objective 2;

the “fisheries” SPD for non-Objective 1 areas;

the  types  of  technical  assistance  measures  under  Article  23  of  the  general
Regulation on the Structural Funds;

the draft guidelines on the various types of innovative measures under Article
22 of the general Regulation on the Structural Funds;

a  Commission  Regulation  on  the  arrangements  for  implementing  measures
defined by Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (FIFG Regulation).

4.3.

DIALOGUE WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
OF THE REGIONS

The Commission continued to follow closely the work of the ESC, which in the field
of regional policy adopted opinions on the 1998 annual report on the Cohesion Fund
and  on  the  10th  annual  report  on  the  Structural  Funds.  The  Committee  was  also
concerned  with  the  poorer  island  regions,  on  which  it  adopted  an  own-initiative
opinion, and on the role of the EIB.

As regards the common agricultural policy, in its opinion on the tenth annual report
on  the  Structural  Funds  (1998),  adopted  on  12  July,  the  Committee  considered  the
information on  coordination  with  the  CAP  and  the  policies  on  competition  and  the
transparency of contracts was irrelevant because it did not reveal clearly whether the
Community directives were followed and respected. The Committee took note of the
simplification  of  the  particular  regulation  proposed  by  the  Commission  for  the
EAGGF, which dealt mainly with the areas of assistance. In its opinion on ‘women
in  the  countryside  and  sustainable  development’,  the  Committee  stressed  the
particular problems encountered by women in rural areas and stressed the importance
of creating associations and working groups to find a solution.

The  Committee  of  the  Regions  (CDR)  adopted  several  draft  opinions  on  the
responsibilities  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Regional  Policy.  Of  particular  note
was  that  on  the  Commission’s  draft  communication  to  the  Member  States  on  ‘the
regions  in  the  new  economy  –  guidelines  for  the  ERDF  innovative  measures’,  on
which  it  had  been  consulted.  The  other  opinions  concerned  mainly  the  question  of
the outermost regions, the information society and regional development.

83

Mr Barnier attended the full meeting of the Committee on 13 April which dealt with
‘the  role  of  the  regions,  the  implementation  and  future  of  regional  policy  and  the
intergovernmental conference’.

Mr Crauser, Director-General, addressed the Committee on 28 June on arrangements
for  extending  the  regional  policy  to  the  candidate  countries  and  also  attended  a
conference  organised  by  the  CDR  and  the  Generalitat  Valenciana  on  27  and  28
November on the design of a new regional policy for Europe.

As  regards  agriculture  and  rural  development,  the  CDR  welcomed  the  improved
implementation rate for EAGGF programmes. In another opinion, on access to rural
areas,  it  encouraged  use  of  the  Structural  Funds  to  develop  infrastructure  and
recommended  the  promotion  of  a  multifunctional  agriculture.  In  the  area  of  rural
competitiveness,  it  stressed  the  possibilities  for  development  offered  by  the
Structural  Funds.  As  regards  the  Leader+  Community  Initiative  (2000-2006),  the
Committee  found  the  overall  plan  effective  and  innovative  and  hoped  it  would
receive  (the  first  strand:  territorial  strategies  for  rural  development)  the  largest
financial allocation.

In the field of fisheries, it adopted an opinion on ‘2002 - the common fisheries policy
and the situation of fisheries in the European Union.’

4.4.

SOCIAL PARTNERS

The  dialogue  with  the  social  and  economic  partners  on  regional  development
continued and the annual meeting provided for by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No
1260/1999 was held on 16 February. Two main points were discussed: The situation
of programming for the three Objectives and the Community Initiatives 2000-06.

(cid:1)  Following a presentation of the situation by the Commission, a large majority of
the  partners  recognised  that  they  had  been  better  consulted  than  in  the  previous
programming  period.  However,  this  had  been  more  systematic  in  the  case  of
Objective 1 than Objective 2. The social partners had also experienced difficulties
in securing access to appropriations for technical assistance.

(cid:1)  There  were  also  considerable  differences  in  the  extent  to  which  partnership  was
taken into account in depending on the region, irrespective of the Objective. The
‘culture’ of partnership was not yet fully taken on board by the Member States.

