Report from the Commission - Thirteenth annual Report on the Structural Funds (2001)
Date: 2002-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU regional policy, Structural Funds, activity report, implementation of the budget, political cooperation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 30.10.2002
COM(2002)591 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

Thirteenth annual report on the Structural Funds (2001)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER 1: The main events of 2001.................................................................................. 6

1.1

1.2.

1.3.

The Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion and the Cohesion Forum........ 6

Launching the innovative actions.............................................................................. 7

The communication on the negotiations on the Objective 1 programmes .................. 7

CHAPTER 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES ........................................... 9

2.1.

General overview ..................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1. Adoption of new programmes................................................................................... 9

2.1.2.

Implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3................................................................. 10

2.1.3.

Implementation of the Community Initiatives ......................................................... 12

2.1.4.

The innovative measures and technical assistance................................................... 15

2.2.

Implementation of programmes in the Member States ............................................ 17

2.2.1. BELGIUM ............................................................................................................. 17

2.2.2. DENMARK ........................................................................................................... 21

2.2.3. GERMANY ........................................................................................................... 23

2.2.4. GREECE................................................................................................................ 26

2.3.5.

SPAIN ................................................................................................................... 28

2.2.6.

FRANCE................................................................................................................ 33

2.2.7.

IRELAND .............................................................................................................. 36

2.2.8.

ITALY ................................................................................................................... 38

2.2.9.

LUXEMBOURG.................................................................................................... 41

2.2.10. NETHERLANDS................................................................................................... 42

2.2.11. AUSTRIA .............................................................................................................. 44

2.2.12. PORTUGAL .......................................................................................................... 48

2.2.13. FINLAND .............................................................................................................. 50

2.2.14. SWEDEN............................................................................................................... 52

2.2.15. UNITED KINGDOM............................................................................................. 55

2.3.

Coordination with the other financial instruments................................................... 60

2

2.3.1.

The Cohesion Fund................................................................................................. 60

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

Investment Fund (EIF)............................................................................................ 60

2.3.3.

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

2.4.

Coherence with other Community policies ............................................................. 64

2.4.1.

The Structural Funds and employment policy ......................................................... 64

2.4.2.

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

2.4.3.

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

2.4.4.

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

2.4.5.

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

2.4.6.

The Structural Funds and equality for men and women........................................... 69

2.4.7

Structural Funds and the information society .......................................................... 70

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL........................................... 71

3.1.

3.2.

Evaluations in 2001 ................................................................................................ 71

Checks carried out .................................................................................................. 74

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

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

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

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

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

Social partners........................................................................................................ 86

Information and publicity ....................................................................................... 86

FINANCIAL ANNEXES..................................................................................................... 90

Annex 1: Financial implementation by Objective

Annex 2: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives

Annex 3: Financial implementation of technical assistance

Annex 4: Budget implementation

3

GENERAL SUMMARY

This report is compiled in accordance with Article 45(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999
laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. It sets out the work of the Structural
Funds and the activities undertaken to coordinate their work with that of the other financial
instruments during 2001.

The report is centred on three main topics:

- the major events in the work of each Fund and the other financial instruments;

- coordination with the other Community instruments and policies;

- an evaluation of implementation during the year and in the past.

The major events of 2001

The main feature of 2001 was the conclusion of negotiations with the Member States on
Objective 1, which accounts for 70% of the budget of the Structural Funds for 2000-06. The
Commission drew up an overview of the negotiations on the Objective 1 programmes in a
communication which it adopted on 5 July. This was broadly positive even though some
difficulties had been encountered, including the overrunning by five months of the period for
negotiations originally planned for finalising the programming documents because of the
desire to ensure high-quality programming. A period of five months proved to be too short
because of the complexity of a process which, if it was to result in effective programming,
required the involvement of a large number of partners, paying attention to the constraints
imposed by both national and Community policies and the establishment of adequate systems
for management and inspection.

the single programming documents and
As regards implementation, adoption of all
operational programmes meant that all the appropriations planned could be committed and
70% of payments made for both Objective 1 and Objective 2. There were, however, some
delays as regards Objective 3.

Implementation of the Community Initiatives also proceeded steadily:

Interreg III: 54 of the 70 programmes were approved.

Urban II:
committed and the payments on account made.

the 70 programmes were approved;

the corresponding appropriations were

Equal: the Member States issued the calls for projects as soon as their CIPs were adopted; the
Commission set up a common data base accessible via the Europa server to facilitate the
search for transnational partners.

Leader+: 56 of the 73 programmes were approved.

The overall rate of budgetary implementation for the Community Initiatives was 89% for both
commitments and payments.

As regards innovative measures, the ERDF approved 81 of the 103 projects submitted to it
and the ESF selected 37 of the 148 projects proposed on the subject ‘adjustment to the new

4

economy’ and granted part-financing averaging 72%. The call for projects on the second
topic, ‘a local employment strategy’, was issued on 31 October 2001.

€

As regards the closure of programmes from before 1994, the bulk of balances were paid
during 2001, so reducing the amounts still to be settled from
315 million for
Objective 1, from
62
million for the Community Initiatives. Most of the amounts remaining open concern either
cases where further checks are being undertaken because there is a serious suspicion of
irregularities or those where legal proceedings are in progress.

88 million for Objective 2 and from

144 million to

146 million to

581 million to

€

€

€

€

€

Coordination with the other Community instruments and policies

The Cohesion Fund finances transport infrastructure and environmental projects. Coherence
with the measures financed by the Structural Funds is ensured through the Strategic Reference
Frameworks.

Similarly, the cooperation agreement between the EIB and the Commission for 2000-06 has
permitted the introduction of arrangements for contacts between the geographical units in the
two institutions, so improving coordination between the assistance they grant. In addition, the
EIB helped evaluate eight major projects proposed for Structural Fund financing.

As in the past, account was taken of other Community policies through the careful scrutiny of
assistance from the Structural Funds to ensure that
it was compatible with Community
legislation on competition, and particularly aid from public sources.

The consistency of assistance from the Structural Funds with employment policy also
received particular attention. However, it should be noted that evaluation of the impact of the
to establish because of the lack of standardisation in the
ESF is sometimes difficult
presentation of the National Action Plans for employment.

Assistance from the Structural Funds is subject to an ex-ante evaluation to ensure that it is
compatible with legislation on the environment. However, the lack of harmonised data and
indicators in most programmes made this evaluation difficult. During negotiations on the
programming of the Structural Funds, the Commission also paid particular attention to
implementation of the Natura 2000 directive.

Evaluation of implementation and checking

During 2001, the ERDF carried out 27 missions to audit the management systems of the
Member States. These preventative audits demonstrated the care taken by the Member States
as regards the quality of their systems, mainly by creating internal audit bodies. It is, however,
regrettable that far too often the competent authorities in the Member States are still making
payments without any real checks that the expenditure is genuine. The audits also revealed a
lack of authority over the intermediate and implementing bodies, which, in any case, should
have more precise and harmonised procedural rules.

The ESF carried out 41 audits and inspections and the FIFG 12.

The 18 inspections by the EAGGF basically revealed an unsatisfactory application of
Regulation (EC) No 2064/97, some cases where ineligible expenditure had been financed and
still too many problems in reconciling the declarations of expenditure sent to the Commission
with the corresponding transactions.

5

CHAPTER 1: THE MAIN EVENTS OF 2001

1.1

The Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion and the Cohesion Forum

Under the title ‘Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory’,
the Commission adopted the Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion in
January 2001. It looked at the results of the cohesion policy implemented since 1989
and laid the basis for the debate on the future of this policy in preparation for an
enlarged Union. Mr Barnier, the Member with special responsibility for regional
policy, presented the report to the European Parliament on 31 January.

This Report shows that national and regional cohesion has made significant progress
since the end of the 80s. Disparities between the Member States have been reduced
by one third and those between the regions by almost one fifth. In the three least
prosperous Member States (Greece, Spain, Portugal), per capita income has risen
from 68% of the Union average in 1988 to 79% in 1999. Ireland’s convergence with
the Community average has enabled it to leave the group of ‘cohesion countries’.
The least prosperous countries have also improved their communications and
telecommunications infrastructure.

Within several Member States, however, the trend has not been towards a reduction
in development gaps. Sometimes indeed inequalities have increased, even if, in the
Cohesion countries, increased disparities between regions may have gone along with
the convergence of all the regions towards the Community average in terms of per
capita GDP. Other indicators reflect the persistence of regional disparities, e.g.
substantial pockets of unemployment in certain regions (in Spain, Italy and the
French overseas departments) and the persistence of growing regional disparities in
research, innovation or education and training.

The Report extends its analysis to the candidate countries. The situation may be
summed up in one statement: while the area and population of the Union will
increase by one third, the GDP of the enlarged Community will grow by only 5%.

The Report sees the enlarged Union falling into three groups, each with a similar
level of development. The first would include the twelve most prosperous States
(with a GDP equal to or exceeding the current Community average). The second
would include the three so-called cohesion countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal) plus
some of the candidate countries (Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, the Czech Republic) with
a GDP approaching 80% of the Community average. The third would include the
other candidate countries, eight countries accounting for about 16% of the population
of the enlarged Union and with an income of about 40% of the Community average.

The challenges of enlargement require new ways of thinking and of acting. A vital
question is the key criterion on which regional policy is to be based. If the criterion
of per capita GDP is retained, the fall in the Union’s average GDP will automatically
mean that regions eligible under Objective 1 at present will cease to receive
Community assistance.

The second Cohesion Forum, held in Brussels on 21 and 22 May, provided an
opportunity for the 1 800 people present to make an active contribution to the
discussion on the future of regional policy. Several ministers from the Member States
and candidate countries, Members of the European Parliament and representatives of

6

the regional authorities in the Union could compare their opinions and set out their
expectations or fears about the implementation of regional aids in an enlarged Union.

While the aim of the Forum was to discuss the philosophy underlying Europe’s
future regional policy rather than how to finance it, frequent reference was made to
the question of financial resources. Several speakers wanted the two ceilings for
regional aid to be raised:

–

–

in terms of the Union budget: the equivalent of 0.45% of total GDP;

in terms of the volumes of finance transferred: 4% of national GDP for each
beneficiary country.

The spatial topics covered in the second report on cohesion such as urban matters
and rural diversification, areas with natural and geographical handicaps and those
facing problems of conversion were also the subject of many speeches with the result
that Mr Barnier proposed that they should be considered further in the next two
years.

1.2.

Launching the innovative actions

The Commission adopted its new guidelines for ERDF innovative actions 2000-06 in
January 2001. Under the new system, eligible regions are invited to apply for an
ERDF contribution of up to
3 million towards a Regional Programme of Innovative
Actions based on a regional strategy to boost innovation which takes account of the
relative circumstances of
the region and includes a number of actions and
accompanying pilot projects to be selected by the regional partnership responsible.

€

The aim is to increase and improve the quality of spending on innovation in the
mainstream Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes as well as influence the content
of other regional development programmes. In addition to the regional programmes,
a limited number of specific network programmes involving at least five regions
from five Member States may also be approved.

The budget for innovative actions in each year in 2000-06 is 0.4% of the annual
ERDF budget, which means approximately

400 million over the entire period.

€

1.3.

The communication on the negotiations on the Objective 1 programmes

On 5 July the Commission adopted a communication1 which set out the main points
of the Community assistance planned for the regions eligible under Objective 1
during the new programming period (2000-06), with particular attention to the
negotiations with the Member States and the value added by the Community. After
18 months of negotiations, a review was needed, although it was not required by the
basic Regulation.

€
195 billion for the
The Berlin European Council had decided on an amount of
€
Structural Funds for the period 2000-06, of which almost 70% (
127.5 billion) was
to go to the Objective 1 regional development programmes. These resources should
permit a substantial increase in GDP in real terms by 2006 in the Member States

1

COM(2001) 378 final of 5 July 2001 and SEC(2001) 1140/2 of 18 July 2001.

7

concerned (6% in Greece and Portugal, 2.4% in Spain and 4% in the eastern Länder
of Germany). The new programmes will also have a marked impact on the level of
investment towards 2006 (by 20% in Greece, 14% in Portugal and 6% in the eastern
Länder).

While the negotiations with the national and regional authorities were broadly
positive,
there remain some difficulties, which the Commission noted in its
communication:

–

–

–

The period of five months allowed for negotiation of the programming
documents proved too short (the average time for adoption varied from eight
months to a year) because of the detailed discussions between the Commission
and the Member States to improve the quality of programming. A balance had
to be struck between the length of the negotiations and the quality of the
results, particularly as regards the provision of adequate management and
inspection systems, the integration of evaluation prior to programming and
broad consultations through the partnership, and in the verification of
compliance with Community policies, particularly those on the environment
and competition. The Commission will ensure that the Member States comply
with their commitments in this regard.

The programme complement was sometimes seen as a separate phase of
programming although its role is to provide details of the content of the
programme priorities through a detailed description of the measures and the
quantification of the targets and indicators relating to them, including for the
performance reserve. This sometimes resulted in management problems
because the authorities responsible for preparing the programme complements
were not the same as those which had negotiated the plans and programmes.

In several Member States, the new systems for management, inspection and
monitoring were defined as regards their general outline but the arrangements
for implementing them and making them fully operational remain to be settled.

The Commission would ask the Member States to make greater efforts in these
essential areas to achieve increased efficiency in the use of the Structural Funds, in
accordance with the new implementing Regulations, and particularly as regards the
computerised management systems (to avoid delays in interim payments). The
Commission intends to carry out a comparative analysis of financial management
and inspection systems to identify best practice and promote new solutions to the
problems arising in this area.

–

Despite the progress made as regards the partnership during the preparation of
the plans and programmes, the way this principle will be implemented during
the implementation of assistance is not always clear.

The Commission will ensure the sound operation of the partnership, which should be
as broad as possible, but also more proactive and more responsible in terms of the
concrete management of assistance.

These less positive aspects do not call into question the principles decided on in the
regulations governing the Structural Funds. The results-oriented management model,
which is one of the pillars of this reform, has proved demanding and difficult to

8

implement but
it has already helped increase transparency and the quality of
programming for 2000-06. The mid-term evaluation of these programmes will show
the extent to which this will affect their implementation. The Commission will draw
the necessary conclusions, particularly as regards simplicity, quality, efficiency and
transparency.

The communication was discussed by the Ministers responsible for regional policy at
an informal meeting in Namur on 13 July 2001. The debate covered the initial results
of the establishment of the programming documents for Objective 1 and revealed
substantial progress on the strategic content of the regional programmes thanks to the
systematic use of evaluation,
the strengthening of the partnership and giving
consideration to Community priorities such as the information society and the
environment. The representatives of certain Member States expressed concern about
the risk of not achieving the goal of greater simplification linked to decentralisation
because of the Commission’s implementation of the rules on financial management
and inspection. Following this discussion, Commissioner Barnier decided to launch
an initiative, in close consultation with the Member States, on ways to simplify the
implemenatation of the Structural Funds while fully respecting the principles of
sound and efficient management.

The experience of these negotiations on Objective 1 will be particularly useful in the
preparation of the programming documents for the candidate countries at the mid
point of the period 2000-06.

The third Report on economic and social cohesion, which the Commission should
normally present at the end of 2003, will provide an opportunity to review the
statutory improvements to be made to the operation of the Structural Funds after
2006.

CHAPTER 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES

2.1.

General overview

2.1.1.

Adoption of new programmes

The SPDs and OPs for Objective 1 which had not been adopted in 2000 were
adopted in 2001. They totalled 55 forms of assistance, mainly in Greece (25 OPs)
and Spain (17 OPs). For the other Member States eligible under Objective 1, only a
few isolated forms of assistance remained to be adopted.

For Objective 2 likewise all the assistance planned, a total of 86 SPDs, was adopted
in 2001. In 2000, only the SPDs for Denmark, Finland and Sweden had been
approved. However, most of the programmes for the other countries were ready for
adoption at
the end of 2000, so justifying the carryover of the appropriations
concerned. Some programmes for Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and,
to some extent, Germany were not ready for adoption at the end of 2000 and had to
be adjusted following the decision to reenter in the budget
the appropriations
cancelled at the end of 2000.

For Objective 3, only the four OPs for Spain which still remained to be adopted
were approved during the year.

9

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

€

The Commission committed the appropriations for the second instalment for ten of
the eleven programmes in the non-Objective 1 regions, a total of
159.4 million. The
14 million for the Italian programme was also committed from
first instalment of
the appropriations carried over from 2000. The conclusion of the programme for the
Netherlands was virtually complete by the end of the year but the Commission was
unable to take a decision before 31 December.
the
It decided to carryover
corresponding appropriations and these were committed before 31 March 2002.

€

As regards the Community Initiatives, all the programmes not yet adopted in 2000
were adopted in 2001, including 53 Interreg III programmes (strands A and B).

In addition, all the 70 programmes for urban regeneration (Urban II Community
Initiative) were adopted in 2001, as were 56 national and regional programmes for
Leader+.

The Member States also submitted their proposals for the Equal Community
Initiative programme in September 2000. The total Community contribution was
€
3 026 million. Following negotiations with the Member States, the Commission
adopted 17 Equal CIPs between 8 March and 22 May 2001, one for each Member
State except Belgium and the United Kingdom, which had two each2.

During 2001, [341] items of assistance were adopted under the various Objectives
and Community Initiatives.

Programming for 2000-06, which could be regarded as virtually complete by the
end of 2001 (apart from the programmes under Interreg III C) was therefore
implemented through [452] items of assistance (SPDs and OPs). Programming for
the previous period (1994-99) had entailed over 1 130 such items.

2.1.2.

Implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3

Objective 1:

In terms of commitments, Objective 1 was bolstered by the carryover of
appropriations from 2000 totalling
5 375 million, increasing the appropriations
available by 25.8%. This carryover was justified by the need to commit in 2001 the
annual instalments for 2000 in respect of a certain number of programmes for which
decisions had been adopted or were ready for adoption at the end of 2000.

€

The payment appropriations for Objective 1 were increased by
1 020 million carried
over from 2000. However, during the annual transfer procedure approved by the
budgetary authority,
160 million to other Structural
Funds chapters and the remaining
49.7 million to other budget headings. These
transfers account for 1.1% of the payment appropriations for Objective 1.

209.7 million was transferred,
€

€

€

€

During the year, all the available commitment appropriations were implemented, as
appropriations. The unimplemented payment
were 70% of

the payment

2

For French and German and for Dutch-speaking Belgium and for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

10

appropriations were cancelled in accordance with the general rule in the Financial
Regulation.

Considerable progress was made in 2001 as regards the closure of Objective 1
programmes from earlier programming periods and the settlement of outstanding
amounts:

Amounts to be settled for Objective 1 programmes from before 1994:

Amount to be settled in

€

million

1999

2000

2001

1 149.6

581.1

314.5

Number of commitments open

529

389

288

In accordance with Article 52(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, amounts for
programmes decided on by the Commission before 1 January 1994 for which no
the balance has been received by 31 March 2001 must be
application for
automatically decommitted by 30 September 2001.

The persistence of amounts to be settled for the programmes covered by these
provisions is due to the fact that the applications for the final balance required by that
provision were made for the programmes concerned but, because of unresolved legal
proceedings, checks on suspected irregularities, or both reasons,
the remaining
amount cannot be finally settled.

Objective 2:

€

Since the vast bulk of Objective 2 programmes were adopted in 2001, commitment
appropriations totalling
2 652 million were carried over from 2000 to 2001,
increasing appropriations by 73.4%. Despite this increase in available appropriations,
all the commitment appropriations, including those carried over, were implemented
in 2001.

150 million. About
Payment appropriations carried over from 2000 amounted to
70% of payment appropriations were implemented in 2001 and the unimplemented
balance of these appropriations was cancelled in accordance with the general rule in
Article 7(2) of
the Financial Regulation. The information available led the
Commission to consider that the payment appropriations entered were adequate for
the implementation forecast.

€

As in the case of Objective 1, considerable progress was made as regards the closure
of programmes from earlier programming periods and the settlement of outstanding
amounts:

Amounts to be settled for Objective 2 programmes from before 1994:

Amount to be settled in

€

million

Number of commitments open

1999

2000

2001

306.2

112

144.3

64

88.3

45

In accordance with Article 52(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, amounts for
programmes decided on by the Commission before 1 January 1994 for which no

11

application for
automatically decommitted by 30 September 2001.

the balance has been received by 31 March 2001 must be

The persistence of amounts to be settled for the programmes covered by these
provisions is due to the fact that the applications for the final balance required by that
provision were made for the programmes concerned but, because of unresolved legal
proceedings, checks on suspected irregularities, or both reasons,
the remaining
amount cannot be finally settled.

Objective 3:

€

By the end of 2001 total payments under Objective 3 amounted to
2 800 million, or
some 40% of the total commitments for the two years 2000-01. This was partly due
to the late start for many programmes during 2000, a delay which was gradually
reduced in many Member States during 2001. The relative level of payments was
above average in Austria, Germany, France and Spain. Compared to the whole
programming period 2000-06 total payments by end-2001 amounted to 11%. This
figure reflects the fact that only in some Member States was the payment on account
of 7% followed by further payment applications before the end of 2001.

These delays have raised worries in some Member States regarding a possible risk of
decommitments or repayments, although the annual review meetings that took place
during autumn 2001 suggest
these concerns are receding. Another related
concern that appeared is the impact on programme implementation of the economic
slowdown throughout 2001. The possibility of a pre-emptive re-examination of the
programmes was raised by some managing authorities during the autumn meetings,
particularly because of difficulties with the implementation of certain activating or
preventive measures in a negative socio-economic context.

that

2.1.3.

Implementation of the Community Initiatives

€

Following the adoption on 28 April 2000 of the guidelines for Interreg III for 2000-
063 (
4 875 million at 1999 prices), the Member States were invited to submit
detailed proposals within six months of the date of publication of the final
communication in the Official Journal4.

Although many of the programmes (particularly the cross-border ones) had already
been submitted during 2000,
the Commission received 12 further cross-border
the four
programmes (strand A), nine transnational programmes (strand B),
interregional programmes (strand C) and one networking programme under point 53
of the ESPON Guidelines (European Spatial Planning Observatory Network).

The Commission examined these programmes and those already submitted during
2000 and began negotiations with the national and regional authorities concerned so
that the various programmes could be approved as soon as possible.

During 2001, the Commission adopted 44 cross-border programmes (out of 53), 8
transnational programmes (out of 13) and two interregional programmes (out of
four).

3

4

OJ C 143, 23.5.2000, p. 6.
OJ C 143, 23.5.2000, p. 6.

12

As a result, the actual implementation of the bulk of the Interreg III programmes
in 2001. The Commission also attended several Monitoring
began in earnest
Committees as provided for in the general Regulation on the Structural Funds and
Steering Committees where these were set up as required by the Interreg III
guidelines.

€

The Urban II Community Initiative is intended to advance the economic and social
regeneration of towns and neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable
urban development. It covers the period 2001-06 and finances 70 towns and
neighbourhoods in difficulty proposed by the Member States. The total contribution
743.6 million5, plus an equivalent amount from the
from the ERDF amounts to
public and private sectors. This will be used for measures such as the renovation of
buildings and public areas, initiatives to promote employment, improvements to the
systems of education and training for
the
development of environmentally-friendly public transport, the introduction of more
efficient management systems, the use of renewable sources of energy and the
development of the potential created by the information and the communications
technologies. A programme to exchange information and share experiences on the
regeneration of urban areas will also be launched during 2002.

the most disadvantaged groups,

Despite the fact that many of the 70 programmes were submitted in the first half of
2001, all the programmes were examined, negotiated, approved and committed by
the Commission during the second part of the year. The payment on account were
also made.

Work began on the spot as part of a broad partnership embracing all those involved
(at national, regional and local level).

€
(

ERDF
million)

Number of
programmes

21,2
5.3
148.7
25.5
112.6
102.0
5.3
114.8
29.8
8.4
19.2
5.3
5.3
124.3
15.9
743.6

3
1
12
3
10
9
1
10
3
2
3
1
1
11

70

Belgium
Danmark
Deutschland
Ellada
España
France
Ireland
Italia
Nederland
Österreich
Portugal
Suomi
Sverige
UK
Network

Total

The Member States began the implementation of Equal, principally through the call
for proposals and the receipt and selection of Equal projects on the basis of the
guidelines in their programmes. They all agreed to follow a joint schedule in order to
facilitate transnational cooperation, the main point of the Initiative.

5

At current prices.

13

Action 1 began on 15 November for almost 1 500 Development Partnerships
following selection in their countries. Two Member States, Germany and Greece,
were late in making their selection but made this up during January. Detailed
information on each Development Partnership may be found in the Equal data base
developed by the Commission and fed regularly since 15 November 2001 by the
Member States. This data base is a tool for Development Partnerships seeking
transnational partners and the main source of information throughout the life of the
programme; it may be consulted on the Equal site on Europa.

Throughout Action 1, the Development Partnerships finalised their national work
programmes and established transnational cooperation with at least one Development
Partnership in another Member State. In addition to the Equal data base, other tools
were developed at European level such as the “Equal Guide on Transnationality” or
the ETCIM computer application, which allows finalisation of the transnational
cooperation agreements between Development Partnerships in different countries.

Action 2 began on 15 May 2002 and constitutes the effective launching of 1 500
Equal Development Partnerships across the Union.

Two countries applying for accession are involved in the Equal Initiative, the Czech
Republic and Hungry. They have selected their Equal Development Partnerships,
which are participating in the programme like their colleagues in the Member States.

In 2001 56 Leader+ programmes were approved, 11 at national level and 45 at
regional level. The remaining 17 were approved in the first quarter of 2002. Total
2 020 million from the
Community assistance to Leader+ in 2000-06 will amount to
EAGGF Guidance Section.

€

2001 was devoted mainly to the selection of the local action groups on the basis of
the guidelines in the programme so that, by the end of
the year, actual
implementation of Leader+ on the ground had not yet started.

Budgetary implementation of the Community Initiatives:

The Commission did not adopt any carryover of commitment appropriations because
the decision-making procedures to adopt programmes were not sufficiently advanced
by the end of the year.

€

The delay in the adoption of the programmes meant that no carryover of payment
appropriations was decided although there was inevitably some shortfall when all the
programmes were adopted in time for the initial payment on account to be made.
During the annual general transfer procedure approved by the budgetary authority, a
160 million was transferred to this chapter from Objective 1. By contrast,
total of
because some proposals for Interreg programmes were defective so that they could
not be adopted before the end of 2001, commitment appropriations totalling
75.75
2.4 million from Urban) were made available to other chapters of
million (including
the Structural Funds. Finally, the Commission proposed to the budgetary authority
the transfer of these appropriations to increase the funds available for the adoption of
programmes of ERDF innovative measures where funds were inadequate for the
adoption of all the programmes selected during examination.

