Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1999)"
Date: 2001-11-15
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU initiative, EU programme, Structural Funds, management, report

C 107/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds
(1999)’

(2002/C 107/19)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 12 June 2001 to draw up, in accordance with the fifth
paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, an Opinion on the 11th
Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1999) and to instruct Commission 1 for Regional Policy,
Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-border and Inter-regional Cooperation to carry
out the preparatory work;

having regard to the 11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (COM(2000) 698 final);

having regard to its Opinion on the 9th and 10th Annual Reports on the Structural Funds (1997 and
1998) - ERDF - ESF - EAGGF - FIFG (COM(1998) 562 final and COM(1999) 467 final); CdR 220/99
fin (1), and its Opinion on the 6th and 7th Annual Reports on the Structural Funds (1994 and 1995)
(COM(95) 583 and COM(96) 502 final); CdR 355/96 fin (2);

having regard to the draft opinion unanimously adopted by Commission 1 on 4 October 2001 (CdR
184/2001 rev.) (Rapporteur: Mr Stanislaw Tillich, Minister of State for Federal and European Affairs of
the land of Saxony);

whereas it could be desirable and helpful to submit to the European Commission, the Council of Ministers
and the European Parliament an Opinion on the 11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1999) in
order to spell out clearly the attitude of the regions and local authorities;

whereas the 11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds describes the application of Structural Fund
measures in 1999, giving details of the implementation of Structural Fund support and of the results so
far achieved;

whereas

— 1999 saw the end of the 1994-1999 programming period and of the Delors II package adopted at

Edinburgh in 1992;

— the Commission was concerned in 1999, as in previous years, to give a new impetus to certain

priority actions. In 1999 the focus was on employment policy;

— 1999 was the decisive year for the preparation of the 2000-2006 programming period. Funding for
the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund was laid down up to 2006 by the Decision of the Berlin
European Council of 24 and 25 March 1999 and the agreement reached at that time on Agenda
2000 and the medium-term financial perspective 2000-2006,

whereas the Heads of State and Government reached agreement in Berlin on funding for structural
support for the applicant countries up to 2006;

whereas in 1999 the Council also adopted the Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund Regulations;

whereas the foundation has already been laid for the preparation of the new Structural Fund programmes
for 2000-2006,

at its 41st plenary session of 14 and 15 November 2001 (meeting of 15 November) unanimously
adopted the following opinion.

(1) OJ C 226, 8.8.2000, p. 68.
(2) OJ C 215, 16.7.1999, p. 28.

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/61

1. General comments

1.1.
The CoR welcomes the 11th Annual Report, which is
a comprehensive and informative compilation of data and
developments concerning the implementation of the Structural
Funds in the Member States in 1999. The Committee regrets,
however, that the report contains little analysis and insufficient
evaluation. It contains no evaluation of the impact of structural
policy from the pan-European and national points of view.
Instead, the report concentrates mainly on financial aspects,
commitments and payments, without however explaining how
this expenditure has affected the development and realisation
of economic and social cohesion in Europe as a whole and in
the individual Member States.

1.2.
The CoR has the impression that figures have merely
investigating the
been put together without, for example,
obstacles to better application of funding. The Commission
seems more concerned with the efficient management of the
Structural Funds than with the effectiveness of the measures
taken. The CoR regrets that the Commission has not analysed
the administrative costs incurred by the regional and local
authorities in implementing the Structural Funds. Such an
analysis could have been the basis for measures to increase
administrative efficiency, to which the Commission attaches
particular importance in the 2000-2006 programming period.
The CoR feels that a purely formal assessment of the commit-
ment and payment rates does not satisfy public expectations
that Structural Fund resources will be used effectively. The
CoR stresses that, in drawing up the Annual Reports, the
Commission should not merely collate and list figures mechan-
ically. More evaluation of performance and analysis is needed,
making it possible to carry out an exhaustive assessment of
the effectiveness of structural policy and to pinpoint optimised
options for action in the future.

2.

Implementation of the programmes

2.1.
The Committee of the Regions notes that throughout
the EU almost all Structural Fund resources were committed
by the end of 1999. The Commission attributes this to the
speeding up of payments each year. 75 % of resources had
been paid out by the year-end, although payments at local
level may continue until the end of 2001.