(cid:1)  Other  points  raised  included:  the  difficulty  of  managing  the  EAGGF  Guarantee
Section  under  Objective  2,  since  it  was  not  a  Structural  Fund;  the  arrangements
for  allocating  the  performance  reserve  and  the  operation  of  the  Monitoring
Committees.

(cid:1)  This  point  was  covered  by  presentations  by  the  three  DGs  concerned  on  the
content of the new Community Initiatives. Questions were asked about the criteria
for  selecting  the  towns  under  Urban,  the  seemingly  complex  procedures  under
Equal and the eligibility of external frontiers under Interreg III.

The partners concluded by asking for more frequent meetings with the Commission
than  the  single  annual  meeting,  perhaps  concentrating  on  certain  subjects:  ISPA,
ESDP,  Objective  2,  etc.  It  was  agreed  that  more  frequent  meetings  could  be

84

considered  from  2001,  once  the  programmes  for  the  new  programming  period  had
been adopted.

In the human resources sector, the European social partner organisations play a role
at the national or regional level in implementing measures under the  Employability
and Adaptability pillars or in specific Community Initiatives. In addition, they have
developed innovative measures to promote new approaches and identify examples of
good  practice  with  an  important  social  dialogue  component.  Several  sectors,
including commerce, the graphics sector and the  railways,  have finished interesting
projects  to  feed  into  the  activities  of  the  sectoral  dialogue  committees.  By  way  of
example,  the  project  in  the  railways  sector  dealt  with  the  introduction  of  new
technologies  in  the  French,  Belgian,  Spanish  and  Italian  railway  companies.  The
report  showed  that  the  training  systems  of  each  railway  company  could  not  be
analysed  without  first  looking  at  how  work  was  organised  and  the  systems  for
integrating workers into these  companies. In addition the type  of social relations in
the organisation can have an influence on the systems used for training.

The  Advisory  Committee  on  Rural  Development,  which  was  set  up  by  the
Commission under Decision 98/235/EC on the agricultural advisory committees, met
twice  in  2000,  on  17  May  and  15  November.  At  both  meetings,  there  was  an
exchange of information and views between Commission staff and representatives of
the  EU  socio-professional  organisations  on  the  state  of  adoption  of  the  rural
development plans, and the SAPARD plans. On 17 November a discussion also took
place  on  the  implementation  of  Articles  3  and  4  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
1259/1999  establishing  common  rules  for  direct  support  under  the  common
agricultural policy, and the Commission also informed the Committee on the state of
programming for Objectives 1 and 2.

Concerning  implementation  of  the  rural  development  plans,  at  both  meetings
members  of  the  committee  expressed  concern  that,  despite  the  Commission’s
emphasis on partnership, this spirit was not so evident at the  implementation stage.
The  view  was  expressed  that  the  concept  and  practice  of  partnership  differed
throughout  the  EU  and  that  the  performance  of  some  Member  States  was
unsatisfactory in this regard.

Other  points  raised  on  15  November  included  budgetary  concerns  due  to
programmes  starting  late,  and  the  time  scale  for  applying  for  Leader  +  projects,
which was very short.

The meeting of 17 May also included an exchange of views on Leader+.

comprising
The  Consultative  Committee  on 
representatives  of  the  profession  and  bodies  concerned,  discussed  the  various
Commission  regulations  to  implement  Regulation  (EC)  No  2792/1999  (the  FIFG
Regulation) on a number of occasions.

aquaculture, 

fisheries 

and 

4.5.

INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY

The main publications in 2000 include the  guide covering the Structural Funds, the
Cohesion  Fund  and  ISPA  (‘Structural  Actions  2000-2006  –  Commentary  and
Regulations’),  and  the  Vademecum  listing  the  ‘Community  rules  on  State  aids’.
Other  documents  related  to  specific  aspects  of  regional  policy  were  also  produced,

85

such  as  the  guide  to  the  territorial  pacts  2000-2006,  the  final  report  on  the  Terra
innovative  measure,  a study on the  urban  audit, a  guide  to  the  Business  innovation
centres (BIC), and six studies on: the prospects for regional planning in the context
of  enlargement,  the  impact  of  economic  and  monetary  Union  on  cohesion,
employment-related  initiatives  in  the  United  Kingdom,  equal  opportunities  and  the
Structural Funds, local development and the strategic and sustainable management of
water resources.