€

€

14

In terms of implementation, both commitment and payment appropriations were
implemented at the rate of 89%.

€

A decision was taken to carry over the balance remaining to be committed at the end
of the year (
161.8 million) in order to complete the procedures for the adoption of
certain programmes which were then almost complete. However, the unimplemented
balance of payment appropriations was cancelled in accordance with the general rule
in Article 7(2) of the Financial Regulation.

Considerable progress was made in 2001 as regards the closure of outstanding items
of assistance and the settlement of outstanding amounts:

Amounts to be settled for the Community Initiatives programmes from before 1994:

Amount to be settled in

€

million

Number of commitments open

1999

2000

2001

201.6

125

145.9

102

62.3

65

2.1.4.

The innovative measures and technical assistance

Under the ERDF, 103 regions applied for a regional programme in 2001. Each
application was examined by DG Regional Policy and other relevant DGs in
accordance with the selection criteria laid down in the guidelines. Given the limited
budget available, the Commission had to select the best qualified applications for
part-financing but had to turn down some even though their quality was relatively
good. In these cases, each region was informed why its application did not score
sufficiently highly and was invited to make an improved application in the following
year.

In all, 81 of the 103 applications received were granted ERDF part-financing from
the budget available. The total ERDF amount for approved programmes was
approximately

206 million and their total value approximately

393 million.

€

€

As for the ESF, on 12 January the Commission adopted a “Communication on the
implementation of innovative measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund
Regulation for the programming period 2000-2006”6 setting out how it intends to use
the possibilities offered by Article 6 of the ESF Regulation to promote new
approaches and identify examples of good practice in support of mainstream ESF
operations. Experience during the previous programming period had suggested that
innovative measures should concentrate on a limited number of defined themes,
focusing on particular issues. The Communication defines the priority themes for
Article 6 in 2001 and 2002:

–

–

Adaptation to the new economy within the framework of social dialogue, and

Local employment strategies and innovation

Adaptation to the new economy within the framework of social dialogue

6

COM(2000) 894 final.

15

A call for proposals under this priority theme was published in the Official Journal
on 27 February 20017 with a deadline for submitting applications of 18 May.

€
The maximum total budget available was
30 million. The Community grant
€
3 million over a two-year period.
300 000 and
requested had to be between
Applicants were required to make a financial (cash) contribution to the project
covering a minimum of 5% of the total costs while in-kind contributions were limited
to a maximum of 10% of the total costs.

€

Projects could start between 1 September and 1 December 2001 for a maximum
duration of 24 months, ending by 30 November 2003 at the latest.

The Commission Communication specified that applications could address one or
more of five themes, under the general heading of “Adaptation to the new economy
within the framework of social dialogue”:

–

–

–

–

–

Anticipation of economic and social change;

Use of information society tools in the framework of social dialogue;

New approaches to corporate social responsibility;

Modernisation of work organisation;

Promotion of lifelong learning.

The call for proposals was open to a wide range of applicants. In principle, and
depending on the thematic priority covered, applicants could be social partner
organisations, private companies, non-profit organisations, or education and training
bodies located in the European Union. However, in order to ensure consistency with
the overall theme, during the evaluation procedure priority was given to projects
based on a partnership approach with social partner organisations.

A total of 148 applications were submitted by the deadline of which 35 were
eventually selected for ESF part-financing. The average ESF contribution to
individual projects amounts to
785 135, or 72% of the average total cost of the
projects.

€

Local employment strategies and innovation

A call for proposals on the priority theme of “Local employment strategies and
innovation” was published in the Official Journal on 31 October 20018. Applicants
can apply before one of two deadlines: 22 February 2002 and 31 January 2003. The
fact
includes application deadlines in two consecutive years is a
reflection of the importance attached to this issue by the Commission and it ensures
that support for projects to develop and implement local employment strategies will
continue in 2003.

the call

that

7

8

OJ C 62, 27.2.2001, p. 5.
OJ C 306, 31.10.2001.

16

The aim of this call is to support innovative actions to develop local employment
strategies in order to reinforce the implementation of the European Employment
Strategy at a local level. Applications must be aimed at applying the priorities of the
National Action Plan (NAP) for employment in a given territory in the form of local
therefore, aims to part-finance
employment strategies. The call for proposals,
innovative projects which may include the following activities (among others):

–

–

–

–

–

–

Analysis of the existing local employment situation;

Development of partnerships at local level which include relevant actors from
different sectors;

Relevant studies and research to prepare the local employment strategies;

Development and implementation of the local employment strategies;

Monitoring, benchmarking and evaluation;

Exchange of information, dissemination and networking.

The organisations eligible to apply under this call are, in principle, public authorities
and territorial public administrations acting in territories at NUTS levels 2 or 3.

The budget available under this call will be up to
40 million in both 2002 and 2003.
The Commission will contribute up to of 75% of total eligible costs, with part-
3 million over a two-year period. Applicants must
finance ranging from
make a financial (cash) contribution of 25% of the total cost of the project.

300 000 to

€

€

€

It is envisaged that grant agreements for successful applications under the first round
of applications will be signed in October 2002, with projects starting between 1
November 2002 and 31 December 2002. Projects can last up to 24 months and must
finish by 31 December 2004.

The technical assistance programme for the FIFG was implemented as planned in
1 127 000 was committed. However, no innovative measure was
2001. A total of
committed in 2001 and the work programme was carried over to 2002.

€

2.2.

Implementation of programmes in the Member States

2.2.1.

BELGIUM

1994-99:

The still provisional outturn of the Objective 1 SPD for Hainaut gives a rate of
commitment exceeding 98%. Assistance from the four Structural Funds concentrated
on direct aid to firms (for investment and research), measures providing indirect
industrial areas) and the
support
development of human resources. The development and equipping of research
centres and centres of excellence continued successfully. The evaluations available
suggest that the number of jobs will reach 12 000, which may be considered
satisfactory.

for economic development

(equipping of

17

Measures were taken to modernise education alongside training in the new
technologies for teaching staff. The fields of new information and communications
technologies were given pride of place among young people and in contacts with job
seekers and older 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. In addition five effective instruction
centres were set up to provide Hainaut with the skills it needs.

The measures under the Objective 2 SPD for Meuse Vesdre continued and work on
most of the infrastructure projects (improved access, reception, R&D, tourist projects
and restoration of waste land) were completed. In the Aubange SPD, construction of
the distance support centre and the economic development projects were completed.

In Flanders 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.

The integrated ESF/ERDF measures to improve research centres under Objectives 2
and 5(b) yielded satisfactory results and, as regards human resources, specialist
training for workers and job-seekers and training in the new technologies achieved
genuine success. The measures to promote the social economy are expected to be
successful, although to a much lesser degree than anticipated.

All the resources for the five Belgian programmes under Objective 3 were used,
mainly on measures for the long-term unemployed, ex-convicts, immigrants, the
handicapped and those with poor education records and skills. The introduction of
the pathways to integration continued. The “Training Carrefours” now provide
information and advice, so ensuring transparency in supply and the effective
dissemination of information to all those operating at local level.

Thanks to Objective 4, considerable progress was made in the training of workers. In
partnership with the sectoral Funds, consultants were engaged to promote appropriate
training in firms. The Walloon employment observatory, which was established
under Objective 4, and the Brussels observatory produced studies on sectors
undergoing change and conversion and the new sectors. The measures for small
firms were successful, including the PLATO project which combines a management
training programme for small firms with sponsorship by managers in large firms and
the exchange of experience and know-how between firms. Despite successes, it is
already likely that not all the appropriations for the five programmes under this
Objective will have been used when the final account is drawn up on 30 June 2002.

Under the structural programme for fisheries (Objective 5(a) fisheries) almost all the
FIFG funds of
25.4 million have been committed. According to preliminary
information, the programme had been almost fully implemented by the end of 2001.

€

2000-06:

the
The Monitoring Committee approved the programme complement
Objective 1 SPD for Hainaut after it was amended to make it an operational and

for

18

transparent document incorporating the comments which the Commission made on
the first version, submitted at the end of 2000.

One year after approval of the SPD, over 150 EFRO projects have been approved
with a total contribution from the Structural Funds of over
410 million, over two-
thirds of the budget available in this programme. The main measures on which
project commitment decisions were taken were aid for investment in industry and the
service sector and financial engineering, support for centres of excellence (research
centres) and developing the potential of tourism and culture. The level of expenditure
is still quite low at

30 million or 5% of the funds available.

€

€

Two Objective 2 programmes were approved for Wallonia: one for the Meuse-
158.3 million) and
Vesdre basin (assistance from the ERDF and the ESF totalling
one for the rural area of Dinant-Philippeville (assistance from the ERDF and the ESF
totalling

58.4 million)

€

€

The main aim of the Objective 2 plan for 2000-06 for the Meuse-Vesdre basin is to
increase the economic and social prosperity of the eligible area by affirming its status
as a town. The Objective 2 SPD has five priorities plus technical assistance which
are: 1: Diversification of the economic base, 2: Access to the knowledge society, 3:
Improving employability and know-how, 4: Consolidation of its international role,
and 5: Promotion of sustainable urban development.

The main aim of the Objective 2 plan for Dinant-Philippeville is to promote and
structure the locally-generated development of the area. It has three priorities plus
technical
locally-generated
development of merchant economic activities, 2: Structuring the rural area, and 3:
Improving employability and know-how.

assistance: 1: Encouraging and supporting the

2001 saw the closure of the negotiations with the Flemish regional authorities on
adoption of the four programmes they had submitted under Objective 2 and for
transitional support under Objectives 2 and 5(b).

The Commission approved the four SPDs in May and June and the four programme
complements were accepted in September and November. The Monitoring
Committees met so that the programmes could start as soon as negotiations with the
Commission were completed.

During the current programming period, Flanders will have available Community
€
148.2 million will go to the areas eligible
funding totalling
under Objective 2 and

38.2 million to transitional support.

186.4 million, of which

€

€

Structural measures are aimed at areas undergoing conversion, particularly the
former mining area of Flanders and the Belgian coast, urban areas in difficulty
(Antwerp, Ghent) and rural areas. Four programmes have been proposed (one for
each province excluding Flemish Brabant) and their examination was completed in
February/March. The final decisions were taken in May/June.

Each of the four ‘provincial’ programmes can be regarded as falling into two clearly
distinct sub-programmes.

19

€

€

92.7 million (

Limburg: This programme will receive financial support from the European Union
10.6 million from the
82.1 million from the ERDF and
totalling
ESF). In addition the Flemish public sectors will invest
119 million and the private
€
sector
240.4 million. The programme
includes the following priorities: Initiatives by and for private investment and
employment; Improving overall
local economic conditions and Integrated rural
development in rural Hesbaye.

28.7 million, resulting in total expenditure of

€

€

€

€

€

€

33 million (

30.5 million from the ERDF and

Kustgebied-Westhoek (West Flanders): This programme will receive a Community
contribution of
2.5 million from the
ESF). It concerns both the coastal area, which has specific difficulties because of the
decline of the fisheries sector and so is eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural
Funds, and the Westhoek, a former Objective 5(b) area now eligible for transitional
support. The Union funds will be supplemented by
70.6 million in public
€
investment by Flanders and
13.7 million from the private sector, giving a total cost
117.4 million. The programme is based on the following
for the programme of
priorities:
improving the local economic fabric,
sustainable inter-sectoral development and qualitative improvements to the area as a
place for both living and working and training and the employment market.

the development of tourism,

€

€

€

East Flanders: This programme will receive a Community contribution of
13.6
million (ERDF only). In addition it will receive
32 million in public investment by
Flanders and
13.5 million from the private sector, giving a total amount for the
€
59.1 million. The programme is based on the following priorities:
programme of
development of economic initiative and employment, improved viability and quality
of life in urban and rural centres and stimulating the development of tourism in the
rural part.

€

€

€

€

€

41.6 million from the ERDF and

47 million from the European Union (

Province of Antwerp: The programme will
€

receive financial support worth
5.5
€
81.5 million in public investment
million from the ESF). In addition it will receive
7.3 million in private investment, giving a total amount for the
by Flanders and
€
programme of
135.8 million. The programme has two geographical priorities:
Campine: measures to develop and restore industrial sites, promote cooperation
among local small firms, encourage the new communications and information
technologies and innovation through the exchange of knowledge among firms and
networking, the development of infrastructures for training and research and the
promotion of better integrated supply in the tourism sector. North-east Antwerp: This
priority contains measures to promote training and improve the skills of the local
population, rebuild and make more attractive the public areas of the town, improve
the quality of local public services and promote synergies in sectors which are
important locally, such as the food industry, fashion and design.

The Commission adopted five SPDs under Objective 3 in Belgium for vocational
765 million and a programme of transitional
training and employment for a total de
192 million. These six programmes
support for Hainaut with an ESF contribution of
will help implement the European employment strategy in Belgium.

€

€

69.1 million. Half the budget
Federal Ministry of Employment and Labour SPD:
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.

€

20

€

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. These are the
priorities for the SPD.

Wallonia/Brussels SPD (excluding Hainaut):
285.5 million. The priority remains
reducing unemployment. Social and vocational exclusion also affects a large number
of men and women. The SPD relies primarily on a preventative approach.

€

€

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 (16.5%). 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 from the ESF. These resources will be used mainly
under two priorities: a preventive approach to the labour market and improving
vocational reintegration and social inclusion.

Total ESF assistance in Belgium is now increasing in a generally satisfactory manner
and is on target. In 2001 over 90% of ESF assistance programmed was implemented.
The measures include a conversion unit for the thousands of workers affected by the
bankruptcy of Sabena.

35.3
Non-Objective 1 FIFG: The programme adopted includes an allocation of
million for fish processing and the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet. In
addition, the Hainaut SDP contains a measure for aquaculture.

€

2.2.2. DENMARK

Objective 2:

1994-99

A number of programmes from the previous period were completed in 2001 and
await the final report and closure. These are:

The Objective 2 programmes
programmes received a total Community contribution of

€

for Lolland and Nordjylland 1997-99. These

68.2 million.

The overall objectives of the Nordjylland programme (
54.4 million) were to
improve the conditions for increased growth in business in the region, and so
maintain and increase the number of jobs. The strategy for reaching this objective
was ‘Globalisation’: a strengthening of firms’ ability to compete internationally
through innovation, capacity conversion and improved skills and by strengthening
educational and other framework infrastructure.

€

For the Lolland Programme (
13.8 million) the overall objectives were to foster the
region’s development potential, widen the base for business development, maintain

€

21

and increase the number of jobs in the short and the long term, and increase the
overall income of the region.

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

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
189
206 million from the national public
million of which will come from the EU,
sector and
222 million from the private sector. The transitional regions will receive
€

617 million,

€

€

€

€

27 million.

The programme aims to create the conditions for self-sustaining growth in the
regions of Denmark that are facing structural difficulties. It combines measures
under the ERDF (71% of Community resources) and the ESF (29%).

The programme complement detailing the strategy was finalised in autumn 2001. It
consists of an “umbrella” covering general aspects and five sections each covering
one of the five geographical sub-regions: Bornholm (Objective 2), Lolland, Falster
and Møn (Objective 2), parts of the counties of Viborg, Århus, Ringkøbing and
Sønderjylland (Objective 2 and transitional), Sydfyn and islands not covered by the
regions mentioned above (Objective 2).

The SPD presents the general strategy for the whole Objective 2 area while the sub-
regional sections deal with the relevant specific conditions.

Each of these regional sections can be categorised as a sub-programme with analysis
of specific needs, potentials etc. and focussing the assistance outlined in the SPD in
the specific regions. The background for this model is first and foremost the small
size of Denmark combined with eligible (mostly coherent) areas in different parts of
the country, each of which has its own specific socio-economic character.

Two programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) meetings were organised in the
course of 2001. The first, held on 6 March, concentrated on setting up the operation
of the partnership and the PMC, and established the administrative and functional
arrangements for implementing the programme. The second, held on 2 October,
focused primarily on the adoption of the programme complement and on the work of
catching up on spending the allocations for 2000 and 2001. The meeting further
discussed the possibilities of including activities in the film industry and decided to
consult the Commission. No concrete proposal has yet been made.

The annual meeting between the managing authorities and the Commission was held
on 22 October. The general view was that the financial and physical implementation
of the programme was progressing very well, as regards both the ERDF and the ESF.

By the end of 2001 the ERDF value of the adopted projects has almost absorbed the
first two years of allocation, i.e. the programme had almost caught up with a rather
late start. The payments to the projects alone constituted about 1/3 of the first year’s
allocation, leaving 2/3 to be paid in 2002 (together with preferably a substantial part

22

of the allocation for 2001), in order not to lose money under the n+2 rule. However,
it seems that the programme faces no substantial problems in this respect.

Objective 3

€

379 million seven-year programme to support education,

training and
A
employment in Denmark was approved by the Commission on 24 October 2000. The
programme sets out five priorities, reflecting the country's 1999 National Action Plan
for Employment: strengthening active labour market policies to prevent long-term
unemployment and improve labour market structures; promoting equal opportunities
for all in accessing the labour market; developing skills and training and encouraging
business spirit and innovation.

A further 3% of the budget (
manage, implement and evaluate the results of the programme.

12 million) is set aside for technical assistance to

€

The National Labour Market Authority within the Ministry of Labour is responsible
for the day-to-day coordination, management and monitoring of the programme. The
Regional Social Fund Committees of
the
implementation of the decentralised funds, which amount to about 75% of total
funds. The constituent meeting of the Monitoring Committee took place on 16
January 2001 and the first annual review meeting with the managing authority was
held on 26 November.

the counties are responsible for

The Danish programme has been strongly promoted by the managing authority
which resulted in a large number of project applications being received. Generally,
incoming project applications amount to more than five times the available budget.
The 2000 and 2001 commitments have been made. By the end of 2001 total
payments, including the initial payment on account, amounted to 7.12% of the total
available funds.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG:

€

The Commission adopted the structural programme for 2000-06 on 8 August 2000.
€
1 000 million is
205 million is available from FIFG and investment totalling
envisaged. The major areas are processing, port facilities and the fleet, which is in
need of modernisation in order to improve working conditions, health conditions and
selectivity of the fishing gear. After the first meeting of the Monitoring Committee
on 27 October 2000 and the final approval of aid schemes by the Commission early
in January 2001, programme implementation started as expected. Some of the
assistance schemes, for example modernisation and decommissioning of the fleet,
however, were first adopted by the Danish authorities late in 2001 and so did not
begin until later.

2.2.3. GERMANY

1994-99

By the end of 1999, 99.95% of the budget for all programmes and 99.91% of the
budget for the Community Initiatives had been committed. Payments to beneficiaries
were normally possible up to 31 December 2001. The final payment for one
Objective 3 programme
(Baden-Württemberg) had already been paid and
implementation of the remaining 138 programmes for this period, which had to use

23

all their funds by the end of 2001, continued. For six Community Initiatives or
Objective 2 programmes DG REGIO considered the requests for extension well
justified, because of either an error by the Commission or a natural catastrophe. For
most of the other cases alternative solutions could be prepared with the managing
authorities.

The closure procedure for one Community Initiative (Konver II in Hamburg) started
in 2001.

For all programmes, including the Community Initiatives,
347 million was paid out
by the Commission in 2001. For one Objective 2 programme payments were
suspended pending a commitment to tighten checks by the region.

€

2000-06

Objective 1: The German CSF was adopted in June 2000 and is implemented by
nine operational programmes (six for the Länder and three horizontal programmes
under the responsibility of the federal authorities). Commission decisions for the
regional programmes and the ‘Fisheries’ horizontal programme were taken by the
end of 2000. The outstanding two operational programmes (transport and the ESF
federal programme) for the implementation of the CSF (in total
20 700 million of
€
Community funding, including
748 million for transitional areas in Berlin) were
approved by the Commission in February 2001. Commitments for all Funds and all
for Brandenburg,
programmes were made. The programme
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony and Thuringia were
approved after the checks required by the Commission showed that they complied
with Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. However, the chapters on human resources
development in the programme complements for Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania in particular required substantial amendments in order to bring
them into line with the respective chapters of
the underlying operational
programmes.

complements

€

The nine operational programmes in the CSF aim to create a total of 370 000 full-
time permanent jobs and further limited jobs equivalent to 265 000 full-time jobs.
from measures to improve skills or
Around 1.35 million people will benefit
employment aids financed by the ESF.

The financial tables (national part-financing) for the German CSF were amended
following a request from the German authorities with no change to the objectives or
the scope of the measures. A request for an amendment to the programme for Saxony
was tabled.

The Monitoring Committees for all the operational programmes met up to six times
in the year. The Monitoring Committee for the CSF was convened twice. The social
and economic partners were increasingly involved and will attend future meetings at
CSF level. They were formally involved in the Monitoring Committees for the
operational programmes from the start and some programmes give them voting
rights. The Commission has taken several steps to encourage the regional authorities
to be involved in the EES (European Employment Strategy) and NAP (National
Measure Plan) process and to strengthen the contribution of the human resources
development priority in the regional programmes to the German NAP process. There
was also a first exchange of views of the Job-Active-Law (the revision of the

24

German labour market policy law) and of its impact on the operational programmes.
This discussion continues in 2002.

One major project was submitted at the end of the year under the ‘Transport’
horizontal programme.

The transport projects are often concentrated on the trans-European networks (TENs)
and links to the accession countries in particular are funded.

The programme complements show that most regional programmes include financial
engineering and that the funding of these measures is four times higher than in the
previous period.

The financial inspection systems were checked at an early stage by the Commission.
Revision of the 1997 agreement between Germany and the Commission on financial
inspections is under discussion.

The Commission asked for and received the communications action plans by
programme. Information and communication will be a prominent element in the
administration of programmes. Several programmes have for example started an
measure to determine a ‘project of the month’ to whose promotion particular efforts
are devoted.

The ERDF paid a total of
payments or interim payments to the Objective 1 programmes.

981 million and the ESF

1 003 million as advance

€

€

In the agricultural sector, all EAGGF measures adopted in 2000 are now in
operation. For the whole period EAGGF expenditure for Objectives 1 and 2 amounts
to

188.7 million.

€

€

The programme for fisheries within Objective 1 regions includes an FIFG allocation
105.2 million and focuses particularly on processing and investment in fishing
of
ports. Programme implementation started in the second half of 2000 and progressed
as scheduled in 2001.

Objective 2: Up to 2006 in Germany
and another

530 million for the transitional areas.

€

€

3 096 million was available for Objective 2

Germany submitted eleven Objective 2 programmes. These were multifund
programmes (ERDF and ESF), with the exception of the programmes in Baden-
Württemberg, Bremen, Hamburg and Hessen (ERDF alone). The Commission
approved 11 programmes in 2002 and the programme complements for six
(Baden-Württemberg, Bremen, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-
programmes
Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland) were declared to comply with
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

the

particular

negotiations

emphasis was

achieving
During
complementarity between the Objective 2 programmes and other EU programmes.
So for example the Baden-Württemberg Objective 2 programme includes close
cooperation with Objective 3 and the Mannheim-Ludwigshafen Urban programme.
Measures under all three programmes are linked to each other, avoiding duplication.
Two major projects were submitted from North Rhine-Westphalia.

placed

on

25

The Commission made advance payments totalling
229 million for Objective 2
programmes for 2000-06. Annual reports were due and received for all programmes
with the exception of Hamburg, Berlin and Baden-Württemberg.

€

Objective 3: Following adoption of the Objective 3 SPD on 10 October 2000, the
draft programme complement was adopted in principle by the Monitoring Committee
on 30 January 2001 and after finalisation sent to the Commission on 18 April; it was
accepted on 23 May.

The key results of the implementation of assistance in 2000 were presented at the
Monitoring Committee meeting on 4/5 July 2001, at which the contribution of the
SPD to the National Action Plans for Employment and Social Inclusion was
highlighted. In 2000 61.5% of the planned overall resources of the year (37.1% of the
ESF resources) was spent. Commitments in 2000 reached 87% of the ESF resources
planned for that year. Taking into account the late decision on the SPD, in general
and taking all the priorities together the ESF results were in line with forecasts.
About 170 000 persons (42% women) have taken part in measures. This corresponds
to 96% of the planned overall level. Two-thirds of them engaged in measures
undertaken by the Federal Office of Employment. Within individual priorities and
measures, actions did not start in all Länder with the same speed and scope. Apart
from certain financial bottlenecks, this was mainly due to the fact that measures
under priority 4 (adaptability and entrepreneurship) especially needed more intensive
preparation than other measures under, for example, priority 1 (active and preventive
labour market policy).

By the end of 2001, a total of
498
million in reimbursements) had been paid for the Objective 3 programme, that is
17.5% of the total SPD.

332 million in advances and

830 million (

€

€

€

The Commission adopted the programme for non-Objective 1 fisheries on 28
111.1 million for the whole
September 2000. It provides a total FIFG allocation of
period and focuses in particular on the processing and marketing of fish and on the
renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet. Implementation began in 2001.

€

2.2.4. GREECE

2000-06

its operational
Following approval of the CSF in November 2000, almost all
programmes were approved between February and April 2001, with the exception of
the Environment OP, approved in July, and Technical assistance, which was
submitted by the Greek authorities in October and approved by the Commission in
December 2001. In December, the Commission also approved an additional
165
million for the Environment OP.

€

Of the 26 current OPs, 13 are regional and 13 national. The ESF makes the bulk of
the contribution to the three national programmes: ‘Promoting employment and
vocational training’, ‘Education and initial vocational training’ and ‘Health and
prevention’, which were approved in March and April. The total Community
€
contribution to all these programmes is
21 320.6 million, of which the ESF will
provide

4 241 million, 19.8% of the total from the Structural Funds for 2000-06.

€

26

linking initial and continuing training,

The three human resources programmes seek to modernise the public employment
services by encouraging a personalised approach and following the guidelines of the
European employment policy,
further
promoting life-long training, continuing the modernisation of education, reforming
the health sector to achieve better budgetary management and high-quality services
and reducing social exclusion. The ‘Information Society’ OP was designed to
promote the horizontal nature of this type of measure by simultaneously encouraging
an integrated approach to associate human resources questions with all the measures
planned. The measures will normally be implemented in a decentralised manner and
the systematic consultation of all involved is recommended. The 13 regional OPs
contain measures to encourage local development and employment initiatives. A
special effort was made to incorporate equal opportunities into both the measures
under the CSF and into specific measures.

Under the Objective 1 CSF, the EAGGF Guidance Section will contribute a total of
€
2 260.3 million to the agriculture and rural development priority during the period

2000-06.