The Committee of the Regions notes that the best rates
2.2.
of
implementation were achieved under the Objective 1
programmes and the Objective 3 employment policy actions.
The utilisation rate of resources was lower for Objectives 2, 4
and 5b.

that, as in 1998,

The Committee points out

2.3.
the
cohesion states received the largest share of Structural Fund
finance and registered the best payment rates, whilst in some
of the most prosperous Member States payment rates were
below the Community average. The CoR is also critical of the
Commission’s failure to address the question as to whether the
better performance of cohesion countries is attributable to
greater need or to other factors.

3. Partnership principle

The CoR notes with regret that the report does not
3.1.
attach any special importance to the partnership principle,
although it
is an essential component of the success of
structural policy.

The partnership principle has an important part to
3.2.
play in the administration of
the Structural Funds. The
Committee of the Regions urges the Commission to apply the
partnership principle, in relation to the economic and social
players, and the subsidiarity principle in the administration of
the Structural Funds by recognising the responsibilities of the
Member States’ domestic political bodies and the tasks of the
regional and local levels of government.

4. Community initiatives

4.1.
The Commission’s report contains a brief analysis of
some of the Community initiatives. The Committee of the
Regions regrets that the Commission has not carried out more
detailed analysis of the important INTERREG I Community
initiative. Strand C is an important instrument for transnational
cooperation on spatial planning, particularly in the light of the
forthcoming EU enlargement.

In this context the CoR points out that cooperation
4.2.
can give a further impetus to the enlargement process. The
same effect
is expected from the new INTERREG III B
programme, which in terms of content once again concentrates
on transnational cooperation on spatial planning, land use
regulation and land development.

4.3.
The Committee of the Regions stresses that problems
in implementing the Community initiatives can be primarily
attributed to the complicated administrative procedures and
the considerable delays
in obtaining the Commission’s
approval of the programmes. Thus INTERREG II programmes
for individual regions were approved only in 1995, so that for
a time the regions and local authorities could not plan with
any degree of certainty.

C 107/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

5. Administrative requirements

The CoR regrets that the report does not analyse the adminis-
trative burden imposed on the local and regional authorities in
implementing the administrative requirements. The Com-
mittee of the Regions is critical of the large number of
requirements imposed by the Commission in respect of the
Structural Funds and Community initiatives. This reduces the
quality of expenditure from the regional and local perspective
and does little to enhance public acceptance of European
regional policy. The Committee of the Regions urges the
Commission to work to simplify the administrative procedures
and to reconsider individual procedures in the light of cost-
benefit considerations.

6. Supervision

6.1.
In 1999 there were improvements in the Commission’s
supervision of Structural Fund interventions, particularly with
regard to the ERDF. The fact that structural measures account
for one third of the European Union budget makes coherent
financial supervision measures essential. The Committee of the
Regions believes that, with the new regulations for the period
2000 to 2006, the Commission has taken the right approach
to improving the position of the Member States, regions and
local authorities with regard to supervision of Structural
Fund intervention. Specific local knowledge makes the local
administrative and supervisory bodies best suited to carry out
the supervision.

The Committee of the Regions does not question
6.2.
the responsibility of the Member States, regions and local
authorities for demonstrating economic, efficient and orderly
accounting. And yet the Commission’s significantly more
stringent requirements with respect to administrative and
supervisory systems increasingly suggest a possible dispro-
portion between the administrative burden involved and the
benefits. Here too the Committee of the Regions suggests that
the administrative burden of European requirements is too
heavy. The Committee stresses that the quantity of specific
information required, moreover of doubtful value for the
supervision of the use of funds, is effectively preventing the
regional and local authorities from carrying out their real tasks.

7. Programming period 2000-2006

7.1.
The 11th Annual Report devotes special attention to
the preparatory measures for the 2000-2006 programming
period. The CoR is pleased that in the 1999 Annual Report
the Commission is already looking forward to the future
support period.

7.2.
In respect of the 2000-2006 programming period the
Berlin European Council decided, inter alia, that Structural
Fund resources should be allocated to three new Objectives,
with just under 70 % of resources being allocated to Objective 1
areas. The Council also took a decision on resources for pre-
accession aid and made resources available for ISPA and
SAPARD. The Committee of the Regions strongly welcomes
the support for the accession process from these instruments.
The accession process should be continued intensively with
due regard to the time constraints established at Göteborg.
The CoR points out that the administration of the Structural
Funds will be of strategic importance for the applicant
countries and their economic systems. The Committee there-
fore suggests that the positive and negative experience of
administering the Structural Funds accumulated in the regions
and localities be made available to those who will in future be
responsible for administering these resources, in order to take
account of tried and tested methods and practices and to
prevent the mistakes of the past being repeated.