Other publications during the  year include  brochures presenting significant projects
in mountain areas and an illustration of projects financed by the Urban Initiative.

The ‘INFOREGIO’ newsheets summarising the general guidelines for the use of the
Structural  Funds  under  Objectives  1,  2  and  3  continued  to  be  produced,  as  did  a
summary of  the annual  report  on  the  Structural  Funds  in  1998  and  the  information
letter ‘INFOREGIO NEWS’.

2000 also saw the first issue of the Panorama, a quarterly magazine with the aim of
providing a forum for where those engaged at local and regional level can describe
their experiences on the spot.

The Inforegio Internet site and the pages of the Europa site concerned with regional
policy  were  updated  frequently.  All  the  regulations  implementing  the  Structural
Funds adopted during the year were put on line quickly. Information notes published
on the site included the rules on information and publicity measures to be taken by
the  Member  States,  the  Regulation  on  the  use  of  the  euro  in  the  work  of  the
Structural Funds, the Regulation on the eligibility of expenditure and the guidelines
for Interreg III and Urban II.

A data base was established offering summaries of the new programmes co-financed
by  the  ERDF  in  2000-06.  The  data  base  on  the  most  successful  projects  (‘success
stories’) continued to expand throughout the year.

In  the  case  of  information  on  the  events  organised  by  the  Commission,  summary
records  of  the  three  key  events  of  2000 were  placed  on  line:  the  conference  on
‘sharing  responsibility  in  the  decentralised  management  of  the  Structural  Funds’  in
June,  the  conference  on  ‘the  evaluation  of  assistance  financed  by  the  Structural
Funds’ in September and the conference on ‘the information society and cohesion’ in
December.

The  year  also  saw  the  launch  of  a  new  design  of  editorial  line,  more  coherent  and
better  structured  as  regards  type  of  information  and  support  (paper  and  web).  Five
series  of  information  product  have  been  identified:  news  and  decisions  on  regional
policy,  the  development  of  projects  carried  out  by  country,  the  development  of
projects  carried  out  by  theme,  the  development  of  projects  by  type  of  territory  and
miscellaneous information products such as maps, catalogues, etc.

In the case of the ESF, strong emphasis was put on information and publicity about
the  launch  of  the  new  programmes  in  order  to  ensure  transparency  and  present  a
consistent image of the ESF throughout the Member States. This was done through a
small but tailor-made publications programme including a general leaflet on the ESF
and  its  new  scope  as  the  main  financial  instrument  of  the  European  Employment
Strategy. In addition, a new concise ESF website (http://europa.eu.int/esf) containing

86

a wide range of useful information was created and will be updated regularly. Press
releases on the adoption of Objective 3 programmes as well as facts and figures on
the  ESF  in  the  Member  States  were  distributed  both  to  the  accredited  press  in
Brussels  and,  through  the  Commission  offices,  to  the  press  in  the  Member  States.
The  new  programmes  received  broad  media  coverage  in  the  national,  regional  and
local press, but the extent of this varied from one Member State to another.

In line with Regulation (EEC) No 1159/2000, in April the Commission organised in
Waterloo  (Belgium)  the  seventh  meeting  of  the  Informal  Network  of  ESF
Information  Officers  to  support  them  in  their  efforts  to  publicise  the  ESF.  In  this
respect, a study was launched to provide the Member States with guidelines on how
to  evaluate  their  own  activities  in  the  field  of  information  and  publicity.  These
guidelines will be made available early in 2001.

Furthermore,  the  enlargement  process  was  supported  through  the  publication  of  a
"Brief  Guide  to  the  ESF  for  Future  Member  States"  as  well  as  the  creation  of  an
informal ESF information officers network in the 10 Phare countries, which will be
kept up-to-date on the main ESF developments within the EU.

In the rural development domain, the Commission continued to provide information
on its web site, in print (in the form of brochures, factsheets and its Newsletter), and
through  seminars,  conferences,  visits  and  meetings.  Work  was  carried  out  on  the
preparation of a special ‘rural development’ sub-site on the DG Agriculture web site,
due  to become operational in February 2001.  Rural  development  issues  were  again
tackled at an informal briefing of 100 Brussels-based regional offices in June 2000.
A  brochure  entitled  ‘Women  active  in  rural  development  –  assuring  the  future  of
rural Europe’ was published in August. In November, a conference on ‘The Role of
Agriculture  in  Rural  Development’  was  organised  in  Washington  jointly  by  the
Embassy of France and the Delegation of the European Commission in Washington.
It  was  attended  by  150  people  (farmers  and  farmers’  representatives,  Congress
staffers, administration officials, embassies, etc.).

The European Leader Observatory (ELO) continued to play an important information
role  within  the  European  network  for  rural  development  in  2000.  It  published  nine
editions of ‘Info Leader’, covering a broad range of topics such as, for example, the
various rural development programmes being carried out in Member States and the
promotion of equal opportunities in Structural Fund programmes and projects.

ELO’s other publication,  ‘Leader’  Magazine,  published  three  times a  year,  covered
the (re)population of rural areas, the added value of Leader II and unifying theme(s),
integrated  territorial  development.  Two  of  these  themes  were  ‘The  added  value  of
Leader II’ and ‘Integrated territorial development’. A methodological guideline was
also published in 2000.

Continuing  its  five-part  series  on  rural  innovation,  begun  in  1999  with  a  focus  on
developing a territorial strategy, the European Leader Observatory concluded with a
further  four  parts  on  social  competitiveness,  environmental  competitiveness,
economic  competitiveness  and  competitiveness  on  a  global  scale,  with  a  view  to
fuelling  the  debate  among  Europe’s  rural  players  who  are  seeking  a  new  form  of
territorial competitiveness founded on consultation and cooperation.

87

In 2000, ELO also organised many seminars and workshops in the Member States on
general  themes  such  as  mainstreaming  Leader  in  rural  policies,  developing
opportunities for women and young people, development opportunities for crafts and
services in rural areas and on more specific, regionally-based topics.

Further information can be found in six languages on the web site: http://www.rural-
europe.aeidl.be

The  work  of  the  FIFG  en  2000  concerned  the  dissemination  of  information  aimed
particularly  at  the  specialist  media  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  the  updating  of  the
communications instruments and materials on the common fisheries policy.

At the international ‘European seafood’ fair concerned with the processing and trade
of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products,  a  seminar  on  information  and  trade  in  the
fisheries  products  of  the  European  Union  was  organised  for  those  working  in  the
sector.

88

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

Annex 2: Financial implementation in 2000 - technical assistance

Annex 3: Budget implementation

89

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

ESF

AT

BE

DE

ES

FI

FR

GR

IE

IT

NL

Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)

173.82
24.37
12.17
14%
409.79
82.56
28.69
20%
11 295.54
1 398.31
424.63
12%
23 732.13
1 220.07
0.00
5%
471.03
76.40
32.97
16%
2 289.56
273.68
91.37
12%
12 851.66

1 812.31
407.67
126.86
22%
12 399.40
1 987.09
863.19
16%
76.66

EAGGF
41.35
5.80
2.89
14%
41.57
4.09
2.91
10%
3 442.25
309.39
152.30
9%
3 532.03
0.00
0.00
0%
197.15
15.81
13.78
8%
675.95
72.25
33.21
11%
2 241.60

FIFG

0.83
0.12
0.06
14%
1.74
0.21
0.12
12%
0.00
16.35
7.37
-
0.00
212.70
105.32
-
6.85
0.98
0.48
14%
40.78
3.45
1.68
8%

€million
Total

271.00
38.00
18.97
14%
645.00
107.01
45.15
17%
20 601.72
1 913.92
677.31
9%
36 107.66
1 432.77
105.32
4%
948.00
133.00
66.34
14%
3 944.91
500.15
171.37
13%
19 030.26

55.01
7.71
3.85
14%
191.90
20.15
13.43
11%
5 863.94
189.87
93.01
3%
8 843.50
0.00
0.00
0%
272.97
39.81
19.11
15%
938.62
150.77
45.11
16%
3 936.99

1 016.49
201.86
67.12
20%
4 902.70
490.34
226.11
12%
33.34

169.40
32.45
11.86
19%
2 982.63
380.82
194.42
13%
10.00

67.80
2.02
2.02
3%
164.32
38.57
20.01
23%
6.00

3 066.00
644.00
207.86
21%
19 639.05
2 896.82
1 303.73
15%
126.00

90

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

ESF

18.15
5.37
24%
12 413.55
2 117.29
867.29
17%
465.74
65.33
32.60
14%
3 780.47
504.63
229.39
13%
293.01

1.65
1.65
5%
4 415.34
693.86
305.93
16%
158.74
22.27
11.11
14%
1 830.36
239.96
108.53
13%
189.70

EAGGF
1.70
0.70
17%
2 117.35
354.91
148.21
17%
111.76
15.67
7.82
14%
355.82
46.40
19.45
13%
44.83

FIFG

1.50
0.42
25%
54.38
36.33
15.24
67%
11.77
1.65
0.82
14%
89.36
10.63
4.23
12%
3.46

€million
Total

23.00
8.14
18%
19 000.69
3 202.38
1 336.68
17%
748.00
104.93
52.36
14%
6 050.00
801.61
361.59
13%
531.00

PT

SE

UK

Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)

IE/UK* Assistance (1)

Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)

TOTAL Assistance (1)

Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)

82 464.66
8 175.55
2 714.52
10%

31 839.58 15 963.68
1 239.28
2 058.26
587.57
894.95
8%
6%

447.28 130 715.23
11 797.58
324.49
4 354.81
157.77
9%
73%

*

Peace inter-regional cooperation programme

91

FIFG

€million
Total

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

189.00
31.00
13.23
16%
507.00
76.00
35.17
15%
423.00
59.85
0.00
14%
0.00 1 119.00
166.85
0.00
48.40
0.00
15%

0.00
0.00
0.00

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

ESF

DK

FI

SE

Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)

TOTAL Assistance (1)

Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)

134.15
23.21
9.39
17%
396.83
60.54
27.46
15%
373.30
59.85
0.00
16%
904.28
143.60
36.85
16%

54.85
7.79
3.84
14%
110.17
15.46
7.71
14%
49.70
0.00
0.00
0%
214.72
23.25
11.55
11%

EAGGF
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

92

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 3

AT

BE

DE

DK

ES

FI

FR

IT

LU

NL

ESF
548.18
76.94
38.37
14%
765.17
107.39
40.40
14%
4 756.13
667.52
332.93
14%
378.95
53.19
13.26
14%
884.02
124.07
33.71
14%
418.41
58.72
14.74
14%
9 427.12
661.54
329.95
7%
7 538.90
545.55
207.99
7%
39.45
5.54
2.76
14%
1 750.45

Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)

93

€million

Total

548.18
76.94
38.37
14%
765.17
107.39
40.40
14%
4 756.13
667.52
332.93
14%
378.95
53.19
13.26
14%
884.02
124.07
33.71
14%
418.41
58.72
14.74
14%
9427.12
661.54
329.95
7%
7 538.90
545.55
207.99
7%
39.45
5.54
2.76
14%
1 750.45

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 3

SE

UK

TOTAL

Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)
Assistance (1)
Commitments (2)
Payments
% (2)/(1)

ESF
245.67
61.27
14%
747.52
104.91
26.16
14%
4 742.63
665.62
331.98
14%
31 996.94
3 316.67
1 433.53
10%

€million

Total

245.67
61.27
14%
747.52
104.91
26.16
14%
4 742.63
665.62
331.98
14%
31 996.94
3 316.67
1 433.53
10%

94

ANNEX 2

ERDF commitments for technical assistance in 2000
(Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999)

TYPES OF MEASURES

Amounts committed
(in €)

A Studies, including those of a general nature concerning the work of the Funds

1 Report on economic and social cohesion

2 Support for Eurostat

3 Other studies

TOTAL

544 837

100 012

204 372

849 221

B Measures  for  technical  assistance,  exchanges  of  experience  and  information  for  the  partners,  final

beneficiaries of assistance from the Funds and the public

1 Framework contracts for information and communications work

2 Publications by the Publications Office (OOPEC) and other publications

3 Seminars, conferences, colloquia and stands

4 Production of audio-visual and promotional material

5 Grants:  contribution  to  financing  studies,  events,  networks,  training
measures jointly with the Member States on the details of assistance, etc
6 Contracts  with  technical  assistance  offices  (BAT),  principally  for  the

management of innovative actions

7 Other  technical  and  administrative  assistance:  framework  contracts  and

other expert assistance related to the work of the Funds

8 Map making

TOTAL

3 500 000

1 528 569

1 691 182

67 705

71 518

1 399 480

419 432

146 328

8 824 214

C The  establishment,  operation  and  interconnection  of  computerised  systems  for  management,

monitoring and evaluation

1 Development and maintenance of computer programmes

2 Establishment  and  maintenance  costs  for  equipment  (hardware  and

software) required for the operation of activities

3 Technical  assistance  for  the  day-to-day  operation  of  systems  and  training

and assistance for users

TOTAL

536 713

581 835

1 016 180

2 134 728

D Improved methods of evaluation and the exchange of information on practices in this area

1 Thematic evaluations

2 Ex-ante evaluations and methodological work

3 Evaluations under a service contract with the EIB

TOTAL

TOTAL

95

0

146 165

200 000

346 165

€12 154 328

ANNEX 2

ESF commitments for technical assistance for 2000

(Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999)

TYPES OF MEASURES

Amount committed
(in €)

A Studies, including those of a general nature concerning the work of the Funds
B Measures  for  technical  assistance,  exchanges  of  experience  and  information  for  the  partners,  final
882 552

beneficiaries of assistance from the Funds and the public

123 842

C Outside staff

a) Seconded national experts

b) Temporary staff

c) Auxiliary staff

TOTAL

D Other expenditure

a) Missions

b) Meetings

c) Evaluation

c) Miscellaneous expenditure

TOTAL

E Direct infrastructure (expenditure on computer operation)

F Information and publications

TOTAL

2 616 905

970 237

2 181 831

5 768 973

1 039 500

88 200

11 000

214 088

1 352 788

977 650

304 953

€9 410 758

96

ANNEX 2

FIFG commitments for technical assistance in 2000

(Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999)

TYPES OF MEASURES

Amounts committed
(in €)

A Studies, including those of a general nature concerning the work of the Funds
1 Study on the role of women in the fisheries sector

2 Supplement to the regional socio-economic studies in the fisheries sector

TOTAL

97 070

17 100

114 170

B Measures  for  technical  assistance,  exchanges  of  experience  and  information  for  the  partners,  final

beneficiaries of assistance from the Funds and the public

1 Publications

3 Forum for producers’ organisations

4 Conferences and other meetings

TOTAL

10 000

265 000

58 850

333 850

C The  establishment,  operation  and  interconnection  of  computerised  systems  for  management,

monitoring and evaluation

1 Development and maintenance of the fleet register

TOTAL

345 528

345 528

D Improved methods of evaluation and the exchange of information on practices in this area

TOTAL

TOTAL

0

793 548

97

ANNEX 3

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION

I/          Budget implementation of commitment appropriations:

(€million)

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Implementation
of
appropriations

Implemen
tation
ratio

Objective 1

8 176

2 058

1 239

325

11 797

56.8%

Objective 2

144

23

Objective 3

Non-Objective
1 FIFG

CI1

IA and TA2

-

-

0

12

3 317

-

0

9

-

-

-

0

0

-

-

143

-

1

167

4.6%

3 317

94.6%

143

88.5%

0

22

0%

13.9%

TOTAL

8 331

5 408

1 239

468

15 446

51.8%

Implementati
on ratio by
Fund

49.7% 55.5% 42.6% 82.5%

51.8%

1 CI: Community Initiatives
2 IA and TA: Innovative actions and technical assistance

98

                                                
II/        Budget implementation of payment appropriations:

(€million)

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Implementat
ion ratio

Implement
ation of
appropriat
ions

Objective 1

2 715

Objective 2

37

Objective 3

Non-Objective
1 FIFG

CI

IA and TA

-

-

0

4

895

12

1 434

-

0

6

588

158

4 355

-

-

-

0

0

-

-

60

-

0

48

1 434

60

0

10

53.7%

7.2%

97.2%

100%

0%

25.5%

TOTAL

2 755

2 346

588

218

5 907

55.8%

Implementati
on ratio by
Fund

46.1% 69.8% 57.9%

99.7%

55.8%

99