The EAGGF Guidance Section will contribute alone to the Rural development OP,
providing

1 233,4 million.

€

With the other Funds,
development priority.

it will also contribute

€

1 026.9 million to the regional

The main measures are intended to:

–

–

–

improve the competitiveness of agriculture through integrated assistance at the
the processing, standardisation and
level of
marketing of agricultural and forestry products and assistance for agricultural
products;

the holding, assistance for

promote the sustainable and integrated development of rural areas and the
restoration of social balance by improving the age profile of the agricultural
population, improving support mechanisms providing information to the rural
population and introducing integrated plans for the development of rural areas;

maintain the environment and social cohesion for the entire rural population
through the development and protection of natural
resources and the
environment.

In 2001, the EAGGF Guidance Section made commitments of
payments of

261.1 million.

€

€

341.2 million and

€

The programme for fisheries (FIFG contribution
211.1 million) was adopted on 28
March. The thrust of this programme is similar to that of the previous one (38% on
fleet measures, 17% on aquaculture and 18% on processing and marketing) except
there is more emphasis on improving the quality of aquaculture products and
working conditions and on preventing environmental pollution. The allocation for
2000 was redistributed to later years.

Following approval of the CSF and of the vast majority of operational programmes,
the first meeting of the CSF Monitoring Committee was held on 23 and 24 April.
After that meeting, all the Monitoring Committees for the approved operational

27

programmes held their first meetings in the next few months, before the summer
break, and approved the programme complements and the annual implementation
reports for 2000 before their submission to the Commission.

All the annual reports for 2000 were submitted to the Commission before the
deadline of 30 June. In view of the general delay in approving the OPs for Greece,
the annual reports for 2000 for all the OPs were formal and descriptive in nature, and
concerned mainly the preparation of programming and the arrangements for
management and implementation but virtually ignored financial implementation.

The first annual meetings on the CSF programmes for 2000-06 were held on 23 and
24 November. They discussed the CSF in general and in particular implementation of
the horizontal priorities, the operation of the managing authorities, the monitoring
and inspection system and the monitoring of the commitments given under the CSF.

On 6 and 7 December the Commission organised an event which was well attended
and appreciated, two workshops for the managing authorities of the CSF and all the
operational programmes and the intermediate agencies, final beneficiaries and social
partners, concerning implementation mechanisms for local and regional development
projects (including local employment initiatives, innovation and information society
in the regions, integrated actions for urban and mountain regions), and concerning
information and publicity measures during the implementation of the CSF.

Finally, the Commission began an enquiry under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2082/93 concerning the financing of a project to establish a land register in
Greece under the CSF for 1994-99. Following this enquiry, the Commission decided
in December 2001 to make a financial correction amounting to
57.9 million, to be
reimbursed in two instalments.

€

€

For 2001 a total of
payment on account of 7% was made.

623.3 million was committed for the OPs as a whole and the

2.3.5.

SPAIN

Objective 1

1994-99

All the resources for the programmes for 1994-99 were committed and only the
payments of the balance need to be made to close the programmes. In three cases, the
EAGGF Guidance Section OP for Castile-La Mancha and the ERDF OPs for
Extremadura and Asturias, application was made to extend the deadline for payments
but the Commission accepted only the first of these.

2000-06

During 2001 the Commission approved 18 OPs which, with the five others already
adopted in 2000, complete the 23 programmes which comprise the Spanish CSF for
2000-06. Twelve of these are integrated regional programmes covering each of the
Objective 1 regions and accounting for about 66% of the Community assistance in
the CSF while the remainder are multiregional. The Canary Islands, along with the
other outermost regions of the Union as defined by Article 299 of the Treaty, benefit

28

from the decision of the Council of 28 June 2001, that allows higher co-financing
rates in a number of fields.

Besides the sharp fall in the number of programmes compared with the previous
period (23 as against 73), the progress to be noted in the regional programmes in
particular comprises:

–

–

–

–

the integration of the various Funds and their subsequent effective coordination
on the ground. This forces the managing authority to keep the Monitoring
Committee regularly informed of the coordination work undertaken in this
field;

the guarantee of an improved integration of the horizontal priorities for the
environment and equal opportunities for men and women through the presence
on the Monitoring Committees of representatives of the national network of
environmental authorities and the bodies responsible for equal opportunities;

the strengthening of the partnership principle through the active participation in
the programme Monitoring Committees of representatives of the social and
the Autonomous
economic partners, with the notable
Communities of Castile-León and Valencia and the city of Melilla, which
preferred a less participative partnership;

exceptions of

extended and more balanced cooperation between the national and regional
administrations thanks to the spirit of co-responsibility which attended the
designation of the managing authorities.

Apart from the ‘Information society’ programme, which the Spanish authorities sent
later than the others and which the Commission approved in December 2001, the
first Monitoring Committees approved the programme complements during the first
half of the year. The managing authority sent
these to the Commission for
information so that it could check their compliance with the rules in force.

To provide genuine assistance in taking decisions and implementing without delay
the interim assessment required by the rules, in October the Monitoring Committees
for both the CSF and each of the 23 operational programmes set up the ‘Technical
Evaluation Groups’, for which provision had been made in the programming
documents. Their basic purpose was to undertake the mid-term evaluation and its
subsequent updating in satisfactory conditions of transparency and independence and
a level of quality adequate to ensure credible results within the time limits laid down
in the rules. The Groups, whose members have direct responsibilities as regards
evaluation, will also provide forums for the exchange of ideas and experiences on
evaluation.

The annual meetings between the Commission and the managing authorities were
held in January 2002 on the basis of the programme complements, the annual reports
on implementation for 2000 and other available information. These meetings enabled
the Commission and the Spanish administration to hold useful discussions
confirming the strategic aspects of programming, compliance with Community
priorities, the quality of implementation of assistance and analysis of the first results
secured in order to improve the physical and financial implementation, management,
monitoring and inspection of the measures part-financed.

29

Progress in agricultural measures under the EAGGF Guidance Section varied sharply
from one region to another. Programme implementation ranged from 100% for the
horizontal ‘Improving structures’ OP to 57.4% in Cantabria and Castile-León; 28.7%
in Galicia; 22.9% in Andalusia; 9% in Extremadura; 9.3% in Murcia; 4.8% in
Valencia; 0.1% in the Canary Islands and 0% in Asturias, Castile-La Mancha and
technical assistance.

The total investment planned for fisheries amounted to
€

1 504 million from the FIFG. This was aimed mainly at

3 122 million, including
the processing and

€

marketing of fisheries products and the restructuring and renewal of the fleet.

Objective 2

1994-96

All the OPs were closed. In the case of the ERDF, all the Community appropriations
for the seven items of assistance were used.

1997-99

The last two reprogramming decisions (OPs for Catalonia and Madrid) were signed
in 2001.

Several payments for these OPs were made in 2001. By the end of the year, only the
final balances remained to be considered; in the case of the ERDF, the average level
of payments for the CSF was 87% of the total provision for that Fund.

2000-06

The Commission gave its agreement in principle to six SPDs on 29 December 2000
and to that for Madrid on 17 January 2001. The Decisions on the SPDs for Aragon,
the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and Navarre were signed on 15 February and those
for Madrid, La Rioja and the Basque Country on 7 March.

the seven SPDs covers

‘transitional’ and ‘non-transitional’ areas.
Each of
€
2 649 million at
Community assistance for the non-transitional areas amounts to
€
115 million for
current prices, excluding provision for the performance reserve (
2004-06), or 12.9% of total Union assistance to the non-transitional areas under
Objective 2.

The breakdown of this amount among the seven SPDs is proportional
population covered in each region as a percentage of the total population of Spain.

to the

Community assistance for the transitional areas amounts to
€
prices, excluding provision for the performance reserve (
3.6% of total Union assistance to the transitional areas under Objective 2.

99 million at current
4 million for 2004-05), or

€

The seven SPDs cover five priorities for assistance, plus technical assistance:

1. Improving competitiveness and employment and developing the productive fabric.

2. The environment, natural surroundings and water resources.

30

3. The knowledge society (innovation, R&D, information society).

4. Development of communications and energy networks.

5. Local and urban development.

6. Technical assistance.

The regional and local administrations will contribute to virtually all the priorities to
the extent of 65% to 75% of the total ERDF allocation to each SPD. The national
administration will contribute to only three priorities: 3 (through the development of
infrastructure and support for projects in the science-technology-innovation system)
and, to a very limited extent, 1 (to promote the internationalisation of firms) and 6
(technical assistance).

The activities to be part-financed by the ESF in six SPDs concern only 5% (five
items) or 7% (SPD for Madrid) of the total allocation to the non-transitional areas;
they are the responsibility of the national administration and concern priority 3.
However, this figure exceeds 21% in the SPD for Catalonia, where work under
priorities 1, 3 and 5 will be carried out by the public central, regional and local
administrations.

2000 was the year when the SPDs were considered and drawn up and 2001 was the
in which all the other regulatory elements required for the monitoring of
first
assistance (programme complements, Monitoring Committees, annual reports and
annual meetings) were set up.

The first meetings of the Monitoring Committees were held in the regions between
27 April and 5 July. They were attended by the national public administrations
concerned, the Commission administrative departments and the enlarged partnership
(economic and social partners, local authorities, regional representatives responsible
for the protection and improvement of the environment and application of the
principle of equal opportunities). These meetings approved the Rules of Procedure of
the Committees and considered the programme complements.

The complements were officially sent to the Commission between 6 August and
25 October so that it could establish that they complied with the statutory provisions.

The Monitoring Committees considered and approved the reports on implementation
for 2000 in October. In mid-November the managing authority sent them to the
Commission, which found them satisfactory.

On the basis of the annual reports and other documents concerning the SPDs, the first
annual meetings about these items of assistance were held on 19 and 20 December,
comprising an initial plenary session (on the aspects common to the seven SPDs) and
seven specific meetings.

The managing authority and the Commission, with the participation of the regional
administrations concerned,
the first year of
implementation and reached a number of conclusions concerning improvements to
the implementation, monitoring and inspection of assistance which were sent to the
managing authority early in 2002.

the main results of

looked at

31

The national coordination structure, an ad hoc body set up by the managing authority
to coordinate certain aspects of information, monitoring and evaluation of the SPDs,
met on 20 December in Madrid. The first meeting covered the first steps in the
preparation of the interim evaluation and provided financial information on the SPD
and the other forms of Structural Fund assistance in the areas eligible under
Objective 2.

Objective 3

The CSF for Objective 3 is being implemented through 12 operational programmes
(7 regional and 5 multiregional or thematic). The negotiations were completed at the
end of 2000 and four multiregional OPs were approved in January 2001. The total
Community contribution to these programmes is
1 338 million, or 60.2% of the
total ESF contribution to Objective 3 in 2000-06.

€

These programmes will support the development and improvement of systems of
vocational training, assistance with integration and the reintegration of unemployed
workers into the labour market by giving priority to a preventative approach, the
implementation of pathways of integration and support for local employment
initiatives, promoting the participation of women in the labour market, combating
gender discrimination and promoting the integration of the disadvantaged into the
market, promoting the business spirit and life-long training for workers.

The Monitoring Committees for the regional OPs met in January and February. A
joint Monitoring Committee was set up for the four multiregional programmes; it
met on 4 May. The programme complements were approved at the first meeting of
the Committees.

Following approval of the Spanish OPs for 2000-06 at the end of 2000 and early in
2001, the annual reports on implementation for 2000 sere sent to the Commission
with some delay (after the deadline of 30 June). They were approved by the
Monitoring Committees and sent to the Commission during the second half of 2001.
The annual reports for 2000 on the business initiative and continuing training OPs
(Objectives 1 and 3) were approved by the Monitoring Committee at the end of 2001
and forwarded in January 2002.

The first annual meetings of the OPs for the 2000-06 programming period were held
at the end of 2001. The annual meeting of the Objective 3 OPs was held on 17 and 18
December 2001 (apart from ‘Developing employment’ and ‘Business initiative’, for
which it was held on 7 February 2002) along with that for the Objective 1 OP
‘Vocational
training system and combating discrimination’. The main subjects
discussed at these meetings were the implementation of the horizontal priorities,
integration of the European Employment Strategy into the OP, the revision and
improvement of the selection criteria,
the establishment of technical groups to
evaluate the OPs and general improvements in the information contained in the
annual reports.

€

Between January and May,
318 065 was committed for Objective 3. 18 applications
for interim payments under the Objective 1 and 3 OPs were received during October
and November. Of these, 8 were paid before the end of the year. These totalled
€
118 509 527, 9% of the payments predicted by the Member State as sent to the

Commission in April.

32

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

Total investment planned amounted to
207.5 million part-
financed by the FIFG. During 2001, the SPD for fisheries committed 17% and paid
7.8% of the total amount programmed. The priorities for investment were the same
as for Objective 1.

824.5 million, including

€

€

2.2.6.

FRANCE

Objective 1

In addition to two regions in the phasing-out category, Corsica and Nord Pas de
Calais (French Hainaut), Objective 1 in France covers the four Overseas departments
(“DOM”). For the latter, along with the other outermost regions of the Union as
defined by Article 299 of the Treaty, the decision of the Council of 28 June 2001,
allows higher co-financing rates to be applied to investments in infrastructure, in
in improving farm holdings and in the processing and marketing of
SMEs,
agricultural produce. These provisions are designed to take account of the handicaps
specific to the outermost regions.

The total amount for ERDF in the six Objective 1 French regions represents
2.215
1.908 million (86%) for the four
million for the period 2002-2006, of which
overseas departments. The ERDF amount paid in 2001 to these regions represents
€
64.466 million which is the 7% advance for
4.015

Martinique, Guyane and Nord-Pas-de-Calais and an intermediary payment of
million.

68.481 million. This amount includes

€

€

€

€

No request for modification of SPDs for the overseas departments relevant
Council decision of 28 June 2001 was submitted to the Commission in 2001.

to

€

As regards the ESF, 2001 saw the start of implementation of the Objective 1
124.36 million (including the
programmes. By the end of the year, the ESF had paid
payments on account), 13% of the total funding for the period. The priorities selected
included the training of workers, combating exclusion (including action against
illiteracy), learning and the acquisition of skills by young people (including adapted
military service) and encouragement for the vocational mobility of the unemployed
and young people. Particular attention was paid to the new information and
communications technologies and respect for equal opportunities.

€

680 million for rural development in the
The EAGGF Guidance Section provided
four overseas departments and Corsica and French Hainaut. During 2001 the
programme complements were considered and accepted. Only Martinique is awaiting
submitted
official acceptance of
applications for interim payments: Guadeloupe (two applications), Réunion, Corsica
and French Hainaut
in 2001 and Martinique in February 2002. However, only
interim payments for Guadeloupe and Réunion could be made in 2001.

its programme complement. Five regions

The derogations from Community rules (rates of public assistance to agricultural
holdings and agri-food firms, the eligibility of State forests) granted by the Council
on 28 June 2001 required the amendment of the programme complements for the
four overseas departments and of the SPDs, which should be done in the first half of
2002.

33

€

The four overseas departments and Corsica enjoy specific measures for fisheries,
40.7 million in part financing from the FIFG. The main priorities
which receive
concern the preservation of employment, the improvement of port facilities and the
development of aquaculture.

Objectives 1 and 2

1994-99

In 2001 the Commission received some 33 applications to extend the final date for
payment (originally 31 December 2001). In most (20) cases, it granted a further
period of several months (up to 9) because of force majeure or similar reasons. Six
the others were still being
applications were rejected and on 31 December
considered.

2000-06

In March the Commission formally adopted all the decisions concerning the 21
regional SPDs under Objective 2 for 2000-06 and the two decisions on the PNI
(National computer programme)
that
programming period.

the Objective 1 and 2 areas

for

for

The Commission also approved the proposal by the French authorities on the PNAT
(National technical assistance programme) for the Objective 1 and 2 areas.

The Commission committed appropriations for the 2000 and 2001 instalments of
these programmes and made the 7% payments from the Structural Funds for each
programme.

The Commission received all the 26 programme complements for the regional SPDs
and the PNI and found that 18 of these complements complied with Article 18(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The others are still being considered.

In 2001 it also received 25 annual reports for 2000 on these 27 programmes, of
which 21 were considered to comply satisfactorily with Article 37(2) of Regulation
(EC) No 1260/1999. The Commission is still considering the other reports.

To ensure the correct implementation of the next generation of programmes, the
Commission, in close cooperation with the French authorities, both national and
regional, organised three seminars for promotion and discussion, in Guadeloupe and
Corsica for the Objective 1 regions and a third in Rhône-Alpes for the Objective 2
areas.

the
The topics discussed at
these seminars included the implementation of
arrangements for evaluation and monitoring and the performance reserve,
the
implementation of the single computer system to manage the SPDs, management and
inspection systems, the procedure for implementing financial corrections, the content
of the annual reports, the procedure for taking decisions on major projects, the
introduction of global grants, implementation of the territorial aspects of the SPDs
and the establishment and implementation of the communications plans.

Objective 2

34

The approval of the last programmes and of the proposal by the French authorities to
increase the SPDs for Brittany and Picardy because of the floods which hit those two
regions in the autumn meant that all the appropriations available for France for 2000-
06 were allocated.

All the programme Monitoring Committees were set up during the year.

During 2001, the Commission also decided to agree to the ERDF contributing to the
finance of two major projects within the meaning of Article 26 of Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999.

The first is ‘PORT 2000 – LE HAVRE’ in the SPD for the Upper Normandy Region
to which the ERDF will contribute
38 099 846, 25% of the total eligible cost of
€
152 399 384. Completion of this project will have a considerable impact on the

€

whole region and in particular employment (direct creation of 3 500 jobs).

The second major project is the Route Nationale 106: it is intended to dual the 10.7
km section from Boucarain to La Calmette of the existing road from Alès to Nîmes
in the Gard department under the SPD for the Languedoc-Roussillon Region. This is
the main road serving the Alès industrial area and will provide efficient links with
the A54 and A9 motorways and Nîmes airport. The ERDF will contribute
16.07
€
million (25 %) to the total eligible cost of

64.29 million.

€

Five programmes for human resources submitted a first declaration of ESF
4.45 million in ESF appropriations could be reimbursed.
expenditure in 2001 so that

€

Objective 3

€

The ESF will contribute
4 713 million to financing Objective 3. The programme
has six priorities with the following shares in total funding: active labour market
policies (20.5%), equal opportunities and social
life-long
education and training (23%), adaptation of workers, business spirit, research,
innovation, technology (22.5%), increasing the participation of women in the labour
market (4%), horizontal measures (4%).

integration (26%),

€

to job-seekers to head off

585 million (including the statutory
At the end of 2001, ESF payments stood at
payment on account), or 12% of total funding for period. Since the Objective 3 SPD
gave priority to a preventative approach, priorities 1 and 3 have the highest rates of
consumption of appropriations. This is particularly true of priority 1, which offers a
new start
long-term unemployment. The public
employment service is very active and offers a personalised service to job-seekers in
the first months of unemployment. This includes guidance, monitoring during
towards employment. In June the Monitoring Committee
training and support
decided to extend personal treatment to all the unemployed and to increase the offer
of services to them. Assistance under priority 3 concentrates on apprenticeship
programmes supported by the regional councils and transition classes to help pupils
at risk of being excluded from education.

In addition to the meetings of the national Monitoring Committee, the regional
steering committees met in all the regions the better to assist the decentralised
management of the SPD.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

35

The SPD for the non-Objective 1 areas of France has FIFG funding totalling
233.7
16.4 million has been made).
million for 2000-06 (a payment on account of
Strategic priorities are the long-term management of fisheries resources, assisting the
modernisation of firms to enable them to increase their value added and improving
the socio-economic environment of territories dependent on fishing. At 31 December
2001,

18 million had been committed – mainly for fleet measures.

€

€

€

€

The FIFG allocation for 1994-99 was
197 million. At the end of 2000, 87% of the
programme had been committed. This shortfall was because the programme was late
in starting, new procedures had to be adapted to and not enough priority was given
initially to the programme. By 31 October, 67% of the funding had been paid – with
fleet renewal and modernisation prominent.

2.2.7.

IRELAND

1994-99

Most of the operational programmes and Community Initiatives being implemented
in the programming period 1994-99 were due to complete expenditure by 31
December 2001. Following requests from Irish authorities, the Commission agreed
short extensions of the deadlines for expenditure and the submission of final reports
for a number of programmes.

2000-06

Six Irish Objective 1 programmes approved in 2000 were being implemented in
2001. They concern Economic and social infrastructure, Employment and human
resource development, Productive sector, Technical assistance, Border, Midland and
Western region and Southern and Eastern region. The Community funding decided
1 205 million had
under the six programmes amounts to
been committed and

449 million paid by the end of 2001.

3 066 million, of which

€

€

€

In March 2001 the Commission adopted the Peace II programme 2000-04 that
benefits Northern Ireland and the Border (NUTS III) region of Ireland. Community
funding for the Border region under the programme amounts to

106 million.

€

Progress on operations relating to infrastructure and the productive sector
is
generally on target for roads, public transport and environmental infrastructure.
Some delays have been experienced in relation to the development of tourism,
renewable energy and broadband (e-commerce) capacity. In the case of research and
development, the major slowdown in the high technology sector has greatly reduced
the availability of private sector part-financing for the types of projects in the
Productive sector OP. Therefore, following a proposal from the Irish authorities, the
Commission agreed to the transfer of commitment appropriations of some
51
million for 2001 and 2002 from the Research and development priority of the
Productive sector OP to the Public transport priority of the Economic and social
infrastructure OP.

€

In relation to human resource development,
the economic slowdown has also
affected Ireland and resulted in layoffs and closures in electronics companies. In
addition, Ireland also has suffered from the impact of the foot and mouth crisis on
agriculture and tourism in particular. In labour market terms this means slower

36

employment growth and even declines in some sectors,
increased layoffs and
redundancies, lower levels of recruitment, a reduction in labour and skill shortages,
increased unemployment, greater difficulties in finding jobs (especially among less
employable groups) and a reduction in net immigration.

Against this changing environment, progress in implementing the human resources
OP was nevertheless satisfactory. Good progress was made in respect of the
Employability and Adaptability priorities whilst some difficulties were identified in
relation to Entrepreneurship and Equality. Problems with existing staff in firms were
debated at
the Employment and Human Resource Development Co-ordinating
Committee on 13 November with stakeholders and a temporary transfer of funds
helped ease the problem until a lasting solution can be found. Within the Equality
Pillar the Monitoring Committee approved a transfer of funds from the Department
of Education and Science to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

include

innovative developments

in the National
Notable policy changes
Employment Service measure, with the extension of the Callnet and Jobconnect
programmes and the extension of the Callnet service by FAS to take vacancies from
Northern Ireland. Apprenticeships and traineeships continued to expand and the
establishment of a traineeship in childcare work is likely to improve the level of
female participation in the traineeship programme. Finally, an important and
innovative initiative under the Adult Literacy measure is the huge success of the TV
and radio series “Read Write Now”, which is continuing with a new TV series from
September 2001.

After submission by the Irish Authorities of the programme complement and the
Communications Action Plan, the Commission made a first interim payment of some
€

76 million.

The managing authority submitted the first annual report on implementation for
2000, which the Commission accepted. Finally, the first annual review meeting on
implementation in 2000 took place in December 2001.

Significant progress with regard to gender mainstreaming has been made over recent
years. This is now a requirement for all policies and programmes under the Irish
National Development Plan 2000-06. In addition to mainstreaming equality for
women and men in all but six measures in the National Development Plan, a number
of other commitments have been made to advance equal opportunities in NDP
spending.

A practical example of how gender mainstreaming is making progress is the
development of a series of training courses for policy makers and implementing
agencies which explains the requirements and explores the practice of gender
mainstreaming in areas such as tourism, transport and local development.

In the agricultural sector, payments on forestry measures are proceeding while
other rural development and agricultural measures were delayed due to foot and
mouth restrictions.

The annual reports for 2000 were received. Implementation of the rural development
measures under the Operational Programmes were hampered by the foot and mouth
restrictions and the transfer of staff in the early part of 2001. All part-financed

37

measures are now operational and the Irish authorities selected Local Action Groups
under the measure for Area Based Development.

€

The FIFG contribution to the three fisheries programmes concerned totals
million (
Midland and Western region and

42 million for the Productive sector OP,

67.6
16 million for the Border,

9.6 million for the Southern and Eastern region)

€

€

€

2.2.8.

ITALY

1994-99 and earlier periods

Early in 2001 there still remained 51 items of assistance to be closed for the period
before 1989 and the period 1989-93; of these 31 were actually closed during the year.
The other forms of assistance are expected to be closed in 2002.

As regards the financial
implementation of the 1994-99 programming period,
information from the Italian Government’s financial monitoring system puts the
percentage payments on the ground at 30 September 2001 at 87.7% for Objective 1,
76% for Objective 2 (1997-99), 77.6% for Objective 5(b) and 54.1% for the
Community Initiatives.

The earthquake in 1997 damaged large areas of the regions of Umbria and Marche
and the implementation of programming under Objective 5(b) encountered serious
difficulties. At the request of the Italian authorities, the Commission adopted two
decisions (on 5 September for Umbria and on 9 October for Marche) extending to 31
September 2002 the deadline for making payments to the final beneficiaries in order
not to interrupt the process of reconstruction begun in rural areas. An extension for
expenditure to 30 September 2002 was also granted for the Objective 5(b) SPD and
the Objective 5(a) OP for Piedmont, following delays due to the flooding there in
October 2000.

2000-06

Objective 1:

The last two operational programmes were adopted (Technical Assistance in March
and Transport in September), which completed approval of the 14 Objective 1
programmes for Italy and represents,
in comparison to 1994-99, a substantial
acceleration in approval times.

Most of the second meetings of the Monitoring Committees for the CSF and the
programmes approved were held during the first half of 2001 and the third meetings
in December in most cases.

The Monitoring Committees approved the versions of the programme complements
revised in the light of
the comments made by the Commission during its
consideration of the first versions approved in 2000. These comments concerned
mainly consistency between the complements and the corresponding programmes,
indication of the selection criteria for the projects and inaccuracies in the financing
plan.

38

In several cases the Committees approved a third version of the complement.
However, the first versions of the programme complements for the ‘Transport’ and
‘Technical assistance and system measures’ programmes have not yet been notified.

The first annual meetings were held from 5 to 8 November and the Commission was
able to discuss in depth with the managing authorities the critical points of
implementation, the appropriateness of the administrative and operational structures
of the managing and paying authorities, implementation in the time allowed by the
CSF of the regional strategies in several fields such as transport, the information
society, research and innovation, the environment and improved monitoring and
inspection systems.

terms.
The national monitoring system became fully operational
Introduction of the physical monitoring system was completed by the end of the year
and its operation will be considered early in 2002.

in financial

The identification and quantification of the indicators of result and impact in the
programme complements, an exercise which the Commission regards as very
important, was completed.

With the exception of three programmes, the selection of evaluators for the interim
evaluation was completed by the end of the year. This represents considerable
progress as compared with 1994-99.

The situation with regard to the arrangements for
shortcomings.

inspection reveals major

The description of the organisation of the managing and paying authorities required
by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 was generally submitted after the
three-month period laid down by that Regulation.

inspection systems (and Regulation (EC)
Introduction of
No 438/2001 as a whole) was considerably delayed and this will have to be made up
as soon as possible.

the ‘second level’

At 31 December 2001, commitments and payments represented respectively 29%
and 7% of the total cost of the CSF. The Commission received three declarations of
expenditure for the ERDF during 2001.

In implementing ESF assistance in the Objective 1 regions of Italy during 2001 an
attempt was made to apply at operational level all the principles of the employment
strategy which were transposed in the operational programmes.

This effort was particularly marked in the regions where the Council’s
recommendations to Italy on employment policy represented an abrupt change from
the earlier way of using Community resources. That phase had concentrated attention
on the unemployed, while taking account of the preventative approach. Particular
attention was paid to improving the vocational training system and in-firm training.

Support for the reform of the public employment services, where, despite the efforts
made, the Objective 1 regions are lagging behind, particularly in investments in
human and structural resources, should also be noted. This situation is negative

39

compared with the other regions of Italy and appears to depend on the starting
situation.

Among the innovative initiatives, the interregional projects, and particularly those
concerned with South – North mobility, which seek to promote the employment of
workers, should be noted.

All the regions are completing the systems for establishing the system of accrediting
training centres through a series of regulatory initiatives. Introduction of this system
is complementary to renovation of the system of access to ESF resources, since all
the regions are requested to select projects for vocational training through open
tender procedures.

There has been some delay in implementing the strategy to promote equal
opportunities and undeclared work has emerged: there are problems in giving the
strategy concrete form although during the negotiations all the programmes agreed to
include these elements.

As regards agriculture, the Commission approved the amendment of the Calabria
OP on 18 December 2001. This concerns the adjustment of a number of measures
including aid to firms, particularly aid for small holdings in structural difficulties.

The seven Objective 1 regions received the payment on account of 7%, a total of
€
208.8 million. The annual reports for 2000 sent by the Italian regions showed very

little expenditure on measures part-financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

In the fisheries sector, the Fisheries OP has an FIFG allocation of
122 million for
fleet measures. Strategic priorities include adjusting fishing effort to the fisheries
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. These are six regions (Calabria,
Campania, Molise, Apulia, Sardinia and Sicily), where FIFG part-finance amounts to
€
164 million.

€

Objective 2:

The 14 programmes for Central and Northern Italy, which were held up by the long
time taken to approve the Objective 2 zoning, were sent by the Italian authorities at
the end of November 2000. Following the partnership negotiations begun at the end
of February 2001, decisions of principle were taken on these programmes in June
and July that year and then adopted by the Commission between September and
November 2001 in the form of mono-Fund (ERDF) SPDs. ERDF part-financing for
2 600 million, including about
the Objective 2 areas in 2000-06 amounts to about
€
4 million for transitional support. The estimated total cost for these SPDs as a whole

€

€

is about

10 000 million.

The first meetings of the Monitoring Committees were held in November and
December 2001; they approved the programme complements.

Objective 3:

ESF assistance was intended to apply the principles of the employment strategy
transposed into the operational programmes. Implementation of the employment

40

policies, which is a matter for the regions, meant that the European strategy in this
field could be applied at local level.

the Objective 3 areas became fully
The 15 programmes which now cover
total commitments
operational
reached 18.73% of total programming, or 66.07% of programming of the instalments
for 2000-01.

in 2001. In terms of financial

implementation,

Of the main themes in the strategy, social exclusion and measures to promote equal
opportunities have received particular attention from most managing authorities.

The ‘preventative approach’ to combating unemployment, for which the CSF
contained substantial funding, has demonstrated a satisfactory level of commitment,
as has the ‘curative approach’, which is a strategic element in implementing the
regional programmes.

There has, however, been some delay overall in reorganising employment services,
probably because of administrative and bureaucratic problem in implementation
amongst other reasons.

Activities concerned with advanced training have performed better than others in the
same priority, especially those concerned with improving the system of vocational
training and instruction and combating school refusal. The difficulties in this field are
partly due to the reforms currently taking place in Italy, and to the new breakdown of
responsibilities between the State and the regions, which is a question of
constitutional reform.

Improving training in firms, especially small and medium-sized ones, has yielded
acceptable results which to some extent continue the work of Objective 4 under the
former programming arrangements; however, assistance for training in scientific
research and technological development, and support for the business spirit has
encountered some worrying difficulties, probably due to the fact that these are new
measures in ESF programming and to questions over the preparation of the activities
to be implemented.

Overall, the twin goals laid down by the CSF, increasing the job content of economic
growth and improving the vocational integration of disadvantaged groups, have
received a contribution which should play a substantial role in boosting employment.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG:

The SPD has an FIFG allocation of
€
measures (a payment on account of

99.6 million, including
7 million has been made).

€

€

46 million for fleet

2.2.9.

LUXEMBOURG

1994-99

Objectives 2 and 5(b): The measures to support growth and locally-generated
development by expanding human resources aroused considerable interest. The
provisional version of the final report shows that virtually all the available funding
was used. The final statement and the certification of expenditure are expected by the
deadline.

41

Objectives 3 and 4: All the projects programmed have now been closed and the
23
million of ESF assistance used, according to the provisional statement. The final
statement and the certification of expenditure are expected by the deadline.

€

2000-06

Objective 2:

By its decision of 25 February 2000 the Commission adopted the list of the three
eligible areas. It approved the SPD for the measures in the three areas selected and
the one receiving transitional support on 27 December . The assistance is from a
single Fund (ERDF).

Objective 3:

In line with the national action plan for employment,
the programme adopted
concentrates on vocational training measures, the modernisation of employment
services and support for providing workers with skills (Community assistance of
39
million). In fact, despite a rate of growth in employment above the average for the
EUR15, the labour market
in Luxembourg is still suffering from a number of
problems, principally the low rate of employment among older workers and the fact
that a large number of people of working age leave the labour market early to receive
invalidity benefits or early retirement.

€

The Luxembourg programme has four main priorities: (1) preventing unemployment
and reducing the number of people dependent on ‘passive’ arrangements such as
early retirement and invalidity; (2) promoting social integration including training, if
possible on computers, and aid for integration into the social economy and the open
labour market; (3) promoting life-long education and training and the business spirit;
(4) increasing the equality of men and women on the labour market.

At the first annual meeting, in December 2001, the Luxembourg authorities reported
that, after a fairly difficult start-up period, 80% of the financial resources for 2000-03
had been committed following the first public calls for projects. The provisional
statement of expenditure on the 2000 budget instalment represents only 25% of the
ESF appropriations available. An automatic decommitment of the 2000 instalment at
the end of the period n+2 cannot therefore be excluded, although the partners have
agreed together to implement all the measures, a decision stimulated by a certain re-
emergence of unemployment in Luxembourg during the second half of 2001.

2.2.10. NETHERLANDS

1994-99

Objective 1

By the end of 2000, the total amounts paid out under the programme had reached
75%, a significant increase on the previous year. Nevertheless, the final balance will
almost certainly show a less than complete utilisation of the EU funds available for
the programme. The overall impact of the programme seems positive. Per capita
GDP in the province is now approaching the target of 85% of the EU average.
Private investment and employment have increased steadily, and above the Dutch
average. The number of new companies and area of greenfield industrial sites has

42

largely overshot the original targets. By contrast, the development of the tourism
sector lags behind the stated targets.

Objective 2

there were five Dutch Objective 2 programmes (Zuid-
In the period 1994-99,
Limburg, Zuidoost-Brabant, Arnhem-Nijmegen, Twente and Groningen-Drenthe).
An extension of the payment deadline for
the Arnhem-Nijmegen Objective 2
programme was requested. For all other programmes, the final reports and the
request for payment of the balance are due by June 2002. The reported levels of
implementation of expenditure and of
the physical programme targets are
substantially higher than in the previous year, but in many cases still clearly below
the levels originally planned.

Objective 3

The irregularities found in a number of ESF projects continue to cause problems. At
the request of the Commission the Dutch authorities have investigated a sample of
projects for the years 1994-96, a period not hitherto inspected. On the basis of this
study the Commission decided to fix the irregularity rate at 31.3% and to use this rate
in the Article 24 decision to reclaim a substantial amount of money. The Netherlands
has not submitted final payment claims for 1997-99 and the Dutch authorities are
expected to ask the Commission for permission to use the extension provided by the
Regulation to settle the 1994-99 period no later than the end of March 2003.

2000-06

Objective 1

The 2000-06 Flevoland transitional programme was adopted in July 2000 and had a
somewhat slow start, due among other things to a fundamental revision of local State
aid schemes. During 2001, the programme complement was accepted and the first
annual
report submitted. Much time was spent on to the development and
implementation of the communication and information strategy, which has served as
an example of good practice for other Objective 1 regions.

Two meetings of the Monitoring Committees took place, in May and November, to
discuss the state of the implementation of the programme. Among other matters, the
latter meeting adopted the arrangements required for local venture capital funds,
which are expected to play an important role in the programme.

€

6.0 million for FIFG measures. Implementation up to the end of
The SPD includes
2001 was marginal. The investment planned concerns mainly the adjustment of
fishing effort and the processing and marketing of fish.

Objective 2

Of the four single programming documents for the Objective 2 areas, “Noord”,
“Steden”, “Zuid” and “Oost”, the first was adopted in July 2001 and the second in
March 2001; the other two were approved by the Commission in August 2001.
“Noord” combines eligible areas in the Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe provinces.
“Steden” combines urban areas in difficulties in nine large and medium-sized cities.
“Zuid” concerns the Brabant, Limburg and a small area in Zeeland, while “Oost”

43

covers Gelderland, Overijsel and a small zone in Utrecht province. For the latter two
SPDs, which concern to a large extent rural areas, negotiations were protracted due
to the need to establish a clear distinction between the activities part-financed under
these programmes and those funded under the rural development plan. All Dutch
Objective 2 programmes are funded exclusively by the ERDF.

In 2001 all programmes submitted their first annual reports. In accordance with the
flexibility allowed for this first series of reports and taking into account the late start
of most programmes, the information on the year 2000 was rather general. Figures on
financial and physical realisation were limited. By the end of the year, the four
programme complements had been adopted by the Monitoring Committees. Much
effort was devoted to the implementation of the organisational arrangements for the
programmes, in particular the programme management systems.

In January 2002, the first annual meeting between the Commission and the Dutch
authorities took place to review the implementation of the programmes in 2001. The
main outcome was that the state of implementation was broadly satisfactory, but with
certain differences between programmes. In particular
the largest programme,
“Noord”, which also receives substantial funds via a specific national programme for
this region, is making very good progress.

Objective 3

The new programme did not started until July 2001, after the new national ESF
subsidy rules were published in the State Journal. So far absorption has been very
disappointing. The many unresolved irregularity problems of the old programme
make promoters hesitant in applying for projects under the new programme. In order
to improve absorption, all 536 municipalities were given access to the Objective 3
programme. At present 63 applications for an amount of
150 million have been
received. In 2001 only eight retroactive decisions for 2000 were taken.

€

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

The structural programme for fisheries in the non-Objective 1 areas was submitted
to the Commission on 29 December 2000 and contains an allocation for the FIFG of
€
32.1 million. The programme was not approved until 17 January 2002.

2.2.11. AUSTRIA

1995-99:

Objective 1

For Austria’s only Objective 1 programme (Burgenland) in the programming period
1995-99, 2001 is to be considered as an operational year in which projects adopted in
earlier years were monitored and concluded as the period for payments ended on 31
December 2001.

Of the 100% commitments of the total amount for the Structural Funds, 93% had
been paid by the end of 2001.

44

Following an inspection of implementation of the ESF in Burgenland, it was decided
to suspend the payments and carry out an overall audit inspection via the Ministry for
Economy and Labour.

Objective 2

For the four Austrian Objective 2 programmes of Upper Austria, Lower Austria,
Styria and Vorarlberg too, 2001 was the last year of implementation so only
payments were made. Projects which had been approved in the earlier years were
monitored and closed.

For the larger Objective 2 programmes like Styria and Lower Austria the indicators
targeted have clearly been reached, and in most cases overshot. The target of 1 000
new jobs in the case of Objective 2 in Styria was achieved with a total of 3 200 jobs,
three times more than expected.

Of the 100% of commitments concerning the total amount for the Structural Funds
for all four Objective 2 programmes, 83% were paid by the end of 2001.

For the Objective 3 programme the Labour Market Service ("Arbeitsmarktservice")
acted as final beneficiary and the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs as
coordinator. The Federal Offices of social affairs and handicapped persons were
involved, alongside with the Labour Market Service,
in matters related to
handicapped persons. 88% of the funds was implemented by the Labour Market
Service and 11% by the above mentioned Federal Offices. The programme managed
to reach the target groups as envisaged. About 50% of those supported were women.

led to a
Within the Objective 4 programme,
preponderance of businesses that had to decide who in their workforce could
participate in measures for the adjustment of professional capabilities (adaptation of
workers to industrial changes and changes in production systems). The interests of
the businesses thus prevailed.

the antinomy of objectives

Problem groups such as those threatened by unemployment were reached only to a
lesser extent. The considerable additional support with regard to the adaptation of
professional capabilities of staff primarily belonging to SMEs can be seen as a
positive effect. The disproportionate share of funding going to large firms may be
considered a negative effect.

2000-06

Objective 1:

There were two amendments to the SPD of the Burgenland Objective 1 programme
in 2001. The decisions were adopted in May and December and concerned
principally amendments to the financing and State aid tables. Concerning the
the national contribution in the ESF part was reduced for
financial changes,
budgetary reasons and a slight overshoot in the Structural Fund contribution to
technical assistance had to be adjusted. The list of State aid schemes was amended to
include all the schemes currently necessary for implementation.

45

The programme complement was approved by the second Monitoring Committee in
June and accepted as complying with Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 by the
Commission on 20 July as the main instrument for the implementation of the SPD.

The first annual report for the new period on the year 2000 was submitted to the
Commission in July 2001 and accepted in August. The financial data presented
showed that, especially in the fields of human resources, infrastructure, research and
development and tourism marketing, the programme had started quite well.

Because of the programme monitoring used, it is expected that positive or negative
development changes could be recognised at an early stage, so permitting the
programme management to react immediately. The system registers all projects
approved and recommended, including those in the pipeline.

€

The SPD includes
41.3 million for agricultural and rural development measures,
part-financed by the EAGGF. At the end of 2001, the Commission had made a
payment on account of

1.8 million.

€

€

2.8 million and a first reimbursement of
€

800 000 for FIFG measures, principally aquaculture. The

The SPD also includes
first measures were launched in 2001.

Objective 2

The single programming documents for the Objective 2 regions of Carinthia, Lower
Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Vorarlberg and Tyrol were approved by the
Commission in March and the Objective 2 programme for Vienna followed in July.
For the first seven programmes, the eligibility expenditure began on 1 January 2000,
in the case of Vienna on 4 July because this programme was submitted to the
Commission later.

Except for Vienna, the first Monitoring Committees were held in May 2001 in St.
Pölten and Salzburg; they approved the programme complements for all seven
programmes. The Monitoring Committee for the Objective 2 SPD for Vienna met in
September 2001. The Commission accepted the programme complements in July (in
the case of Vienna in December).

The Commission received the first annual reports for all these programmes except
Vienna in July and accepted them in August. The first report for the Objective 2
programme for Vienna will be required by 30 June 2002 as the starting date for the
eligibility of expenditure under this SPD was later than 1 January 2000.

In accordance with the flexibility allowed for the first series of reports,
the
information on the year 2000 is very general and mainly contains a description of the
planning process and the organisation of the implementation of the programs.

Financial implementation began for only a few measures but the differences between
the various programmes are quite wide. Following the first annual reports for the
Objective 2 programme for Tyrol, eligible expenditure has been declared for only
two out of 20 measures, whereas those for Carinthia include financial data (mainly in
the sectors of RTD, regional development and soft aid) in five out of 11 cases and for
Lower Austria 12 out of 22.

46

Three programmes (Carinthia, Styria and Vienna)
Carinthia had declared eligible expenditure so far.

include an ESF part. Only

The first interim payment requests for seven Objective 2 programmes were received
during autumn 2001 and carried out during the turn of the year.

The first annual meeting with the managing authorities for Objectives 1 and 2 in
Austria took place on 22 November. The first part was devoted to the development of
EU regional policy regarding enlargement as regards the border regions. The second
part of the meeting dealt with administrative topics, and all the issues concerning
annual reports, first experiences of programme management, data exchange and audit
reports were discussed by the managing authorities for Objective 1 and 2 with the
responsible bodies at national level.

Objective 3

The Commission approved the Objective 3 programme on 8 August 2000. The
annual meeting between the Commission and the Austrian managing authorities in
Vienna on 21 November 2001 covered the main features of the most recent state of
implementation of the programme.

As far as the four final beneficiaries (Labour Market Service, Federal Ministry of
Economic Affairs and Labour, Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture
and Ministry of Social Security and Generations) are concerned, the Labour Market
Service can receive most of the ESF resources (approximately 60%). About 17% of
the available ESF funds are earmarked respectively for the benefit of the Ministry of
Social Security and Generations (in favour of handicapped persons) and the Ministry
of Education, Science and Culture (promoting lifelong learning).

The Länder as such are involved in the Territorial Employment Pacts and receive a
relatively modest 2-3%. The Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour is
primarily engaged in gender mainstreaming.

As far as the absorption of funds is concerned, the Labour Market Service was
expected to absorb all funds in 2001. The Ministry of Social Security and
Generations was expected to absorb up to 60% in 2001 due to the fact that the
ministry also manages special programmes, the Equal Programme and the so-called
‘billion for handicapped persons’ (Behindertenmilliarde). The Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture, with responsibility for schools, adult education and universities,
has so far absorbed a smaller share because schools rely on annual planning and
projects are mostly linked to school years.

A series of supporting bodies connected to the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
and Labour was created in the past. They concern the Territorial Employment Pacts,
gender mainstreaming, public relations, an evaluation body to evaluate the ESF on a
permanent basis (ongoing evaluation) and an Equal office. These bodies are
organised under private law and following an EU-wide call for tender. The planned
ongoing evaluation differs from the evaluation according to Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 and is aimed at providing direct
feedback on programme
implementation.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

47

The Commission adopted the structural programme for fisheries for Austria on 30
4.2 million.
October 2000. It provides an allocation to the FIFG for this period of
Following the adoption of the programme,
the Commission also approved the
national aid scheme submitted by Austria. Implementation of the programme during
2000 and 2001 is as planned.

€

2.2.12. PORTUGAL

Previous programming periods

During 2001, one item of assistance from before 1989 was closed and one from
1989-93. All the remaining items of assistance should be closed during 2002.

As regards financial implementation for 1994-99, about 99% of the forecast for the
whole period was implemented.

The FIFG contribution for 1994-99 was reduced from an initial
182 million to
million and the 1999 instalment accounts for 44% of the total FIFG contribution.

€

€

164

2000-06

Most of
the work in 2001 concentrated on completing programming and
implementing the structures for management, monitoring and inspection. For
Madeira and Azores, along with the other outermost regions of the Union as defined
by Article 299 of the Treaty, the decision of the Council of 28 June 2001, allows
higher co-financing rates in a number of fields.

36.4 million from the ERDF and

18 OPs were adopted in 2000. The technical assistance programme, which was
81.31 million
adopted on 20 March 2001, includes a Community contribution of
€
44.9 million from the ESF). This programme is
(
intended to support implementation of the CSF and management of the Funds; it also
includes measures to improve the technical and pedagogic quality of vocational
training and offers support to thematic working groups to improve action in areas
regarded as priorities.

€

€

Two meetings of the Monitoring Committees for each OP were held in 2001. The
meetings in the first half of the year approved the final versions of the programme
complements, the first versions of which had been tabled at the meetings of the
Monitoring Committees in the second half of 2000.

Following work in partnership with the Commission,
the managing authorities
improved the programme complements, particularly as regards the criteria for
selecting projects for certain measures, the definition of a series of indicators of
results and for attribution of the performance reserve and consistency between the
programme complements and the corresponding programmes.

One of the points developed during 2001 was the introduction of the information
system on projects part-financed by the Structural Funds. This data base should
permit both the financial monitoring of assistance and monitoring of the physical
implementation of projects and the results of the various measures. This system,
which has been completely operational since 2002, is a vital tool for the overall
coordination of the CSF and a basic instrument for the mid-term evaluation and
allocation of the performance reserve early in 2004.

48

The first annual meetings with the managing authorities were held in October. They
enabled the Commission to use the implementation reports for 2000 and information
available mainly through the Monitoring Committees to discuss with the managing
authorities the aspects most relevant to implementation: application of the project
selection criteria matrices appropriate to the priorities established at the level of the
measures,
the proposed
arrangements for complying with the financing plans adopted and the monitoring of
aid schemes.

improving the monitoring and inspection systems,

Technical evaluation groups by programme were set up for the interim evaluation.
The work carried out by these groups, on which the Commission is represented,
resulted in a detailed schedule for launching the mid-term evaluation. These groups
identified a series of elements common to all the evaluations so as to make available
the points required to evaluate the CSF and ensure a consistent approach.

To make the work of the Structural Funds more visible in Portugal, in November the
Commission, in partnership with the Portuguese authorities, organised a seminar to
make managers and those responsible for the communications plans in the CSF and
the OPs aware of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 and to present
good practice as regards information and publicity in other Member States.

Establishment of the inspection systems was delayed; this must be made up by the
Portuguese authorities as soon as possible. The situation for implementing the
inspection arrangements shows some shortcomings, particularly as regards human
resources and training. Steps must be taken in this regard in the first half of 2002.

In terms of financial
implementation, most OPs made good progress with 61
statements of ERDF expenditure submitted to the Commission in 2001. Applications
for payments were made for all the programmes except technical assistance.

In all, the interim payments made in 2001 totalled about
appropriations.

€

988 million in ERDF

The managing authorities for the OPs decided to part-finance major projects within
the programmes, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. During 2001,
the Commission received and approved seven major projects covering the storage of
natural gas (two projects) and transport infrastructure (five projects).

In the field of human resources, the annual meetings of the Employment and
Education Programmes allowed analysis of the ESF contribution to the European
strategies for employment and social inclusion.

The national authorities, in partnership with the Commission, drew up a document
containing specific recommendations for the evaluation of measures financed by the
ESF in the various programmes.

In the agricultural field, all the annual reports for the eight programmes assisted by
the EAGGF Guidance Section were received and considered satisfactory. In terms of
the Agriculture and rural
implementation,
76.8 million in 2000 and
development OP, the first a 7% payment on account of
two others totalling
47 million in 2001, bringing the total to 11.3% of EAGGF
Guidance Section funding for this programme.

three payments were made for

€

€

49

€

163 million (a payment on account of

In the fisheries sector, the FIFG contribution to the fisheries operational programme
64
is
million is for fleet measures and
56 million for the protection and development of
aquatic resources, port facilities, processing and marketing.

11.4 million was made), of which

€

€

€

Besides this specific programme, six regional programmes include measures targeted
on fisheries: Azores, Madeira, Alentejo, Algarve, Centro, Norte, totalling
54.5
million. These priorities concern mainly the development of aquaculture and
improving product quality.

€

2.2.13. FINLAND

1995-99

2001 was the final year of implementation for the last projects from the 1995-99
regional development programmes. The last date for payments to projects was 31
December 2001.

The annual reports for 2000 for the Objective 6 and the Objective 2 (1997-99)
programmes were approved by the Monitoring Committees and received by the
Commission in October. They showed that a high percentage of the EU budget had
been paid out to projects by the end of 2000, in particular in the case of Objective 6
(almost 90%).

In 2001 calls for tenders for the ex-post evaluations of the Objective 2 and
Objective 6 programmes were issued by the Commission. Work on the Objective 2
ex-post evaluations started at the end of 2001 and the Objective 6 evaluation is
expected to start early in 2002.

2000-06

Objectives 1 and 2

In mainland Finland there are two Objective 1 programmes (Eastern and Northern
Finland) and two Objective 2 programmes (Southern and Western Finland); there is
one Objective 2 programme in the Swedish-speaking Åland Islands.

In 2001 the first Monitoring Committee meetings of
the mainland Finland
programmes convened in May and June. One of the main points on the agenda was
the approval of the first annual implementation reports for 2000-06, i.e. annual
reports for 2000. The Second Cohesion Report was also presented by the
Commission and discussed in the meetings. The first Åland Islands Objective 2
Monitoring Committee was organised in February 2001 to launch the programme
implementation including the finalisation of the programme complement.

The second Monitoring Committee meetings of the mainland Finland programmes
were held in December. The Objective 1 Committee discussed the first needs for
programme amendments. The Committees approved the terms of reference and calls
for tender for the mid-term evaluation prepared by the national evaluation steering
group. This group - with representatives from the regions, ministries and the
Commission - was set up by the Monitoring Committees in 2000 to prepare the mid-
term evaluation of the Objective 1 and 2 programmes. It met three times in 2001.

50

Most of the Monitoring Committee meetings included project visits or presentations
and several press conferences were also held. In addition, in the context of the
Objective 1 Monitoring Committee meetings in June, an international seminar on the
Exchange of Experience and Future Cohesion Policies was organised in Joensuu,
Eastern Finland, with some 100 participants from other European Objective 1
regions and candidate countries. A one-day seminar on urban matters was organised
in the context of the Objective 2 Monitoring Committee meetings in Helsinki in
December.

The programming phase was completed when the Commission received the finalised
programme complements in June. After correction of some technical errors, the
Commission confirmed that the complements complied with the requirements of
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

The Commission received the annual reports of both Objective 1 and 2 programmes
at the end of June. After examining the documents, and taking into account the
the Commission
specific circumstances of
considered these documents as satisfactory. According to these reports,
the
implementation of both Objective 1 and 2 programmes had started in full during
2000. The monitoring data for 2001 showed that both commitments (decisions made
on projects) and payments to projects were advancing well in the Objective 1 and 2
areas as well as in the Objective 2 transitional areas.

the first year of

implementation,

The first annual review meeting between the Commission and the mainland Finland
Objective 1 and 2 managing authority was held on 23 November 2001 in Brussels.
The review covered the main programming stages, annual reports for 2000, the main
events and results of 2000 and follow-up, monitoring, developments in the
operational environment and in the socio-economic situation and their possible
effects on implementation, and developments around the future cohesion policy. It
was agreed, inter alia, to expand annual reporting, and to promote thematic and
policy discussions in the Monitoring Committees. It was also noted that following
the Second Cohesion Report of 2001 DG REGIO had received two position papers
from the Finnish regions and the Association of the Local and Regional Authorities.

The annual review meeting with the managing authority of the Åland Islands
Objective 2 programme was held on 27 November. As the implementation started in
early spring 2001, the discussion in the context of this first review focused on the
start-up phase.

At the end of September the Commission received the first interim payment requests
for the mainland Objective 1 programmes from managing authorities, at the end of
October those for the mainland Objective 2 programmes and at the end of November
those for the Åland Islands Objective 2 programme, all within the regulatory 18
months of programme approvals. The first ERDF interim payments were made in
December for the Objective 1 programmes.

In the field of human resources, the first annual review meeting between the
Commission and the management authority took place in Brussels on 23 November.
This was a joint meeting for Objectives 1 and 2. Links between the ESF and the
European Employment Strategy and complementarity between the ESF under
Objectives 2 and 3 were discussed.

51

As for agriculture, a total of 1 390 project decisions were taken in Eastern Finland
and 971 in Northern Finland. The fastest uptake has been on the “Farm investments”
measure. Furthermore, Finland has partially mainstreamed a Leader-type approach to
the Objective 1 SPDs.

€

In the fisheries sector, the FIFG contribution for Northern Finland is
2.65 million
(a payment on account of
190 000 has been made), mainly for processing, fishing
ports and aquaculture. For the other Objective 1 region (Eastern Finland), the FIFG
contribution is
300 000 has been made).
Processing and fishing ports are the main recipients of funding.

4.2 million (a payment on account of

€

€

€

Objective 3

€

ESF funding for Objective 3 SPD (excluding Åland Islands) totals
416 million. The
SPD sets out four policy priorities in accordance with the ESF policy frame of
reference: 1. exploiting labour demand and improving employability (29% of the
ESF allocation); 2. promoting equality and equal opportunities in working life
(19%); 3.
improving the quality and effectiveness of education and training,
promoting occupational mobility, and strengthening the integration of education and
working life (19%); 4. developing human capital to support entrepreneurship and the
quality of working life and exploiting research and technology (29%). In addition,
there is a priority for technical assistance (4%).

The main labour market problems the Objective 3 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.

The first annual review took place in Helsinki in October. The following issues were
dealt with: coherence with the proposed strategy, link with the EES, implementation
of the horizontal issues, financial issues, management and financial control systems,
monitoring, evaluation, and compliance with Community policies. It was agreed that
the managing authority should take the necessary steps to improve programme
implementation.

2.6
The separate Objective 3 programme for the autonomous Åland Islands, with
million funding from the ESF, proceeded as follows (situation at 31 December
2001): ESF commitments 20%, payments 8%, number of projects 28, and 750
persons participating in them. The annual review was organised in the form of
exchange of letters about the implementation of assistance.

€

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

€

32 million (a payment on account
For the period 2000-06, the FIFG contribution is
of
2.25 has been made). 55% is for protection and development of aquatic
resources, aquaculture, fishing port facilities, processing and marketing and inland
fishing. 11% of the funding goes to the Åland Islands, which have a separate plan.

€

2.2.14. SWEDEN

1995-99

52

The Commission received the annual reports for 2000 between July and October
2001. According to the annual report of the Objective 6 programme, 78% of the EU
budget had been paid to projects by the end of 2000. As regards the five Objective 2
programmes, between 68% and 83% of the EU budget had been paid out to projects.
Results so far show that the programmes will be well over-target as regards the
creation of jobs and new enterprises.

In 2001 calls for tenders for the ex-post evaluations of the Objective 2 and
Objective 6 programmes were issued by the Commission. Work on the Objective 6
evaluation is expected in early 2002. In addition, the Swedish authorities decided to
carry out complementary national ex-post evaluations for Objectives 2 and 6. Some
preparatory work was carried out in 2001 and the procurement procedures will be
finalised during the first half of 2002.

2000-06

Objectives 1 and 2

are

two Objective 1

There
Södra
programmes
Skogslänsregionen) and four Objective 2 programmes (Norra, Södra, Västra and
Öarna) in Sweden.

(Norra Norrland

and

In 2001 two Monitoring Committee meetings were held for each programme. The
first Objective 1 Monitoring Committee meetings took place in March and both
meetings included project visits. The second round of meetings took place in
October. The first set of Objective 2 Monitoring Committee meetings was held in
April and the second meetings in September/October. Most of the first meetings
included either project visits or focused on the programme complements and the
second ones on the ex-post and mid-term evaluations, in addition to the obligatory
reporting on the finalisation of the programme implementations. In the context of
those Monitoring Committee meetings which included project visits press
conferences were organised.

During the year one working group was established for the Objective 1 programmes
and one for the Objective 2 programmes, the members being nominated by the
respective Monitoring Committee with the Commission having one representative on
each Committee. The main task of these working groups will be to follow the ex-post
and mid-term evaluations. During the end of 2001 each evaluation working group
met to outline the main focus of the mid-term evaluations. This paper will be
presented to all Monitoring Committees for approval in the beginning of 2002. In
addition to this each programme has its own working group, which will focus on
special issues defined by each committee.

The first annual reports for 2000 were approved by the Monitoring Committees and
thereafter sent to the Commission at the end of June. After having reviewed the
reports in the light of the general Structural Funds regulation, and taking into account
the specific circumstances of the first
the Commission
considered the reports as satisfactory.

implementation year,

The annual reports 2000 for Objective 1 covered an implementation period of only a
few months. The managing authorities had to process a great number of applications
in the beginning since many applicants had been waiting for the application process

53

to be opened. The first project decisions were taken in the autumn of 2000. In view
of this, no payment was made that year.

Since the Objective 2 programmes were approved on 15 and 20 December 2000,
actual programme implementation did not start until 2001.

The programming phase was finalised in September/October 2001 when the
Commission confirmed that
the Objective 1 and Objective 2 programme
complements complied with the requirements of the regulation. The first versions
received by the Commission did not contain all the necessary elements, so a major
part of 2001 was devoted to the development of final and complete programme
complements, especially with regard to the financing plans and the indicators.

The first interim payment requests for Objective 1 programmes came in October
2001, which was within the regulatory time limit of 18 months.

The first annual review meeting between the Commission and the Objective 1 and 2
managing authorities was held in Brussels on 3 December. The first part of the
meeting was common for all programmes. In the afternoon there were separate
sessions for Objective 1 and Objective 2. The main points of the agenda covered
management and payment procedures, inspections, data systems and transmission
(including annual reports for 2000, a qualitative assessment of implementation and
results so far, the partnerships, the private sector involvement, payment requests,
etc.). No specific problems as regards programme implementation were brought up
during the meeting, except for the fact that some programmes had not yet started the
5% checks. The Commission therefore stressed the importance of starting these
checks as soon as possible in order to comply with Article 10 of Regulation (EC)
No 438/2001.

In June 2001 a conference on “Regional depopulation as a challenge for structural
policies” was organised in Lycksele (Northern Sweden) within the framework of the
Swedish presidency and in cooperation with the Commission. It
included an
exchange of experiences and dissemination of best practice and will provide the
background for discussion among policy makers on efficient measures and
implications for structural policies after 2006 at national as well as EU level.

In the agricultural sector, the uptake in EAGGF-funded measures was considered
acceptable during 2001. Generally, investment in agricultural holdings and support
for the setting up of young farmers progressed well, while support schemes for
processing and marketing received only a relatively limited amount of applications.

€

€

In the fisheries sector, two programmes were adopted. In the programme for Norra
5.8 million is available from the FIFG and investments in the fisheries
Norrland
sector totalling
13 million are planned. The strategy for the development of the
fisheries sector includes a wide range of FIFG measures but
investments in
aquaculture, processing and protection and development of aquatic resources should
represent about 50% of FIFG funds. Södra Skogslänsregionen will benefit from a
FIFG allocation of
13
million. According to the strategy established for fisheries, 75% of all FIFG funds
will be used to develop the aquaculture and processing industries. The
implementation rate of these programmes has so far been lower than expected, but
the pace has accelerated, according to preliminary information at the end of 2001.

5.7 million, which should lead to total investments of

€

€

54

Objective 3

The Commission approved the Objective 3 SPD on 27 September 2000, following
seven months of negotiations with the Swedish authorities. In addition to the regions
covered by Objective 1, Sweden is eligible for
747 million in ESF funds with an
€
€
2 780 million, of which
overall budget of
729 million will come from national
€
public funds and
1 303 million from private sources. The five priorities are ‘Skills
development of
employability and entrepreneurship’,
employees’,
‘Integration, diversity and equal opportunity’, ‘Local development’ and ‘Technical
assistance’.

‘Increase

€

In 2001 the programme was on track and by the end of 2001 had made up the late
start in 2000. Commitments reached 98% of the financing plan and payments 48%.
This meant altogether 423 000 participants (slightly more women than men). In the
first full operational year, measures on analysis of skills development and increased
employability had well exceeded the targets, while job rotation in particular had had
teething troubles.

The first annual review meeting was held on 7 November. One result was that the
Commission paid attention to slow financial reporting from the projects, stressing a
need to find incentives to speed it up. Further, due to start-up difficulties, the job
rotation measure needs to be thoroughly assessed prior to further measures. As the
programme is a whole, its balanced development needs to be closely monitored. The
involvement of social partners should be ensured by further developing working
methods. The mid-term evaluation was started by the selection of the evaluator by
the end of the year.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

€

The Commission adopted Sweden’s structural programme for 2000-06 on 15
62 million and total
December 2000. This programme has a FIFG contribution of
360 million are planned, mainly for the restructuring of the
investments of
processing industry and modernisation of the fleet. The modernisation of the fleet is
necessary in order to improve working and health conditions,
to improve the
selectivity of the fishing gear and to reduce the impact from fishing on the
environment. The first meeting of the Monitoring Committee was held on 9
February; this meeting adopted more detailed arrangements for the programme.

€

2.2.15. UNITED KINGDOM

1994-99

Objective 1

Three programmes were being implemented with completion to be achieved by 31
December 2001 and final reporting and final expenditure claims scheduled to be
submitted by 30 June 2002. The Commission agreed to a request by the UK
authorities to extend the implementation period for the Merseyside programme until
30 June 2002. 91.9 % of total payments have been made.

Objective 2

55

All programmes except one completed implementation by 31 December 2001, with
final reporting and expenditure claims scheduled to be submitted by 30 June 2002.
The Commission agreed to a request to extend the implementation period for the
North East England programme until 30 June 2002.

2000-06

Following the successful conclusion of the negotiations during 1999-2000, six
approved and started
Objective 1 and 14 Objective 2 programmes were
implementation.

Objective 1

Five programmes approved in 2000 were being implemented in 2001. They concern
the English regions of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Merseyside and South
Yorkshire, Wales (West Wales and the Valleys) and Scotland (transitional
programme for Highlands and Islands). Each programme covers between four and
six priority areas, grouped around five main themes: support for SMEs, support for
business modernisation, community economic regeneration, human resource
development and development of strategic infrastructure.

Three major projects setting up venture capital funds were appraised favourably. The
three projects and approved amounts of ERDF part-financing were: “South
Yorkshire Investment Fund” (
37 million), “Merseyside Special Investment Fund”
€
(

60 million), and “Finance Wales” (

32.6 million).

€

€

One transitional Objective 1 programme, “Building sustainable prosperity”, an
operational programme under the Northern Ireland CSF, was approved in 2001. The
thrust of this operational programme for a region in transition from Objective 1 and
emerging from conflict to peace is to move Northern Ireland towards a state of
sustainable prosperity in a competitive economy, by focusing on restructuring to
modernise business and providing for skills development of its people, to enable a
higher
this
technology future. The main focus and thus major priorities of
programme are those of economic growth and competitiveness, and employment.

In March 2001 the Commission adopted the second EU programme for peace and
reconciliation, the Peace II programme 2000-04. 80% covers Northern Ireland and
20% covers the Border region of Ireland. It builds on the experience of the special
support process after the Belfast Agreement. The new programme addresses the
economic and social legacy of the conflict and helps projects that take opportunities
arising from the return to peace. It also seeks to pave the way to reconciliation
between Protestants and Catholics by funding projects displaying cross-community
commitment.

In the fisheries sector, for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, the total FIFG for fisheries
€
16.99 million, which represents 3% of total Community aid for the programme.
is
Applications from the fishing and aquaculture sectors opened in April and by the end
of the year 34 applications had been approved with an FIFG contribution of
2.8
million. Five Cornish bids were successful under the English decommissioning
scheme. A Fisheries Priority Management Group was set up and it met regularly to
review progress and approve applications. Progress in 2001 was very satisfactory.

€

56

In Merseyside, the total FIFG for fisheries is small,
400 000 for 2000-06. Within the
Objective 1 area fisheries activity includes an offshore fishery for trawlers which
land their catch into Canada dock; inshore fishing vessels for some 25 fishermen; a
cockle fishery, and a brown shrimp fishery. In addition there is Stanley market and a
number of processors.

€

€

In Highlands & Islands Objective 1 (transitional Objective 1), the total FIFG for
fisheries for the period 2000-06 is
27.76 million, 9% of the total Community aid to
for the programme. The Highlands & Islands Fisheries Management Group was set
up and met regularly to review progress. Interest from the industry was strong,
particularly in the aquaculture sector, which has been heavily oversubscribed. Two
bidding rounds took place resulting in the announcement of awards totalling
€
800 000
allocation of FIFG funding for the “Scottish” decommissioning scheme. Most of the
aid was for projects located in remote areas whose economies are heavily reliant on
aquaculture and fishing. In fact, six grant aid schemes were set up covering fishing
vessel modernisation, aquaculture, port facilities, operations by members of the
trade, innovative measures and processing and marketing. The allocation of FIFG
funding among these schemes will be reviewed in 2002.

8 million of FIFG funding for 54 projects. In addition there was a

€

27.76 million) is small

In Northern Ireland (transitional Objective 1), although the total amount of FIFG
€
(
in comparison to the total funds available for this
transitional Objective 1 programme, it will have a significant impact on the fishing
industry. The multi-fund programme was not approved until early in 2001 and a
number of fisheries issues still need to be resolved. As in Scotland, there was much
political debate on how best to help with recovery of fisheries stocks. Rather than a
“tie up” scheme, a “decommissioning” scheme for fishing vessels was drawn up and
applications were received during the year. The scheme was part-financed by the
8 million. The scheme was heavily
FIFG and the total amount available was some
oversubscribed and the outcome is likely to be a reduction in the fishing fleet of
around 30 vessels.

€

€

In Wales, the amount of FIFG funding for 2000-06 is
15.2 million, considerably
more than had been taken up by the Welsh fisheries industry in the past. Following
Commission approval of the programme, progress was slow, mainly because
fisheries is now being administered by the newly formed Welsh European Funding
Office where time was needed to set up the necessary documentation, procedures,
and schemes to implement the FIFG. Absorption of funds is likely to continue to be
slow but in order to try accelerate progress consultants were engaged and have now
made recommendations. A much more proactive approach is needed.

Objective 2

Fourteen programmes were approved and started implementation in 2001. Ten
programmes concern English regions and Gibraltar, three concern Scotland and one
Wales. Each programme covers an average of three priority areas, grouped around
three main themes: developing diverse, dynamic and competitive business bases,
strategic spatial development, and community regeneration and economic and social
development.

Objectives 1 and 2

57

In accordance with the regulation, the Commission and the UK managing authorities
reviewed the main outcomes of the implementation of the programmes during 2000
in the course of five review meetings held in Brussels between 27 November and 14
December. The reviews were based on the annual implementation reports, together
with other information available through regular exchanges between the Commission
and the UK authorities, and the work of the programme Monitoring Committees.
Overall the reviews confirmed the consistency of the programme strategies with the
policies and economic frameworks in force during implementation, as well as the
overall consistency of the programme measures with Community policies. They also
concluded that, generally, progress in implementation was consistent with the targets
for achieving the programmes’ output and the disbursement targets.

The Commission and the UK authorities agreed on a strategy and a work programme
for launching the mid-term reviews. They should permit field work to start early in
the second half of 2002 and the evaluation results to be finalised, approved and
available for use during the second half of 2003.

Objective 3

The UK’s Objective 3 programme for 2000-06 will be implemented through a UK
CSF and separate operational programmes for England, Scotland and Wales.
Reflecting the general downward trend in the number of unemployed in the UK,
there has been a significant increase, when compared with the 1994-99 programmes,
in the programmes on lifelong learning, adaptability and
in the emphasis
entrepreneurship (31.6% to 40.0%). At the same time, a substantial sum (53%) is still
reserved for
inclusion. The
tackling unemployment and encouraging social
proportion of the budget allocated to specific measures to promote gender equality
has almost doubled (3.6% to 7.0%).

€

€

The English OP is structured along the five policy fields approach of the ESF
Regulation and closely follows the approach in the UK CSF. It is steered by the
Department for Work and Pensions (Sheffield); project selection and payments will
the level of nine Regional Government Offices and
mainly be conducted at
Monitoring Committees. The total value of the programme is
4 111 million, 87% of
the total UK Objective 3 allocation. After application by the English authorities the
94.9 million. In 2001 the
Commission made a first
interim payment of some
English authorities continued to prepare the part-financing system. Under the
proposed arrangements, Regional Government Offices (RGOs) would enter into
contract negotiations with a small number of large public training providers - Co-
financing Organisations (CFOs) e.g. the Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) and the
Employment Service. These discussions would play a crucial role in enabling the
prospective CFO to demonstrate its commitment to regional and local priorities as
well as to national ones. After securing funding from RGOs, CFOs would enter into
contracts with training providers. The contract would set clear quality criteria,
specify the outputs required and say how those outputs were to be certified, and the
CFOs would contract with providers on the basis of output related funding using
nationally agreed rates (“formula based funding”).
€

The Scottish OP totals
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

58

(22%), addressing gender imbalances (7%) and technical assistance (1%). The
19.5 million.
Scottish authorities requested the first interim payment amounting to
The Commission will pay out this claim after approval of the Scottish Objective 3
programme complement.

€

€

The Wales OP totals
is placed on
132 million and greater
entrepreneurship and adaptability 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%. Following an application by
the Welsh authorities, the Commission made a first interim payment of some
4.3
million.

emphasis

€

Each of the managing authorities of the OPs for England, Scotland and Wales
submitted the first annual implementation report on 2000.

Finally the first annual review meetings on implementation of these three OPs in
2000 took place in November. The general conclusion of these meetings was that
implementation of the three programmes has started satisfactorily and that it was still
consistent with the strategy presented in each of the operational programmes.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

For the period 2000-06 the UK non-Objective 1 fisheries programme covers all areas
of the UK not eligible under Objective 1, i.e. most of England, all of Scotland
excluding Highlands & Islands and a very small part of Wales. The total FIFG
allocation for 2000-06 is

125.5 million, of which almost 50% will go to Scotland.

€

Since the programme was not approved until December 2000, it was necessary for
the administrations to prepare the various procedures and documentation required
under fisheries regulations. A Monitoring Committee including representatives from
in the
all sectors of the fishing industry plus members with a specific interest
environment was set up and met
twice. FIFG grant schemes together with
programme complements, application forms, guidance notes, state aid approvals
were drawn up. Separate schemes were prepared for England, Scotland and Wales.

During the early part of the year there was intensive discussion and debate,
particularly in the Scottish Parliament, on the problems of the fishing industry and
the continuing decline in fish stocks. There was strong opinion in favour of a “tie up”
scheme for fishing vessels to keep vessels in the fishing ports in order to help
conservation of stocks. However in March the Scottish ministry announced a major
40 million (part-
“decommissioning” scheme covering all of Scotland and costing
financed by the FIFG) in order to help ensure the long-term viability of the whitefish
fisheries and the Scottish sea fisheries industry. Later DEFRA announced its own
“decommissioning” scheme for England making available up to
10 million (part-
financed by the FIFG), again for permanent withdrawal of fishing capacity. The
schemes operate on the basis of a tender, with those vessel owners prepared to take
less money for decommissioning their vessels getting priority. During the year the
necessary legislation and documentation were drawn up and vessels selected for
decommissioning. There was a favourable response from the industry and
applications exceeded the funds available. These were one-off schemes.

€

€

59

While decommissioning schemes received most attention over the year, applications
were received for other grant aid schemes covering modernisation of the fleet,
aquaculture, processing and marketing, port facilities, operations by members of the
trade and innovative measures. Absorption of FIFG funding is more advanced in
Scotland.

2.3.

Coordination with the other financial instruments

2.3.1.

The Cohesion Fund

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
strategy at
administrative unit or sectoral level,”.

transport

In addition,
the “Cohesion Fund Vade-mecum 2000-2006”, distributed to 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. This frame of reference, to be
defined at the most appropriate level, should include: a definition of the long term
the interim objectives which could be
objectives, a list of
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.”

individual projects,

submitted their

strategic reference frameworks

The four countries
the
environment and transport sectors at an information meeting for the Member States
these
organised by the Commission on 18 December 2000.
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.

In some cases,

for

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

Investment Fund (EIF)

The cooperation agreement signed by the Commission and the EIB on Community
structural action in 2000-06 includes provision for contacts between the Commission
and the EIB. These arrangements have operated satisfactorily and have included

60

specific coordination contacts in the field of major transport projects (Spain and
Greece) and the ‘innovation 2000’ initiative in Portugal.

Following the conclusions of
the high-level meeting on 4 December 2000,
cooperation between the two Institutions began on cross-border cooperation
(European Union and candidate countries) and urban matters (Urban).

Under the framework contract between the Commission (DG for Regional Policy)
and the EIB for 2000-06, covering the evaluation by the Bank of certain major
projects submitted for financing from the Structural Funds by the beneficiary
countries, eight rapid evaluations were undertaken.

As regards the priorities for cooperation, particular attention was paid to the major
transport projects, 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 2001 the Bank devoted
€

30.6 billion in 2000. In the candidate counties, the Bank provided

31.2 billion to projects in the Union compared with
2.7 billion for
investments to help prepare for enlargement. Support from the Bank for the most
disadvantaged regions amounted to
5 billion in
global loans.

14.5 billion in individual loans and

€

€

€

The main countries benefiting from EIB loans were Germany, Italy, Spain, the
United Kingdom and France.

2001

2000

1999

1998

Work of the EIB in the Union

Regional development

-

-

30.6%

27.8%

25.1%

>66%

61%

71%

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).

In its areas of assistance, in 2001 the EIF took part in about 100 transactions, of
800 million.
which 57 concerned venture capital, involving a total participation of
Total assistance signed in 2001 amounted to

1.75 billion.

€

€

Assistance covered regional development and research, particularly biotechnology. It
also extended to the candidate countries.

In 2001 the MAP programme was signed for the period 2001/05. This programme,
managed by the EIF, will take place within the Union and in the candidate countries.
It is intended to strengthen the financing of business nurseries and seed capital funds.

The Commission will ensure that regional development secures its share of total
assistance.

An initiative to increase cooperation between the Commission and the EIF on the
regions assisted was launched in the second half of the year and is now taking shape.

61

2.3.3.

Financial assistance for the trans-European networks (TENs)

Coordination between the trans-European transport and energy networks (TENs)
budget and the Structural Funds resources, in particular the ERDF, is important in
Objective 1 and 2 areas and the Cohesion countries (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland)
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.

While both transport and energy TENs projects of common interest are financed
from the TENs budget line, the Cohesion Fund provides specifically for transport
infrastructure and the ERDF for both transport and energy. Article 2 of the Regional
Fund Regulation ((EC) No 1783/1999) provides that in achieving its tasks the Fund
shall contribute to the financing of investment in infrastructure contributing to the
establishment and development of trans-European networks. In this connection, the
Community also encourages public-private partnerships by, inter alia, providing a
higher rate of assistance where its aid takes a form other than a cash grant.

The TENs Regulation does not allow the same phase of a single project to be
financed both by the TENs budget and from other Community sources but, in some
cases, feasibility studies financed through the TENs budget may be followed by
support from the ERDF and the EIB for the (part-) financing mainly of construction
works for the actual investment. Frequently, in the area of transport, the ERDF
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.

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
programmes for Community funding (MIP) and 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.

The MIP proposal for 2001-06, adopted by the Commission in September 2001,
provides a total of about
2.8 billion for 11 priority projects (Essen projects), the
project Global Navigation Satellite Systems (“Galileo”) and four groups of projects
of “common interest”.

€

€

563 million in commitment appropriations was allocated to TENs-
In 2001 a total of
Transport projects under the MIP, the Galileo project and projects of common
interest outside the MIP.

In 2001 by far the largest part of Union spending on transport under the TEN-
transport budget went to rail projects (almost 55%), with Galileo (20.6%) and roads
(12%) in second and third places.

On 12 September 2001 the Commission adopted a White Paper on transport9 which
makes the reduction of congestion, environmental nuisances and accidents the main

9

White paper: European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. COM(2001) 370 final, 12.9.2001.

62

objectives of transport policy. Achieving these will require rebalancing among
transport modes and will rely in particular on the following measures:

–

–

–

revitalising railways through a regulated opening up of markets and the
promotion of sea and inland waterway transport and intermodality;

the construction of new infrastructure, in particular railways,
bottlenecks;

to eliminate

charging for infrastructure use so that its price better reflects the costs to
society, which can also help finance infrastructure.

To achieve these ambitious goals, the Commission will rely inter alia on the finance
available from the TENs transport budget, the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF and, in
the candidate countries, from ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-
Accession). The White Paper notes that “In the new context of sustainable
development, Community co-financing should be redirected to give priority to rail,
sea and inland waterway transport.”10 This concerns in particular ERDF finance for
regions at the centre of the Union where congestion is worst. In the context of
financing TENs infrastructure, the White Paper also draws attention to the need “to
ensure that Community funding is much more conditional upon the implementation
of projects guaranteeing interconnection of the infrastructure concerned,
their
interoperability,
their contribution to the development of intermodality, greater
safety, and the recovery of the aid where this principle is not met.”11

By including these proposals in the White Paper, the Commission was responding to
the expectations in the conclusions of the Göteborg European Council on the need
to infrastructure investment for public
“for giving priority, where appropriate,
transport and for
intermodal
operations and effective interconnection.”

inland waterways, short sea shipping,

railways,

As already announced in 2000, an initiative in the field of telecommunications was
launched in 1997 by the Directorates-General for the Information Society and
Regional Policy to improve the quality of local information on tourism and SMEs
through a critical mass of interoperable and reliable information. Under this initiative
15 projects were part-financed by the TENs telecom programme. Following a
technical evaluation, the financial evaluation of 12 projects was completed in 2001
and that of the last three projects (Intourism, Tommy and Toursax) will be finished
during 2002. This initiative has seen the development of working groups,
experimental pilots and technical approaches. These results have been appraised by
the national tourism committees which encourage their use by their European
federation and, in particular, by the researches of the Media Group, the federation’s
European Economic Interest Grouping, which deals with the use of the new media in
tourism.

10

11

Page 8.
Page 59.

63

2.4.

Coherence with other Community policies

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 against
four pillars: employability, entrepreneurship,
adaptability and equal opportunities. The so-called Luxembourg process is built on
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 proceeds as
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.

Whereas the NAPs for 2000 provided information about the broader framework of
their plans for the programming period 2000-06, most NAPs for 2001 provided
updated information illustrating the overall expenditure under the ESF and closely
related instruments, structuring the presentation according to the structures of the
ESF programmes. This reflected the fact that the ESF has been established as a major
component for the implementation of the NAPs and thereby has become an
important part of Member States’ employment policies, as was intended by the new
ESF Regulation.

However, the fact that reporting did not follow a common structure did not make it
easy to identify the genuinely activating or innovative contribution of the ESF.
Increased comparability could be achieved by a more standardised way of reporting
in the future in order to present information more homogeneously.

This problem has been discussed by the ESF Committee. The Committee asked the
Commission to provide more guidance for Member States reporting on the links
between the EES and the ESF; furthermore, reporting on the ESF should include not
only quantitative data on the number of projects and budget but also qualitative
information. The Commission has taken up that recommendation and included it in
its outline for the 2002 NAPs, which has been sent to all Member States.

It should be noted that a major impact evaluation of the European Employment
Strategy is being carried out, whose results will affect the future shape of the EES
objectives. This may have some bearing on the Structural Funds’ contribution to the
EES.

2.4.2.

The Structural Funds, rural development policy and fisheries policy

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 decommissioning, which is

64

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 part-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.

Rural development policy is partially integrated into the policy of the Structural
Funds in the Objective 1 and 2 areas and forms part of their programming.

Part of the rural development policy, the supporting measures for the CAP, is
financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section,
the early cessation of agricultural
activity, agri-environmental measures, the afforestation of agricultural areas and the
compensatory allowances for agricultural activity in the less-favoured areas and
those subject to environmental constraints.

these measures are integrated with the other

rural
In the Objective 2 areas,
development measures (investment in holdings, setting up of young farmers, training,
improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products, forestry and the
adjustment and development of rural areas) where, in all the Member States except
France, they form part of the same rural development plans under Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999, so ensuring consistency.

In the Objective 1 regions,
rural
development integrated in the programming of the Structural Funds and financed by
the EAGGF Guidance Section is consistent with the part financed by the EAGGF
Guarantee Section.

the Commission ensures that

the part of

2.4.3.

The Structural Funds and environmental policy

The annual report for 2000 described the framework and guidelines for integrating
the environment into the Structural Funds.

A first assessment was made in 2001 of the effectiveness of this integration process,
which is described below.

Ex-ante environmental evaluation: an ex-ante environmental evaluation must be
carried out for all programmes. It has been noted that the ex-ante environmental
evaluation was particularly thorough in some programmes. On the other hand, a
common weakness that emerged was the lack of basic harmonised environmental
data and indicators in almost all programmes.

€

€

roughly

Direct environmental investments: of the
195 billion for the Structural Funds 2000-
06,
20 billion (over 10%) was earmarked for direct environmental
investments (water, waste water, waste, soil and nature protection), mainly in
9 billion from the Cohesion Fund (50%
southern countries. To this should be added
29 billion. This
of the total), bringing the total for environmental infrastructure to
represents a doubling in absolute terms from the previous programming period
(1994-99).

€

€

65

Improving the implementation of environmental legislation: the Commission has
pursued the better implementation of environmental legislation not only through
direct financing as mentioned above, but also by making the correct implementation
of certain EC environmental directives a pre-requisite for receiving finance for
certain measures. This concerns both thematic Directives with a strong territorial
dimension (such as those for nature, waste management and waste water), and the
Directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The establishment of Community lists of sites for the Natura 2000 network remains a
priority for the Commission. Its initiative in linking the negotiation of the Structural
Fund programmes with the transmission of the lists of Natura 2000 sites (due since
1995) considerably accelerated their
In cases where significant
deficiencies still exist, appropriate measures have been taken.

submission.

During the year, the Commission assessed the measures connected with the Natura
2000 network in the various programmes and programme complements, especially as
regards part-financing of positive measures for the conservation and management of
sites. It has also assessed the compliance of applications for part-financing with
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. The Commission also set up a group of experts to
establish on the basis of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive, the financing needs for
the Natura 2000 network and the potential use of the Community funds for this
purpose.

A similar story can be told with the waste plans12, where legal measures started
against almost all Member States in 1997 for lack of waste plans. Without an agreed
waste plan in place financing is problematic. Currently legal actions remain against
only a few Member States.

With regard to waste water, both the urban waste-water13 and the nitrates14 Directives
must be respected. It is planned to finance urban waste-water treatment projects only
to the appropriate level (primary, secondary, or tertiary depending respectively on the
designation of sensitive areas) in accordance with the urban waste-water Directive.
On the other hand,
the negotiation of the Rural Development Plans caused a
considerable acceleration in the designation of sensitive areas under the nitrates
Directive.

The negotiation of the Structural Fund programmes has helped implement
the
polluter-pays principle through the application of different levels of assistance15. The
application of the polluter-pays principle will be further strengthened by the correct
application of the framework Directive on water 16.

Integration: the integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies for
industry, energy,
tourism, agriculture, human resources and urban
development is a clear feature of the new programmes. It is now possible to start to
talk about
than purely economic
development.

regional development

sustainable

transport,

rather

12

13

14

15

16

Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.
Directive 91/271/EEC.
Directive 91/676/EEC.
DG REGIO working paper No 1, application of the polluter-pays principle.
Directive 2000/60/EC.

66

Given the decentralised nature of management of the Structural Funds, it is the
responsibility of the environmental authorities, often together with environmental
non-governmental organisations through Management and Monitoring Committees,
to ensure that integration is successfully happening. In some countries such as Spain,
Portugal and Italy, networks of regional and national environmental authorities have
been established through technical assistance budgets to help with monitoring and
integration. Efforts are being made to establish similar networks in other Member
States.

Environmental legislation and policy in 2001 and the Structural Funds

The Commission published its proposed Sixth Environment Action Programme
“Environment 2010: our future, our choice” in January 2001 (6th EAP)17. It was
approved by the Council and Parliament in June 200218. This programme proposes a
strategic approach to meeting environmental objectives involving the implementation
of existing environmental legislation, integration of environmental concerns in other
policies, working with the market, encouraging individual citizen actions, and land
use planning and management decisions. It also focuses on four priority measure
areas: tackling climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health and
sustainable use of natural resources and waste management. All these approaches
and priorities are related to the Structural Funds.

A further feature of the 6th EAP is the requirement to propose thematic strategies in
the following areas: protection and conservation of the marine environment, soil
protection, air pollution,
sustainable use of pesticides, urban environment,
sustainable use and management of resources, and waste recycling. These thematic
strategies will develop a holistic approach.

The Directive on Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was approved in 200119.
This will apply to plans and programmes, and hence will complement the existing
Directive on Environmental impact assessment (EIA), which applies to projects20.
The SEA Directive will not apply to the Structural Funds and rural development
plans until after 2006.

2.4.4.

The Structural Funds and competition policy

The Community is developing a policy of economic cohesion which seeks in
particular to reduce the gap between the levels of development of the various regions
and the degree to which the less favoured regions are lagging behind. Since a
considerable amount of the assistance from the Structural Funds goes straight to
firms, it is important to ensure that Community regional policy fully complies with
in 2001 the Commission completed its
the competition rules. Accordingly,
examination of the compatibility with the Treaty of the measures in the single

17

18

19

20

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sixth environment action programme of the
European Community, proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying
down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010, COM(2001) 31 final, 24.1.2001.
OJ L 242, 10.09.2002.
Directive 2001/42/EC.
Directive 97/11/EC of 3March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC.

67

programming documents on assistance from the Funds to the Objective 2 areas in
2000-06.

The complementarity and synergy of the two policies may also be seen from a
consideration of the compatibility of regional aides with the internal market. In this
context, the Commission pays particular attention to the potentially beneficial effects
of aid intended to promote the economic development of the least favoured regions,
provided that the conditions of competition and trade among the Member States are
not affected to a degree contrary to the common interest. These principles are applied
not only when considering specific schemes but also in the context of horizontal
provisions. Hence the new Community Guideline on State aid for environmental
protection21, like the communication on State aid and risk capital22, lays down less
stringent conditions when such aid is granted in assisted regions.

Finally, pursuant
to Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain
categories of horizontal State aid23, the Commission has continued its work on
reforming the procedural rules applicable in the case of aids less likely to create
distortions of competition. Regulations exempting aids on a de minimis basis24, aids
for training25 and aids to small and medium-sized firms26 which should result in a
simplification of Community part-financing procedures for certain aid schemes
throughout the current programming period for the Structural Funds were adopted in
2001.

2.4.5.

The 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 become 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.

21

22

23

24

25

26

OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.
OJ C 235, 21.8.2001.
OJ L 142, 14.05.1998.
OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
OJ L 10, 13.1.2000.
OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

68

2.4.6.

The Structural Funds and equality for men and women

The promotion of gender equality is more firmly rooted in the new Structural Funds
Regulations, which propose an integrated equality strategy. Together with horizontal
integration of equal opportunities, 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 part-financed by the Structural Funds.27 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.28

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).

In line with the European Employment Strategy, the ESF programmes contain, as a
dual strategy, specific measures to support gender equality alongside a wider
commitment to mainstream gender across all actions and programme priorities. This
approach compared to the previous programming period raises the visibility and
impact of gender
issues at each stage in the programmes from design to
implementation and through to evaluation.

these
The Commission and the Member States are committed to ensuring that
objectives are actually achieved rather than remaining declarations of principle. Now
the implementation phase has started,
implementation reports on
Structural Fund Programmes and the annual meetings between the Commission and
the managing authorities provide information on progress and obstacles to achieving
gender equality.

the annual

In order to efficiently monitor the implementation of gender mainstreaming in the
Structural Funds operations, the Commission has strengthened its cooperation and
coordination mechanisms and set up a working group within its Interdepartmental
Group on Gender Equality. The working group is preparing two key events which
the 3rd Conference on Gender Mainstreaming in the
will take place in 2002:
Structural Funds
and the Commission Communication on the
implementation of gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds programming
documents. Both are expected to give an inventory of progress in mainstreaming
gender in the new programming period, but also to identify areas where progress is
slow. They will present successful projects and instruments to mainstream gender in

in June,

27

28

Technical Paper 3 “Mainstreaming equal opportunities for women and men in Structural Fund
programmes and projects” (http://inforegio.cec.eu.int)
Annex 4 to 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.

69

the Structural Funds operations and serve as an important input to the Structural
Funds mid-term review in 2003.

In order to get a deeper look into the programming documents including the
commitments to achieve gender equality, in-depth studies have been launched by the
Directorates-General for Employment and Regional Policy. The results are expected
for the first half of 2002 and will serve as a basis for the communication.

One important instrument to exchange experience and best practices to mainstream
gender in the Structural Funds operations across the EU will be the network of
persons in Member States responsible for gender equality issues in the Structural
Funds which will be set up in 2002.

2.4.7

Structural Funds and the information society

The development of the information society is an integral part of the policy of the
Structural Funds for 2000-06. The Lisbon summit set out an ambitious strategy (e-
Europe) to make the European Union by 2010 “the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with
more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.”

The Structural Funds for 2000-06 contain some
6 billion for the development of the
information society. The percentage of ERDF and ESF funding devoted to the
information society in the Objective 1 regions for the 2000-06 programming period
ranges from 10.5% in Italy to 7.8% in Greece, while in Spain and Portugal the
percentages are 9.4% and 8.5% (also including aid for innovation and R&D).

€

The horizontal initiatives projects, such as the Innovative Actions programme and
other Structural Funds programmes such as Urban II and Interreg III also include the
information society as a priority.

2001 saw the development of national and regional information society strategies in
virtually all the Objective 1 regions (and often in the Objective 2 areas). The regional
and national operational programmes submitted in 2001 contain a financial
commitment to information society measures which represents a substantial part of
the total budget of the Structural Funds. The Commission makes an active
contribution to this effort by participating in working groups on the information
society set up within the Monitoring Committees and by ensuring that
these
initiatives are coordinated at national, regional and local level and consistent with the
objectives of e-Europe.

A specific initiative for the outermost regions was also launched. In 2001, a study on
the information society and the outermost regions was carried out and its conclusions
will help encourage the development of the information society there.

The use of e-Europe evaluation indicators (benchmarking), approved by the
European Council in November 2000, is also regarded as a tool for evaluating the
impact of Structural Fund assistance to the information society in the Member States.

70

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

3.1.

Evaluations in 2001

ERDF:

During 2001, DG REGIO launched seven studies concerning a range of issues of
relevance to regional policy and the Structural Funds. All of these studies will be
completed during 2002. The seven studies are:

Ex-post evaluation of Objective 1, 1994-99, which aims to establish the
effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the Structural Funds in Objective 1
regions, to identify Community added value and to identify lessons for both the
2000-06 and the post-2006 planning periods.

Ex-post evaluation of Objective 2, 1994-99, which has similar objectives to the
Objective 1 evaluation, but with respect to Objective 2.

Ex-post evaluation of Objective 6, 1994-99, again with similar objectives to the
Objective 1 and 2 evaluations.

An Input-Output study, which aims to quantify the economic impacts of all
Objective 1 assistance for all Member States for the 2000-06 period with the
help of a dynamic input-output model.

A study on the information society and economic and social cohesion aims to
provide an assessment of the contribution of the Structural Funds - both in
financial and strategic terms - to the development of the Information Society in
Europe. The study will address the extent of disparities between regions and
social groups in the area of information society, the main objectives and
strategies pursued in the field of the information society in the context of
Structural Funds and the actual and potential contribution of the Structural
Funds to the development of the information society.

A thematic evaluation of the Territorial Employment Pacts will examine the
relevance, catalytic effect and impact, cost-effectiveness, added value and
lessons of the Territorial Employment Pact approach which operated in 89
areas between 1997 and 2001.

A thematic evaluation of the contribution of the Structural Funds to sustainable
development aims to develop methods,
indicators and approaches for the
evaluation of regional sustainable development, to identify ways for structural
funds to generate better projects promoting sustainable development and to
identify the main policy trade-offs being made in regional development
policies either explicitly or implicitly.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

ESF:

Most of the final evaluation reports for the ESF for Objectives 1, 3 and 4,
Employment and Adapt arrived in 2000 and the latest were adopted by the
Monitoring Committees in 2001. The summary of results was completed on the basis
of these latest reports and the main features are to be found in the report of the
Structural Funds for 2000. They are now available to the public: “Conclusions of the

71

final evaluations of the ESF”, European Commission, Directorate-General for
Employment and Social Affairs, October 2001, ISBN 92-894-1793-5.

The Commission drew up the terms of reference to launch the ex-post evaluation by
external evaluators. The Member States were consulted through partnership on the
ESF evaluation. The ex-post evaluation is intended to assess the results and impact of
the assistance from the European Social Fund under Objectives 3 and 4 and the
Employment and Adapt Community Initiatives over the period 1994-99 in relation to
their objectives and to analyse the input and the effectiveness of the Community
project on specific structural problems. Some analyses will also be carried out on the
ESF measures taken under the Objective 1 CSF. A sample of the latter will be the
subject of another ex-post evaluation, to examine the impact of the Structural Funds
under Objective 1.

This ex-post evaluation aims to measure the effects of the assistance on people (final
beneficiaries of these actions) as well as on systems (including indirect recipients) in
the various Member States and, as far as possible,
to identify the Community
appreciation of these items. The horizontal priority of equal opportunities between
men and women will not be the subject of an individual task but should be taken into
account in a specific way in each analytical task described below.

Although covering the 1994-99 programming period, the results and lessons of this
evaluation will be able to contribute to:

–

–

–

–

–

the drafting of the next report on progress in achieving economic and social
cohesion;

the implementation of the ESF 2000-06 (interim evaluation in 2003 and its
update in 2005);

ideas relating to the ESF as it could be post-2006;

the negotiation of the ESF programmes with new Member States following
enlargement;

the analysis of the contribution of the ESF to both the European employment
strategy and the social inclusion process (National Action Plans included).

The evaluation of the 1998 pilot projects on local social capital produced the second
interim report by the end of 200; the final report is scheduled for the end of 2002.

The management of
innovative measures intrinsically includes a system of
capitalisation and dissemination of the results of projects and lessons learnt.
Successful innovation needs to be capitalised in order to achieve the maximum
impact on policy and, where appropriate, be incorporated across Objectives 1, 2 and
3 of the Structural Fund programmes and the National Action Plans for Employment.
The evaluation aims to measure impact, innovation, effectiveness and transferability
of the results obtained.

An evaluation of the measures developed on social dialogue in the new economy will
be also carried out.

Evaluation of the programmes for 2000-06 part-financed by the ESF

72

The regulatory provisions on monitoring and evaluation were stepped up for 2000-
06. For Objectives 1 and 3, DG EMPL worked with the Member States on the
implementation of the guidelines which had been drawn up and negotiated with them
in 199929.

The main feature of 2001 was the introduction of the arrangements for evaluation,
and in particular technical groups responsible for steering the exercise. They
prepared the mandates for the mid-term evaluations, the results of which should be
available in the second half of 2003. Over half the external evaluators for the ESF
programmes were recruited through a call for tenders.

Evaluation of the Equal Community Initiative programmes

The start of evaluations of the Equal Initiative resulted in further consideration of the
Community guidelines for the evaluation of these programmes30. This takes place at
three levels:

–

–

–

self-evaluation of each project implemented directly through the development
partnership responsible for its management;

national evaluation of each programme by independent evaluators;

European-level evaluation of all the programmes, also by an independent
evaluator, concentrating mainly on the aspects of transnational cooperation, the
effectiveness of networking at European level and the impact on the political
process.

As in the cases of Objectives 1 and 3, 2001 was devoted to the introduction of the
arrangements for evaluation. The Commission drew up terms of reference for a call
for tenders concerning evaluation at European level.

Assistance to the candidate countries for programme evaluation

Most of the candidate countries have begun to prepare development plans to receive
assistance from the Structural Funds. They have had bilateral contacts with the
Commission to prepare the programming documents. In this context, the ex-ante
evaluation exercise is a valuable instrument for improving the quality of structural
assistance. Seminars have made the expertise gained available to the administrations
of the candidate countries.

EAGGF Guidance Section:

Ex-post evaluations for 1994-99 concerning Objectives 5(a) and 5(b) and Leader II:
The Member States and regions presented a large number of evaluation studies for
the measures supported from the Structural Funds in 1994-99 regarding the setting-
up of young farmers,
in agricultural holdings,
processing and marketing of agricultural products, Objective 5(b) programmes and

less favoured areas,

investment

29

30

Guidelines on the arrangements for the monitoring and evaluation of the ESF for the period 2000-06 -
July 1999.
“Key issues for the mid-term evaluation of Equal CIP in the Member States”, EC Directorate-General
for Employment and Social Affairs – Unit EMPL/G.5, July 2001

73

the Leader II Community Initiative. These studies were carried out at national level
using guidelines issued by the Commission, which meanwhile initiated the process of
synthesising this information in order to draw conclusions at Community level.

Rural development measures and Leader+ in the period 2000-06: Work continued on
establishing and disseminating a
evaluating the
programmes with EAGGF involvement
in the period 2000-06. This included
guidelines for evaluating the rural Community Initiative Leader+, for which also ex-
ante evaluations were received as a part of the programme proposals.

coordinated approach for

While awaiting the ex-post evaluation of the programmes for 1994-99 to be carried
out in 2002-03, a study evaluating the impact of assistance from the FIFG to the
processing industry was launched in 2001.

3.2.

Checks carried out

ERDF in 2000-06

In 2001, DG REGIO undertook 27 audits of Member States’ management and
inspection systems for the period 2000-06. Their main objective was a preventive
one, to check that the systems set up meet the requirements of the new Regulations
(EC) Nos 1260/1999, 438/2001 and 448/2001 and to assist Member States in solving
practical problems in implementing the new legal framework.

For this purpose a sample of programmes was taken from all 15 Member States,
mostly under Objective 1 but also some under Objective 2. The missions were
normally of one week’s duration and distributed per country as follows:

–

–

–

one each in Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and
Austria

two each in Belgium, Finland, France, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom

three each in Greece, Italy and Portugal.

DG REGIO also carried out some shorter audits of projects under Articles 7 and 10
(see below).

The requirements of separate managing and paying authorities, the certification of
interim declarations of expenditure, and the independent audit certificate at the
winding-up of programmes have to be implemented in highly different national
administrative systems. The changes required have taken some time to put in place
and are not yet complete everywhere. The main difficulties have related to the
separation of the functions of certification of expenditure and independent audit from
management as it necessitates a new organisation of the work, often in an
environment of staff cuts.

Among the problems found in relation to the management of the programmes are the
following :

–

Lack of authority over intermediate bodies and other entities performing
important functions for which the managing authority is ultimately responsible.
The latter are often other ministries, which may be higher in the administrative

74

hierarchy than the managing authority. Another case is where the managing
authority’s work is done by a unit in a directorate or department, where other
units in the same department at the same level perform other functions such as
paying authority or intermediate bodies for certain measures or internal audit,
and where these other units traditionally report not to the managing authority
unit but to the head of department.

Managing authorities have in many cases not yet issued enough in the way of
guidance and instructions to intermediate bodies on EU rules, expenditure
declarations, and the necessary procedures and checklists. This is being done
gradually. However, the present situation is one of lack of standardisation of
requirements and procedures in intermediate bodies and hence of varying
quality of management of EU funds.

Some intermediate bodies have some way to go in organising procedures.
Checklists and instruction manuals were often lacking. The same is true of job
descriptions and staff training. Progress is, however, being made in these areas.

Moves in Member States towards setting up internal audit units to check how
systems are operating have been noted. They can provide managing and paying
authorities with a great deal of assurance, especially if they are coupled with
access of bodies at a given level in the chain to the systems of the bodies
immediately below them.

–

–

–

As far as paying authorities are concerned, some characteristics found were:

–

–

The importance of the certification function of the paying authority and the
responsibility this involves are not always fully understood. The paying
authority is not doing its job if it relies 100% on the expenditure returns from
intermediate bodies.

Also the instruction manuals, checklists and training in the paying authority
were underdeveloped to a degree similar to that of the organisation as such.
Authorities, however, were
importance of procedural
standardisation, and of the need for adequate supervision where money was
concerned, in line with the “two pairs of eyes” principle.

aware of

the

Problems are also still being found in information systems, although the new systems
are a great improvement: for example, declarations to the Commission may not be
linked to the underlying databases, modules may be incomplete, and there may be
insufficient staff.

A few planned audits of 2000-06 systems remained still to be carried out at the end
of 2001. They will be undertaken in the first half of 2002.

Desk audits of system descriptions (Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001)

Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 requires the Member States to submit
to the
Commission within three months of the entry into force of the Regulation or
approval of the programme concerned, whichever is the earliest, descriptions of the
management and control systems set up for the new programmes. For the most part
the Member States were punctual in sending the descriptions, of which over 100 had
been received by the end of 2001, with countries with a centralised administration

75

tending to choose the option of a common general presentation covering many or all
programmes.

In the second half of the year DG REGIO analysed around a third of the descriptions
and gave feedback from its assessment to the Member States concerned, in many
cases asking for further information and clarifications. It is intended to complete the
exercise of analysing the descriptions and providing feedback by the middle of 2002.
DG REGIO sees the descriptions as part of the preventive systems audit which can
alert Member States to obvious problems when the Commission may not be able to
carry out an on-the-spot audit in the foreseeable future.

Articles 7 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2083/93 (direct expenditure) audit enquiry

Scope and objectives:

Further to the audit missions and preparation work carried out by the DG in 2000, the
Articles 7 and 10 audit team organised in 2001 three waves of on-the-spot financial
and compliance audits of Articles 7 and 10 technical assistance and pilot projects.
These were largely carried out by external auditors and supervised by Commission
staff. The total audited amount of the enquiry exceeds
90 million, relating to a EU
145 million. The objectives for all Articles 7
budget commitment of approximately
and 10 project audits were to check the conformity of expenses with Community and
national rules and to confirm that the conditions of grant letters had been respected.

€

€

Implementation:

The first wave comprised 39 audits in Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Ireland,
Spain, Finland, and the United Kingdom. The audit work was carried out in spring
2001 and the final reports were accepted in July and August after a quality review
procedure.

The second wave was carried out after DG REGIO concluded a framework contract
with an audit firm on 31 July 2001. It covered 36 projects leading to 37 audits in
Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and
Sweden. The audit work on-the-spot was finished by the end of November. However,
because of continuous delays with the contractor, the final reports in the official
language of the beneficiaries are still partly outstanding. The letters to the
beneficiaries were not sent as planned in the schedule, and, at the time of writing, the
audit enquiry cannot be considered as completed for these projects.

The third wave was a joint measure of DG REGIO staff and external auditors to audit
seven Article 7 technical assistance contracts. The audit work was finished in
January 2002. The final versions of reports are due by the end of March 2002.

Results:

The main findings of the Articles 7 and 10 enquiry are still provisional. The most
common audit finding was the lack or incompleteness of accounting documentation,
which was noted in almost half the cases audited. The accounting rules were not
adequately followed in approximately one third of the projects audited and checks on
staff and expert costs were deficient in another third. Other errors such as a wrong
classification of expenditure or irregular accounting for investments were also noted
by the auditors in a significant number of projects. The amounts of financial

76

corrections as a result of the audit enquiry cannot be reliably estimated until the
correspondence with the beneficiaries on audit findings is completed. One case has
been transmitted to OLAF for investigation.

Regulatory work

On 2 March 2001 the Commission approved Regulations (EC) Nos 438/2001 and
448/2001 on the management and control systems required for 2000-06 programmes
financial corrections. These had been in preparation
and the procedures for
throughout 2000 in intensive discussions with national authorities represented on the
Structural Fund committees. At the same time the Commission approved internal
guidelines for the financial corrections it could have occasion to apply itself,
especially on the basis of extrapolation or at flat rates.

ESF Controls

In 2001 a total of 41 audit missions were carried out in all Member States. These
missions can be divided in the following sub-groups:

System audits: 21

Special checks: 3

Audit on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97: 11

Preventive audits: 1

Inspections of Article 6 projects: 5

In principle, every Member State will be paid one visit per year from 2001 on. A
special emphasis was given to missions controlling the application of Regulation
(EC) No 2064/97. These missions were performed in regions where this point was
not part of previous system audits. They showed quite important differences of
quality in the control work done by Member States control authorities.

The planned number of preventive audits on a first evaluation of the descriptions of
management and control systems (Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001) had to
be reduced because of overwork or missing descriptions. They will form a major part
of the checks in 2002.

In 2001 the System audits and ex-post control Unit started to increase and strengthen
the contact with Member States’ control authorities. The coordination meetings with
five Member States were extended by bilateral meetings. The principle of a
minimum second contact per year was established and there were contacts with three
control authorities in 2001.

EAGGF checks

The overall inspection activity in 2001 could be summarised as follows:

Up to 1 May 2001, four inspection missions were carried out (three in Italy and one
in Spain), with the main focus on the verification of the eligibility of the expenditure
declared, often following denunciations received by DG AGRI.

77

In the second half of 2001, 14 further inspections were carried out (three each in
Germany and Italy, two in Spain, and one each in Belgium, France, Greece, Portugal,
Ireland and UK) on the 1994-99 programmes. The main focus of the inspections was
the evaluation of the management and control systems applied in Member States.
Specific attention was paid to compliance with the requirements for checks provided
for by Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 and the sufficiency of the audit trail and the
procedures applied in practice by Member States to ensure a reliable and correct
declaration of expenditure to the Commission.

The problems most frequently detected relate to:

–

–

–

late or unsatisfactory application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97;

difficulties in reconciling the expenditure declared to the Commission with the
underlying transactions;

cases of ineligible expenditure items or projects.

Checks on the 1994-99 programmes will continue in 2002, especially in view of their
impending closure.

As for FIFG programmes, the responsibilities of DG FISH include the following
tasks:

–

–

–

review of the management and inspection systems of the Member States as
regards the systems developed and implemented by the fisheries sector;

planning, implementation and follow-up of on-the-spot ex-post inspections in
the Member States;

organisation of a financial control coordination meeting for one Member State
and participation in the coordination meetings for the other Member States.

The review of the management and inspection systems of the Member States is
generally carried out on the basis of descriptions as a desk audit. This work is also an
important part for the preparation of the on-the-spot control.

This also requires a change in the content of the programmes for on the-spot
inspections which now concentrate on the review and evaluation of systems.

In 2001 DG FISH carried out 12 on-the-spot inspections (Austria, Denmark, France,
Greece, Portugal, Sweden). These covered in particular projects in the aquaculture
sector, processing and the modernisation of fishing vessels. A check was also made
on whether
in
accordance with the Community rules on financial control.

inspections of the programmes were carried out

the national

In one case (Austria) the on-the-spot audit contains the review and evaluation of the
management and control systems concerning the programmes of the period 2000-06.

The audit efforts concerning the closure of the programmes for 1994-99 and the
review of the new management and inspection systems will continue in 2002.

OLAF inspections

78

In 2001, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened 65 new enquiries into
cases of fraud or suspected fraud (26 for the ERDF, 29 for the ESF, 5 for the EAGGF
Guidance Section and 5 for the FIFG) and carried out 23 inspections concerning
structural measures, both alone and, in a limited number of cases, in association with
the departments concerned. Half these inspections concerned enquiries begun in
previous years while the other half were new cases. OLAF used as the legal basis for
virtually all these inspections Regulation (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 irregularities.

Over half these inspections focussed on the ESF, which accounted for two-thirds of
the new cases opened in 2001. An inspection on the FIFG concerned a new case
opened in 2001 and two inspections related to enquiries begun in 1997 affecting the
EAGGF Guidance Section.

The inspections uncovered cases with a range of problems such as the failure of
beneficiaries to provide part-finance, non-compliance with the rules on public
procurement, ineligible expenditures and declarations of expenditure predating the
actual expenditure. There were also examples of payment claims where a link could
not be established with projects realised on the ground.

During 2001, the Member States notified the Commission pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 1681/94 of some 1 190 cases of irregularity or fraud involving a total of
€

199 120 000.

It appears that the number of cases of irregularities notified stabilised compared with
the previous year although the amount
involved was greater. It should also be
emphasised that the cases of irregularities notified do not necessarily concern fraud,
which requires the demonstration of intent. In any case, despite the significant
progress noted in recent years in the application of Article 5 of the above-mentioned
Regulation, which requires the Member States to notify the Commission in each case
of the steps taken in response to the irregularity detected, no action is taken on many
cases notified, although the time allowed for the closure of certain programmes has
expired.

When the programmes for 1994-99 were closed, all cases which had been the subject
of a notification under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94, apart from
measures suspended for legal raisons, which are covered by point 10 of the
Commission decision on guidelines for the financial closure of operational (1994-
1999) from the Structural Funds, should normally have been settled.

In future, the new Regulation ((EC) No 448/2001) will link application of the
financial correction to the reports made pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1681/94; it
requires the Member States to send the Commission every year a statement of
recoveries pending. In future this will facilitate the financial monitoring and charging
to the Member State of amounts lost as a result of its negligence. This will make
correct application of the Regulation a priority for the Member States.

79

CHAPTER 4: DIALOGUE AND INFORMATION

4.1.

European Parliament

The dialogue with the European Parliament
takes place mainly through the
parliamentary committees, particularly the Committee for Regional Policy, Transport
and Tourism. This Committee tabled two legislative resolutions and two own-
initiative reports which were adopted by the whole house:

–

–

on 14 June the legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds (Markov report);

on 20 September:

–

–

–

the legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 establishing an Instrument for
Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (Folias report);

the eleventh annual report on the Structural Funds 1999 (Nogueira
Román report);

the annual report on the Cohesion Fund for 1999 (Marques report).

The Member of the Commission responsible for regional policy, Mr Barnier, kept the
European Parliament regularly and personally informed about progress on the
various issues.

On 30 January, the day when the second report on economic and social cohesion was
adopted, he presented a summary of this document to Parliament and launched the
debate on the future of cohesion policy in an enlarged Union. He also made a
statement on the future of cohesion policy to the plenary part-session on 19
September.

On 25 January and 9 October Mr Barnier outlined his work programme to
Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, reviewed the
first year of
in
programming Objectives 1 and 2 and budgetary implementation. He also presented
to that Committee the second report on economic and social cohesion on 25 March.

the 2000-06 programming period and described progress

On several occasions during the year, Parliament held emergency debates on the
various natural disasters which had hit certain countries in the Union: on 15 February
flooding in Portugal and on 17 May flooding in France.

Relations between these two institutions, and in particular between the Commission
and Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are
governed mainly by the new code of conduct on the implementation of the structural
policies, signed on 6 May 1999 by Presidents Jacques Santer and Gil Robles. During
2001, the Commission continued to send Parliament various documents concerning
programming for Objectives 1 and 2 (CSFs, OPs and SPDs) in all the Member
States. It also sent the decisions taken by the Committee for the Development and
Conversion of Regions and the Management Committee for the Pre-Accession
Structural Instruments.

80

The European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
follows closely all Community initiatives in the area of rural development and in its
resolutions and opinions has often expressed itself, in general terms, in favour of
reinforcing the second pillar (rural development) of the common agricultural policy.
In 2001 the Parliament adopted two own-initiative reports on rural development. One
concerned hill and mountain farming in which the Parliament called for particular
attention to be paid to this part of European agriculture. The other report was devoted
to the situation of young farmers in the Community. As the legal framework for the
period 2000-06 was already in place, Parliament dealt with only one legislative
proposal concerning rural development in 2001. It concerned an increase of the
ceiling of public aid for some structural measures in favour of French overseas
departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

4.2.

Fund Committees

In 2001, 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. It amended its Rules of
Procedure to bring them into line with the standard Rules adopted by the
Commission.

As a management committee, the CDCR gave favourable opinions on interregional
cooperation under Interreg III C, amendment to the guidelines for Interreg and the
guidelines for innovative actions by the ERDF in 2000-06.

As a consultative committee, the CDCR gave opinions on the revision of the list of
areas eligible under Objective 2, the types of technical assistance measures under
Article 23 of the Regulation, the SPDs and the CSFs.

The CDCR also gave a favourable opinion on the rules governing the
for
implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 on the
management and control and the financial corrections for the Cohesion Fund.

arrangements

The Committee welcomed the second cohesion report and the creation of the Interact
programme to establish a network for exchanges and cooperation under the Interreg
Initiative.

The CDCR held many discussions on the application of the various Regulations,
including:

–

–

Procedure for the financial closure of operational assistance for the 1994-99
programmes (general rules, extension of the deadline for payments, provisions
on the legal procedures under Article 52(5) and Article 8 of Regulation (EC)
No 2064/97, etc.).

Programming of the Structural Funds for 2000-06 (results of the Objective 1
programming, submission of annual
treatment and
inspection of programme complements, performance reserve, forecasts of
payment applications, description and audits of management and inspection
systems, payments by final beneficiaries, rules for calculating reimbursement
the
payments, part-financing of

subsidised loans beyond the end of

implementing reports,

81

programming period and application of Annex IV to Regulation (EC)
No 438/2001).

The CDCR set up a working party on ‘Territorial and urban development’ which met
five times. In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the working party has reported
its work to the CDCR, the only body which can take decisions. It held discussions on
territorial and urban development (the territorial impact of Community policies and
the cost of their non-coordination, the result of the urban audit and urban affairs, the
territorial and urban dimensions of the Objective 1 and 2 programmes for the 2000-
06 programming period,
the conclusions and
monitoring of the Council on policy in large cities on 9 October 2001, a network for
exchanges of experience (Urban) and the European research area and the sixth
framework programme).

the White Paper on transport,

The ESF Committee met four times in 2001. Following the presentations in 2000, the
members attended the presentation of the new programming of the ESF for 2000-06
(taking into account the priorities of the Social Fund and of the employment strategy
and the link with the national action plans) in the Member States not covered in
2000. Other aspects of the Social Fund were presented for discussion, such as the
the state of
communication on innovative measures and local development,
programming and good practice for Equal and the role of the ESF in implementing
the National Action Plans for employment.

informed of general developments in the
During the year members were kept
employment strategy in all its aspects and all its implications for the Social Fund.
They were also informed of progress in work on enlargement, and more specifically
on the various aspects dealt with by the High Level Group.

The Commission presented to members the situation concerning evaluation, and the
report on measures under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation.

The Committee also discussed the report on economic and social cohesion, the
communication on support from the ESF for the European employment strategy and
the report on ‘e-inclusion’ and the work of the Dublin Foundation on industrial
changes.

As regards the thematic aspects, it held a discussion on topics such as skills and
mobility,
life-long education and training and the Green Paper on the social
responsibility of firms.

The STAR Committee (agriculture and rural development) met 12 times in 2001 and
acted as a management committee under the procedure provided for in Article 47(3)
on the following issues:

–

–

Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application
of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the
EAGGF. The Committee gave a favourable opinion on two amendments and a
derogation;

Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999 laying down transitional rules for Regulation
(EC) No 1257/1999. The Committee gave a favourable opinion on an
amendment;

82

–

–

–

Regulation (EC) 1268/99 on the SAPARD pre-accession instrument. The
Committee gave a favourable opinion on an amendment;

Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 laying down rules for the application of
Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on the SAPARD pre-accession instrument. The
Committee gave a favourable opinion on an amendment;

the Committee gave favourable opinions on 38 rural development plans under
to a rural
Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, one amendment
development plan under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1268/99 for Latvia
and two amendments to aid programmes for environmental protection under
Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.

The Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture met on four occasions in 2001 and
dealt with the following issues:

–

–

–

–

discussion and opinion with vote (procedure under Article 47(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 1260/1999) on the draft Commission Regulation on the arrangements
for implementing measures defined by Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999. The
Committee issued a favourable opinion by a qualified majority;

discussion and opinion with vote (procedure under Article 18 of Regulation
(EC) No 3760/1992) on the draft Commission Decisions approving permanent
schemes to inspect the renewal and modernisation of fishing fleets;

discussion and opinion with vote on two Commission Decisions reducing the
assistance granted to two projects concerning the establishment of joint
ventures in the fisheries sector (one Danish and the other Spanish). The
Management Committee issued a favourable opinion by a qualified majority on
the two decisions;

discussion and opinion with vote on two Commission Decisions reducing the
assistance granted to two projects concerning the establishment of joint
ventures in the fisheries sector (one Portuguese and the other Spanish). The
Management Committee issued a favourable opinion by a qualified majority on
the two decisions.

4.3.

Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions

The main feature of the dialogue with the ESC in 2001 was the signature on 24
September of a protocol on cooperation by Mr Prodi and Mr Frerichs which will
govern future relations between the Commission and the ESC.

The Commission continued to follow closely the work of the ESC, which adopted a
number of opinions in the field of regional policy, including amendments to the
general provisions on the Structural Funds (Mengozzi report), the integrated planning
of coastal areas (Bento Gonçalves report) and European policy on cross-border
cooperation and experience of the Interreg programme (Barros Vale report). The
Committee adopted two own-initiative opinions, on the second report on economic
and social cohesion and on the Commission communication on the results of the
programming of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-06 (Objective 1) (Christie
reports). It also discussed the annual reports for 1999 on the Structural Funds (Burani
report) and the Cohesion Fund (Pezzini report).

83

Mr Barnier addressed the full meeting of the Committee on 31 May on the future of
the Union.

The Committee prepared 13 opinions on agricultural matter during the year. DG
AGRI continued to follow its decisions closely and worked closely with the specific
study groups and the “Agriculture, Rural development and the Environment”
Section.

In its opinion on financing the CAP, the Committee welcomed the proposal to
convert ‘negative expenditure’ into ‘assigned revenue’ because the amounts so
converted could really be used to finance expenditure from the EAGGF Guarantee
Section without imposing an extra burden on the common budget.

In its opinion ‘New economy, knowledge society and rural development: what
prospects for young farmers?’, the Committee considered that, in a Europe which is
rapidly developing in the face of the challenges of globalisation and of the “new
economy”, society has begun to wonder once again about the future of agriculture
and rural areas, and to seek development prospects capable of satisfying the
expectations of the new generations. It asked the Commission and the Member States
to encourage, within the framework of the usual Community funding channels, in
particular the Structural Funds, support for cooperation and exchange projects
between companies, schools,
training bodies, universities and agricultural/rural
research centres The Committee also asked for support for decentralised action plans
at local and regional level and the creation of new local agencies for the development
of agriculture and rural communities and proposed a series of concrete initiatives to
that end.

At its 382nd plenary session on 30 and 31 May 2001, the Committee unanimously
adopted an opinion on the ‘11th annual report on the Structural Funds (1999)’
(COM(2000) 698 final - Volumes I and II). As regards agriculture,
it noted
improvements in the case of Objective 5(a) (modernisation of structures) resulting in
a commitment rate of 96% and payment rates of 70%. 1999 had seen a substantial
speeding up in the implementation of appropriations for Objective 5(b) (development
of rural areas), with 99% of appropriations committed and 68% paid.

The dialogue with the social partners on rural development took place through the
Advisory Committee on Rural Development set up by the Commission under
Decision 98/235/EC. This Committee met
twice in 2001, on 31 May and 15
November. At these two meetings the Commission and the representatives of the
socio-professional organisations in the EU exchanged information and points of view
on the first year of implementation of the rural development programmes (EAGGF
Guarantee Section) and Leader+.

On 31 May a debate was held on good agricultural practice followed by a discussion
on the draft Council Conclusions on the integration of environmental concerns and
sustainable development in the CAP. The Commission also informed the Committee
about the updating of work on rural development and the rules for implementing
Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 on the arrangements for direct support under the
CAP.

The other points discussed on 15 November included a report on the situation as
regards the Leader+ Observatory.

84

On 6 February and 29 November the standing group of women in rural areas of the
Advisory Committee for Rural Development met to discuss topics such as the quality
and promotion of agricultural products and equal opportunities under the Structural
Funds and Leader+.

Two ad hoc working parties of the Advisory Committee for Rural Development
involving 12 experts met on 15 March and 3 October to consider the nature of the
Leader+ projects and start discussions on the forthcoming Observatory for rural areas
the
and
implementation of the horizontal Regulation ((EC) No 1259/99), in particular its
requirements as regards environmental protection (Article 3) and its approach to
modulation (Article 4).

cooperation. On 3 October, discussions

inter-territorial

covered

The Committee of the Regions initiated and adopted over a dozen opinions of its
commission 1 in areas under the responsibility of DG REGIO. A working document
(Zaplana Hernandez-Soro report) and an opinion on the second report on economic
and social cohesion were drawn up (Zaplana Hernandez-Soro and Tindemans report).
The Committee also continued its work on cross-border cooperation through an
information note discussed on 9 April and an initiative by Mr Rombouts.

It also issued an opinion on the 1999 reports on the Structural Funds (Tillich report)
and the Cohesion Fund (Bree report).

In 2001 DG REGIO acted on 17 opinions adopted by the Committee dealing with
regional policy, including the urban audit, the structure and objectives of European
regional policy in the context of enlargement and globalisation and the second report
on economic and social cohesion.

the Member of the Commission responsible for

Mr Barnier,
regional policy,
addressed the Committee on 14 February, reporting on progress in programming and
presenting the second report on economic and social cohesion.

During the year the Committee adopted six opinions on agricultural policy. Experts
from DG AGRI participated in preparatory work to present
the Commission’s
position, provide information and answer members’ questions.

In its opinion on the regional consequences of Europe’s agricultural and rural policy
the Committee made a political assessment of the situation and looked at
the
fundamental elements of an integrated development policy for rural areas and the
application of rural development programmes.

The opinion on projects for young people in European agriculture notes the serious
consequences of the ageing of farmers in Europe which, in many regions, poses a
threat to rural development, spatial planning and the protection of the environment
and the countryside. The Committee added that, particularly in mountainous and
less-favoured areas, it reduced the chances of effectively implementing the new
policy on rural development. That is why the Committee considers it essential to
have instruments which will allow analysis of the various data, identifying the
reasons for them and helping provide solutions.

85

As in the case of the ESC, a protocol of cooperation was signed on 20 September by
Mr Prodi and Mr Chabert defining relations between the Commission and the
Committee of the Regions.

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 14 March. Two further meetings were held during the
year so that a large number of issues could be considered in depth. These included:

–

–

–

The Commission presentation of a review of how partnership had been taken
into account in the programming process, stressing a degree of diversity in the
practices of the various countries. It was acknowledged that, despite a general
tendency not to go beyond the statutory minima, progress had been made
compared with the previous period.

Presentation of the second cohesion report was the subject of a special meeting
where it was discussed in depth. The partners were also invited to attend the
Cohesion Forum held in Brussels in May.

Increasing interest by the partners in the consequences of enlargement. This
point was raised at the main meeting and at a special meeting where the
Commission presented PASI and SAPARD, which were discussed in depth
with the partners.

The partners appreciated the more frequent meetings with the Commission. This
approach will be continued, e.g. by concentrating on certain subjects: PASI, SDEC,
Objective 2, etc. It was agreed that more frequent meetings could be considered from
2002, following the adoption of the programmes for the new programming period.

Through the regular meetings of the ESF Committee the social partners continue
to be informed about Community initiatives in the human resources sector and
involved in the implementation of ESF assistance. In this way they participate
actively in the support of the ESF in underpinning the European Employment
Strategy. Measure has also been launched to strengthen the input of the social
partners in the up-coming ESF support programmes in the candidate countries.

In the context of Article 6 of the ESF Regulation (see point 1.2. of this report) under
the heading “Adaptation to the new economy in the framework of the social
dialogue”, 35 innovative projects were selected for the period 2001-02, always
including partners from various Member States. The projects focus on issues such as
new approaches to corporate social responsibility, the promotion of lifelong learning
and competence development,
the
anticipation of economic and social change, and the use of IT tools in the
development of the social dialogue.

the modernisation of work organisation,

4.5.

Information and publicity

Since 2001 was the first real operational year of the new ESF programming period, a
strong emphasis was placed on information and publicity regarding 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 by providing a vast array of

86

information via the ESF and Equal websites. Press releases on the adoption of ESF
and Equal programmes as well as facts and figures on the ESF in the Member States
and Equal in general 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 Member State to Member State.

In line with Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000, in June 2001 the Commission organised
in Brussels the eighth meeting of the Informal Network of ESF Information Officers
(INIO) to support them in their efforts to publicise the ESF. At this meeting, the
Commission presented a study, which was carried out early-2001 to provide the
Member States with guidelines on how to develop and evaluate their own activities
in the field of information and publicity. An abbreviated and easy-to-understand
version of this study will be made available early-2002 in all 11 languages for
extensive use by ESF information officers and project promoters in the Member
States. In addition, the Commission created - as a follow-up to the eighth meeting -
an extranet site for the INIO in order to better exchange experiences and best practice
as well as improve communication between meetings.

Furthermore, the enlargement process was supported through regular contacts with
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.

The regional development programmes were exploited through a significant increase
in information: 500 success stories on the Inforegio web site, thematic brochures on
the islands and on transport, brochures on countries (ten new countries covered), a
wall map of eligible areas and a CD-Rom and video on the new programming period.
The brochure ‘At the service of the regions’, which presents regional policy to the
general public was produced in cooperation with DG PRESS and published in the
series ‘Europe in movement’. 800 000 copies were printed.

Other documents concerned with specific aspects of regional policy were also
produced such as: the guide to partnership for the Interreg/TACIS programmes, the
Recite magazine on interregional cooperation in the European Union and the
the
evaluation of programmes.
Directorate-General and its publications were also widely distributed.

Information leaflets presenting the work of

Publication of the Inforegio News newsletter continued in the eleven languages of the
Union, as did publication of the quarterly magazine Panorama, published in five
languages and available on the web in 11.

The Inforegio fact-sheets summarising the guidelines for the innovative measures for
in 2000-06 and the management of the Structural Funds
regional development
‘Sound management of the Structural Funds, a major
the Union’s
development’ were produced.

issue for

Visits to the Inforegio web site exceeded 100 000 per month, mainly thanks to the
introduction of an interactive platform for discussion on Cohesion policy in an
enlarged Union. Besides an on-line forum,
this platform includes a series of
documents including the Second report on economic and social cohesion, ten studies
ordered by the Commission as preparation for this report, brief presentations of the
future challenges for cohesion policy, the transcription of an on-line discussion

87

(Internet chat) on this topic between Mr Barnier and surfers and all the documents
related to the Cohesion Forum (programme, speeches, proceedings, etc.).

Overall, the Inforegio site and the pages of the Europa site on regional policy have
attracted particular attention and are updated very frequently. A large number of
links to the national and regional sites of the managing authorities have been added
and structured. All the regulations implementing the Structural Funds were placed on
line as they were adopted during the year. Information sheets were published on the
site setting out the rules on the information and publicity measures to be taken by the
Member States.

The Commission also made available its own working documents to help the
Member States and the regions prepare their programming better. It published its
mid-term management plan for the Directorate-General for 2001.

For the dissemination of information, 2001 saw completion of the Inforegio service
documentation, including the former resources centre and library. Inforegio service
now has eight Internet terminals for the public and a conference room for groups of
visitors.

With regard to the media, establishment of a network of regional journalists began in
2001 on the occasion of the Forum Cohesion. A data base of 500 journalists was set
up and contacts with associations of regional newspapers were established in France,
the
Spain and Greece. DG PRESS made wide-ranging approaches
Commission’s representative offices in the Member States to make arrangements for
cooperation with the regional press. A more interactive network will be set up in
2002.

to all

The main events of the year included:

–

–

–

–

–

The conference on ‘sharing responsibilities’ in the financial management of
Objective 2 (Brussels, 29 January) attended by over 450 managers from the
Member States concerned.

The information day on ERDF innovative actions 2000-06, (Brussels, 19
February).

The European Cohesion Forum (Brussels, 21 and 22 May) attended by some
1 800 senior politicians from the Member States and the candidate countries. It
opened the debate on cohesion policy in an enlarged Union to which
contributions were made at various levels during 2001 and which was
summarised in the first progress report on cohesion, adopted by the
Commission on 30 January 2002. The Forum was also an occasion for the DG
to welcome the public at an open day.

Four meetings were organised at national level, in Sweden, Italy, Portugal and
Greece, on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000, allowing
initial discussions between those responsible for information in the managing
authorities.

The conference under the Swedish Presidency (Lycksele, 12 and 13 June 2001)
on Challenges for structural policy resulting from regional depopulation.

88

On agriculture, the Advisory Committee on Rural Development met twice in 2001,
these meetings the Commission and the
on 31 May and 15 November. At
representatives of the socio-professional organisations in the Union held an exchange
of information and points of view on the first year of implementation of the rural
development programmes (EAGGF Guarantee Section) and Leader+. On 31 May
there was a debate on good agricultural practice followed by a discussion on the draft
Council conclusions on the integration of environmental concerns and sustainable
development in the CAP. The Commission also kept the Committee informed on
progress in activities relating to rural development and the rules for implementing
Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999.

The other points raised on 15 November
Observatory.

included progress on the Leader+

On 6 February and 29 November two standing groups of women in rural areas met to
discuss topics such as the quality and promotion of agricultural products and equal
opportunities under the Structural Funds and Leader+.

Two ad hoc working parties of the Advisory Committee for Rural Development
involving 12 experts met on 15 March and 3 October to consider the nature of the
Leader+ projects and start discussions on the forthcoming Observatory for rural areas
the
and
implementation of
its
the horizontal Regulation (No 1259/99),
requirements as regards environmental protection (Article 3) and its approach to
modulation (Article 4).

cooperation. On 3 October, discussions

inter-territorial

in particular

covered

In the fisheries and aquaculture sector, information on structural assistance formed
part of the broad debate launched by the Commission following the presentation in
March of its Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

A public hearing attended by some 400 representatives of the sector as a whole and
other affected by this policy was held in Brussels from 5 to 7 June.

This attracted over 300 written contributions setting out ideas and suggestions for the
changes needed to make the common fisheries policy more effective and better able
to meet the challenges facing the sector, of which the chief are the deteriorating of
many large fish stocks, the over-capacity of the fishing fleet compared with the
resources available, the loss of profitability in the sector and its consequences for
employment, inadequate inspections, growing competition on a world scale and the
loss of fishing opportunities in the waters of non-member countries.

The targeted measures, such as participation in the international ‘European Seafood’
fair (Brussels, 24-26 April 2001) on the processing of and trade in fisheries and
aquaculture products and the dissemination of information through the magazine
European Fisheries and the CFP Internet site, continued. A special heading to
facilitate access to information on Community structural assistance in the fisheries
and aquaculture sector was set up on this site. It makes available to the public the
data on expenditure programmed and implemented in the 1994-99 programming
period, by area of assistance, country and region.

89

FINANCIAL ANNEXES

Annex 1: Financial implementation by Objective

Annex 2: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives

Annex 3: Financial implementation of technical assistance

Annex 4: Budget implementation

90

ANNEX 1

Annex 1: Financial implementation in
2001 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 1

€

(in

million
and in %)

AT

Assistance (1)

173.82

55.01

41.35

0.83

271.00

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Total

Commitments 2001

25.01

7.92

5.95

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

49.39

15.63

11.75

Payments 2001

9.13

7.71

Payments 2000-06 (3)

21.30

11.56

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

12%

28%

21%

1.81

4.71

28%

11%

0.12

0.23

0.06

28%

7%

39.00

77.00

18.66

37.63

28%

14%

BE

Assistance (1)

409.79

191.90

41.57

1.74

645.00

Commitments 2001

75.52

22.93

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

158.08

43.07

Payments 2001

2.40

9.58

Payments 2000-06 (3)

31.09

23.01

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

39%

8%

22%

12%

5.27

9.36

2.91

23%

7%

0.28

104.01

0.49

211.00

11.98

57.13

33%

9%

0.12

28%

7%

DE

Assistance (1)

11 295.54

5 863.94

3 442.25

105.28

20 707.00

Commitments 2001

1 867.51

1 513.22

662.25

32.11

4 075.08

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

3 265.82

1 703.09

971.63

48.46

5 989.00

Payments 2001

981.18

957.79

304.41

2 243.38

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 405.81

1 050.80

456.71

7.37

2 920.69

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

29%

12%

29%

18%

28%

13%

46%

7%

29%

14%

ES

Assistance (1)

24 178.70

8 843.50

5 021.20

1 504.60

39 548.00

Commitments 2001

5 612.74

2 520.30

1 224.17

216.30

9 573.50

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

6 832.80

2 520.30

1 224.17

429.00

11 006.27

91

Payments 2001

3 064.95

708.08

603.10

115.97

4 492.10

Payments 2000-06 (3)

3 064.95

708.08

603.10

221.29

4 597.42

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

13%

28%

8%

24%

12%

29%

15%

28%

12%

FI

Assistance (1)

471.03

272.97

197.15

6.85

948.00

Commitments 2001

71.03

39.73

24.26

0.98

136.00

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

147.44

79.54

40.07

1.96

269.00

Payments 2001

8.13

1.37

3.92

Payments 2000-06 (3)

41.10

20.48

17.70

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

31%

29%

20%

9%

8%

9%

0.36

0.84

29%

12%

13.78

80.12

28%

8%

FR

Assistance (1)

2 292.65

938.62

675.95

40.78

3 948.00

Commitments 2001

343.68

183.68

118.46

8.34

654.15

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

617.36

334.45

190.71

11.79

1 154.30

Payments 2001

72.78

66.83

16.42

1.17

157.20

Payments 2000-06 (3)

164.15

111.94

49.63

2.85

328.57

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

27%

7%

36%

12%

28%

29%

7%

7%

29%

8%

GR

Assistance (1)

14 608.00

4 241.20

2 260.30

211.10

21 320.60

Commitments 2001

2 122.40

623.32

341.20

26.50

3 113.42

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

2 122.40

623.32

341.20

26.50

3 113.42

Payments 2001

1 461.57

423.51

261.12

14.78

2 160.97

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 461.57

423.51

261.12

14.78

2 160.97

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

15%

10%

15%

10%

15%

12%

13%

7%

15%

10%

IE

Assistance (1)

1 812.31

1 016.49

169.40

67.80

3 066.00

Commitments 2001

354.62

181.09

30.71

10.98

577.40

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

762.29

382.95

47.13

13.00

1 205.37

Payments 2001

157.33

80.67

2.73

240.73

Payments 2000-06 (3)

284.19

147.78

11.86

4.75

448.58

% (2)/(1)

42%

38%

28%

19%

39%

92

% (3)/(1)

16%

15%

7%

7%

15%

IT

Assistance (1)

14 276.53

4 092.70

2 982.63

286.32

21 638.18

Commitments 2001

2 355.37

582.15

387.21

39.08

3 363.81

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

4 342.46

1 072.49

713.26

77.64

6 205.85

Payments 2001

141.81

72.49

16.46

11.17

241.94

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 005.00

298.60

210.89

31.18

1 545.67

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

30%

26%

24%

7%

7%

7%

27%

11%

29%

7%

NL

Assistance (1)

76.66

33.34

10.00

6.00

126.00

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

16.65

34.80

5.37

45%

7%

2.35

4.00

0.68

2.33

12%

7%

1.50

3.20

0.70

32%

7%

1.50

3.00

0.42

50%

7%

22.00

45.00

0.68

8.82

36%

7%

PT

Assistance (1)

12 428.16

4 415.34

2 117.35

217.69

19 178.54

Commitments 2001

2 051.56

695.74

342.18

35.13

3 124.62

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

4 168.85

1 389.60

463.54

71.46

6 093.45

Payments 2001

990.90

357.58

55.14

6.67

1 410.29

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 858.19

663.51

203.35

21.91

2 746.96

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

34%

15%

31%

15%

22%

10%

33%

10%

32%

14%

SE

Assistance (1)

465.74

158.74

111.76

11.77

748.00

Commitments 2001

66.59

22.50

15.80

1.67

106.56

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

131.92

44.77

31.48

3.32

211.48

Payments 2001

9.24

1.87

5.85

Payments 2000-06 (3)

41.85

12.98

13.67

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

28%

9%

8%

28%

12%

0.08

0.90

28%

8%

17.03

69.40

28%

9%

93

UK

Assistance (1)

3 780.47

1 830.36

355.82

89.36

6 056.00

Commitments 2001

720.22

314.15

60.87

12.15

1 107.39

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

1 224.85

554.10

83.76

22.78

1 885.50

Payments 2001

35.25

19.60

5.53

2.03

62.41

Payments 2000-06 (3)

264.63

128.12

24.98

6.26

423.99

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

32%

30%

24%

25%

7%

7%

7%

7%

31%

7%

IE/UK*

Assistance (1)

293.01

189.70

44.83

3.46

531.00

Commitments 2001

113.73

73.57

17.40

1.30

206.00

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

113.73

73.57

17.40

1.30

206.00

Payments 2001

20.51

13.28

Payments 2000-06 (3)

20.51

13.28

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

39%

39%

7%

7%

3.14

3.14

39%

7%

0.24

0.24

38%

7%

37.17

37.17

39%

7%

TOTAL

Assistance (1)

86 562.41 32 143.79 17 471.55

2 553.58 138 731.32

Commitments 2001

15 796.64

6 782.64

3 237.23

386.44

26 202.94

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

23 972.18

8 840.89

4 148.65

710.93

37 672.65

Payments 2001

6 955.18

2 721.05

1 276.89

155.19

11 108.31

Payments 2000-06 (3)

9 669.70

3 616.00

1 864.46

312.96

15 463.12

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

11%

28%

11%

24%

11%

28%

12%

27%

11%

* PEACE 2 interregional cooperation programme

SOURCE :SFC - SYSREGIO

94

Annex 1: Financial implementation in
2001 by Objective

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Total

€

(in

million and in %)

AT

Assistance (1)

674.09

28.91

Commitments 2001

214.94

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

214.94

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

68.65

68.65

32%

10%

7.53

7.53

2.19

2.19

26%

8%

BE

Assistance (1)

397.45

49.55

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

68.79

68.79

14.82

14.82

8.21

8.21

1.30

1.30

17%

17%

4%

3%

703.00 <

222.47

222.47 <

70.83

70.83 <

32%

10%

447.00 <

77.00

77.00 <

16.12

16.12 <

17%

4%

DE

Assistance (1)

3 137.78

488.22

3 626.00 <

Commitments 2001

814.87

106.90

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

814.87

106.90

Payments 2001

228.65

34.18

Payments 2000-06 (3)

228.65

34.18

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

26%

22%

7%

7%

DK

Assistance (1)

134.15

54.85

Commitments 2001

22.21

7.79

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

45.43

15.57

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

0.23

4.07

2.07

11.46

95

921.77

921.77 <

262.82

262.82 <

25%

7%

189.00 <

30.00

61.00 <

2.30

15.53 <

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

34%

28%

9%

7%

32%

8%

ES

Assistance (1)

2 412.05

335.95

2 748.00 <

Commitments 2001

708.76

95.24

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

708.76

95.24

Payments 2001

278.47

23.52

Payments 2000-06 (3)

278.47

23.52

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

29%

12%

28%

7%

FI

Assistance (1)

396.83

110.17

Commitments 2001

59.28

15.73

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

119.81

31.19

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

21.80

49.26

30%

12%

0.19

7.90

28%

7%

FR

Assistance (1)

5 380.05

881.95

Commitments 2001

1 667.19

258.25

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

1 667.19

258.25

Payments 2001

378.23

66.19

Payments 2000-06 (3)

378.23

66.19

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

31%

29%

7%

8%

IT

Assistance (1)

2 608.00

Commitments 2001

412.00

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

412.00

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

182.56

182.56

16%

7%

96

804.00

804.00 <

301.98

301.98 <

29%

11%

507.00 <

75.00

151.00 <

21.99

57.17 <

30%

11%

6 262.00 <

1 925.43

1 925.43 <

444.41

444.41 <

31%

7%

2 608.00 <

412.00

412.00 <

182.56

182.56 <

16%

7%

LU

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

NL

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

41.00

6.00

6.00

15%

823.00

159.40

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

159.40

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

57.94

57.94

19%

7%

SE

Assistance (1)

373.30

49.70

Commitments 2001

58.79

14.36

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

118.64

14.36

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

26.13

26.13

32%

7%

3.48

3.48

29%

7%

41.00 <

6.00

6.00 <

-

-

15%

823.00 <

159.40

159.40 <

57.94

57.94 <

19%

7%

423.00 <

73.15

133.00 <

29.61

29.61 <

31%

7%

97

UK

Assistance (1)

4 324.65

527.35

Commitments 2001

1 404.51

149.50

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

1 404.51

149.50

Payments 2001

302.73

36.91

Payments 2000-06 (3)

302.73

36.91

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

32%

28%

7%

7%

4 852.00 <

1 554.00

1 554.00 <

339.64

339.64 <

32%

7%

TOTAL

Assistance (1)

20 702.35

2 526.65

23 229.00 <

Commitments 2001

5 596.73

663.49

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

5 740.33

686.74

Payments 2001

1 562.04

168.18

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 598.89

179.73

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

27%

8%

7%

6 260.22

6 427.07 <

1 730.21

1 778.62 <

28%

8%

SOURCE :SFC - SYSREGIO

98

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2001 by Objective

2000

OBJECTIVE 3

€

(in

million and in
%)

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Total

ESF

AT

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

BE

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

DE

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

DK

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

548.18

78.48

155.41

64.23

102.60

28%

19%

765.17

109.54

216.93

32.51

72.90

28%

10%

4 756.13

680.87

1 348.38

497.12

830.05

28%

17%

378.95

54.25

107.44

13.70

26.96

99

548.18

548 184 800

78.48

155.41

76 937 100

64.23

102.60

38 372 936

28%

19%

14%

7%

765.17

765 174 700

109.54

216.93

107 391 500

32.51

72.90

28%

10%

4 756.13

680.87

40 396 286

14%

5%

4 756 126
501

1 348.38

667 517 100

497.12

830.05

332 928 855

28%

17%

14%

7%

378.95

378 953 400

54.25

107.44

53 185 700

13.70

26.96

13 263 369

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

7%

28%

7%

14%

4%

ES

Assistance (1)

2 221.81

2 221.81

884 022 383

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

FI

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

FR

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

IT

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

505.82

629.89

151.29

185.00

28%

8%

418.41

59.90

118.62

16.96

31.69

28%

8%

4 713.56

674.77

1 336.32

255.18

585.13

28%

12%

3 887.13

556.47

1 102.02

128.85

336.85

28%

9%

100

505.82

629.89

124 071 570

151.29

185.00

33 713 270

28%

8%

14%

4%

418.41

418 406 300

59.90

118.62

58 722 900

16.96

31.69

14 735 067

28%

8%

14%

4%

4 713.56

9 427 118 600

674.77

1 336.32

661 542 900

255.18

585.13

329 949 151

28%

12%

7%

4%

3 887.13

7 538 892 533

556.47

1 102.02

545 554 301

128.85

336.85

207 991 140

28%

9%

7%

3%

LU

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

39.45

5.65

11.19

2.76

28%

7%

39.45

5.65

11.19

-

2.76

28%

7%

39 452 700

5 537 100

2 761 689

14%

7%

NL

Assistance (1)

1 750.45

1 750.45

1 750 454 000

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

SE

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

UK

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

250.59

496.26

61.27

122.53

28%

7%

747.52

107.01

211.93

26.16

52.33

28%

7%

4 742.63

678.94

1 344.56

99.21

431.20

28%

9%

250.59

496.26

245 674 300

61.27

122.53

61 265 890

28%

7%

14%

4%

747.52

747 524 800

107.01

211.93

104 914 300

26.16

52.33

26 163 368

28%

7%

14%

4%

4 742.63

4 742 629 600

678.94

1 344.56

665 622 900

99.21

431.20

331 984 072

28%

9%

14%

7%

31 996 940
317

TOTAL Assistance (1)

24 969.41

24 969.41

Commitments 2001

3 762.27

3 762.27

101

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

7 078.95

1 346.48

2 780.00

28%

11%

7 078.95

3 316 671 671

1 346.48

2 780.00

1 433 525 093

28%

11%

10%

4%

SOURCE :SFC - SYSREGIO

102

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2001 by Objective

ALL OBJECTIVES

€

(in

million
and in %)

AT

Assistance (1)

847 91

632.11

41.35

0.83

1 522.18

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Total

Commitments 2001

239.95

93.93

5.95

0.12

339.95

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

264.32

178.58

11.75

0.23

454.88

Payments 2001

77.78

74.13

Payments 2000-06 (3)

89.95

116.35

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

31%

11%

28%

18%

1.81

4.71

28%

11%

153.72

0.06

211.06

28%

7%

30%

14%

BE

Assistance (1)

807.24

1 006.63

41.57

1.74

1 857.17

Commitments 2001

144.32

140.68

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

226.88

268.21

Payments 2001

17.22

43.39

Payments 2000-06 (3)

45.90

97.22

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

6%

27%

10%

5.27

9.36

2.91

23%

7%

0.28

290.54

0.49

504.93

60.61

0.12

146.15

28%

7%

27%

8%

DE

Assistance (1)

14 433.32 11 108.28

3 442.25

105.28

29 089.13

Commitments 2001

2 682.37

2 300.98

662.25

32.11

5 677.71

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

4 080.68

3 158.38

971.63

48.46

8 259.15

Payments 2001

1 209.83

1 489.08

304.41

3 003.31

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 634.46

1 915.02

456.71

7.37

4 013.56

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

11%

28%

17%

28%

13%

46%

7%

DK

Assistance (1)

134.15

433.81

Commitments 2001

22.21

62.04

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

45.43

123.01

Payments 2001

2.07

13.93

Payments 2000-06 (3)

11.46

31.03

103

28%

14%

567.95

84.25

168.44

16.00

42.49

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

34%

28%

9%

7%

30%

7%

ES

Assistance (1)

26 590.75 11 401.26

5 021.20

1 504.60

44 517.81

Commitments 2001

6 321.49

3 121.37

1 224.17

216.30

10 883.32

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

7 541.56

3 245.44

1 224.17

429.00

12 440.16

Payments 2001

3 343.41

882.88

603.10

115.97

4 945.37

Payments 2000-06 (3)

3 343.41

916.60

603.10

221.29

5 084.40

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

13%

28%

8%

24%

12%

29%

15%

28%

11%

FI

Assistance (1)

867.87

801.54

197.15

6.85

1 873.41

Commitments 2001

130.31

115.35

24.26

0.98

270.90

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

267.25

229.35

40.07

1.96

538.62

Payments 2001

29.93

18.52

3.92

0.36

52.73

Payments 2000-06 (3)

90.37

60.08

17.70

0.84

168.98

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

31%

10%

29%

20%

7%

9%

29%

12%

29%

9%

FR

Assistance (1)

7 672.69

6 534.13

675.95

40.78

14 923.56

Commitments 2001

2 010.86

1 116.70

118.46

8.34

3 254.36

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

2 284.54

1 929.02

190.71

11.79

4 416.05

Payments 2001

451.01

388.20

16.42

1.17

856.79

Payments 2000-06 (3)

542.38

763.26

49.63

2.85

1 358.12

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

30%

7%

30%

12%

28%

29%

7%

7%

30%

9%

GR

Assistance (1)

14 608.00

4 241.20

2 260.30

211.10

21 320.60

Commitments 2001

2 122.40

623.32

341.20

26.50

3 113.42

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

2 122.40

623.32

341.20

26.50

3 113.42

Payments 2001

1 461.57

423.51

261.12

14.78

2 160.97

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 461.57

423.51

261.12

14.78

2 160.97

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

15%

10%

15%

10%

15%

12%

13%

7%

15%

10%

104

IE

Assistance (1)

1 812.31

1 016.49

169.40

67.80

3 066.00

Commitments 2001

354.62

181.09

30.71

10.98

577.40

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

762.29

382.95

47.13

13.00

1 205.37

Payments 2001

157.33

80.67

2.73

240.73

Payments 2000-06 (3)

284.19

147.78

11.86

4.75

448.58

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

42%

16%

38%

15%

28%

19%

7%

7%

39%

15%

IT

Assistance (1)

16 884.53

7 979.83

2 982.63

286.32

28 133.31

Commitments 2001

2 767.37

1 138.61

387.21

39.08

4 332.27

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

4 754.46

2 174.51

713.26

77.64

7 719.87

Payments 2001

324.37

201.34

16.46

11.17

553.35

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 187.56

635.44

210.89

31.18

2 065.07

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

27%

24%

7%

8%

7%

27%

11%

LU

Assistance (1)

41.00

39.45

Commitments 2001

6.00

5.65

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

6.00

11.19

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

2.76

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

15%

27%

7%

80.45

11.65

17.19

-

2.76

21%

3%

NL

Assistance (1)

899.66

1 783.79

10.00

6.00

2 699.45

Commitments 2001

176.05

252.94

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

194.20

500.26

Payments 2001

57.94

61.95

Payments 2000-06 (3)

63.31

124.87

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

22%

28%

7%

7%

1.50

3.20

0.70

32%

7%

1.50

431.99

3.00

700.66

119.89

0.42

189.29

50%

7%

26%

7%

105

PT

Assistance (1)

12 428.16

4 415.34

2 117.35

217.69

19 178.54

Commitments 2001

2 051.56

695.74

342.18

35.13

3 124.62

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

4 168.85

1 389.60

463.54

71.46

6 093.45

Payments 2001

990.90

357.58

55.14

6.67

1 410.29

Payments 2000-06 (3)

1 858.19

663.51

203.35

21.91

2 746.96

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

34%

15%

31%

15%

22%

10%

33%

10%

32%

14%

SE

Assistance (1)

839.04

955.96

111.76

11.77

1 918.52

Commitments 2001

125.38

143.87

15.80

1.67

286.72

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

250.56

271.05

31.48

3.32

556.41

Payments 2001

35.37

31.51

5.85

0.08

72.80

Payments 2000-06 (3)

67.98

68.79

13.67

0.90

151.33

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

30%

28%

8%

7%

28%

12%

28%

8%

29%

8%

UK

Assistance (1)

8 105.12

7 100.34

355.82

89.36

15 650.63

Commitments 2001

2 124.73

1 142.58

60.87

12.15

3 340.33

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

2 629.35

2 048.16

83.76

22.78

4 784.06

Payments 2001

337.97

155.73

5.53

2.03

501.26

Payments 2000-06 (3)

567.36

596.24

24.98

6.26

1 194.83

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

32%

29%

24%

25%

7%

8%

7%

7%

31%

8%

IE/UK*

Assistance (1)

293.01

189.70

44.83

3.46

531.00

Commitments 2001

113.73

73.57

17.40

1.30

206.00

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

113.73

73.57

17.40

1.30

206.00

Payments 2001

20.51

13.28

Payments 2000-06 (3)

20.51

13.28

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

39%

39%

7%

7%

3.14

3.14

39%

7%

0.24

0.24

38%

7%

37.17

37.17

39%

7%

TOTAL

Assistance (1)

107 264.75 59 639.85 17 471.55

2 553.58 186 929.72

Commitments 2001

21 393.36 11 208.40

3 237.23

386.44

36 225.43

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

29 712.51 16 606.57

4 148.65

710.93

51 178.67

106

Payments 2001

8 517.22

4 235.70

1 276.89

155.19

14 185.00

Payments 2000-06 (3)

11 268.59

6 575.73

1 864.46

312.96

20 021.74

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

28%

11%

28%

11%

24%

11%

28%

12%

27%

11%

* PEACE 2 interregional cooperation programme

SOURCE :SFC – SYSREGIO

107

Annex 2: Financial implementation in 2001 of the Community Initiatives

€

(in

million
and in %)

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

FIFG

Total

Interreg III

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

Urban II

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

4 077.87

589.19

589.19

82.88

82.88

14%

2%

727.70

109.40

109.40

43.03

43.03

15%

6%

4 077.87

589.19

589.19

82.88

82.88

14%

2%

727.70

109.40

109.40

43.03

43.03

15%

6%

Leader +

Assistance (1)

2 148.90

2 148.90

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

Equal

Assistance (1)

Commitments 2001

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

Payments 2001

Payments 2000-06 (3)

271.34

271.34

81.96

81.96

13%

4%

271.34

271.34

81.96

81.96

13%

4%

-

455.80

-

207.80

-

455.80

207.80

108

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

----

-------

------

-----

TOTAL

Assistance (1)

4 805.57

0.00

2 148.90

0.00

6 954.47

Commitments 2001

698.59

455.80

271.34

0.00

1 425.72

Commitments 2000-06 (2)

698.59

0.00

271.34

Payments 2001

125.91

207.80

81.96

Payments 2000-06 (3)

125.91

0.00

81.96

% (2)/(1)

% (3)/(1)

15%

-------

3%

------

13%

4%

0.00

0.00

0.00

969.93

415.67

207.87

14%

3%

SOURCE :SFC – SYSREGIO

109

ANNEX 3

ERDF commitments for technical assistance in 2001
(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 Studies on special problems: the labour market at national, local or sectoral level

4 Other studies

TOTAL

13 000.00

2 297 051.00

610 700.00

92 950.00

3 013 701.00

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 Grants: contribution to financing studies, events, networks, training measures jointly

with the Member States on the details of assistance, etc.

3 900.000.00

1 600.000.00

1 013 170.48

76 900.00

5 Contracts with technical assistance offices (BAT), principally for the management of

29 684.00

innovative actions

6 Other technical and administrative assistance: framework contracts and other expert

1 469 088.00

assistance related to the work of the Funds

7 Map making

TOTAL

130 300.00

8 219 142.48

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

698 401.50

532 698.12

3 Technical assistance for the day-to-day operation of systems and training and

903 981.64

assistance for users

4 Other technical assistance and equipment

TOTAL

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 Ex-post evaluations: reports

TOTAL

110

170 599.00

2 305 680.26

1 049 900.00

83 600.00

1 798 400.00

2 931 900.00

COUNTRY

TOTAL

Austria

Belgium

Finland

Greece

Italy

Luxembourg

Sweden

EU not broken down

TOTAL

16 470 423 74

Amounts committed

€
)

(in

126 630.00

3 546 595.71

238 150.00

29 684.00

312 005.00

1 360 208.00

76 900.00

10 780 251.03

16 470 423.74

111

ANNEX 3

EAGGF commitments for technical assistance in 2001
(Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999)

TYPES OF MEASURES

A Studies, including those of a general nature concerning the work of the Funds

1

2

3

…

TOTAL

Amounts committed

€
)

(in

B Measures for technical assistance, exchanges of experience and information for the partners, final beneficiaries of

assistance from the Funds and the public

1

2

3

…

TOTAL

C The establishment, operation and interconnection of computerised systems for management, monitoring and

evaluation

1

2

3

…

TOTAL

D Improved methods of evaluation and the exchange of information on practices in this area

1

2

3

…

TOTAL

TOTAL

112

ANNEX 3

ESF commitments for technical assistance for 2001
(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

B Measures for technical assistance, exchanges of experience and information for the partners, final beneficiaries of

assistance from the Funds and the public

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

€

113

ANNEX 3

FIFG commitments for technical assistance in 2001

(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 socio-economic indicators in the fisheries sector (with

44 050

Eurostat)

TOTAL

44 050

B Measures for technical assistance, exchanges of experience and information for the partners,

final beneficiaries of assistance from the Funds and the public

1 Miscellaneous publications on the Structural Funds

2 Compendium of legislation on ‘Aquaculture, processing and marketing

3 Conference on the ‘CFP Green Paper 2002’

4 Other conferences and seminars’

5 Participation in the ‘European Seafood Exhibition’

6 Other meetings

TOTAL

80 000

50 000

158 086

94 776

94 508

100 000

577 370

C The establishment, operation and interconnection of computerised systems for management,

monitoring and evaluation

1 Development and maintenance of the fleet register

2 Auxiliary staff (Maintenance and development of INFOSYS)

TOTAL

221 410

90 000

311 410

D Improved methods of evaluation and the exchange of information on practices in this area

1 Evaluation study ‘Impact of FIFG assistance to the processing industry’

TOTAL

TOTAL

194 580

194 580

1 127 410

114

ANNEX 4 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION

I/ Budget implementation of commitment appropriations:

ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Implementation of

appropriations

€

(

million)

Implementation
ratio

Objective 1

15 797 6 783

3 237

386

Objective 2

5 597

663

Objective 3

3 762

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

CI[1]

699

456

271

IA and TA[2]

16

TOTAL

22 109 11 664

3 508

386

Implementation
Fund

ratio

by

II/ Budget implementation of payment appropriations:

26 203

6 260

3 762

1 426

16

37 667

ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Implementation of

appropriations

€

(

million)

Implementation
ratio

Objective 1

6 955 2 721

1 277

155

Objective 2

1 562

168

Objective 3

1 346

Non-Objective 1 FIFG

11 108

1 730

1 346

CI

126

208

82

416

IA and TA

TOTAL

8 643 4 443

1 359

155

14 600

by

ratio

Implementation
Fund
[1] CI: Community Initiatives
[2] IA and TA: Innovative actions and Technical
assistance

115