Between May and June 1999 the Regulation laying
7.3.
down general provisions on the Structural Funds was adopted
which reduced the number of Objectives to three and the
number of Community initiatives to four (INTERREG, EQUAL,
LEADER and URBAN). The Committee of the Regions supports
the reduction in the number of Community initiatives. In this
way it has proved possible to counter an emerging lack of
orientation in the use of the Community initiatives, which
hitherto had spread support too thinly.

7.4.
The CoR stresses that, while the financial perspectives
were adopted in good time by the Berlin Summit, the regions
and local authorities were prevented from beginning their
planning, as the Commission had failed to submit and adopt
the guidelines early enough. As a result the programmes began
late, which in some cases created problems for the regions and
local authorities. The Committee of the Regions calls on the
Commission to make improvements and to submit
the
guidelines earlier in the coming support period. The regions
and local authorities must not lose support which is due to
them because, as a result of Commission failings, programmes
get off to a late start or because additional requirements are
imposed after the event in relation to the implementation of
support.

7.5.
The Commission’s view that the new arrangements
simplify Structural Fund support is not entirely shared by the
Committee of the Regions. There are some useful innovations,
however. Thus the conditions for the submission of payment
applications have been relaxed. In the 1994-1999 program-
ming period payments of the tranches were tied to the flow of
EU funds in percentage terms. In the new support period
payment applications may be submitted to the Commission
three times a year on the basis of actual expenditure. In the
2000-2006 support period the spectrum of support has been
enlarged compared with 1994-1999. Various new measures
have been adopted in relation to the individual priorities. The
Committee of the Regions acknowledges that these changes
may contribute, inter alia, to improving the quality of national
support. And yet a multiplicity of guidelines and working
papers have not resulted in any simplification of programme
planning and implementation, or contributed to the adminis-
tration, monitoring and evaluation of the Structural Funds. In

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/63

fact the administrative burden has risen considerably. Indeed,
experience has even come to light which calls into question
the advantages associated with support from EU funds. This is
particularly true of smaller subsidies to local authorities and
firms, once it is realised how much administrative work is
associated with applications for EU support.

The CoR stresses its view that complying with the
7.6.
formal requirements of Structural Fund support
ties up
manpower which is then not available for the effective shaping
of the content of structural policy.

The new objectives include lifelong learning, access to the
information society, involvement of the social partners in the
improving work organisation and gender mainstreaming. The
Committee of the Regions points out that the new Structural
Fund Regulation requires the Member States to include
employment policy considerations in their programmes. Once
again it is clear that employment policy measures cannot be
realised without the regional and local authorities. The CoR
stresses that there is hardly any more conclusive argument
than this for the fact that employment policy is essentially a
task for the Member States and their regions and local
authorities.

8. Efficiency of support

10. Thematic priorities and interinstitutional cooper-

ation

The Committee of the Regions stresses that use of the Funds
must in future continue to be guided by the principle that
economically comparable regions should receive the same
intensity of support. The Community’s Structural Funds are of
major importance in supporting disadvantaged regions. They
work against regional imbalances. There are therefore, the
Committee of the Regions feels, weighty reasons for requiring
that the Funds be used effectively.

9. Employment

In its report the Commission expresses the view that the
Luxembourg employment process was consolidated in 1999.
This involved recommendations to the Member States as to
how they could best comply with their responsibility for the
common objectives of the European employment strategy.

Brussels, 15 November 2001.

10.1.
The CoR welcomes the annual setting of thematic
priorities by the Annual Report, and in particular the priority
of equal opportunities set in 1999, and it underlines the
Structural Funds’ contribution to gender equality.

10.2.
The CoR is glad that at the end of its report the
Commission mentions interinstitutional cooperation with the
CoR. It stresses that in the Committee of the Regions the
Commission has a reliable partner which is willing, on the
basis of the experience of the regional and local authorities, to
contribute actively to improving and simplifying procedures.
This makes it all the more regrettable that the Commission has
not called on the competence of the CoR on its own initiative
and that the CoR had to submit a formal request for the
drawing up of an opinion. The Committee hopes that in future
the Commission will exploit the CoR’s competence in order to
improve its reports.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT