Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "The Results of the Programming of the Structural Funds for 2000-2006 (OBJECTIVE l)"
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, Structural Funds, aid system, economic and social cohesion, eligible region, project evaluation

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/53

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The Results of the Programming of the
Structural Funds for 2000-2006 (OBJECTIVE l)’

(2002/C 48/12)

On 5 July 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on The Results of the Programming of
the Structural Funds for 2000-2006 (OBJECTIVE 1).

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion unanimously on
12 November 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Christie.

At its 386th plenary session (meeting of 28 November 2001), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 114 votes to one.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The revised Regulation laying down the general pro-
visions on the Structural Funds (Regulation 1260/1999)
revised the procedures for the implementation of the Funds
for the period 2000-2006. A number of these revisions
had the effect of
transferring to Member States greater
responsibility for the management, implementation and moni-
toring of Structural Funds, including:

— enlargement and strengthening of the partnership to

increase added value,

— decentralized programming of measures: the Member
State or managing authority adopts the programme
complement — and not the Commission — after it has
been agreed by the Monitoring Committee,

— the Member State takes general

responsibility for
implementation, monitoring and the effectiveness of
assistance,

— evaluation is no longer regarded as a separate exercise
but, while remaining independent, forms an integral part
of the process of preparing, implementing, monitoring
and revising programming.

1.2.
In addition to these changes in the Regulations, it was
also intended that the Structural Fund programmes over the
period 2000-2006 should be consistent with other actions
impacting on regional economic and social developments in
the eligible regions across the European Union. Other actions
include those undertaken by the European Investment Bank
(EIB), the Cohesion Fund, the policy aims of the European
Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), and — at the level of
the Member State — the European Employment Strategy and
the priorities of the National Action Plan for Employment.

1.3.
In the light of the new Structural Fund Regulations, the
Commission became involved in detailed discussions with
the regions and Member States eligible for support under
Objective 1. These discussion were intended to ensure that the
transfer of greater responsibility to the Member State for
implementing and monitoring Structural Fund assistance was
accompanied by a qualitatively improved action programme
in comparison to that submitted in previous periods.

The Communication (1) details the outcome of these
1.4.
negotiations, and reports the expected impact of the new
Objective 1 programmes that have now been adopted.

2. General comments

It is clear that the Commission has gone to great
2.1.
lengths to ensure that the Objective 1 programmes agreed are
of the highest quality possible. This is greatly welcomed. It is
somewhat surprising to note that the quality of programmes
submitted to the Commission varied widely even within the
same Member State. This implies different practices are
followed by different eligible regions, and there may be a case
for ‘best practice’ techniques for each Member State being
adopted by other eligible regions within that Member State.

2.1.1.
It is important that the Commission reviews in due
course the decisions that were reached on the basis of
considerations of ‘quality control’ in project selection. Are the
criteria which the Commission has applied in satisfying itself
that Objective 1 programmes are adequately specified the
correct ones in the sense of adding most to the economic
development efforts of the regions concerned? For instance,
unemployment among women is particularly high, and is
the impact of regional development plans on this group
incorporated in studies as to the ‘quality’ of the programmes?

(1) COM(2001) 378 final.

C 48/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

2.1.2.
Although involving the economic and social partners
at each of the key stages in the preparatory and implementation
arrangements (including monitoring) may be time consuming,
almost certainly any cost associated with that is offset by an
improved quality of the resulting economic development
programmes.

Notwithstanding the high quality of

the ex ante
2.6.
evaluations,
it is of course essential that all Objective 1
programmes are subject to regular evaluation and that out-
comes are measurable and the effectiveness of assistance
monitored. As the Commission notes, the regular evaluation
of assistance is itself a highly useful management tool.

2.2.
The Committee welcomes the fact that a greater role
than previously has been ascribed to partnership in the
preparation of the current Objective 1 programmes. It has
long been argued by this Committee that partnership is the
key to successful design and implementation of regional
assistance programmes, involving as it does those with detailed
knowledge of the particular economic and social problems
and opportunities facing a particular region.

3. Specific comments

2.3.
The Committee note that adopting the programmes
took (sometimes considerably) longer than the five months
foreseen by the rules. This is unfortunate as it inevitably
delayed the implementation of the programmes in the regions
concerned. While these delays were often understandable,
nonetheless they do reflect a failure on the part of some
regions and Member States to conform to the programme
document requirements that have to be met before the
programmes can be approved. The Committee consider this
unfortunate and would stress the need for better and more
rapid preparation of programming documentation on the part
of the regions and Member States concerned.

It appears that the use of ‘indicative guidelines’ has
2.4.
been successful in fine-tuning prospective Objective 1 pro-
grammes. It is clear that changes in the general economy and
society means that some of the more traditional economic
development measures previously favoured by the Objective 1
regions no longer are those likely to add most value to regional
economic development prospects. It is important that the
Commission continues to analyse those measures most likely
to stimulate regional economic growth in the lagging regions
and to advise — within the framework of partnership —
individual regions accordingly.

3.1.
It is important that assistance under the Structural
Funds is aimed at raising productivity levels within the
Objective 1 regions. Accordingly, the ESC notes that in the
current period a slightly higher share of assistance than under
previous programmes is being assigned to investment in
human resources.

3.2.
Although the application of Structural Fund assistance
under Objective 1 is expected to raise significantly the rate of
growth of GDP of the recipient Member States, the actual
macroeconomic outturn will be substantially influenced by the
economic prospects for the EU as a whole. Consequently, such
GDP data as has been presented should be treated as indicative
only. Clearly if the economy of the EU generally performs less
well than expected this will have serious ramifications for the
less prosperous regions.

3.3.
The application of Structural Fund support has a long-
term effectiveness which is difficult to capture by reference to
short-term economic indicators (such as GDP,
investment
levels, etc.). Particularly in the fields of human resource
developments and investment in R&D capacity, the results of
current policies may take many years to emerge. It is important
that ultimate evaluation of the effectiveness of the current
programmes takes into account qualitative measures of econ-
omic development as well as quantitative indicators.

2.5.
The Committee welcomes the high degree of attention
that the Commission has given to ensuring the introduction
of new management and control systems for Objective 1
programmes in Member States. It is essential that the financial
management of the Objective 1 programmes is efficient and
effective, and that procedures permit a full and transparent
auditing of finances disbursed under each programme. The
Committee urge the Commission to keep these systems
under review to ensure that day-to-day practice follows the
requirements of the Regulations.

3.4.
The Committee welcomes the emphasis that the Com-
mission has placed on additionality. During episodes of
economic recession when public expenditure is under pressure,
there is a tendency for governments to cut back on capital
investment programmes rather than current spending pro-
grammes.
the less
Invariably this is to the detriment of
prosperous regions. It is essential that Member States continue
to honour their commitment to programmes of economic and
social cohesion.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/55

4. Conclusion

The Committee welcomes the Commission document.
4.1.
It is evident that the Commission has gone to considerable
lengths to ensure the proper implementation of the new

Structural Fund Regulations with regard to Objective 1 pro-
grammes. However, it is essential that this effective beginning
to the new programming phase is reinforced throughout the
period of the programme by timely reporting, monitoring and
evaluation of outcomes in the regions themselves.

Brussels, 28 November 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive to
ensure effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the
Community’

(2002/C 48/13)

On 30 August 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 November
2001 (rapporteur: Mr Ravoet).

At its 386th plenary session held on 28 and 29 November 2001 (meeting of 28 November 2001), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 117 votes with 3 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

of interest payments within the EU. The Economic and Social
Committee issued an opinion on this proposal on 24 February
1999 (1).

The proposal for the Directive under review seeks to
1.1.
ensure effective taxation in the EU of income from savings in
the form of interest payments. More precisely, the aim is to
bring about effective taxation of interest payments made in a
Member State to a beneficial owner (individual) resident in
in accordance with the national
another Member State,
legislation of the latter Member State (referred to below as the
‘Member State of residence’).

2. General background

2.1.
In line with the ECOFIN Council conclusions of
1 December 1997 (2), the Commission based its proposal on
the ‘co-existence model’, whereby each Member State would
be able to choose between applying a withholding tax on
interest payments made to individuals who are resident in
other Member States or providing information to the beneficial
owners’ Member State of residence, with a view to enabling a
taxation to be levied.

This proposal for a Directive replaces that published
1.2.
by the Council on 20 May 1998 which sought to ensure a
minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form

(1) OJ C 116, 28.4.1999, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 2, 6.1.1998, p. 1.