Report from the Commission - 14th Annual Report on the implementation of the structural funds
Date: 2003-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community budget, activity report, implementation of the budget, structural expenditure

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 30.10.2003
COM(2003)646 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

14th ANNUAL REPORT
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS

   
GENERAL SUMMARY

The  year  2002  saw  the  finalisation  of  programming,  mainly  for  Objective 2  but  also  the
Community Initiatives. Programme implementation reached a  generally satisfactory cruising
speed with a rate of execution comparable with the previous programming period.

The first operations connected with the mid-term review were launched at the end of 2002 so
as to be able to have the results of the evaluation in the second half of 2003.

On 7 October 2002, a ministerial meeting organised by the Commission was the occasion for
the  Member  States  to  scrutinise  the  Commission’s  concrete  proposals  for  improving  the
management  of  the  Structural  Funds.  These  proposals  were  designed  to  meet  repeated
requests  from  the  Member  States  for  greater  simplification  in  the  management  of  the
Structural Funds and to reduce the slowness  of procedures  at  both national and Community
level, which had been largely the cause of a very slow start-up of programmes.

The deadline for the submission of final payment requests for 1994-1999 programmes was 31
March  2003.  However,  by  the  end  of  2002,  only  few  assistance  packages  had  been  closed.
Similarly,  the  deadline  of  June  2002  for  sending  documentation  enabling  the  closure  of
programmes was met only in rare cases.

ERDF

With  respect  to  Objective 1,  the  rate  of  implementation  is  satisfactory  and  has  made  it
possible  to  avoid  automatic  decommitments  under  the  n+2  rule1.  However,  there  are  big
variations from one region to another and even within programmes.

Analysis of programming complements shows that one third of ERDF assistance is going to
projects in the productive environment and two thirds to basic infrastructure projects.

Objective 2  shows  an  implementation  rate  lower  than  Objective 1  because  programming
under Objective 2  did not finished until  2002 with the adoption  of the last  programmes and
the  Commission’s  reception  of  the  programming  complements.  This  longer  programming
phase was basically due to the process for designating eligible areas. As a result of the floods
in Germany and Austria, those countries had to partially revise their programmes.

It is interesting to note that the allocation of assistance between the productive environment
(two  thirds  of  assistance)  and  basic  infrastructures  (one  third)  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  the
situation for Objective 1.

EAGGF

The Objective 1 programmes under the EAGGF show an satisfactory rate of implementation
overall  (19.1%)  even  if  this  is  slightly  lower  than  the  average  for  the  Structural  Funds.
However, four programmes (NL, UK, IRL) run the risk of automatic decommitment under the
n+2 rule because of insufficient payments.

1

Under  Article 32(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 1260/1999  containing  the  general  provisions  on  the
Structural Funds, the Commission automatically decommits any parts of commitments not executed by
the end of the second year following the year of commitment.

2

                                                
Assistance  from  the  EAGGF2  under  Objective 1  is  divided  up  as  follows:  45.5%  for
restructuring  in  the  agricultural  sector  (mainly  investment  in  farms  and  the  processing  and
marketing of agricultural products), 41% for the environment and the management of natural
areas and 13% for development and diversification of the rural economy.

ESF

Under  Objective 3,  the  ESF  has  concentrated  on  supporting  the  European  Employment
Strategy. However, measures are distributed across all five fields of action provided for in the
ESF regulation. The main measures, none the less, do cover the promotion of reintegration of
the unemployed and those not gainfully active into the labour market.

Implementation  of  these  measures  is  generally  well  under  way,  at  a  speed  which  made  it
possible  to  make  up  the  initial  delays  in  adopting  programmes.  With  two  exceptions,  no
automatic decommitments will have to be carried out.

At annual meetings, a large number of Member States discussed  in  depth the links  between
programmes under the ESF, the European Employment Strategy and national action plans on
social inclusion.

FIFG

The  main  event  in  2002  was  the  reform  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  (CFP),  finally
approved  by  the  Council  on  20  December  2002.  The  goals  of  the  CFP  were  reviewed  and
redirected,  firstly,  towards  the  sustainable  exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources,  on  the
basis  of  properly  founded  scientific  advice  and  the  precautionary  principle  as  applied  to
fisheries  management,  and  secondly  towards  sustainable  aquaculture.  The  management  of
fisheries  will  be  better  able  in  future  to  ensure  the  long-term  viability  of  the  industry  by
sustainably exploiting resources.

The new measures came into effect on 1 January 2003, They replace the ground rules which
have governed the CFP since 1993 and amend substantially the rules on structural measures in
the  fisheries  sector  as  provided  for  under  the  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries  Guidance
(FIFG)3.

The  main  changes  introduced  by  the  reforms  include  the  discontinuation  of  aid  for  the
renewal of fishing vessels and the permanent transfer of Community vessels to non-member
countries, which is no longer allowed from 2005. Assistance for modernising fishing vessels
may be granted only to vessels at least five years old; this must be designed to improve on-
board safety, the quality of products or working conditions, to switch to more selective fishing
techniques or to equip vessels with the vessel monitoring system (VMS). It may not be used
to increase the catch capacity of vessels.

The reform also introduces changes in the terms and conditions for aid from Member States to
fishermen and shipowners who temporarily cease their fishing activity. Aid for the retraining
of fishermen is widened to include diversification into other activities while they continue to
fish part-time.

2

3

These percentages include the EAGGF Guidance and Guarantee Sections. The accompanying measures
(early  retirement  schemes,  less-favoured  areas,  agri-environmental  measures,  woodland  management)
under Objective 1 are financed by the Guarantee Section.
Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002, amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999.

3

                                                
Community Initiatives

Out of a total of 72 Interreg programmes, 15 of the 18 remaining to be approved were adopted
in 2002. This meant that inter-regional cooperation could get properly off the ground with the
launch of the first call for project proposals at EU level. It is also worth noting the adoption of
the  Interact  programme,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  make  implementation  of  the  Interreg
Initiative more effective.

All the programmes of the Community Initiative Leader+ were also adopted in 2002, and the
first steering committee meeting took place in November.

In  the  context  of  the  Urban  Initiative,  it  is  worth  noting  the  adoption  of  the  Urbact
programme,  designed  to  facilitate  sharing  of  experience  and  best  practice  among  the  towns
and cities involved in the previous versions of Urban.

4

14TH ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IN 2002

1.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT

1.1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

The year 2002 saw the application for the first time of the so-called “n+2” rule. This
requires the Commission to automatically decommit parts of commitments of funds
which  have  not  been  executed  by  the  end  of  the  second  year  following  the
commitment. Generally  speaking, the  pace  of  implementation  has  been  satisfactory
and  made  it  possible  to  avoid  such  automatic  decommitments.  The  average
implementation rate of payments by the end of 2002 was 21.5% across all approved
assistance. Rates vary among Member State from 7% in the  Netherlands to 36% in
Ireland, but for half of them the range is between 22% and 27%.

However,  the  rates  of  implementation  are  vary  very  much  from  one  region  to
another,  from  one  programme  to  another  or  inside  the  same  programme.  Measures
aimed  at  creating  new  infrastructure  are  generally  progressing  well  while  those
involving  the  participation  of  the  private  sector  are  proceeding  more  slowly.  The
economic climate in 2002 may partly explain this observation.

According to the annual reports received, the rates of execution (allocation of funds
to projects and payments to projects) are  very variable.  Some  regions  have  already
allocated two thirds of available funds to projects (B, FIN, S) and payments are also
flowing well. Changes to SPDs have been relatively limited.

Most of them have been the result of the adoption by the Council, on 28 June 2001,
of amendments to Regulations (EC) No 1260/99 (general regulation on the  Funds),
(EC)  No  1257/99  (rural  development)  and  (EC)  No  2792/99  (fisheries)  to  allow
higher assistance rates in the outermost regions.

An analysis of programming complements shows that ERDF assistance is split into
one third for the productive environment and two thirds for basic infrastructures. The
“transport  infrastructure”  category  accounts  for  the  biggest  share  at  31%  of  all
assistance. This is followed by assistance for small businesses and the craft industries
(16%)  and  for  the  environment  (water,  waste,  etc.:  13%).  The  extensive  sector  of
R&D, telecoms and the information society accounts for 12% of ERDF assistance4,
while the field of social and public-health infrastructures gets 6%.

All  Member  States  have  started  initial  operations  for  the  mid-term  review.  In  the
regions most advanced, contracts with evaluators have already been concluded.

4

This assistance is integral to the first stage of the Lisbon strategy (encouraging the transition towards a
knowledge-based economy, in particular by investment in information and communication technologies
and in R&D). The share of these fields in all ERDF assistance should be seen against the fact that the
majority  of  the  programme  complements  were  drawn  up  out  before  the  Lisbon  strategy  was  set  out
(March 2000).

5

                                                
EAGGF

The  overall  rate  of  execution  is  satisfactory,  even  if  it  is  slightly  lower  than  the
average for the Structural Funds as a whole. The overall average level of payments
against the total of assistance granted was 19.1% at the end of 2002, compared with
21.8% for all the Structural Funds. Among Member States, the execution rate varies
from 7.8% (Netherlands) to 29.2% (Austria).

In Germany, programmes do not seem to have been affected by the floods since the
execution rate is one of the highest at 25%.

Four  programmes  (Flevoland  -  Netherlands,  Highlands  and  Islands  -  UK),  Border,
Midland  and  Western  Region  (Ireland)  and  Southern  and  Eastern  Region  (Ireland)
could not manage an adequate level of payments and are in danger under the “n+2”
rule of seeing a corresponding part of the commitments decommitted. Regarding the
latter two programmes, the Irish authorities have submitted a request for exemption
for “force majeure” because of the  effects  of  the  foot-and-mouth  disease  epidemic.
This request is being examined by the Commission.

The  programming  complements  show  that  EAGGF  assistance5  splits  as  follows:
45.5%  for  restructuring  in  the  agricultural  sector  (investment  on  farms,  processing
and  marketing  of  agricultural  products),  41%  for  the  environment  and  the
management of natural areas and 13% for the development and diversification of the
rural economy.

The  operations  required  for  the  mid-term  review  have  been  started  and  results  are
expected by the planned deadlines.

FIFG

The overall execution rate is satisfactory, falling within the average for all the Funds.
An  analysis  by  country  however  shows  some  variations.  The  satisfactory  overall
speed  of  implementation  is  due  to  the  rapid  execution  of  the  FIFG  programme  in
Spain  (payments  cover  26%  of  assistance  granted),  which  accounts  on  its  own  for
60% of assistance granted. In eight Member States the rate is low, ranging between
7% and 10%.

On the basis of programming complements, one can see that  renewal of the fishing
fleet,  vessel  modernisation  and  new  construction  accounts  for  22%  of  FIFG
assistance  while  aquaculture  is  allocated  10%  of  assistance  and  “processing  and
promotion of fishery products” 15%.

ESF

On  the  whole,  programme  execution  is  satisfactory  with  payments  accounting  for
24%  of  the  total  of  assistance  granted,  a  level  higher  than  the  average  for  all  the
Funds.  Some  delays  have  occurred,  however,  particularly  in  the  Netherlands
(payment rates: 7%).

5

These percentages include the EAGGF Guidance and Guarantee Sections. The accompanying measures
(early  retirement  schemes,  less-favoured  areas,  agri-environmental  measures,  woodland  management)
under Objective 1 are financed by the Guarantee Section.

6

                                                
The introduction of new  fields  for  assistance  under  the  ESF  (e.g.  lifelong  learning,
adaptability) could explain, at least in part, some of the delays observed since these
fields  require  longer  preparation  than  the  usual  fields  of  ESF  assistance.  It  is  also
worth  noting  that  measures  involving  equal  opportunities  show  an  execution  rate
lower than the average.

On  the  basis  of  the  programming  complements,  it  appears  that  ESF  assistance  is
distributed  in  a  relatively  balanced  way  among  the  labour  market  (29%),  training
(26%) and workers’ adaptability (21%).

1.2.

OBJECTIVE 2

The  Objective 2  programmes  show  an  average  execution  level  lower  than  for
Objective 1 because the programming phase was longer, in particular because of the
procedures  for  designating  eligible  areas.  In  a  number  of  cases,  programmes  were
approved only at the end of 2001 or at the beginning of 2002, with the programming
complements being finalised during 2002. This largely explains the payments rate of
slightly less than 14% compared with assistance granted. The Member States where
programmes were adopted at the end of 2000 obviously present execution rates that
are  among  the  most  favourable  (Sweden  and  Finland:  22%;  Denmark:  17%).  It
should  however  be  noted  that  Spain  has  the  highest  execution  (26%)  and  that
Germany has managed a level equivalent to Denmark, despite its programmes being
adopted later.

ERDF

The  Member  States  which  finalised  their  programming  in  2001  show  satisfactory
rates of implementation: up to 60% of assistance budgets have already been allocated
to projects. In others, progress is sufficiently steady to enable them to catch up their
initial delays.

Some countries have encountered individual difficulties. Germany and Austria had to
review  some  of  their  programming  to  take  account  of  the  floods  in  the  summer
(inclusion of flood prevention measures). The  Italian programmes started only  very
late because the process of designating eligible areas caused many difficulties.

In  some  cases,  the  bad  economic  climate  made  it  more  difficult  to  implement
measures involving private part-financing.

It is interesting to note that the programming complements show a split of assistance
between  field  of  assistance  of  two  thirds  for  the  productive  environment  and  one
third  for  the  basic  infrastructure,  i.e.  the  opposite  proportions  to  Objective 1.
Measures  for  small  businesses  and  craft  industries  are  receiving  36%  of  ERDF
assistance, while the sector of R&D, telecoms and the information society accounts
for 15%. The two other fields accounting for significant shares of ERDF assistance
are tourism (9.5%) and the environment (6.4%).

The preparation of the mid-term review was in hand in all the Member States by the
end of 2002.

ESF

The rate of execution is on the whole slightly lower than for the ERDF.

7

ESF assistance is mainly directed at operations supporting the adaptability of labour
force (33%) and training (27%).

The ESF programmes have also seen the launching of the initial operations required
by the mid-term review.

EAGGF

Outside  the  Objective 1  regions,  activities  connected  with  rural  development  are
part-financed  by  the  Guarantee  Section;  they  are  spread  across  the  20  Objective 2
SPDs in France.

1.3.

OBJECTIVE 3

The prevailing feature of Objective 3 programming is that most measures are focused
on support for the European Employment Strategy, although with different priorities
across the Member States, according to the identification of their needs. At the same
time, measures are spread across all five policy fields of the ESF Regulation.

Among  the  most  prevalent  measures  are  those  to  promote  the  reintegration  of  the
unemployed and the non-gainfully active into the labour market. While these tend to
operate through training and activation activities, such activities are not exclusively
focused on reintegration. Most Member States have activities involving training for
particular groups, lifelong learning and modernising the public employment services.
Other activities which are highlighted in several Member States are those relating to
gender issues, social exclusion and health.

Implementation of these measures is generally on track, and in many Member States,
progress  is  being  made  in  catching  up  on  the  delays  in  the  initial  adoption  of
programmes which were noted in the previous two years.

Differences  remain  in  the  speed  and  difficulties  of  implementation  across  the
Member  States.  For  example,  training  measures  in  Italy  have  proved  difficult  to
implement,  and  the  reintegration  schemes  in  the  Netherlands  are  showing  under
consumption.  In  Austria,  the  lifelong  learning  programme  is  the  only  one  with
delays.  Gender  activities  seem  to  be  posing  problems  of  implementation  in  most
Member States where they exist. It is evident that the programmes which are lagging
behind  in  their  implementation  are  those  which  require  the  most  intensive
preparation,  or  which  are  more  focused  on  particular  targets,  such  as  the  health
programme in Greece, or the job rotation scheme in Sweden.

The  degree  of  progress  being  made  is  reflected  in  the  assessment  that  in  the  great
majority of Member States, no decommitments under the n+2 rule will be necessary.
Two exceptions to this are Denmark, where there will be a small decommitment, and
the  Netherlands.  Programmes  in  the  Netherlands  were  severely  delayed  by  the
problems  with  irregularities  in  earlier  years,  and  2002  was  the  first  full  year  of
implementation,  such  that  absorption  is  considerably  below  what  is  planned.  More
decommitments  under  the  n+2  rule  are  therefore  likely.  In  other  Member  States,
transfers  between  programmes  have  been  carried  out  to  smooth  out  differences  in
absorption rates.

Most  Member  States  held  annual  meetings  in  2002  which  were  used  to  address  a
number of issues. In many Member States they discussed consistency between ESF

8

programmes and the European Employment Strategy and the national action plan for
social  inclusion.  They  were  also  used  to  identify  problems  and  weaknesses  in
implementing programmes,  and  subsequently  to put in  place  measures  to  deal  with
these problems, and to propose solutions. In some cases, this led to transfers of funds
between  programmes,  or  changes  to  the  programme  complements  or  proposals  for
changes to SPDs.

Closure of programmes from the 1994-1999 period is, however, a considerable cause
for  concern  in  all  Member  States.  In  12  of  the  15  Member  States,  no  requests  for
closure, or the final documents, had been received by the end of the year, despite the
fact  that  the  final  date  for  submission  is  31  March  2003.  In  the  remaining  three
countries, only in Greece was there already significant progress with only 2 out of 24
programmes remaining to be closed at the end of the year. In Germany and Spain, a
small number of requests had been received

1.4.

FIFG outside Objective 1 regions

The  Commission  committed  appropriations  to  the  third  tranche  for  the  eleven
programmes  of  regions  outside  Objective 1,  totalling  €168.9  million.  The  first
tranche  of  €4.6  million  for  the  Netherlands   programme  was  also  committed  using
appropriations carried over from 2001.

On  the  basis  of  the  programming  complements,  it  is  evident  that  renewal  of  the
fishing fleet, vessel modernisation and new construction accounts for 24% of FIFG
assistance  while  aquaculture  gets  7%  and  “processing  and  promotion  of  fishery
products” 23%.

1.5.

Community Initiatives

1.5.1.

INTERREG

Following  adoption  on  28  April  20006  of  the  guidelines  for  Interreg  III  in  2000-
2006(€4.875 million at 1999 prices), Member Stat es were invited to submit detailed
proposals within six months of the date of publication of the final communication in
the Official Journal7.

The majority of the 72 programmes initially envisaged had already been approved in
2000 and 2001. The year 2002 saw the adoption of seven additional programmes in
(Ireland/United  Kingdom,  Greece/Albania,  Greece/FYROM,
Strand  A 
Greece/Cyprus,  Morocco/Gibraltar-UK,  Italy/Albania  and  Italy/Adriatic,  covering
cooperation between the Italian regions on the Adriatic with those in the countries of
former  Yugoslavia).  Four  programmes  in  Strand  B  were  approved,  including  in
particular the Atlantic Area, North-West Europe, the Caribbean and the Programme
for  Réunion/Indian  Ocean.  The  last  two  programmes  in  Strand  C  on  inter-regional
cooperation were also approved, the Southern and the Western programmes. Finally,
both  programmes  under  Article  53  of  the  Interreg  guidelines  (networks)  were
approved  -  the  ESPON  programme  (European  Spatial  Planning  Observatory
Network) and the Interact programme. Only three programmes remain to be adopted
in  2003  -  the  Archimed  programme  of  trans-national  cooperation  between  Greece

6
 7

OJ C 143, 6.5.2000.
OJ C 143, 6.5.2000.

9

                                                
and  Italy  and  both  programmes  of  cross-border  cooperation  involving  Greece-Italy
and Greece-Turkey.

The most outstanding feature of 2002 was the approval of the Interact programme. In
order  to  establish  a  supporting  framework  for  efficient  implementation  of  Interreg
III, the Commission and Member States agreed to the Interact programme (standing
for  INTERreg  -  Animation,  Coordination,  Transfert).  With  its  approval  by  the
Commissioner, Mr Barnier, on 16 December 2002, the Union acquired a new tool for
improving  the  effectiveness  and  quality  of  the  Interreg  III  programmes.  Given  the
considerable  challenges  facing  the  implementation  of  this  Community  Initiative,
Interact  will  be  an  essential  element  in  further  simplifying  procedures  under  the
Interreg  III  programmes, in particular with a view  to  the  programming  period  after
2006.

The  Interact  programme  was  presented  by  one  of  the  Member  States  -  Austria  as
coordinating  country - in  the  name  of  all the Member States. The  Austrian  Federal
Government  was  therefore  designated  as  management  and  payment  authority  for
Interact.  The  total  cost  of  the  Interact  programme  is  €35.1  million,  the  ERDF
contribution to which of €25 million.

Another  important  event  was  the  start  of  inter-regional  cooperation,  since  all  the
programmes had been finally approved. It was therefore possible to launch the first
call for project proposals at European level on 10 October 2002. Altogether, the four
programmes  amount  to  an  ERDF  contribution  of  more  than  €300  million  for
interregional cooperation (see http:// www interreg3c.net).

A last outstanding event was the approval of the ESPON/ORATE programme. This
programme is aimed at promoting a forward-looking and quantified view of spatial
development  trends  in  Europe,  bringing  in  both  neighbouring  countries  (including
Switzerland  and  Norway)  and  the  applicant  countries.  Luxembourg  has  been
designated  as  management  and  payment  authority  for  this  programme  and  its  joint
secretariat  is  also  located  in  Luxembourg.  The  total  cost  of  the  programme  is  €12
million, the ERDF contribution being €6 million.

Otherwise,  the  concrete  implementation  of  the  adopted  programmes  continued  and
intensified  on  the  ground.  The  Commission  took  part  in  several  monitoring  and
steering committee meetings, as provided for in the Fund regulations.

1.5.2.

LEADER+

Leader+ is aimed at encouraging  and supporting integrated pilot strategies for local
rural  development.  At  the  end  of  2002,  73  programmes  under  Leader+  had  been
approved. Nine Member States chose to have a national programme. In the six other
Member States, 61 regional programmes were submitted and three of these Member
States presented a national programme for a national network.

In 2002, the procedure to select local action groups (LAGs) was still being finalised
in some Member States. Of the 938 LAGs expected, 692 have already been selected.

A first meeting of the Leader+ steering committee took place on 26 November 2002.
This  committee,  chaired  by  the  Commission  and  comprising  representatives  of

10

national  civil  services  and  national  networks,  concentrated  on  the  progress  so  far
achieved in the implementation of this Community Initiative.

The  priorities  set  by  the  Commission  in  its  Communication  on  Leader+  have  been
taken up by the LAGs as follows: making best use of natural and cultural resources
and  in  particular  developing  sites  (33%  of  all  the  LAGs),  improving  the  quality  of
life in rural areas (24%), developing local products (21%) and using new knowledge
and technologies to increase the competitiveness of goods and services in rural areas
(10%). The total Community assistance for Leader+ in 2000-2006 is €2.1 billion and
it will be financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

For  2002,  an  amount  of  €356.80  million  was  committed  and  payments  totalling
€74.89 million were carried out.

1.5.3.

EQUAL

The year 2002 was a key one for the Community Initiative EQUAL, which saw the
start on the ground of the development partnerships and the take-off of the Initiative.

The selection phase was  completed as of 15  November  2001,  and the  development
partnerships  made  a  start  on  Action  1  by  mid-May  2002.  This  period  enabled  the
project  sponsors  to  finalise  their  national  programmes,  and  to  establish  their
transnational  partnerships  with  at  least  one  development  partnerships  in  another
Member State.

Slightly  more  than  1  500  EQUAL  development  partnerships  throughout  Europe
began implementing their work programmes by the end of Action 1. They comprise
some 13 000 partners and, seen overall, it is worth noting the leading place of public
authorities,  training  bodies  and  bodies  specialising  in  disadvantaged  groups.
However, it should also be noted that firms run the partnership in more than 8% of
cases.

The distribution among themes appears uneven, the first theme of the “Capability for
occupational  integration”  pillar  accounting  for  almost  a  third  projects.  The
geographical  basis  for  development  partnerships  is  less  great  than  anticipated.  The
initial forecasts suggested a ratio of 80%: 20% as between geographical partnerships
and  sectoral  partnerships.  The  development  partnerships  centred  on  “specific
discrimination problems” account for almost two thirds of the sectoral development
partnerships.  This  no  doubt  reflects  an  underlying  continuation  of  ADAPT-  and
EMPLOYMENT-type projects.

At transnational level, approximately 450 transnational cooperation agreements were
concluded  with  an  average  of  three  development  partnerships  per  agreement,  the
record to date being a partnership of right development partnerships.

The EQUAL Initiative, in both its objectives and its architecture, gives pride of place
to capitalising on the innovative elements and on their dissemination. At project level
via  the  transnational  cooperation  partnerships,  at  regional  and/or  national  level  via
the  national  thematic  networks  and  at  European  level  via  the  European  thematic
groups,  with  the  aim  of  collecting,  discussing  and  evaluating  the  most  promising
practices  and  findings  from  the  grassroots  and  preparing  their  dissemination  and
integration into policy-making.

11

At  European  level,  it  is  the  role  assigned  to  the  six  European  thematic  groups
(employability,  entrepreneurship,  adaptability,  equal  opportunities,  asylum  seekers,
partnerships),  the  foundations  for  which  were  laid  at  the  Barcelona  conference  in
May 2002 (Networking for inclusion) when almost 400 people took an active part in
the debates.

Finally,  in  connection  with  enlargement,  it  is  worth  noting  the  participation  of  the
Czech  Republic  (16  development  partnerships)  and  Hungary  (5  development
partnerships) in this first round of projects as well as the active preparations for the
inclusion of the applicant countries in the next call for proposals. In this context, the
Copenhagen  conference  in  November  2002  (EQUAL  and  enlargement)  brought
together 150 participants representing both current and future Member States of the
Union to prepare for the EQUAL Community Initiative in an enlarged Europe.

1.5.4. URBAN

In  2002,  the  Commission  adopted  the  Urbact  programme  aimed  at  sharing
experience and best practice among towns and cities that took part in Urban I, Urban
II  or an urban  pilot project. Urbact was presented  jointly  by  all  the  Member  States
(except  Luxembourg)  and  represents  the  last  programme  for  implementation  of  the
Urban  II  Initiative,  with  70  programmes  in  declining  towns  and  urban  districts
already having been approved during 2001.

These 70 programmes met all the regulatory deadlines in 2002: all adopted and sent
to  the  Commission  their  programming  complement  and  installed  their  Monitoring
Committees,  and  21  of  them  sent  in  their  annual  implementation  report  by  the
required date.

All  the  programmes  received  payment  of  the  advance  (7%)  in  2002,  and  26  have
already received intermediate payments.

A  first  assessment  of  the  programmes  was  presented  by  in  a  Communication  from
the  Commission  called  “The  programming  of  the  Structural  Funds  2000-2006:  An
initial  assessment  of  the  Urban  Initiative”  (COM(2002)308  final).  This  document
was  the  subject  of  a  wide-ranging  debate  between  Commissioner  Barnier  and  600
Mayors  and  representatives  of  local  authorities,  during  the  conference  “Cities  and
Cohesion” organised by the Commission in London on 8 and 9 July 2002.

1.6.

Innovative actions and technical assistance

ERDF

A total of 50 regions applied for a regional programme of innovative actions in 2002,
of  which  45  were  deemed  of  sufficiently  high  quality  to  be  awarded  ERDF  part-
financing. This was in addition to the 81 successful programmes submitted in 2001,
meaning  that  by  the  end  of  2002,  126  of  the  156  eligible  regions  had  already
benefited.  In  addition,  3  specific  network  programmes  were  approved  to  foster
cooperation  between  regions  i.e.  one  for  each  of  the  three  strategic  themes  eligible
under  the  programmes  a)  research  and  technological  development,  b)  IT  at  the
identity  and  sustainable
service  of  regional  development  and  c)  regional 
development.

12

The  implementation  of  the  pilot  projects  under  Recite  (47  projects)  and  Terra  (15
projects) continued and led to the closure of three projects under Terra. At the end of
2002, all the projects had sent in a final report and requests for payment of the final
balance. The closure of four Recite projects was also advancing at a good pace.

FIFG

On  4  June  2002,  under  Article  22  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/1999,  DG
Fish  launched  its  call  for  proposals  02/C  132/11  for  trans-national  projects  as
innovative  actions  in  the  fisheries  sector.  After  analysis  and  examination  of  the  46
proposals received, DG Fish selected ten projects and undertook the ten financial and
legal  commitments  for  a  total  amount  of  €1  114  858.  The  principal  topics  of  the
in  areas  dependent  on  fishing,
projects  are  socio-economic  diversification 
enhancement  of  the  value  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  improvement  of  the
image of the industry, and vocational and continuing training in all the trades within
the industry. The first intermediate reports will be available during 2003 and the final
reports are expected during the first six months of 2004.

The  technical  assistance  programme  was  carried  out  as  planned  in  2002,  with  a
volume of €934 811 (see Table in Annex 3).

ESF

Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation

A call for proposals on the theme “local employment strategies and innovation” was
published  in  the  Official  Journal  on  31  October  20018.  The  aim  of  this  call  for
proposals was to assist innovative actions in developing local employment strategies
in order to support the implementation of the European Employment Strategy at local
level. Among the fields covered by the call for proposals are e.g.:

– 

– 

– 

– 

development of partnerships at local level;

development and implementation of local employment strategies;

monitoring, benchmarking and evaluation;

exchange of information, dissemination and networking.

Applications  must  be  aimed  at  applying  the  priorities  of  the  national  (or  regional)
action  plan  (NAP)  for  employment  in  a  given  territory  in  the  form  of  local
employment strategies. The proposal can be of two types:

– 

– 

to  develop  and  implement  a  single  strategy  in  coherence  with  the  existing
regional or national NAP;

to develop a coherent series of individual strategies at a lower territorial level
within the territory.

8

OJ C 306, 31.10.2001.

13

                                                
Each proposal aiming to develop and implement either a single territorial strategy at
regional  or provincial  level  (Type 1) or  a series of  local strategies  (Type  2)  should
contain a number of common elements to make sure there is a level of consistency
in approach  across  all of the strategies  that  will  help  to  identify  and  compare  good
practices  and  lessons  for  the  mainstream  ESF  and  the  European  Employment
Strategy. These common elements include the following:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Each  employment  strategy  must  be  developed,  refined  and  implemented
through a specific partnership, which includes representatives from as many of
the relevant actors as possible.

Local employment baseline analysis: each local employment strategy must be
based on an analysis or diagnosis of the local labour market and employment
situation. This will act as a baseline of the situation against which progress can
be measured and evaluated.

The eventual strategy or strategies must address each of the four pillars of the
European Employment Strategy.

The  gender  dimension/equal  opportunities  should  be  integrated  into  the  local
employment strategy at all stages, including the baseline analysis and diagnosis
of the territory.

Links  with  other  sources  of  Community  and  national  financing,  and  other
Community  programmes:  the  local  employment  strategy  should  act  as  an
overarching framework for all employment activities in the territory.

In 2002, a total budget of €34.06 million was allocated to  projects funded under this
call.  The  Commission  part-finances  actions  up  to  a  maximum  of  75%  of  the  total
eligible  costs, between  a minimum  of  part-financing  of  €300.000  and  maximum  of
€3 million over a two-year period.

44 grant agreements for successful applicants under the first round of applications
were  signed  in  October  2002,  with  projects  starting  between  1  November  and  31
December 2002.

In  its  Second  Annual  report  on  the  implementation  of  innovative  measures  under
Article  6  of  the  European  Social  Fund  Regulation9,  the  Commission  announced
“innovative approaches to the management of change” as the overarching theme for
the  remainder  of  the  current  programming  period.  Within  this  theme,  two  more
specific strands for innovative actions have been identified:

– 

– 

the management of demographic change

the management of restructuring

9

Presented to the ESF Committee on 17 December 2002, link:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/esf2000/documents/report_2002_en.pdf

14

                                                
EAGGF

In 2002, commitments worth a total amount of €1.13 million were made within the
framework of technical assistance.

1.7.

Complementarity with other instruments

a)

Cohesion Fund

The  assistance  granted  by  the  Cohesion  Fund  allows  the  financing  of  transport
infrastructures  projects  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the  trans-European
networks  and  of  projects  in  the  field  of  the  environment  enabling  the  countries
concerned to progress towards implementing the goals of the environmental policy of
the European Union. The Cohesion Fund enables the four eligible Member States to
sustain  a  major  effort  of  public  investment  in  these  two  fields  of  common  interest,
while respecting the targets for reducing budget deficits as set out in the convergence
programmes drawn up in the context of Economic and Monetary Union.

The  main  coordination  instrument  between  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the  Structural
Funds  is  the  strategic  reference  framework  (SRF).  Presentation  by  these  Member
States  to  the  Commission  of  an  SRF  is  the  logical  corollary  of  the  new  legal
provision  governing  the  operations  of  the  Cohesion  Fund.  Regulation  (EC)
No 1265/1999  stipulates  that  “Member  States  shall  also  provide  the  results  of  the
environmental impact assessment in conformity with the Community legislation, and
their  consistency  with  a  general  environmental  or 
transport  strategy  at
administrative unit or sector level."

Moreover,  the  “Cohesion  Fund  Vade-mecum  2000-2006”  sent  to  the  national
administrations  of  the  four  eligible  Member  States  stipulates  in  particular  that  the
strategy should be defined and formalised in an outline document which constitutes
the  'frame  of  reference'  for  the  assistance  from  the  Cohesion  Fund.  This  frame  of
reference,  to  be  defined  at  the  most  suitable  level,  should  comprise  the  following
elements:  a  definition  of  long-term  objectives;  an  indication  of  the  individual
projects;  the  specification  of  intermediate  objectives  to  be  achieved  by  2006;  the
identification  of  the  projects  to  be  carried  out  in  order  to  attain  them;  for  each
project,  an  initial  indication  of  the  investment  costs  and  indicative  planning  of  the
sources of funding

The four Member States qualifying for the Cohesion Fund presented their SRFs for
the  environment  and  transport  sectors  at  the  end  of  2000.  In  certain  cases,  these
reference  frameworks  form  an  integral  part  of  the  programmes  approved  under  the
Structural Funds for 2000-2006, reinforcing the coordination between the Cohesion
Fund and operations under the Structural Funds.

Finally,  two  meetings  took  place  with  the  Member  States  during  2002  to  coincide
with meetings of the CDCR (the Structural Funds committee), making it possible to
further strengthen the consistency between these financial instruments.

b)

The European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF)

Under the terms of the cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB
covering Community structural operations in 2000-2006, a contact interface was set
up between the Commission and the EIB. This interface functioned satisfactorily and

15

led  to  specific  coordination  contacts  in  the  field  of  major  transport  projects  (Spain
and  Greece).  These  two  countries  expanded  their  cooperation  with  the  Bank  in  the
fields of PPP and the participation of the Bank in monitoring TENs projects.

As  a  result  of  the  high-level  meeting  on  26  March  2002,  particular  emphasis  was
given  to  improving  and  refining  the  EIB’s  statistics  on  the  regional  impact  of
projects.  The  improvement  to  regional  indicators  will  make  it  easier  to  gauge  the
regional impact of the EIB’s interventions.

The year 2002 saw closer cooperation between the EIB and the candidate countries.
Special  attention  was  given  to  projects,  their  part-financing,  their  evaluation  and
cooperation in the field of PPP.

Under  the  framework  contract  between  the  Commission  (DG  Regional  Policy)  and
the  EIB  in  2000-2006  for  the  evaluation  by  the  EIB  of  various  major  projects
submitted for funding by the Structural Funds by the beneficiary countries, 37 rapid
evaluations (17 ERDF, 20 CF and 2 ISPA operations) and two detailed evaluations
were carried out in 2002.

Turning to cooperation priorities, close attention was paid to major transport projects,
the i2i initiative and innovative financial products, namely venture capital and global
loans,  in  the  framework  of  the  first  priority  which  is  effective  support  for  regional
development.

A new method of part-financing was launched. This method involves part-financing
by the EIB of regional Operational Programmes. Such funding, carried out especially
in Italy, has proved a major success.

As regards the EIB’s activities in 2002, it devoted €33.4 billion to projects within the
Union, as against €31.2 billion in 2001. In th e candidate countries, the EIB financed
investment contributing to the preparation of enlargement with a total of €3.6 billion
compared  with  €2.7  billion  in  2001.  EIB  support  to  the  regions  least-favoured
regions  came  to  €12.5  billion  in  individual  loans  compared  with  €14.5  billion  in
2001. The impact of global loans in the less-favoured regions is put at about 60%.

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

Within  the  EIB  group,  the  EIF  is  now  exclusively  in  charge  of  all  guarantee
operations  for  small  businesses  and  for  venture  capital  (Community  resources  and
EIB/EIF resources).

In  its  fields  of  assistance,  the  EIF  took  part  in  68  operations  in  2002,  of  which  36
involved venture capital and a total participation of €471.5 million. The total amount
of assistance signed in 2002 amounted to €1.707 billion.

The interventions in regional development, research and in particular biotechnology
also included the candidate countries.

As a result of the conclusions of the European Councils in Nice and Stockholm, close
attention was paid to the knowledge-based society.

16

The Commission  makes sure that these  contributions to  regional development have
their proper place in overall assistance.

Finally, an initiative for strengthening cooperation between the Commission and the
EIF  in  connection  with  the  assisted  regions  was  given  concrete  expression  in  an
agreement on assistance and advice to be provided by the EIF to regions requesting
them.

c)

Trans-European Networks - energy and transport

Coordination  between  the  budget  for  the  trans-European  transport  and  energy
networks  (TENs)  and  the  Structural  Funds,  in  particular  ERDF  resources,  is
important  in  Objective 1  and  2  areas  and  the  cohesion  countries  because  these
Community  financial  instruments  take  into  account  the  need  to  link  to  the  central
regions of the Community those regions suffering from a structural handicap or from
their status as islands, landlocked areas or remote regions.

While both transport and energy TEN projects of common interest are financed from
the  TEN  budget  line,  the  Cohesion  Fund  provides  specifically  for  transport
infrastructure  and  the  ERDF  for  both  transport  and  energy.  Article  2  of  the  ERDF
Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999) provides that in achieving Objective 1 the Fund is to
contribute to financing 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
intervention 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  of  the  actual  investment.  Frequently,  in  the  area  of  transport,  the  ERDF
finances  works  designed  to  give  “access”  to  the  trans-European  transport  network,
which itself is financed from the TEN budget line and/or the Cohesion Fund.

The TEN 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, together with the use of a small amount of the budget line (1-
2%) to support projects involving venture capital.

The  MIP  proposal  for  2001-2006,  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  September  2001,
foresees  a  total  of  about  €2.8  billion  for  11  priority  projects  (Essen  projects),  the
project of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (Galileo) and four groups of projects
of “common interest”.

In  2002  a  total  of  €563.4  million  in  commitment   appropriations  was  allocated  to
TEN-T projects under the MIP, the Galileo project and projects of common interest
outside  the  MIP.  In  addition  €7.0  million  were   transferred  to  the  venture-capital
facility to contribute to financing TEN-T projects under a PPP concept.

17

Concerning the distribution of support in 2002 by transport mode, by the far greatest
part  of  Union  spending  on  transport  under  the  TEN-T  budget  was  concentrated  on
rail projects (almost 47%), followed by Galileo (30%) and roads (4%).

1.8.

Closure of preceding programming periods

For  all  operations  in  the  1994-1999  programming,  the  regulatory  deadline  for  the
closure is 31 March 2003, In principle, by that date the amounts of all assistance for
which  the  Commission  has  not  received  a  full  and  correct  closure  dossier  (final
report, final payment request, “Article 8” audit statement) must be decommitted.

ERDF

At the end of 2002, some assistance packages were closed. In certain other cases, the
closure files were sent during 2002 but too late to be processed before the end of the
year. Very often dossiers are incomplete or have to be queried.

By 24 April 2003, out of a total of 942 assistance packages, 194 had been closed, 727
were in the process of scrutiny and 21 closure files had still to reach the Commission
or to be amplified so that they could be processed.

EAGGF

In general, a very small number of cases  could be enclosed  by  31  December  2002.
Closure work was none the less well on track since the necessary files had been sent
for a majority of assistance packages.

Out of the 402 programme closure files which the Commission had received by the
end of 2002, 142 were complete and 27 of these were closed (22 for Italy). The 260
remaining documents for programmes to be closed were received by the deadline of
31 March 2003 and thus avoided automatic decommitment.

FIFG

In 2002, several requests were received for the closure of programmes from previous
periods.  Thorough  analysis  of  these  requests  did  not  enable  these  to  be  closed
because some information was still missing.

By  31  March,  all  the  files  for  54  assistance  packages  had  been  received  by  the
Commission.

ESF

Closure work seems to have accumulated major delays in the vast majority of cases
because very few closure dossiers were forwarded to the Commission.

By 31 March, 16 dossiers out of a total of 754 were closed and 539 in the process of
closure, while 53 files had still to reach the Commission and 162 still needed more
documentation.

18

2.

CONSISTENCY AND COMPLEMENTARITY

2.1.

The Structural Funds and environmental policy

The  protection  and  improvement  of  the  environment  is  one  of  the  tasks  of  the
Structural Funds in pursuing the three priority Objectives set out in Regulation (EC)
No  1260/99  (Article  1).  Among  the  means  listed  in  Article  2  of  the  Regulation,
specific mention is made of integrating the requirements of environmental protection
into the implementation of the Funds.

Direct investment in the environment

Altogether,  the  regional  and  national  authorities  inserted  about  €20  billion  for
environmental direct investment in their 2000-2006 programming, which is slightly
more than 10% of the overall envelope of the Structural Funds. This will be used, for
example,  to  finance  infrastructure  in  the  field  of  water  supply  and  treatment,
purification of waste water, disposing of and recycling waste, and protecting the soil
and natural sites.

Most of this investment is planned in Objective 1 regions, but there are major delays
in these areas in particular because of the scale of investment required.

Compliance with environmental legislation

Operations part-financed by the Funds must comply with Community legislation in
force, including environmental legislation. This resulted, in some Member States, to
start-up  being  slowed  down  or  even  stopped  by  the  lack  of  an  environmental  legal
framework in conformity with current legislation.

The  main  fields  in  which  there  have  been  failures  to  comply  with  the  legislation
either because it has not been transposed into national law or because the provisions
of the Community legislation were not being complied with are the following: solid
waste (three Member States were found by the Court of Justice in 2002 not to have
introduced plans  for  waste  management  in  accordance  with  the  legislation  on  solid
waste), water pollution by nitrates from agriculture (several adverse judgements from
the Court of Justice), the treatment of urban waste water, water quality and, finally,
compliance  with  the  procedure  for  environmental  impact  assessments  for  various
public and private projects.

Natura 2000: in 2002 the remaining difficulties linked to insufficient designation of
sites were overcome with the submission of supplementary notifications. Integration
of the environment into various operations

Integration of the environment into various operations

Taking the environment into account in the programmes of the Structural Funds has
led  to  increasing  integration  of  environmental  considerations,  both  in  the  design  of
programmes  and  in  their  implementation.  This  increasingly  applied  principle  is
reflected  in  various  forms  at  the  various  stages  of  programming:  ex-ante
environmental  impact  assessments  of  all  programmes  when  they  are  drawn  up,
systematic evaluation of the environmental impact of  projects  covered by  Directive
85/337/EEC  and  the  introduction  of  an  environmental  criterion  into  the  selection
criteria for projects at the call for proposals stage.

19

In  the  industrial  field,  the  integration  of  environmental  considerations  has  taken
place for example in the choice of environmentally friendly methods or products that
encourage a sustainable use of natural resources, cutting down and recycling waste or
cutting down emissions to the atmosphere. In this context, aid granted by the Funds
for  productive  activities  encourages  investment  based  on  a  preventive  approach,
higher  aid  rates  for  such  investments  in  some  Member  States.  In  the  field  of
transport,  integrating  the environment into programmes has  enabled  some  Member
States  to  carry  out  the  necessary  improvements  to  transport  infrastructure  without
detriment  to  the  quality  of  the  environment,  i.e.  by  encouraging  environmentally
friendly modes of transport (priority for public transport and railways and intermodal
operations).

Participation of the environmental authorities

Some Member States such as Italy, Spain and Portugal have used technical assistance
to  set  up  a  Task  Force  of  environmental  experts  who  take  on  a  role  alongside  the
management  authorities  as  environmental  authorities.  They  take  part  in  the
management  of  funds  and  ensure,  at  the  most  suitable  level,  that  environmental
considerations are taken into account in the implementation of programmes.

Mid-term review

The mid-term review of the efficiency of programmes which started at the beginning
of  2003,  and  which  may  lead  to  proposals  for  revising  some  programmes,  should
provide  an  occasion  for  taking  better  account  in  the  operations  Structural  Funds  of
the  priorities  set  out  in  the  Sixth  Action  Plan  for  the  environment  and  in  the
Commission’s  Communication  on  a  European  Union  strategy  for  sustainable
development.

Innovative actions

Sustainable  development  is  one  of  the  three  eligible  themes  for  experimentation  in
the  regional  programmes  of  innovative  actions.  To  date,  49  of  the  126  benefiting
regions  have  opted  to  explore  this  theme  in  their  programmes,  including  various
operations  related  to  the  environment  but  also  encompassing  transport,  cultural
heritage, delivery of social services, etc. with a total volume of around €80 million. It
is  intended  that  the  lessons  drawn  from  these  programmes  should  be  incorporated
into the mainstream Structural Fund programmes.

2.2.

The Structural Funds and transport and energy policy

On 12 September 2001, the Commission adopted a White Paper on transport which
makes  improving  transport  conditions  one  of  the  main  subjects  for  reflection  axes,
based on the following points:

– 

– 

– 

reduction of congestion;

creation of new infrastructures, in particular railways;

tariff-setting  as  a  means  of  rebalancing  different  modes  of  transport  and  of
financing of infrastructures.

20

To  achieve  these  ambitious  objectives,  the  Commission  will  be  relying  on  the
funding  available under the TEN-T budget, the Cohesion  Fund and the ERDF,  and
on ISPA for the future Member States.

2.3.

The Structural Funds and competition policy

Under  Article  87(1)  of  the  Treaty,  state  aid  is  normally  considered  not  to  be
compatible  with  the  common  market.  This  principle  of  incompatibility  is  not
however  an  absolute  prohibition,  and  the  Commission  pays  close  attention  to  the
potentially beneficial effects of aid intended to facilitate the economic development
of the most disadvantaged regions, provided competition and trade between Member
States are not affected to a degree contrary to the common interest. Since a large part
of the assistance of the Structural Funds directly benefits individual businesses, it is
essential  to  ensure  that  the  Community’s  regional  policy  is  conducted  in  full
compliance with the rules on competition.

On  this  subject,  the  General  Regulation  governing  the  Structural  Funds  contains  a
significant  number  of  provisions  stipulating,  in  particular,  that  the  operations
approved  by  the  Commission  must  include,  within  each  measure,  the  details
necessary for ex-ante appraisal of the compatibility of the state aid element with the
common  market.  In  this  context,  and  following  finalisation  of  the  scrutiny  of
measures  planned  under  single  programming  documents  involving  assistance  from
the  Funds  in  the  Objective 2  regions  in  2000-2006,  the  Commission  focused  its
attention  during  2002  on  the  appraisal  of  various  major  projects  eligible  under
Articles 25 and 26 of the General Regulation, which should be made simpler by the
adoption  of  the  new  multisectoral  framework  on  regional  aid  for  large  investment
projects10.

The  new  framework  brings  together  some  sectoral  rules  which  were  scattered
elsewhere  (on  cars,  synthetic  fibres  and  the  iron  and  steel  industry),  introduces  an
automatic  system  for  determining  intensities  of  aid  according  to  the  amount  of  the
investment  which  functions  as  a  progressive  tax  rate,  and  sets  a  higher  individual
notification  threshold  than  in  the  past.  At  the  same  time,  the  framework  also
recognises  that  some  major  investment  projects  may  indeed  contribute  to  regional
development and provides that, as from 2004, a cohesion premium  may be  granted
for  major  projects  exceeding  €100  million  par t-financed  by  the  Structural  Funds.
The new system will thus take into account the value added by these major projects
using an approach which makes it possible to reconcile the aim of reducing state aid
involving the most serious distortions,  on the one hand,  and  the  goals  of  economic
and social cohesion, on the other.

The  Commission  also  continued  its  work  on  reforming  the  relevant  rules  of
procedure in the case of aid schemes less likely to create distortions of competition.
A  new  set  of  rules  was  adopted  in  2002  making  exemptions  for  aid  to  support
employment11,  which  should  result  in  simplifying  the  Community’s  part-financing
procedures  for  certain  aid  schemes  throughout  the  current  Structural  Fund
programming period. This regulation introduces an exemption from prior notification
for  aid  schemes  involving  job  creation,  as  well  as  for  schemes  to  encourage  the

10

11

OJ C 70, 19.3.2002.
OJ L 337, 13.12.2002.

21

                                                
recruitment  of  disabled  and  disadvantaged  persons  and  in  particular  an  increase  in
intensities of aid intended to create net employment in assisted regions.

2.4.

The Structural Funds and policy on public procurement

Article  12  of  the  General  Regulation  on  the  Structural  Funds  stipulates  that
operations receiving Community funding must “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”.  Greater
decentralisation  has  been  introduced  into  the  management  of  the  Structural  Funds,
increasing the responsibility of the Member States and in particular the management
authorities when contracts financed by the Community Funds are being awarded. To
ensure  the  conformity  of  these  procedures  with  Community  rules,  the  Commission
encourages  the  national  authorities  to  adopt  various  preventive  measures  such  as
appropriate  training  for  staff  involved  in  awarding  contracts  and  issuing  guide  and
vade-mecums  on  contracting  procedures.  As  part  of  its  general  tasks,  the
Commission  also  ensures  that  procedures  for  awarding  contracts  are  in  conformity
with  Community  law  by  checking  on  the  transposition  of  the  relevant  Community
Directives  and  by  making  use  of  its  powers  to  intervene  when  Community  law  is
breached. In this context, the Commission examined more than 400 cases in 2002 of
inadequate  transposition  or  potential  misapplication  of  the  relevant  Community
provisions.

2.5.

The Structural Funds and the information society

The  development  of  the  information  society  is  an  integral  part  of  policy  for  the
Structural  Funds  in  2000-2006,  with  a  view  to  exploiting  all  the  social,  economic,
cultural and  political  benefits  of  the  revolution  in  communications  and  information
processing. The European Council in Lisbon adopted an ambitious strategy to make
the  European  Union  “the  economy  based  on  the  most  competitive  and  dynamic
knowledge  in  the  world,  capable  of  sustainable  economic  growth,  with  better  and
more jobs, and greater economic and social cohesion” between now and 2010. The
conference in Lyon took up this challenge, declaring that the information society was
“a means to an end” and its aim was to “carry out the competitiveness of the regions
and the creation and the maintenance of stable jobs”. The key message was that the
regions  should  design  and  implement  an  integrated  and  common  strategy  on  the
information society.

A recent study12 shows that in 2000-2006 the direct Community contribution to the
information  society  under  the  Structural  Funds  will  come  to  some  €10  billion,  i.e.
4.5%  of  total  expenditure  on  Objectives  1  and  2.  Structural  priorities,  broadly
consistent with the eEurope action plan 2002 aiming at wider-scale connection with
the  Internet,  run  from  the  modernisation  of  access  infrastructures  to  general
participation  in  the  knowledge-based  economy,  support  for  the  use  of  electronic
trading  by  small  businesses,  new  types  of  qualifications  and  working  patterns,  and
finally  e-governance.  It  is  also  worth  noting  the  adoption  by  half  of  the  regions
studied of a strategic and planned approach to the information society.

12

Thematic evaluation of the information society , Technopolis, October 2002.

22

                                                
The  successor  action  plan  eEurope  2005  was  adopted  at  the  European  council  in
Seville  in  June  2002;  it  concentrates  on  full  use  of  the  Internet  and  sets  out  to
stimulate  the  development  of  secure  services,  applications  and  contents  which
exploiting  the  broad-band  infrastructure  already  widely  available.  These  new
priorities  put  user  and  uses  in  the  foreground  and  concern  the  regions  even  more
directly.  In  a  particularly  difficult  economic  climate  affecting  some  sectors
particularly, the renewed risks of a digital divide led the Commission to take action
in 2002 in the following fields:

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  development  of  infrastructures  for  broad-band  access  in  the  regions  with
low  population  density,  where  the  market  is  not  in  a  position  to  supply  a
suitable  solution.  State  aid  for  investment  in  such  infrastructures  and  the
conditions  for  topping  up  from  the  Structural  Funds  call  for  new  guidelines,
work on which started in 2002 and will need to be finalised at the latest in the
first half of 2003.

the social integration of the tools of the information society. Several measures
to  counter  the  digital  divide  were  implemented  at  regional  level  in  2002  and
should  be  continued  if  access  to  the  information  society  is  not  to  create  two
groups of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in the future.

the capacity of regions to organise and formulate an integrated strategy on the
information society which meet the needs of users and is based on wide inter-
regional cooperation. Although good results were already apparent in 2002 in
half the regions, the other half has not given enough priority to developing the
information  society  and  are  likely  to  be  excluded  from  the  cooperation
networks which are emerging at international level.

the  national  development  plans  (and  operational  programmes)  sent  in  the
applicant  countries,  as  far  as  they  cover  the  information  society,  reflect  very
specifically the risks described above and show little consistency with policies
adopted  within  the  framework  of  eEurope+.  The  fragmentary  nature  of  the
measures concerning the information society in various sectors of activity call
first  of  all  for  a  suitable  coordination  mechanism  to  be  set  up,  to  include  the
regional level, and at a later date a strategic and structured approach based on
real capacity for analysis and management at regional level.

Finally,  a  coherent  reference  framework  is  needed  for  regional  policy  on  the
information society and an approach needs to be found involving indicators and data
gathering which is better attuned to regional priorities.

Innovative actions

Information  society  is  one  of  the  three  eligible  themes  for  experimentation  in  the
regional programmes of innovative actions. To date, 92 of the 126 benefiting regions
have  opted  to  explore  this  theme  in  their  programmes,  including  diverse  actions
focusing on IT at the service of regional development with an total volume of around
€240  million.  It  is  intended  that  the  lessons   drawn  from  these  programmes  will  be
incorporated into the mainstream Structural Fund programmes.

23

3.

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

3.1.

Evaluations

a)

ERDF

Evaluations launched in 2002

In  2002  DG  REGIO  launched  five  studies  concerning  regional  policy  and  the
Structural Funds, two of which were completed in the course of the year. The studies
are:

– 

Ex-post evaluation of Objective 6, 1994-1999, aimed at measuring the success
of the objectives and strategies of the two Objective 6 programmes in Finland
and Sweden, and appraising the systems for implementing them.

This evaluation showed that, although the funds allocated to these two programmes
had had a beneficial effect on the regions concerned, they were not sufficient to alter
the depopulation trend in those Objective 6 areas.

The  conclusions  of  this  evaluation  will  be  taken  into  account  when  the  two
Objective 1 programmes for 2000-2006 are adapted in 2003.

– 

Interim thematic evaluation on sustainable development.

The purpose of this study was to identify instruments which can assist the regions of
the  Member  States  in  assessing  their  sustainable  development  plans.  The  results  of
the  evaluation  will  be  used  to  raise  the  profile  of  sustainable  development  in  the
2000-2006 Structural Funds programmes, particularly in the context of the mid-term
evaluations.

This  evaluation  showed  that,  on  the  whole,  the  Structural  Funds  make  a  positive
contribution towards sustainable regional development, but that there is still room for
improvement.

In  2002  a  further  three  studies  were  launched,  the  results  of  which  will  become
known in the course of 2003; they are:

– 

Ex-post evaluation of the Interreg II Community  Initiative, 1994-1999,  aimed
at evaluating, for strand A (cross-border cooperation) and strand B (completion
of energy networks), the degree to which these strands have made an effective
contribution to promoting cross-border cooperation, to helping the border areas
of  the  European  Union  overcome  the  specific  problems  stemming  from  their
relative  isolation  from  national  economies  and  the  Union  as  a  whole,  and  to
filling in the missing links in the trans-European energy distribution network.

For strand C of Interreg II, the evaluation is to indicate to what degree this strand has
helped launch and/or improve the targeting of strategies and processes  to rebalance
and plan the territory of the Union.

The conclusions of this evaluation will be used in particular to learn lessons for the
future of the Interreg Initiative after 2006.

24

– 

Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Urban  Initiative,  1994-1999,  which  will  have  three
objectives:

*

*

*

determining  the  impact  of  the  Community  Initiative  on  improving  the
socio-economic  development  conditions 
the
programme and its role as a catalyst;

in  areas  covered  by 

identifying the Community added value obtained as a result of Structural
Fund investment;

identifying  the  lessons  which  have  relevance  both  for  the  2000-2006
programming period and for planning for the Structural Funds post-2006
in the context of enlargement.

– 

Finally,  the  Directorate-General  for  Regional  Policy  has  launched  a  study  on
the efficiency of the method used to implement the Structural Funds, including
Objectives 1, 2 and 3, and the Community Initiatives.

This evaluation will be used to assist the Commission, in the context of the reform of
the Funds, in drawing up proposals for implementing procedures after 2006.

Lessons from the evaluations launched in 2001 and finalised in 2002.

The conclusions of two evaluations launched in 2001 and completed in 2002 may be
summed up as follows:

– 

Thematic evaluation on the information society.

On the basis of seventy regional programmes (as well as three national programmes
on the information society), the Structural Funds appear to have made a significant
contribution in both financial and strategic terms.

However, only a few programmes were able to implement horizontal approaches, as
for  example  in  the  case  of  the  information  society,  mainly  on  account  of  major
differences in the regions’ capacities and programming.

25

– 

Input-Output  study  on  the  economic  impact  of  Objective 1  assistance  for  the
period 2000-2006.

This study demonstrated the extent of the impact of the Structural Funds on the GNP
of Member States benefiting from Objective 1, as well as the effect of the feedback -
24 % on average - towards the more developed regions of the Union via imports of
equipment and services by the less developed areas.

In  addition,  two  important  studies,  one  an  ex-post  evaluation  of  Objective 1
programmes  for  1994-1999  and  the  other  an  ex-post  evaluation  of  Objective 2
programmes, both of which were launched at the end of 2001, will be completed at
the beginning of 2003.

Other activities in the evaluation field.

– 

Cost-benefit analysis.

Article 26 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds stipulates that Member
States  must  notify  the  Commission  of  major  projects  and  that  information  must  be
supplied  on  the  cost-benefit  analysis,  and  the  impact  on  employment  and  the
environment.

In  2002  DG  REGIO  analysed  and  issued  an  opinion  on  some  110  major  projects
submitted to it, mostly associated with the environment and transport infrastructure.

In  order  to  improve  practice  in  this  area,  which  varied  widely  between  Member
States, DG REGIO published an update of its guide to cost-benefit analysis in 2002
with the assistance of an external consultant.

– 

Update of the methodological evaluation guide “MEANS”.

In  2002,  DG  REGIO  launched  a  call  for  tenders  to  update  the  MEANS
methodological  guide  in  order  to  take  account  of  the  experience  acquired  and  the
developments in techniques in recent years.

– 

Definition  of  the  indicators  necessary  for  the  implementation  of  the
performance reserve.

During 2002, DG REGIO specified the criteria for the use of the indicators provided
for  implementing  the  performance  reserve  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  laid
down  in  Article  44  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/1999,  and  in  the  context  of  the
simplification  exercise  decided  on  by  the  Commission  in  agreement  with  the
Member States.

– 

Appraisal  of  the  calls  for  tender  for  the  ex-ante  evaluations  of  the  national
development  programmes  and  operational  programmes  presented  by  the
applicant countries.

In 2002,  DG REGIO  appraised the  terms of reference  for the  ex-ante evaluation of
the national development programmes and operational programmes submitted by the
applicant  countries,  resulting  in  redrafting  in  certain  cases  where  weaknesses  were
identified.

26

Compliance with the principle of additionality 1994-1999

Among  the  general  principles  underlying  the  operation  of  the  Structural  Funds,
additionality, which is governed by Article 9  of  the coordinating  Regulation  (EEC)
No 2082/93, is aimed at preventing resources from the Community Funds being used
as a substitute for eligible national public expenditure in joint assistance areas.

Pursuant to this Article, each Member State must maintain for each Objective, in the
whole of the territory concerned, its public structural or comparable expenditure with
the  exception  of  the  Structural  Funds  contribution  and  in  real  terms,  at  least  at  the
same average  level as in the previous programming period,  taking  into  account  the
macroeconomic circumstances in which the funding takes place, as well as a number
of specific economic circumstances, namely privatisations, an unusual level of public
structural  spending  in  the  previous  programming  period  and  business  cycles  in  the
national economy.

Ex-post checking of compliance with the principle of additionality can be conducted
only after the closure of the programming period. A check on the 1994-1999 period
had to  be  carried out  on  the  basis  of  actual  eligible  public  or  comparable  spending
between 1994 and 1999.

At the end of 2001 the Commission asked the Member States to supply information
on  actual  spending  under  Objectives  1  and  6.  This  information  was  to  be
accompanied  by  details  of  information  sources,  the  deflators  applied  and  any
methods  used  to  estimate  data.  Any  discrepancies  are  estimated  by  comparing
average  actual  expenditure  in  the  1994-1999  period  and  ex-post  expenditure  in  the
preceding period.

As  at  the  end  of  2002,  ex-post  checking  of  compliance  with  the  principle  of
additionality for the period 1994-1999 has been completed for nine Member States; it
has  been  completed  for  Objective 1  in  the  case  of  seven  Member  States,  namely
Austria,  Belgium,  Germany,  Greece,  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Spain,  and  for
Objective 6 in the case of Finland and Sweden.

For seven Member States a significant increase of between 10% and 30% was noted
in national public spending in real terms as compared with the 1989-1993 period.

In  two  cases,  namely  Germany  and  Spain,  the  decrease  of  20%  and  2.4%
respectively in public spending in relation to the 1989-1993 period does not call into
question the principle of additionality in view of the unusual level of public structural
spending in the previous programming period.

In the case of Ireland, although the Irish authorities have still to send the most recent
information, the principle of additionality would appear to have been complied with
for the 1994-1999 period.

Although complete, final information has not yet been received for Italy, particularly
as  regards  the  final  expenditure  of  the  municipalities,  the  average  annual  level  of
eligible public spending in the Objective 1 regions for the 1994-1998 period is below
the average annual level for the 1989-1993 period.

27

The information received for France and the United Kingdom do not make it possible
to  establish  whether  the  principle  of  additionality  has  been  complied  with  at  this
stage.

b)

FIFG

An ex-post  evaluation of  the FIFG programmes  for the 1994-1999 period has  been
launched at EU level by DG FISH. The contract was signed in December 2002 and
the final report is expected in October 2003. Several Member States have launched
their own evaluations, the final reports of which should also be available by the end
of 2003.

During 2002, several Member States embarked on the mid-term review exercise. A
seminar organised on 24 February 2003 brought together the parties responsible for
the  mid-term  review  of  the  FIFG  programmes  for  the  2000-2006  period  in  the
Member States, enabling them to discuss the terms of reference  and methodologies
adopted.  Despite  significant  delays  in  the  cases  of  some  programmes,  most  of  the
final reports should be available by 31 December 2003 in accordance with Article 42
of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

c)

EAGGF Guidance Section

Ex-post evaluations for the 1994-1999 programming period:

Most of the ex-post evaluations were finalised by the Member States and regions and
sent  to  the  Commission.  In  all,  the  Commission  received  seventeen  ex-post
evaluation  reports  for  Regulation  (EC)  No  950/97  (Measures  for  improving  the
efficiency  of  agricultural  structures,  under  Objective  5a),  twelve  reports  for
Regulation (EC) No 951/97 (Improving the processing and marketing of agricultural
products,  under  Objective  5a),  fifty-two  reports  for  Objective  5b  measures,  and
eighty-two  reports  for  the  Leader  II  Community  Initiative.  Some  reports  were  still
awaited in 2003.

The Commission launched four EU-level synthesis evaluations, which will be carried
out by external evaluators. Four contracts were drawn up to carry them out, covering
ex-post  evaluations  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  950/97,  Regulation  (EC)  No  951/97,
Objective 5b and Leader II. Final reports for these four evaluations will be available
during the third quarter of 2003.

Mid-term evaluations of the 2000-2006 programming period:

The mid-term evaluations are under way in all Member States and are scheduled to
be  completed  by  31  December  2003.  The  Commission  finalised  and  disseminated
guidelines for the evaluation of rural development measures with a view to achieving
a  coordinated  approach  to  evaluation,  which  would  allow  EU-level  synthesising  of
evaluation findings. Programmes involving the EAGGF are to apply these guidelines
to  the  greatest  possible  extent.  Guidelines  were  also  drawn  up  for  the  mid-term
evaluation of the Leader+ Initiative.

d)

ESF

As scheduled, an ex-post evaluation of the 1994-1999 programme for Objectives 1,
3 and 4 began in September 2002. The final results are expected by September 2003.

28

The aim of the exercise is to assess the results and impact of ESF action in the areas
described.  The  main  emphasis  is  on  quantifying  and  qualifying  the  impact  on
individuals (direct beneficiaries) and systems (including indirect beneficiaries). The
Community  added  value  of  the  assistance  will  be  determined  in  so  far  as  possible.
The results of the evaluation are intended to be used in the: (i)  drafting of  the next
report  on  economic  and  social  cohesion,  (ii)  implementation  of  the  ESF  in  2000-
2006,  (iii)  policy  development  for  the  future  of  the  ESF,  (iv)  negotiation  of  ESF
programmes with new Member States following EU enlargement, and (v) analysis of
the ESF contribution to the European Employment Strategy.

During 2002, DG Employment continued to support the preparation of the mid-term
evaluation  of  ESF  programmes  under  Objectives  1,  2  and  3  for  the  2000-2006
programming period. These evaluations  are  organised by  the  Managing  Authorities
in partnership with the Commission. By the end of 2002, mid-term  evaluations had
been  launched  in  the  case  of  almost  all  Member  States  and  programmes.  The
Commission participates in the Steering Groups monitoring these evaluations.

The work of these Steering Groups has consisted mainly in drafting technical guides
to facilitate the evaluation of programmes belonging to a single Community support
framework,  and  in  discussing  both  the  evaluators’  methodological  reports  and  the
initial  evaluation  results  on  specific  or  horizontal  aspects.  In  certain  countries,  the
different players involved in Objective 3 have actively contributed to the evaluation
reports  for  the  first  five  years  of  the  implementation  of  the  European  Employment
Strategy.

For  its  part,  the  Commission  has  organised  periodic  meetings  with  Member  States
and evaluators to promote exchanges of information and experiences. In 2002 work
focused  on methodological notes on  the  contribution  of  the  Structural  Funds  to  the
European Employment Strategy and the criteria for assessing Objective 3 monitoring
systems. In addition, discussion notes on the evaluation of ESF horizontal priorities
(equal  opportunities  for  women  and  men,  local  development  and  the  information
society)  were  drafted  and  discussed  in  order  to  foster  exchanges  between  Member
States and evaluators.

Specific assistance to the candidate countries has been provided in the form of fact-
sheets  providing  guidance  on  ex-ante  evaluation  and  specific  indicators  for
monitoring ESF assistance.

As  regards  the  evaluation  of  the  Equal  Community  Initiative,  the  Commission
expected all the evaluators to be appointed early in 2002. In most cases appointments
were  delayed,  but  most  of  the  national  evaluators  for  the  Community  Initiative
programmes  were  already  in  place  by  the  end  of  November  2002.  In  September
2002, the Commission launched the EU-wide Equal evaluation to synthesise national
evaluation results, to evaluate transnationality, mainstreaming and networking at EU
level, and to foster coordination among the national evaluators. The reports, expected
by  February  and  December  2003,  will  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  revision  of  the
programmes.

As  regards  the  evaluation  of  innovative  measures  under  Article  6  of  the  ESF
Regulation, the on-going appraisal of  the 1998 pilot  projects  on  local  social  capital
was  completed  at  the  close  of  2002.  The  evaluators  consider  that  the  exercise
succeeded in reaching out to disadvantaged groups and helping them move closer to

29

employment. The method used to achieve these results was the decentralised delivery
model:  Intermediate  Bodies  gave  both  advice  and  micro-grants  to  small-scale
projects.  Participants  achieved  high  rates  of  success  and  the  initiative  generated
positive results for both the partnerships and areas involved. The evaluators suggest
that the Local Social Capital approach may circumvent problems and limitations in
conventional  programmes  by  combining  continuous  support  and  grants  with  rapid
payment  and  less  red  tape  for  micro-projects.  These  results  are  relevant  to  several
fields (i) European Employment and Inclusion strategies, (ii) European Social Fund
and use of global grants and (iii) project partnership development and operation.

The evaluation of the Article 6 projects on the New Economy in the context of Social
Dialogue effectively started in 2002 and will end in 2004.

A  call  for  tenders  has  been  launched  for  the  evaluation  of  Local  Development
Strategies and Innovation 2002 Projects, and evaluators will be selected by the end of
2002.

3.2.

Controls

a)

Inspections carried out by OLAF

In  2002,  OLAF  carried  out  twelve  inspection  missions  in  the  Member  States  in
connection with structural measures.

Four missions focused on the ESF (relating to cases initiated in 2002). Another four
involved  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  and  concerned  investigations  launched  in
1998.  Three  were in  the  ERDF  area  (two  relating  to  investigations  opened  in  2002
and  one  to  an  investigation  opened  in  2000).  Lastly,  an  FIFG  inspection  mission
related to an investigation opened in 2001.

In  addition,  between  November  2002  and  January  2003,  OLAF  conducted  a  joint
audit  with  the  Directorates-General  responsible  for  the  Structural  Funds  on  the
implementation  by  the  Member  States  of  the  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No
1681/94 on the systems and procedures for notifying and following up irregularities,
as  well  as  the  application  of  Article  8  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  438/2001.  The
conclusions  of  this  audit  will  be  transmitted  to  the  Member  States,  Council,
European Parliament and Court of Auditors.

Moreover, for 2002, Member States notified the Commission, pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 1681/94, of 4652 irregularities involving a total of €604 466 000.

Compared with 2001, the number of irregularities notified and the amount involved
more than tripled13. This may be accounted for by the fact that 2002 was the last year
for carrying out inspections before the closure of the programmes for 1994-1999.

It  should  also  be  noted  that  Articles  3  and  12  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1681/94  lay
down  that  the  Member  States  must  notify  the  Commission  of  all  cases  of

13

2001: number of cases notified: 1190; total amount involved: €199 120 000

30

                                                
irregularities  involving  amounts  of  €4  000  or  more 14.  This  Regulation  does  not
distinguish between fraud15 and other types of irregularity.

It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  significant  progress  was  achieved  in  2002  in
applying Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94, which obliges Member States to
inform  the  Commission  of  individual  proceedings  initiated  in  connection  with  the
irregularities notified and of any significant changes occurring in those proceedings.
However, in certain cases, the Commission has not been informed of the  follow-up
action taken in the cases notified. A large number of cases have been notified without
any  indication  of  the  action  taken.  They  are  mainly  programmes  from  the  first
programming  period,  although  the  deadlines  for  closing  certain  programmes  have
expired.

In  closing  the  programmes  for  1994-1999,  a  process  currently  under  way,  both  the
Member States and the Commission have made an effort to ensure that the majority
of cases notified under Article 3 of Regulation (EC)  No  1681/94  are  settled  by  the
time  of  closure.  In  the  case  of  irregularities  for  which  legal  proceedings  are  still
under way at national level, final settlement of the amounts involved will have to be
suspended until these proceedings have been completed.

The new Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 links application of the financial correction
to  the  reports  sent  by  the  Member  States  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1681/94
and requires Member States to transmit to the Commission once a year a statement of
recoveries  pending.  Application  of  this  Regulation  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.

b)

Checks carried out by the operational DGs

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97

For the ERDF (1994-1999), the systems in the Member States are known as a result
of  audits  in  earlier  years,  particularly  systems  audits  carried  out  in  2001  on  the
application  of  Regulation  (EC)No  2064/97.  Audit  activity  in  2002  focused  on
following  up  major  findings  with  an  impact  on  Member  States’  readiness  to  close
programmes. Nine follow-up audits were carried out to check on the remedial action
taken.  In  addition,  three  Interreg  programmes  were  checked  and  a  fact-sheet  was
subsequently drawn up to provide guidance for Member States in applying Article 8
of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97  to  such  programmes.  In  general,  satisfactory
measures  have  been  taken  to  deal  with  the  principal  deficiencies.  In  specific  cases
there are still problems which have not been effectively addressed.

The  programmes  concerned  will  receive  particular  attention  at  the  time  of  closure
and  if  adequate  guarantees  are  lacking,  payment  of  the  final  balance  will  be
suspended. The methodology for the closure of audits carried out in order to verify

14

15

For a definition of "irregularity": see Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95.
For  a  definition  of  "fraud":  see  Article 1(1)  of  the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European
Communities’ financial interests.

31

                                                
that  Member  States  have  followed  a  correct  and  reliable  procedure  in  closing  their
programmes has been finalised.

Audits to close programmes in the 1994-96 period

Seven  closure  audits  on  Objective 2  programmes  for  1994-96  closed  in  2001  were
carried out as a pilot exercise. Significant irregularities were detected in programmes
audited  in  two  Member  States  (Spain  and  Italy).  Following  the  completion  of  the
contradictory procedure with the authorities, financial corrections may be made and
consideration may be given to extending the scope of the audit work to other closed
programmes  from  that  period.  This  pilot  audit  exercise  also  made  it  possible  to
identify certain types of problem which will be taken into account in the checks to be
carried out on the closure process in 2003.

Audits of 2000-2006 programmes

Desk checks have been carried out on the Article 8 declarations received during the
second half of 2002. In over 50% of the files, it was found that the declaration could
not be accepted, generally because there was insufficient supporting information and
payment was therefore suspended.

FIFG

In  2002  DG  FISH  carried  out  eleven  on-the-spot  checks  in  the  following  Member
States: Spain (4), France (1), Portugal (1), Italy (1), Ireland (1), Germany (1), Greece
(1) and Finland (1). The following types of control were carried out:

three  systems  audits  for  the  1994-1999  programming  period,  including
preparations for closure (EL, F, IRL);

five audits concerning the management and control systems for the 2000-2006
programming period (D, E, P);

one check on projects involving aquaculture, processing and the modernisation
of fishing vessels (FIN);

two checks on compliance and accounting operations (E, I).

– 

– 

– 

– 

ESF

In  2002  thirty  inspection  missions  were  carried  out  in  the  Member  States,  their
essential  purpose  being  to  evaluate  the  systems  for  the  new  2000-2006  period,
following the receipt between June and December 2001 of descriptions on paper of
the management and control systems set up in the Member States.

The  inspections  relating  to  the  new  2000-2006  period  may  be  broken  down  as
follows:

twelve preventive audits relating to Objective 1.

fifteen preventive audits relating to Objective 3.

three preventive audits relating to the Equal Community Initiative.

32

The objective of carrying out at least one ESF preventive audit in 2002 was achieved
(six Member States audited once, nine Member States audited twice or three times).

These inspections made it possible to conduct an on-the-spot practical evaluation of
the descriptions of systems presented by the Member States (Article 5 of Regulation
inspections  were
(EC)  No  438/2001).  The  essential  conclusions  of 
communicated, inter alia, at the coordination meetings held on 28 February  (twelve
of  the  fifteen  Member  States),  while  the  inspection  reports  were  transmitted  to  the
Member States within an average of 8.7 weeks, i.e. in keeping with the good practice
laid down by the Commission in the context of the simplification exercise.

these 

Four audits were carried out for the purpose of pursuing the checks initiated in 2001
on  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97,  which  were  aimed  at
assessing  the  state  and  quality  of  preparations  for  closure  in  the  Member  States
(which,  for  example,  made  it  possible  to  detect  in  time  and  radically  change  the
Article 8 certification procedures in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)).

Two  further  audits  were  carried  out  on  1994-1999  programmes  (including  support
for the national control authorities in France in connection with closure procedures ).

EAGGF Guidance

During  the  first  half  of  2002,  DG Agriculture  continued  the  control  enquiry  into
1994-1999 programmes begun in 2001 with a view to examining the Member States’
management  and  control  systems  prior  to  closure,  with  special  emphasis  on  the
application  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97.  In  2002,  the  enquiry  included  thirteen
inspection missions in twelve Member States (A, D, DK,  E,  F,  FIN  I,  L, NL,  P, S,
UK). In all, the enquiry into the 1994-1999 programmes prior to closure carried out
by  DG Agriculture  in  2001-2002  included  twenty-seven  missions  and  covered  all
Member States.

The problems detected during the control missions carried out in 2002 were similar
to those  detected  in  2001,  i.e.  late  or  unsatisfactory  application  of  Regulation  (EC)
No 2064/97, reconciliation of expenditure problems, cases of ineligible  expenditure
or projects, etc. All the problems detected are being (have been) taken into account in
the closure of the programmes.

the  closure  of 

During  the  second  half  of  2002,  DG Agriculture  made  all  the  appropriate
the
preparations  for 
examination of some 100 control statements (out of a total of some 380) presented by
Member States under  Article 8  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97.  The  quality  of  the
first control statements was not satisfactory and for this reason, DG Agriculture had
to ask for additional information or clarifications from Member States. The quality of
the statements was gradually improved in the course of the year.

the  1994-1999  programmes, 

including 

Furthermore,  in  2002,  DG Agriculture  launched  a  tender  for  the  appointment  of  an
external audit firm to assist it in examining the descriptions of the management and
control  systems  for  the  2000-2006  programmes  and  its  inspection  missions.  The
selection procedure and the signature of the contract was concluded in early 2003.

33

4.

COMMITTEES

4.1.

Committee for the Development and Conversion of the Regions

This  Committee  acts  as  a  management  committee  when  it  deals  with  rules
implementing  the  Structural  Funds  Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/1999  and  as  a
consultative committee when dealing with other points. In addition, it acts as a forum
for  information  on  and  discussion  of  any  specific  points  relating 
the
implementation  of  the  Structural  Funds,  in  particular  the  European  Regional
Development Fund (ERDF). Overall, in the ten meetings of the CDCR and the five
meetings  of  its  working  group  on  urban  and  territorial  matters,  some  75  dossiers
were treated.

to 

The  year  2002  was  in  particular  marked  by  discussion  of  the  Commission’s
proposals  for  simplifying,  clarifying,  coordinating  and  flexibly  managing  the
structural  policies.  Most  of  the  CDCR’s  work  during  the  second  half  of  2002  was
concentrated on these issues. For one them, namely the proposed modification of the
implementing  regulations  on  eligibility,  a  vote  by  written  procedure  within  the
CDCR became necessary in view of widely divergent views amongst Member States.

The results of these discussions shaped the Communication from the Commission on
simplification, adopted by the Commission on 25 April 2003.

4.2.

European Social Fund Committee

The ESF Committee held four plenary meetings in 2002, and the Technical Working
group met seven times.

The Committee gave its opinion on two procedures: the revision of Regulations (EC)
Nos 1685/2000  and  485/2001,  and  the  Further  Indicative  Guidelines  for  Candidate
Countries.

The Committee addressed a wide range of issues relating to the operation of the ESF
during  the  year.  In  particular  it  discussed  the  outcome  of  the  evaluation  of  the
European Employment Strategy and the proposed revision to the procedure and the
timetable  to  bring  it  into  line  with  the  Broad  Economic  Policy  Guidelines.  It  also
spent a considerable amount of time discussing evaluation issues, not only relating to
the ESF directly, but also other programmes where evaluation reports have recently
been  concluded.  Similarly,  it  also  received  reports  on  the  progress  of  Article  6
activities, both in terms of the launching of calls for tender and the Annual Report. It
received a report on the study carried out for the Commission on the implementation
of the ESF in the 2000-2006 programming period, which analysed the support given
in programming documents for the European Employment Strategy. It was regularly
informed about progress in the negotiations on enlargement. The last meeting of the
year was attended by representatives of candidate countries, and was largely devoted
to  discussions  relating  to  the  implementation  of  the  ESF  in  those  countries  after
accession.

The main issue discussed by the Technical Working Group during the year 2002 was
simplification,  which  culminated  in  the  joint  meeting  of  all  the  Structural  Fund
Committees  in  November.  The  Group  also  discussed  other  issues  relating  to  the
administrative and financial implementation of the ESF.

34

4.3.

Committee  on  Agricultural  Structures  and  Rural  Development  (STAR
Committee)

The STAR Committee (agriculture and rural development) met 13 times in 2002 and
acted as a management committee under the procedure provided for in Article 47(3),
giving  a  favourable  opinion  on  Regulation  (EC)  No  2251/2002  amending
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  2759/1999  laying  down  the  rules  for  the
application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1268/1999  on  Community  support  for
pre-accession  measures  for  agriculture  and  rural  development  in  the  applicant
countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the pre-accession period.

The  Committee  gave  favourable  opinions  on  47  rural  development  plans  under
Article  44(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/99  and  on  15  amendments  to  rural
development plans under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1268/99.

The  Committee  furthermore  held  extensive  discussions  over  five  meetings  during
2002 on the simplification of the Community’s rural development policy, which led
to the presentation of detailed legislative proposals by the Commission in December
2002.

4.4.

Committee on the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector

During  2002,  the  Committee  on  the  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Sector  met  seven
times and was consulted once by written procedure (amendments to Regulation (EC)
Nos 1685/2000 and 438/2001).

In particular, it was informed about:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

details of the ex-post evaluation and mid-term review of FIFG programmes

the communication of irregularities concerning the operation of the  Structural
Funds and closure of 1994-1999 programmes

The closure of the OPs/SPDs and the N+2 rule

the implementation of MAGP IV and associated aid schemes

Commission proposals to simplify the management of the Structural Funds

the results of the call for proposals for “innovative actions”

the  Communication  on  further  indicative  guidelines  for  candidate  countries
(Structural and Cohesion Funds).

5.

RELATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS

European Parliament

The  on-going  dialogue  with  the  European  Parliament  took  place  both  during  the
plenary sessions and in connection with the work of the Parliamentary committees, in
particular  the  Committee  on  regional  policy,  transport  and  tourism  (RETT),  the

35

Committee  on  Budgets  (COCOBU)  and  the  Committee  on  Constitutional  Affairs
(AFCO).

In the plenary sessions, it is worth noting the adoption of the following resolutions:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

EP  resolution  of  13  June  2002  on  European  Parliament  resolution  on  the
Communication from the Commission on the impact of enlargement on regions
bordering  candidate  countries,  on  the  basis  of  the  Sommer  report  adopted  by
RETT on 21 March 2002;

EP  resolution  of  13  June  2002  on  the  twelfth  annual  report  on  the  Structural
Funds (2000); on the annual report of the Cohesion Fund 2000; on the annual
report of the  Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession (ISPA) 2000.
This    resolution  accompanied  the  Turco   report,  adopted  on   by   RETT
22 May 2002;

EP  resolution  of  7  November  2002  on  the  first  progress  report  from  the
Commission on economic and social cohesion, on the basis of the Schroedter
report adopted by RETT on 10 October 2002;

EP  resolution  of  20  November  2002  on  the  proposal  for  a  Council  decision
concerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments, on the basis of
the Sudre report approved by RETT on 8 October 2002;

EP resolution of 20  November 2002  on  the proposal  for  a Council  regulation
concerning  Community  financial  contributions  to  the  International  Fund  for
Ireland,  on  the  basis  of  the  Caveri  report  approved  by  RETT  on  8  October
2002.

With regard to the first progress report on economic and social cohesion, in addition
to the RETT the Agriculture and Foreign Affairs Committees also gave opinions.

The  Schroedter  report  supported  the  positions  of  the  Commission  on  a  number  of
points:  the  need  to  maintain  a  strong  cohesion  policy  based  on  solidarity  and
partnership, in the context  of enlargement  and  the persisting  inequalities  within  the
EU;  not  going  below  0.45%  of  the  Union’s  GDP  in  order  not  to  challenge  the
credibility  of  cohesion  policy;  the  need  to  adapt  cohesion  policy  to  the  conditions
which  will  prevail  in  the  enlarged  Union;  the  need  to  promote  sustainable
development  and  territorial  cohesion  in  Europe  and  reinforce  the  polycentric,
harmonious  and  balanced  development  of  the  Union,  in  accordance  with  the
guidelines  of  the  ESDP;  support  for  areas  with  specific  handicaps  (with  special
mention  of 
the  outermost  regions);  strengthening  cross-border  cooperation;
opposition to any renationalisation of cohesion policy; the importance of partnership
and  the  value  of  considering  tripartite  agreements  with  the  regions  and  Member
States.

The report also reflected other concerns: taking account of other indicators than GDP
to  determine  eligibility  for  Structural  Fund  assistance;  improve  the  consistency  of
employment policy, the common agricultural policy, environmental policy, transport
policy  and  economic  policy  with  a  view  to  sustainable  regional  development;
increasing  the  administrative  capacity  of  the  applicant  countries;  defining  the  more
flexible methods of implementing assistance with a view to gradual decentralisation

36

of the management of the Funds, subject to effective and rigorous monitoring; raising
the assistance for regional competitiveness; allowing the regions to implement their
own development strategies; introducing the principle “one programme – one Fund”,
by giving more responsibility to the regions for implementation.

The report called on the Commission, before its Third Report on economic and social
cohesion, to present:

– 

– 

– 

a  proposed  timetable  designed  to  ensure  that  programming  for  2007-2013
could really start to be implemented with effect from 1 January 2007;

proposals  to  improve  the  consistency  of  the  EU  policies  affecting  economic
and social cohesion;

proposals on the future of the Community Initiatives and Objective 2.

Committee of the Regions

Following the signature on 24 September 2001 of the cooperation protocol between
Presidents  Prodi  and  Chabert,  the  Commission  adopted  a  guide  in  April  2002
covering  the  different  aspects  of  the  Commission’s  policy  with  regard  to  the
Committee of the Regions and the practical application  of the programming of  and
participation in the proceedings of the Committee of the Regions.

Within  this  framework,  Commissioner  Barnier  on  12  July  2002  asked  the  new
President  of  the  CoR,  Mr  Bore,  for  an  opinion  in  the  form  of  a  “forward-looking
report”  on  the  implementation  of  the  Structural  Funds,  focusing  on  how  the
management of cohesion policy could be simplified after 2006. This forward-looking
report  was  prepared  by  Mr  Fitto  (PPE/Italy)  and  Mr  Van  Cauwenberghe
(PSE/Belgium) and presented by the rapporteurs in Helsinki on 4 December.

On the same day, the COTER committee gave an opinion on the Urban Initiative, on
the basis of a report submitted by Mrs Sally Powell (ESP/UK).

In November 2002, the Commission took part in a discussion of the working paper
drawn up by the chairman of the Committee on constitutional affairs at the European
Parliament (Mr Napolitano),  on the basis of which the CoR adopted  its  own  report
drawn  up  by  Lord  Tope  (ELDR/UK).  The  Tope  report  found  that  the  local  and
regional  authorities  should  have  the  right  to  make  referrals  to  the  Court  of  Justice
under the subsidiarity principle and that the CoR itself should be given the status of a
European Institution.

The COTER committee also produced an opinion in 2002 on the first progress report
on  economic  and  social  cohesion.  The  rapporteur,  Mr  D’ambrosio  (PSE/Italy),
particularly  stressed  the  disparities  which  remained  at  regional  level  and  the
marginalisation of the less-favoured regions.

Finally, the Commission undertook follow-up work in 2002 to the CoR’s opinions on
cross-border and interregional  cooperation  in an  enlarged Europe  and  on  the  island
regions of the EU and their prospects in the context of enlargement.

37

The European Economic and Social Committee

Following the signature on 24 September 2001 of the cooperation protocol between
Presidents  Prodi  and  Frerichs,  the  Commission  adopted  a  guide  in  April  2002
covering  the  different  aspects  of  the  Commission’s  policy  with  regard  to  the
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  practical  application  of  the
programming of and participation in the proceedings of the Committee.

Within this framework, Commissioner Barnier on 23 July 2002 asked the President
of the EESC, Mr Frerichs, for an opinion in the form of a “forward-looking report”
on  the  contribution  of  the  other  Community  policies  to  economic  and  social
cohesion. The preparation of this report was entrusted to Mr Dassis (GR/II).

Mr  Malosse  (F/II)  supplemented  the  opinion  adopted  in  April  2001  on  the  Second
Report on economic and social cohesion with an opinion  on the  future  of  cohesion
policy  from  the  point  of  view  of  enlargement,  adopted  unanimously  at  the  plenary
session in July.

Mr Christie (UK/I), produced an own-initiative opinion on the strategy for economic
and  social  cohesion  which  stressed  inter  alia  the  specific  needs  of  the  thinly
populated island, mountain and outmost regions.

Mrs  Lopez  Almendariz  (E/II)  produced  an  own-initiative  opinion  on  the  future
strategy for the outermost regions of the European Union which was adopted at the
plenary session in May.

The opinion of Mr Vassilaras (GR./III) on small businesses in the island regions was
approved at the plenary session in April. Another opinion on the future of mountain
areas  produced  by  Mr  Bastian  (F/III)  was  approved  during  the  plenary  session  in
September.

Finally, the Commission took action in 2002 on five opinions of the EESC.

6.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

ERDF

The  priorities  of  the  communications  strategy  for  regional  policy  in  2002  reflected
the priorities of the DG as a whole, i.e.

– 

– 

to provide increased visibility for structural policy and its added value for the
citizens of the Community (the ‘general public’), and

to improve results by ensuring optimum dissemination of information and best
practice to the actors involved (the ‘informed public’).

These tasks are shared between the Commission, the Member States and the regions,
reflecting the different primary target audiences of each. The Managing Authorities
in the Member States in particular have the responsibility under Regulation (EC) No
1159/2000  (information  and  publicity)  to  inform  the  citizen  about  Structural  Fund
activities and projects. An increased effort was made in 2002 to assist and coordinate
these  activities  and  to  pass  on  best  practice  with  the  organisation  of  a  major

38

conference  in  March  called  ‘Working  together:  successful  communication  on  the
Structural  Funds’  which  concentrated  on  Objective 1  and  covered  the  ERDF,
EAGGF  (Guidance)  and  ESF.  Following  this  meeting  a  working  group  (SFIT:  the
Structural  Funds  Information  Team)  of  national  and  Commission  officials
responsible for information met on two further occasions to make recommendations
on  various  issues.  An  electronic  ‘platform’  was  set  up  to  facilitate  day-to-day
contacts between members of the team and other interested parties.

The focus for specific actions in 2002 was better visibility for the Community added
value of cohesion policy, preparing the future of this policy in an enlarged Union and
developing  the  effectiveness  of  networks  involving  EU  relays  and  the  media.
Highlights of activity related to regional policy include:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Publication  of  the  first  progress  report  on  economic  and  social  cohesion,
bringing the debate on the Second Cohesion Report up to date and inspiring a
great deal of press and media coverage.

The level of interest during 2002 in the redesigned Inforegio web-site, placed
it in the top third of all EUROPA sites.

The  Inforegio  newsletter  continued  to  be  produced  on  a  monthly  basis  and
distributed  to  over  60  000  readers.  Inforegio  Panorama  is  produced  every
three months.

Increased use of the ‘news room’ of the Inforegio web-site in the second half
of the year with immediate placement of current event items and news releases.

Several major events were organised over the year including the ‘added value’
conference  in  Brussels  (part  of  a  cycle  of  such  events  following  up  issues
raised in the Second Cohesion Report or the first progress report.); the ‘Cities
for  Cohesion’  event  in  London  -  launching  the  debate  with  local  authorities
about the urban content of future cohesion policy - and the mountain seminar
in  Brussels,  examining  aspects  of  territorial  cohesion  raised  in  the  Second
Cohesion Report.

A  number  of  special  events  were  organised  for  the  regional  press:  seven  in
Germany, one in Seville to coincide with the Spanish presidency of the EU and
one  in  Aalborg  to  coincide  with  the  Danish  Presidency.  All  of  these  were
organised  jointly  with  the  Commission’s  representative  offices  in  these
countries.

The  series  of  special  seminars  which  DG  REGIO  organises  for  the
representation  offices  of  the  regions  in  Brussels  continued  with  meetings
covering the first progress report on cohesion, the Urban Community Initiative,
the information and publicity rules and Interreg.

34 other events organised by outside bodies took place, at which DG REGIO
contributed speakers and/or exhibition stands and which attracted some 17 000
participants overall.

39

FIFG

The information and publicity actions in the fisheries and aquaculture sector were set
within the framework of the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), the first
package  of  proposals  for  which  was  submitted  by  the  Commission  in  May  and
adopted by the  Council at  the end of  December. Throughout  the summer, teams of
speakers  (called  ‘blue  teams’)  went  round  the  Member  States  explaining  to  the
circles concerned and to the media the challenges of this reform and, in particular, its
consequences for structural aid in the fisheries sector. The overcapacity of the fishing
fleet  in  relation  to  available  resources  and  the  impact  of  this  imbalance  on  the
commercial  profitability  of  the  sector  and  employment  has  brought  about  a
reorientation  of  aid  which  required  a  major  effort  in  terms  of  dialogue  and
communication  with  and  between  all  the  circles  concerned.  A  chat  session  (direct
dialogue on the Internet) with the Commissioner, Mr Fischler, was organised in June.

The production  of  a new version  of the booklet  "Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries
Guidance -  Instructions for  Use" « L'Instrument financier  d'orientation  de  la  pêche:
mode d'emploi » incorporating the changes made to the FIFG Regulation as a result
of the reform of the CFP was started for planned publication in 2003.

Image banks were set up for use in audio-visual communication about structures in
the fisheries sector. Footage was shot in Spain, Italy and Scotland. These images are
made available to the media free of charge.

Geographical  maps  were  produced  in  the  form  of  posters  with  information  on  two
spheres of activity in full commercial expansion: the industry processing fishery and
aquaculture  products  (output,  employment  figures,  etc.)  and  the  aquaculture  sector
itself (species farmed by country).

Targeted activities continued, in particular:

– 

– 

– 

participation  in  the  “European  Seafood”  international  fair  (Brussels,  April),
devoted to processing and trade in fishery and aquaculture products;

information via the periodic magazine “Fishing in Europe”;

material on Community structural aid in the fisheries and aquaculture sector on
the Internet site devoted to the CFP.

EAGGF

The Commission continued its efforts in the field of information and communication
about  rural  development  operations  funded  by  the  EAGGF.  The  instruments  used
were in particular the  section on “rural development” on  DG  Agriculture’s  website
and the monthly newsletter of the same Directorate-General, which reported on rural
development on various occasions during 2002.

The year 2002 was marked by the presentation of the Commission’s Communication
on  the  mid-term  review  of  the  common  agricultural  policy.  The  Commission
published this Communication on its website and in the form of a booklet including a
part on the impact of the reform on rural development policy.

40

ANNEX 1

COUNTRY FACTSHEETS

41

BELGIUM

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

In 2002 the Walloon Region notified the full list of Natura 2000 network sites, which
made it possible to lift the payment suspensions for two measures under each SPD in
Wallonia.

The  programming  supplement  to  the  Objective 1  Hainaut  SPD  was  amended
following Commission approval of the financial engineering arrangements.

Two Monitoring Committee meetings were held in 2002: the first, on 27 June, was
for  Monitoring  Committee  members  to  examine  and  adopt  the  2001  annual  report.
The  Committee  initially  refused  to  approve  the  annual  report  because  it  did  not
contain  updated  information  on  the  ESF.  The  Commission  received  the  finalised
report on 20 September and approved it on 25 October, subject to further information
being provided on a project (PASS) regarding which it had been aware of financial
difficulties.

The second Monitoring Committee meeting, on 17 December, was an opportunity -
at  the  Commission’s  instigation  -  to  debate,  in  addition  to  the  usual  management
points,  the  quality  of  assistance  by  means  of  a  thematic  discussion  concerning
innovation and research & development. The debate also encouraged participation by
the socio-economic partners.

Projects already approved continued to be implemented, and selection of projects for
the  amount  of  part-financing  from  the  Structural  Funds  remaining  under  the
programme - i.e. about one third of the available budget - started with the task force
examining proposals.

At the end of 2002, the level of expenditure presented for payment from the ERDF
exceeded €93 million - i.e. around 23% of the  assistance available. The expenditure
forecasts, which had been brought into line with the commitments profile so as not to
lose appropriations following application of the N+2 rule, were adhered to. However,
the  last  request  for  payment  was  submitted  after  31  October  -  the  date  set  by
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as the deadline for submission.

FIFG

Under  the  2000-2006  Single  Programming  Document  for  Objective 1  regions,
adopted  by  the  Commission  on  16  May  2000,  €1.7  million  was  allocated  to  FIFG
measures, mainly for investment relating to processing of fish and fishery products.

By  the  end  of  2002  the  Belgian  authorities  had  not  yet  made  any  commitments  in
respect  of  that  allocation.  As  regards  application  of  the  N+2  rule,  apart  from  the
payment on account no payment was made in respect of this fund. €81 200 of FIFG
assistance is due to be decommitted in 2003.

42

EAGGF

The  procedure  for  implementing  Priority  3  measures  for  the  EAGGF  part  of  the
Objective 1  Hainaut  SPD  is  set  out  in  the  Walloon  Rural  Development  Plan.  The
SPD  provides  for  an  allocation  of  €41.572  million  under  Priority  3.  At  the  end  of
2002,  commitments  and  payments  came  to  €16.320  million  and  €7.532  million
respectively.

ESF

Two years after approval of the SPD phasing out Objective 1 in Hainaut, more than
150  projects  were  approved  for  total  Structural  Funds  part-financing  of  over  €410
million - i.e. more than two thirds of the budget available under the programme. The
main measures forming the subject of project commitment decisions were investment
aid  measures  in  industry  and  services,  financial  engineering,  support  for  centres  of
excellence  (research  centres)  and  maximising  the  potential  of  tourism  and  culture.
The  level  of  expenditure  is  still  quite  low  at  €30  million,  i.e.  5%  of  the  funding
available.

The ESF is contributing €191.9 million to the Objective 1 Hainaut SPD. That amount
is earmarked for implementing a specific measure under priority 2 (maximising and
pooling human resources for research) and fully implementing priority 5 (preventive
approach  vis-à-vis  the  job  market)  and  priority  6  (improving  professional
reintegration and social inclusion) of the SPD.  For example, the  priority 2 measure
made it possible to offer young researchers 39 supplementary training opportunities
in firms, and 15 other similar offers will be made in 2003. Overall, ESF  assistance
within this framework developed satisfactorily and in accordance with the objectives
set. At the end of 2002, 40% of the ESF amounts programmed were committed.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

In the Walloon Region, programming supplements for both Objective 2 programmes
were approved by the Monitoring Committee on 22 April 2002 and presented on 23
May  to the  Commission, which approved them on 9  July.  The  annual  reports  were
brief because they covered a very short period, since the SPD had been approved in
December 2001. The project selection procedure was not yet very far advanced at the
end of 2002.

A  steering  committee  was  set  up  to  draft  the  tender  specifications  for  interim
assessments  of  the  SPDs  in  Wallonia.  The  tenders  received  were  examined  and  a
proposed  assessor  for  each  SPD  was  submitted  for  the  Finance  Inspectorate’s
approval by the end of the year.

For  the  Brussels  Capital  Region,  2002  was  the  year  in  which  the  programming
supplement  was  implemented  and  the  first  actual  projects  were  carried  out.  The
Region was therefore able to submit to the Commission its first two interim requests
for reimbursement.

43

The  Monitoring  Committee,  which  met  in  June  and  November,  undertook  an  in-
depth partnership discussion about financial engineering, and particularly the pump-
priming fund promoted under the Objective 2 programme.

The Committee also validated the specifications for selecting an evaluator whose job
it would be to conduct the mid-term evaluation of the programme; the evaluator was
to be chosen in early 2003 and the evaluation finalised in autumn 2003.

For  the  Flemish  Region,  2002  really  marked  the  start  of  the  four  Objective 2
programmes,  particularly  for  the  areas  receiving  aid  from  the  European  Structural
Funds  for  the  first  time:  the  programming  supplements  had  been  approved  by  the
Commission in October 2001 for two of them, and  at  the  end  of November  for  the
other two.

Implementation  enabled  the  Flemish  Region  to  submit  an  interim  payment  request
for  the  four  programmes,  thereby  avoiding  decommitment  in  time  -  18  months
counting from the decision to part-finance from the Funds.

Apart from difficulties relating to the rules on part-financing by the Flemish Region
for urban programmes (in Antwerp  and Ghent) and a clear problem with setting up
projects  under  the  ESF  part  of  the  West  Flanders  programme,  the  programmes
progressed without  giving  rise to  specific comments  -  except  for  a  risk  of  the  N+2
rule being applied to the ESF in West Flanders.

For  the  four  programmes,  the  Monitoring  Committee  met  three  times  in  2002:  in
April,  June  and  November.  At  the  last  meeting,  there  was  a  discussion  and  an
exchange of views on optimising the use of natural and cultural heritage in order to
promote tourism. Each meeting of the Monitoring Committee was combined with a
visit to projects in the area covered by the host programme, the visits enabling both
the  Commission  and  the  representatives  of  other  programmes  to  be  aware  of  the
nature  and  progress  of  projects  in  Flanders.  In  addition,  a  meeting  between  the
Commission and  the Managing  Authorities  and  a  visit  to  projects  were  arranged  in
Limburg Province  (January 2002) and the  City of Ghent (October 2002).  Lastly,  at
the invitation of the Prime Minister of the Flemish Government, the Commissioner
visited projects in Limburg Province on 14 June 2002.

The November 2002 meeting of the Monitoring Committee awarded the contract for
mid-term  evaluation  of  the  four  programmes  (plus  the  Antwerp  Urban  II
programme).  Prior  to  that  meeting  the  Commission  representatives,  the  Managing
Authority and the programmes’ secretariats had met to compare the tenders.

ESF

Six  programmes  were  adopted  for  Belgium  under  Objective 2  and  transitional
support from former Objectives 2 and 5(b).

Two  Objective 2  programmes  are  being  carried  out  in  the  Walloon  Region:  one
relates to  the  Meuse-Vesdre  basin  (ERDF  and  ESF  assistance:  €158.3  million)  and
the  other  to  the  Dinant-Philippeville  rural  area  (ERDF  and  ESF  assistance:  €58.4
million).

The main aim of the Meuse-Vesdre Objective 2 plan for 2000-2006 is to strengthen
the  eligible  area’s  economic  and  social  prosperity  by  affirming  its  metropolitan

44

status. The Objective 2  SPD comprises five priorities  (plus  technical assistance): to
diversify  the  economic  base;  to  enter  the  knowledge  society;  to  enhance
employability  and  know-how;  to  consolidate  the  area’s  international  role;  and  to
promote sustainable urban development.

The  general  aim  of  the  Dinant-Philippeville  Objective 2  plan  is  to  stimulate  and
provide  a  framework  for  endogenous  development  of  the  area.  The  plan  comprises
three  priorities  (plus  technical  assistance):  to  encourage  and  support  endogenous
development of economic trade  activity;  to  structure  the  rural  area;  and  to  enhance
employability and know-how.

Flanders  has  available  a  total  Community  allocation  of  €186.4  million,  comprising
€148.2 million for all the areas eligible under Objective 2  proper and €38.2 million
as  transitional  support,  divided  among  four  programmes  (one  per  province,  except
for Flemish Brabant), adopted in May/June 2001.

The structural measures are directed at areas undergoing redevelopment, particularly
the  former  Flemish  coalfield  and  the  Belgian  coast,  urban  areas  in  difficulty
(Antwerp, Ghent) and rural areas.

Each  of  the  four  province-based  programmes  can  in  fact  be  subdivided  into  two
entirely separate subprogrammes:

– 

– 

– 

Limburg:  the  programme  represents  EU  financial  support  of  €92.7  million
(€82.1 million from the ERDF and €10.6 million from the ESF). In addition to
this  European  funding  there  will  be  €119  million  in  investment  from  the
Flemish  public  sector  and  €28.7  million  from 
the  private  sector,  giving  total
expenditure  of  €240.4  million.  The  programme ’s  priorities  are:  initiatives  to
promote  private 
investment  and  employment;  optimisation  of  overall
conditions for the local economic framework; integrated rural development of
Haspengouw.

Kustgebied-Westhoek (West Flanders): the programme represents EU financial
support  of  €33  million  (€30.5  million  from  the  ERDF  and  €2.5  million  from
the ESF). It covers the coastal area, which is facing special difficulties due to
the decline of the fishing industry and is therefore eligible under Objective 2 of
the  Structural  Funds,  and  the  Westhoek,  a  former  Objective  5(b)  area  now
eligible for transitional support. In addition to this European funding there will
be  €70.6  million  in  Flemish  public  i nvestment  and  €13.7  million  from  the
private  sector,  giving  a  total  programme  cost  of  €117.4  million.  The
programme  centres  around  the  following  priorities:  developing  tourism;
strengthening the local economic fabric; sustainable inter-sectoral development
and qualitative improvement of the area as a place in which to live and work;
training and the job market.

East  Flanders:  the  programme  comprises  €13.6  million  of  EU  part-financing
(ERDF only). In addition to this European funding there will be €32 million in
Flemish public investment and €13.5 million from the private sector, giving a
total  programme  cost  of  €59.1  million.  The  programme  centres  around  the
improving
following  priorities:  developing  enterprise  and  employment, 
services and quality of life in urban and rural centres, stimulating development
of tourism in rural areas.

45

– 

Antwerp  Province:  the  programme  represents  €47  million  of  EU  financial
support  (€41.6  million  from  the  ERDF  and  €5.5  million  from  the  ESF).  In
addition  to  those  amounts  there  will  be  €81.5  million  of  Flemish  public
investment  and  €7.3  million  of  private  i nvestment,  giving  a  total  programme
cost  of  €135.8  million.  The  programme  centres  around  two  geographically-
defined priorities. Kempen: measures to develop and redevelop industrial sites,
to increase cooperation between local SMEs, to promote ITC and innovation -
particularly through exchange of know-how between firms and networking, to
develop  training  and  research  infrastructures,  and  to  promote  a  better-
integrated  tourism  product.  North-east  Antwerp:  this  priority  comprises
measures  to  promote  training  and  to  improve  the  local  population’s  skills,  to
rebuild  and  make  more  attractive  the  city’s  public  spaces,  to  improve  the
quality of local public services and to promote cooperation in locally important
sectors such as the food industry or fashion and design.

For some of these programmes, implementation of the ESF measures is proving more
difficult, particularly because of the limited geographical area.

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

The  5  SPDs  adopted  under  Objective 3  in  Belgium  for  vocational  training  and
employment,  totalling  €765  million,  each  c ontribute  towards  implementing  in
Belgium the European strategy for employment.

– 

– 

Federal  Ministry  of  Employment  and  Work  SPD:  €69.1  million.  Half  that
budget is earmarked for measures to re-integrate disadvantaged groups into the
job  market.  Other  measures  are  aimed  at  consolidating  employment  in  local
services  and  promoting  equality  between  men  and  women  in  the  job  market.
Implementation  built  up  steadily  and  reached  a  satisfactory  cruising  speed  in
2002.

Flanders  SPD:  €376.2  million,  of  which  48%  are  earmarked  for  preventive
measures to improve vocational integration capacity and 21% are for measures
to re-integrate the long-term unemployed. All the appropriations available for
these  two  priorities  were  committed  until  2003.  The  other  priorities  of  this
programme  are  to  encourage  firms’  and  employees’  adaptability,  to  develop
enterprise and to strengthen equal opportunities. All these priorities have now
reached a satisfactory level of implementation.

–  Wallonia/Brussels SPD (apart from Hainaut): €285.5 million were invested by
the  ESF,  of  which  43%  were  committed  at  the  end  of  2002.  Combating
this
unemployment  and 
programme’s main priorities.

training  networks  continue 

improving 

to  be 

– 

Brussels  Capital  SPD:  €23.7  million.  Although  the  country’s  main  source  of
jobs,  the  region  has  the  highest  unemployment  rate  in  Belgium.  The
programme’s main priorities  cover  combating  exclusion  from  the  job  market,
measures 
improving  coordination  of
employment policies at local level. The level of implementation is generally in
line with the initial programming.

to  prevent  unemployment,  and 

46

– 

long-term  unemployment, 

German-speaking  Community  SPD:  €10.7  million.  The  aid  is  directed  at
integration  of
reducing 
disadvantaged  groups  into  the  job  market,  promoting  education  and  training,
developing  adaptability  and  enterprise,  and  promoting  equality  between  men
and  women.  The  programme’s  implementation  is  progressing  according  to
plan.

encouraging 

the 

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The 2000-2006 Fisheries Structural Programme for regions outside Objective 1 was
adopted  by  Commission  decision  of  21  December  2000.  It  provides  a  total  FIFG
allocation  of  €35.3  million  for  the  above  peri od  and  focuses  in  particular  on  fish
processing and on the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet.

All  the  necessary  administrative  aspects  (programming  documents,  Monitoring
Committee, etc.) are in place.

Implementation is progressing rather slowly. In all, reimbursement claims for about
4%  of  the  total  FIFG  allocation  were  submitted  to  the  Commission.  Most  of  that
amount related to the temporary laying-off premium for the cod recovery plan.

The 2000-2006 Fisheries Structural Programme is in three parts: Flanders, Wallonia
and the Federal Government.

Under the institutional reform of Belgium, which entered into force in 2002, fisheries
became a Flemish Government responsibility.

That  institutional  reform,  which  entailed  major  staff  reallocations,  is  one  of  the
reasons for the programme’s low implementation rate.

The new approach about simplification has not yet had any major impact in 2002.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

Two  Leader+  programmes  were  approved  by  the  Commission  in  December  2001,
providing  for  a  total  allocation  of  €15.9  million  comprising  €4.3  million  for  the
Flemish  programme  and 
for  the  Walloon  programme.  Both
Programming  Supplements  were  approved  by  the  Monitoring  Committees  in  2002.
20 local action groups (LAGs) were selected: 15 for Wallonia and 5 for Flanders.

€11.6  million 

5.2

EQUAL

French- and German-speaking Belgium

Of  the 43 EQUAL Development Partnerships  selected  at  the  end  of  2001,  38  were
confirmed and started implementing their work programme in May 2002. The pillar
devoted to vocational integration capacity represents 50% of the projects and of the
budget.

47

The year saw the adoption and launch of the thematic operation aimed at capitalising
on  projects’  innovative  aspects,  with  particular  focus  on  equal  opportunities  for
women and men.

Dutch-speaking Belgium

As  of  mid-2002,  in  total  20  projects  were  accepted  and  €5  968  897.78  committed.
Most of the projects form part of the employability pillar. A mainstreaming strategy
was proposed and its implementation started.

At European level the Managing Authority decided to be joint leader, with Germany,
of the European thematic group on entrepreneurship.

5.3

URBAN

There  are  3  Urban  II  programmes  in  Belgium.  The  programmes  for  Brussels,
Antwerp  and  Sambreville  were  all  approved  on  12  November  2001.  Each
programme is receiving €7 066 million from th e ERDF. The total budget for Brussels
is €14.8 million, for Antwerp €22.8 million a
nd for Sambreville €16.2 million. The
programming supplement for Brussels was received on 25 April 2002, for Antwerp
on 4 April 2002 and for Sambreville on 20 April 2002. Only Brussels was required to
submit an annual report for 2001, which was accepted in 2002.

For  all  three  programmes,  the  Managing  Authority  is  the  region.  The  Monitoring
Committee for each programme met at least once.

Payments of 7% on account were made at the end of 2001; a first payment request
has yet to be submitted.

6.

CLOSURE OF 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

ERDF

For the  Walloon Region,  the  first  final  reports  accompanied  by  certificates  of  final
expenditure and audit declarations in accordance with Article 8 of  Regulation (EC)
No  2064/97  were  sent  to  the  Commission  from  December  2002  onwards.  The
various documents closing those operations will be examined by the Commission at
the beginning of 2003.

The Brussels Capital Region is involved in three Community Initiative programmes
to be closed for that period (payment of final balance): URBAN Brussels, URBAN
Anderlecht and KONVER II Brussels. But no formal closure request was presented
to the Commission in 2002. The Brussels authorities undertook to do so by 31 March
2003, the deadline stipulated in the rules.

For the Flemish Region, all the final reports (Objective 2, Objective 5(b), the Leader,
Urban,  Konver,  SME,  Retex  and  Rechar  initiatives,  except  for  reports  relating  to
Interreg programmes) were sent to the Commission from November 2002 onwards.
Final  expenditure  certificates  and  final  audit  declarations  followed  as  they  were
drawn  up  by  the  authorities  responsible.  All  those  documents  are  currently  being
examined by the Commission.

48

EAGGF

In total, 16 programmes are to be closed for  a total outstanding balance of €28.356
million. In 2002 the dispatch of documents relating to closure was confined to draft
final reports for 8 of those programmes.

ESF

The  closure  of  Structural  Funds  programmes  for  the  1994-1999  period  is  still  in
progress.  Since  final  examination  of  the  various  programmes’  results  has  not  yet
been completed, the observations below are still provisional.

The  still  provisional  balance  sheet  for  the  Objective 1  Hainaut  SPD  shows  a
commitment  rate  of  over  98%.  Measures  providing  direct  aid  to  firms  (aid  for
investment  and  research),  measures  providing  indirect  support  for  economic
development (converting industrial areas) and optimising the use of human resources
were  the  main  forms  of  assistance  from  the  four  Structural  Funds.  Developing  and
equipping  research  centres  and  centres  of  excellence  continued  successfully.  The
record  on  jobs  created  is  favourable.  Available  estimates  suggest  that  12  000  jobs
may be reasonably expected.

It was possible to carry out education modernisation measures, together with training
teaching  staff  in  new  technologies.  In  the  ITC  field,  special  attention  was  paid  to
young people, job seekers and older employees of SMEs. That assistance gave rise to
new  structures,  such  as  the  centre  of  excellence  for  industrial  maintenance  and  the
advanced technologies centre. Five high-performance skill centres were also set up,
in order to provide Hainaut with a skilled workforce.

The  measures  taken  under  the  Objective 2  Meuse-Vesdre  SPD  continued  and  the
infrastructure  projects  (improving  access,  reception  infrastructures,  R&D,  tourism
projects,  redeveloping  disused  sites)  were  mostly  completed.  Under  the  Aubange
SPD,  construction  of  the  data  communications  assistance  centre  and  the  economic
development projects were completed.

In  Flanders,  all  the  appropriations  available  for  the  two  Objective 2  programmes
(Limburg  and  Turnhout)  were  committed.  For  both  those  areas  the  programmes
centre on promoting the service sector, and particularly generating additional jobs for
women.

The  ESF/ERDF  integrated  measures  on  enhancing  research  centres  achieved
satisfactory  results  under  Objectives  2  and  5(b)  and,  with  regard  to  human
resources, the measures on specialised training for employees and job seekers and the
measures  on  training  in  new  technologies  were  highly  successful.  The  measures  to
develop the social economy are expected to yield a positive result, but considerably
below the objectives sought.

Under  Objective 3,  all  the  resources  of  the  five  Belgian  programmes  were  used,
particularly  on  measures  for  the  long-term  unemployed,  ex-prisoners,  immigrants,
the handicapped, and people with little schooling or few skills.

Thanks  to  Objective  4,  significant  work  was  undertaken  in  employee  training.
Despite successes, it can already be predicted that all the appropriations  of  the five
programmes implemented under this Objective will not be used in full.

49

As regards the structural programme for fisheries (Fisheries Objective 5(a)), almost
all  the  FIFG  allocation  of  €25.4  million  was  committed.  To  judge  from  initial
information, the programme was almost fully implemented.

7.

7.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

ESF

In 2002 the assessment groups’ work focused on formulating the assessors’ methods.

7.2

Controls

ERDF

Flanders -19 and 21 June 2002 (follow-up to a previous visit):

The  criteria  used  by  the  Economic  Inspection  Unit  to  select  a  5%  sample  of
transactions to be monitored do not ensure a representative sample of projects from
each  form  of  assistance,  since  the  samples  mainly  include  large-scale  projects  and
exclude  from  the  outset  all  projects  already  monitored  previously  by  the  European
Economy Unit. Moreover, the sample was made up without taking risk analysis into
account.

50

DENMARK

1.

OBJECTIVE 2

For  the  current  programming  period  there  is  only  one  Objective 2  Programme  for
Denmark.  The  Programme  totals  €617  million,  of  which  €189  million  from  the
Structural Funds (€27 million are for pha sing-out regions), €206 million comes from
the national public sector and €222 million comes from the private sector.

The  Programme  aims  at  creating  the  conditions  for  self-sustained  growth  in  the
regions of Denmark that are facing structural difficulties. The Programme combines
actions  under  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  (71%)  and  the
European Social Fund (ESF) (29%).

The eligible areas consists of five geographical sub-regions:

*

*

*

*

*

Bornholm (Objective 2)

Lolland, Falster and Møn (Objective 2)

Nordjylland (Objective 2 and Phasing-out)

Parts  of  the  counties  of  Viborg,  Århus,  Ringkøbing  and  Sønderjylland
(Objective 2 and phasing-out)

Sydfyn and islands not covered by the regions mentioned above (Objective 2).

The reasons for this model are mainly the small size of Denmark and the fact that the
sub-regions are situated in different parts of the country, each with their own specific
socio-economic characteristics.

During 2002 one Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) meeting was organised,
in  the  autumn.  The  meeting  focused  primarily  on  the  state  of  play  of  the
implementation, including the n+2 rule, and the information and evaluation activities.
The Commission aired some worries that only one PMC meeting is organised a year,
but  the  PMC  decided  to  maintain  this  model,  unless  further  meetings  become
necessary.

The  annual  meeting  between  the  Managing  Authorities  and  the  Commission  was
held  21  November  2002.  It  was  generally  perceived  that  the  Programme  was
progressing  well,  ERDF  better  than  ESF,  as  far  as  the  financial  and  physical
implementations are concerned.

By  the  end  of  2002  the  Commission  had  paid  out  €32.3  million  (ERDF  and  ESF)
which  was  17%  of  the  total  allocation.  Since  this  was  more  than  the  year  2000
allocation, no money had to be returned under the n+2 rule. However, a substantial
effort is needed in order to pay out also the 2001 allocation, by the end of 2003. This
is mostly the case for ESF but may also become an issue for ERDF. But the Danish
authorities have expressed confidence that this will be achieved and the Programme,
especially ERDF, does not seem to face any substantial at this stage.

51

The actual realisation of the ERDF part of the Programme was as follows:

334  ERDF  projects  have  received  a  grant  totalling  €24,2  million,  covering  43%  of
the total Programme allocation. Almost one third of the projects concerns support to
investments in businesses, although this only covers around 19% of the total grants.
The  measure  that  has  absorbed  the  biggest  amount  of  money,  namely  app.  43%  of
the total grant, concerns infrastructure investments in the development of the regions.
In this measure 50 projects received the money.

The actual realisation of the ESF part of the Programme was as follows:

One of the four priorities in the programme is development of competencies which is
financed by  the  ESF. The three  measures  under  this  priority  are 1)  development  of
competencies  in  companies  etc.  2)  development  of  strategic  infrastructure  and  3)
optimising quality of ESF.

By the end of 2002 some 136 projects  has been  supported  by the  ESF  programme.
Approximately 75% of the projects were approved under the measure concerning the
development  of  skills  within  companies  and  in  connection  with  new  start-ups,
whereas  only  approximately  25%  of  the  projects  concerned  the  measure  on  the
development strategic infrastructure and networking.

As by end 2002 total payments for the Objective 2 programme amounted to €8.136
million.  No  decommitments  as  a  consequence  of  the  “n+2  rule”  was  necessary  in
2002.

2.

OBJECTIVE 3

A  €379  million  seven  years  programme  to   support  education,  training  and
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 
unemployment and to improve labour market structures;

labour  market  policies 

to  prevent 

long 

term

Promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market;

Developing skills and training;

Encouraging entrepreneurship and innovativeness.

A further 3% of the budget (€12 million) is  set aside for technical assistance to
manage, implement and evaluate the results of the programme.

The National Labour Market Authority within the Ministry of Labour is responsible
for  the  day-to-day  co-ordination,  management  and  monitoring  of  the  programme.
The  Regional  Social  Fund  Committees  of  the  counties  are  responsible  for  the
implementation  of  the  decentralised  Funds  which  amounts  to  about  75%  of  total
Funds.

52

The last meeting in the Monitoring Committee was scheduled for 24 January 2003.
The  second  Annual  Review  meeting  with  the  Managing  Authority  was  held  on  5
December 2002.

By  the  end  of  2002  some  600  projects  have  received  support  from  the  ESF
programme.  By  the  end  of  2002  total  payments  amounted  to  €52.587  million  or
about  98.9%  of  the  2000  commitment.  As  a  consequence  of  the  “n+2  rule”  a
decommitment of about €0.6 million  will have to be made.

The  evaluators  was  appointed  in  mid  2002  and  the  first  evaluation  report  was
submitted  in  December.  The  2002  evaluation  covered  the  programme  and  project
administration and focused on the prospective aspects. The report presents a number
of  proposals  for  improvements  of  the  programme  and  project  administration.  The
report covers the following themes: planning and kick off, distribution and spending
of  funds  regionally  and  centrally,  innovation  and  coherence  between  Objective 3,
NAP and EES.

3.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The  Commission  on  8  August  2000  had  adopted  the  structural  programme  for  the
period  2000-2006.  An  amount  of  €205  million  is  available  from  FIFG  and  total
investments  of €1000 million  are  envisaged.  Th e  major  focus  areas  are  processing,
port  facilities  and  the  fleet  which  is  in  need  of  modernisation  in  order  to  improve
working  conditions,  sanitary  conditions  and  selectivity  of  the  fishing  gear.  The
implementation of the programme has started as expected.

4.

4.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

INTERREG

There are four INTERREG IIIA Programmes together with Germany and Denmark
(continued from previous period). Denmark also participates of INTERREG IIIB and
IIIC Programmes.

4.2

LEADER+

The total public cost of the Danish Leader + Programme 2000/2006 is €34 million,
including  an  EU  contribution  of  €17  million.  The  Commission  accepted  the
programming complement the 29th April 2002.

As  result  of  public  tender  12  local  actions  groups  have  been  selected.  The  groups
cover 11 500 sq. km or approximately one fourth of the territory with a population of
593 000 inhabitants.

The national Leader+ Programme (EAGGF) was approved in 2001. This Programme
has a budget of €5.1 million, of which only th e 7% advance has been paid by now.

4.3

EQUAL

There  is  one  EQUAL  Programme  (ESF)  (adopted  in  2001).  The  budget  is  €29.9
million, and by the end of 2002 slightly more than 7% had been paid.

53

After  the  preparatory  Action  1,  a  total  of  19  Development  Partnerships  were
approved for Action 2 in Denmark. A major focus of the Danish EQUAL programme
is the integration of refugees, immigrants and their descendants. Other issues covered
by  the  programme  are  the  gender  divided  labour  market,  the  socially  marginalised
and disabled and asylum seekers.

The national thematic work started with a seminar in Odense in June 2002. There all
Development Partnerships took part in the discussions on the contents and working
methods  of  the  national  thematic  networks.  In  the  end  four  networks  were  set  up;
One  on  the  issue  of  partnership,  one  on  diversity,  one  on  skills  accreditation  and
finally one on gender issues.

On a European level Denmark is co-leader of the Employability European Thematic
Group.

The  Danish evaluator  was  appointed  in  mid  2002  and  the  first  evaluation  report  of
four was submitted in December 2002. The evaluation themes for 2002 were; lessons
from the preparation stage, establishment of national and transnational partnerships,
development  of  guidelines  for  the  evaluation  of  projects,  innovation  and  the
coherence  between  the  EQUAL  programme,  the  Danish  National  Action  Plan  and
the European Employment Strategy.

4.4

URBAN

The Århus URBAN II programme, approved in December 2001, is the only one in
Denmark.  The  ERDF  will  contribute  a  total  of  €5.3  million  to  this  programme,
whose  total  cost  amounts  to  €12.0  milli on.  The  programme  complement  was
approved by the Monitoring Committees and submitted to the Commission in August
2002.  The  annual  implementation  report  for  2001  of  the  Århus  URBAN  II
programme was submitted to the Commission in July 2002.

The  Managing  Authority  for  the  programme  is  the  Danish  Agency  for  Trade  and
Industry  and  the  functional  day-to-day  management  is  delegated  to  URBAN
Secretariat in Århus. The Monitoring Committee has met twice during 2002.

Advance  payment,  amounting  to  7%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  to  the
programme, was made in March 2002. No interim payment requests were received in
2002.

5.

CLOSURE OF 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

ERDF

By the end of 2002 there were 14 Programmes open involving Denmark. They were
2  Objective,  2  Programmes,  1  Objective  5(b)  Programme,  7  INTERREG
Programmes (for six of which the Managing Authorities were situated in Denmark;
for  the  seventh  the  Managing  Authority  was  situated  in  Germany)  and  4  other
Community Initiatives Programmes (SME, URBAN, PESCA and Leader). It has not
been possible to close these Programmes as the necessary documentation either had
not reached the Commission by then or were incomplete.

54

An ex-post evaluation of the two Objective 2 Programmes showed that almost 6.900
jobs were created during the period, which was slightly above the target. According
to  the  evaluation  ESF  faced  some  problems  with  the  absorption  rate  for  the  period
94-96, but this improved so that for the period 1997-1999 app. 95% of the allocation
was spent. ERDF did not face the same problems, but as some projects withdrew at
the end of the period, only 93% of the money was spent. As far as the Community
Added  Value  is  concerned  the  evaluation  also  showed  that  the  structural  fund
resulted in investments which probably would not have taken place otherwise. There
was  also  a  strong  indication  that  the  structural  funds  interventions  led  to  increased
networking  and  partnerships,  both  between  private  enterprises  and  between  local
authorities.

EAGGF

A  total  of  4  programmes  have  to  be  closed.  The  majority  of  the  documents
concerning  the  closure was  received in  the second half of  2002  and  they  are  under
examination.

ESF

There are 5 programmes to close for the 1994-1999 programming period. As of end
2002  the  Commission  did  not  receive  any  closure  files  from  the  Danish  Managing
Authority.  Denmark  has  informed  the  Commission  that  these  documents  and  the
final payment claims will be submitted by end March 2003.

6.

EVALUATIONS

The  preparation  for  the  mid-term  evaluations  for  ESF  part  of  both  Objective 2  and
Objective 3 are well underway. Terms of reference was agreed with the Commission
in the spring 2002 and a call for tender was launched by the Managing Authority in
April 2002. A contract was finally concluded and signed with an external consultant
in June 2002. A  first evaluation  took  place  during  the  second  half  of  2002  and  the
report was sent to the Commission in December 2002.

55

GERMANY

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

The nine operational programmes in the CSF aim to create and contribute to a total
of 370 000 full-time permanent jobs,  as well  as limited  jobs  equivalent  to  265  000
full-time  jobs.  Around  1.35  million  people  will  benefit  from  measures  to  improve
skills financed under the ESF.

The  floods  in  Germany,  in  particular  in  Saxony  and  Saxony-Anhalt  as  well  as
Bavaria, in the summer of 2002 caused damage amounting to over €9 billion, most of
it in the field of infrastructure and productive investment.

The public budgets of the affected regions - Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt in particular
- were overburdened in coping with the damage. A large number of Structural Funds
part-financed  projects  were  either  destroyed  after  completion  or  interrupted  during
the construction period.

Even  before  the  floods  reached  their  climax,  President  Prodi,  together  with
Commissioners  Barnier,  Verheugen  and  Schreyer,  accepted  an  invitation  from  the
German Government to visit some of the most seriously affected sites. In view of the
disaster  the  Commission  promised  a  speedy  reaction  with  the  minimum  of
bureaucracy.  As  a  first  step,  the  operational  programmes  for  the  affected  regions
were to be amended and a new instrument, the Solidarity Fund, established.

Saxony, where two thirds of the damage occurred, presented a request to amend the
operational programme under Objective 1 following informal consultations with the
Commission  on  3  October.  The  Commission  decision  accepting  the  proposed
amendment was taken on 28 October. The main features of the amendment were to
shift  funds  from  the  priority  for  productive  investment  to  infrastructure  measures,
including  waste  water  plants,  road  construction  and  railway  reconstruction.  A  new
“flood prevention” measure was introduced. In the agricultural sector higher aid was
to  be  available  temporarily.  The  part-financing  requirements  for  ERDF  measures
were  reduced  to  the  minimum  necessary,  25%  of  total  eligible  costs,  freeing  funds
from  the  public  budgets  for  other  measures  not  eligible  under  Structural  Funds
programmes.

A similar request was presented by Saxony-Anhalt at the end  of  the  year,  followed
by  the  announcement  of  new  preventive  measures  under  other  Objective 1
programmes.

The  programme  for  Saxony  had  already  been  amended  earlier  in  2002  to  take
account  of  the  changed  socio-economic  circumstances,  reflected  in  the  rising
unemployment figures. This request had been made in 2001.

The  Monitoring  Committees  for  all  the  operational  programmes  under  Objective 1
met up to six times in the year. The programme complements for a small number of
programmes were amended.

56

The  Monitoring  Committee  for  the  CSF  was  convened  twice  (in  Quedlinburg  and
Görlitz).  The  social  and  economic  partners  were  directly  involved  in  these  CSF
meetings, implementing a recommendation from the Commission.

Five  more  major  projects  were  submitted  during  the  year  under  the  ‘Transport
Infrastructure’  horizontal  programme  under  Objective 1  and  three  under  the
operational  programme  for  Saxony-Anhalt.  The  Commission  approved  four  major
projects (Highway A 17 in Saxony, Federal Road B6n in Saxony-Anhalt, Highway A
113 in Berlin and Railway Berlin-Frankfurt/O).

The  mid-term  evaluation  team  was  selected  for  the  CSF  as  well  as  for  all  the
operational programmes. Data for the mid-term review will be made available by the
management  authorities  simultaneously  for  all  programmes  by  15  February  2003.
The interim reports at OP level should be prepared before the 2003 summer break, so
that  management  authorities  can  submit  requests  for  amendments  for  the  end  of
2003.

The Commission checked the financial inspection systems at an early stage and sent
comments for improvements.

Annual reports for all programmes under  Objective 1  were  checked  on the basis of
the common structure devised in cooperation with the national authorities.

The  annual  meeting  for  2000  had  been  delayed  at  the  request  of  the  German
authorities  and  was  held  in  April  2002.  The  major  issues  were  information  and
communication, operational problems in the early stages of implementation and the
possible consequences of the N+2 rule. For 2002 and 2003 no losses of funds under
the N+2 rule are expected.

The  yearly  meetings  for  2001  were  held  in  Brussels  in  December  2002  for  all
German  Objective 1  programmes,  except  the  federal  programmes  for  human
development and fisheries, which had been convened earlier. The main issues were
the  implementation  of  the  horizontal  themes,  in  particular  “gender  mainstreaming”
and “sustainable development”. For both themes more detailed descriptions would be
prepared for future reports.

Payments  for  all  Objective 1  programmes  picked  up  speed  in  2002.  After  a  slow
start, programme implementation in general has been running at full speed in 2002.

EAGGF

Six  German  Länder  are  classified  as  Objective 1  regions.  The  programmes  were
approved at the end of 2000. By December 2002 20% of the budget allocated for the
whole period was paid.

The  Objective 1  programme  for  Saxony  was  amended  twice  in  2002.  At  the
beginning  some  minor  amendments  concerning  renovation  and  the  development  of
villages were made. In 2002 flooding in some regions of the eastern part of Germany
caused  enormous  damage  amounting  to  some  €9  billion.  The  Commission  had  to
react  promptly  to  enable  the  necessary  amendments  to  be  made.  A  second
amendment was made to the programme for Saxony therefore to take account of the
flooding.

57

FIFG

The  Commission  adopted  the  operational  programme  for  fisheries  within  the
Community  Support  Framework  for  the  Objective 1  regions  for  2000-2006  by
decision of 30 August 2000. It covers the whole of the Objective 1 area in Germany
and  includes  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €105.2  million  for  the  period  2000-2006,
focusing particularly on processing and investment in fishing ports.

By the end of 2002 about 43% of the FIFG funds had been committed and 26% had
been paid.

The new approach about simplification has not yet had any major impact in 2002.

ESF

In  the  CSF  for  Objective 1,  the  ESF  is  concentrated  on  one  priority.  The  ESF
allocation  is  €5.629  billion  (=  66.34%  of  tota l  public  and  private  costs,  altogether
amounting to €8.485 billion). In addition, 4% of  the ESF is to be spent on technical
assistance.

All  seven  OPs  which  include  ESF  (six  multifund  programmes  at  Länder  level  and
one monofund federal ESF programme) had already been adopted between 1 August
2000  and  1  February  2001;  consequently,  ESF  part-funded  measures  could  be
implemented at full speed in 2002.

The  programme  complements  for  Brandenburg,  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania,
Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony and Thuringia and the federal OP had already been approved
in  2001.  However,  most  of  them  were  subject  to  amendments  and  changes  in  the
course of 2002, affecting among other things the ESF measures.

The  overall  implementation  of  the  ESF  priority  in  the  Länder  OPs  and  the
Objective 1 federal OP was satisfactory. Naturally, some measures showed a higher
degree  of  implementation  and  higher  spending  rates  than  others.  The  latter  cover
those areas which are new for the ESF and which required more time for preparation
(e.g.  lifelong  learning  and  adaptability).  Good  progress  was  made  in  the  areas  of
information and publicity in most of the German Objective 1 areas.

One key area of joint effort between the Commission and the Member State was the
further  development  of  the  common  monitoring  system  for  all  ESF  programmes  in
Germany where good progress was made.

As  in  the  previous  year,  the  Commission  and  the  Länder  authorities  undertook
additional  efforts  to  step  up  the  involvement  of  the  Länder  in  the  European
Employment Strategy and the National Action Plan for Employment (NAP). The aim
was  to  strengthen  the  way  the  ESF  in  those  regional  programmes  underpins  the
German  NAP  process.  At  the  same  time,  the  discussions  with  federal  and  regional
authorities  and  funds  managers  on  the  impact  of  ongoing  labour  market  reform  in
Germany on ESF provision continued as well.

In relation to OP amendments, two changes affecting the ESF have been agreed for
Saxony whilst discussions with Saxony-Anhalt continued at the end of 2002 in order
to respond with the ESF to the flood disaster of summer 2002 which had particularly
affected those two Länder (see above).

58

In 2002 ESF commitments were booked by the Commission departments and interim
payments  continued  to  be  paid  to  the  Member  State.  Total  ESF  payments  for
Objective 1  programmes  in  Germany  to  the  end  of  2002  amounted  to  nearly  €2
billion.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

In general, the programmes concentrate their efforts on measures favouring SME’s.
A considerable amount of funding is allocated to business-related infrastructure.

In response to the flood disaster in August, Lower Saxony and Bavaria took steps to
utilise  the  flexibility  for  reallocating  funds  offered  by  the  Commission  for  this
purpose. In Bavaria a number of eligible areas were affected; after taking stock of the
damage, the Managing Authority decided to reinforce technical flood prevention by
about  €98  million  (of  which  50%  from  the  ERDF)  by  amending  the  programme
complement  accordingly.  Berlin  too  amended  the  programme  complement  and
submitted a request to amend the programme.

Lower Saxony submitted a request to amend the SPD, which was necessary to create
a  new  “flood  prevention”  measure,  with  an  allocation  of  €12.3  million  from  the
ERDF.  These  funds  would  be  used  to  modernise  the  dikes  on  the  left  bank  of  the
river  Elbe.  Lower  Saxony  also  requested  changes  between  priorities  which  were
made  easier  generally  -  before  the  mid-term  review  -  by  the  “simplification”
initiative  launched  by  Commissioner  Barnier.  The  priority  for  competitiveness  of
enterprises was considered to be oversized, and shortages in supply for infrastructure
investments  were  obvious.  Amendments  to  the  ESF  parts  of  the  programme  were
proposed following discussions during the annual meeting in December.

North  Rhine-Westphalia  also  submitted  a  request  for  an  amendment  to  the
programme (in December), having already amended the programme complement by
transferring  €15  million  between  measures  in  order  to  meet  particularly  heavy
demand in the area of technological training infrastructure. The aim of the proposed
amendment was to ensure that the programme met its original objectives in terms of
supporting entrepreneurship despite the harsher economic climate.

Berlin  presented  a  request  for  the  inclusion  of  a  ‘Future  Fund’  in  the  programme
(also Objective 1). This financial engineering instrument should foster  research and
development in strategic economic sectors.

For most of the 11 programmes the decline in economic activity can be said to have
affected the implementation of the measures. One effect of socio-economic change is
that requests from enterprises for ERDF assistance as well as for training courses for
their  employees  fell  behind  expectations.  Private  part-financing  has  suffered  to  a
certain  extent.  Another  effect  is  that  the  crisis  facing  public  budgets  in  general
undermined  public  part-financing  instruments.  This  is  mainly  the  case  in  Berlin.
Across Germany planned part-financing by local communities was at risk.

Hamburg  reported  problems  with  the  implementation  of  its  small  programme  in
favour  of  the  old  harbour  district  of  St  Pauli.  These  were  primarily  due  to  the  fact

59

that  potential  beneficiaries  in  many  cases  failed  to  meet  all  the  requirements  for
obtaining aids.

The  two  annual  meetings  with  the  Managing  Authorities  and  the  Fund  Managers
followed  the  same  structure  as  those  for  the  Objective 1  regions  and  were  held  in
Brussels.  Since  there  is  no  Community  Support  Framework  (CSF)  for  Objective 2,
the  two  meetings  offered  an  excellent  opportunity  to  exchange  views  and  spread
good  practice.  The  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  for  the  individual  programmes
normally took place on those occasions.

The  last  five  programme  complements  (Bavaria,  Berlin,  Hamburg,  Hessen,
Schleswig-Holstein) were approved by the Commission in the first half of the year.

The  Commission  approved  two  major  projects  located  in  North  Rhine-Westphalia,
the regeneration of Zeche Zollverein in Essen and the propylene pipeline project.

The  national  financial  control  systems  for  the  Objective 2  programmes  also
underwent  checks  by  the  Commission  departments  which  helped  to  optimise  the
security of financial flows.

For  ERDF  measures  only  the  Commission  committed  €0.531  million  and  paid
€0.303 million. For the two Funds together the figures are €0.610 million and €0.343
million respectively.

One  of  the  Council’s  major  objectives  in  preparing  the  new  Structural  Fund
regulations  was  to  give  more  responsibility  to  the  Member  States.  The  programme
complements  instrument  should  allow  the  Managing  Authorities  (together  with  the
Monitoring Committees) to adapt the rules of programme implementation to a certain
degree independently of the Commission. In practice, this has proved not to allow the
flexibility  Germany  had  asked  for.  Even 
the  Commission
representatives  in  the  Monitoring  Committees  has  changed,  procedures  are  quite
stable  compared  with  the  former  programming  period.  More  emphasis  was  indeed
put on project selection procedures.

the  role  of 

if 

ESF

Seven Objective 2  SPDs are multifund  programmes and  include  an  ESF  allocation.
After late decisions the programmes started with some delays which meant that not
all the committed budget could be spent. During the annual meetings the Managing
Authorities  reported  on  the  implementation  of  the  programmes  and  their  possible
promotion,  the  complementarity  between  Objectives  2  and  3  and  the  monitoring
system.

Whilst there was no automatic decommitment of ESF at the end of 2002, there could,
however, be a risk of losing funds  due to  the n+2 rule  which needs to  be  carefully
monitored in 2003. One region (Lower Saxony) has submitted a request to amend a
programme  covering  both  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF,  which  has  been  adopted  by  the
Monitoring Committee by written procedure.

The mid-term evaluation has started for all programmes and is well underway.

60

3.

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 2001. The programme complement has not been changed in the
course of 2002.

The first annual review meeting of 2000 had been delayed and finally took place in
March  2002.  It  provided  an  opportunity  for  ESF  managers  at  federal  and  regional
level to review the results of the first year of implementation.

The key results of the implementation of  assistance in 2001 were  then  presented at
the  Monitoring  Committee  meeting  on  31  July/1  August  2002,  at  which  the
contribution  of  the  SPD  to  the  National  Action  Plans  for  Employment  and  Social
Inclusion was highlighted. In 2000 and 2001 68.2% of the planned overall resources
for  the  year  (51.1%  of  the  ESF  resources)  was  spent.  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 256 000 people (46% women) have taken part in measures. This corresponds
to 140% of the planned overall level for 2001. Nearly one half of them engaged in
measures  undertaken  by  the  federal  Employment  Office  and  the  other  half  in
measures  by  the  Länder.  Within  individual  priorities  and  measures,  actions  did  not
start in Germany with the same speed and scope, especially as far as the federal level
is concerned. Apart from certain financial bottlenecks, this was mainly due to the fact
that  measures  under  priorities  3,  4  and  5  (lifelong  learning,  adaptability  and
entrepreneurship,  equality)  especially  needed  more  intensive  preparation  than  other
measures under, for example, priority 1 (active and preventive labour market policy).

By  the  end  of  2002,  a  total  of  €1  316  million  had  been  paid  for  the  Objective 3
programme, i.e. 27.7% of the total allocation for the SPD.

Lastly, the mid-term evaluation process was launched in 2002 and a contract with a
research  team  concluded  by  the  Managing  Authority.  The  mid-term  evaluation  for
the  Objective 3  SPD  will  be  conducted  along  with  the  evaluation  of  the  federal
Objective 1 OP to allow  a joint  evaluation  exercise  of  the  programmes  part-funded
under both forms of assistance.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The  Structural  Programme  for  fisheries  for  the  regions  outside  Objective 1  was
adopted  by  Commission  decision  of  28  September  2000.  It  provides  a  total  FIFG
allocation  of  €111.1  million  for  the  above  period  and  is  mainly  focused  on
processing  and  marketing  of  fish  and  the  renewal  and  modernisation  of  the  fishing
fleet.

The rate of implementation of the programme is rather low. By the end of 2002 about
7% of the FIFG allocation had been committed and about 3% had been paid.

The  concentration  of  investment  projects  at  the  end  of  the  previous  period  and  the
general economic climate were presented as main reasons by the German authorities.

61

The new approach about simplification has not yet had any major impact in 2002.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The  14  Leader+  programmes  are  operational  but  progress  is  lagging  behind
compared  to  the  budget.  Owing  to  the  delay  in  the  approval  of  the  programmes
payments for the national observatory only were executed.

The Commission  has received the programming complements that were  considered
satisfactory. The selection of LAGs started in 2001. By the end of 2002, 137 LAGs
had been selected.

5.2

EQUAL

In early 2002, the German Equal Programme selected 110 Development Partnerships
for  support  in  the  preparatory  strategy  development  phase  (Action  1),  all  of  which
could be confirmed in May for funding of its experimental actions and transnational
cooperation  work  (Actions  2  and  3).  These  Development  Partnerships  cover  all
Equal  themes,  with  a  focus  on  the  Employability  pillar.  In  late  2002,  14  national
thematic  networks  were  established  with  the  aim  of  exchanging  experience  and
results,  and  disseminating  good  practice.  A  key  event  had  been  the  official  launch
conference for  Action  2,  with  Commissioner  Diamantopoulou  and  Minister  Riester
presenting keynote speeches.

5.3

URBAN

The 12 Urban II programmes for Germany had been approved between October and
November  2001.  The  ERDF  contributes  €148.7  million  to  the  German  Urban  II
programmes.  The  six  programmes  for  the  former  eastern  part  of  Germany  receive
€14.87  million  and  the  six  programmes  for  the  western  part  of  Germany  receive
€9.913/9.914  million  from  the  ERDF.  The  total  cost  of  all  12  German  Urban  II
programmes  is  €273.3  million.  A ll  programme  complements  have  been  received
between February and early June 2002. All programmes presented an annual report
for 2001 which had been accepted in June 2002.

The  management  authority  for  all  programmes  is  at  “Bundesland”  level  but  some
cities  tend  to  take  over  the  tasks  during  the  programming  period.  The  Monitoring
Committees met between two and three times: at the end of 2001/beginning 2002 and
late 2002. One city met only once in February 2002 but sent all related information
in a written procedure to the members of the Monitoring Committee.

Advance payments of 7% had been made at the end of 2001, a first payment request
has  been  sent  by  one  city  in  2002.  All  other  cities  have  sent  or  will  send  their
payment requests in 2003.

62

6.

CLOSURE OF 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

ERDF

Closure  was  being  prepared  for  all  Objective 1  programmes  (1994-1999)  and
Objective 2  programmes  (1997-99).  Effectively,  only  the  Konver  programme
Hamburg and the two Objective 2 programmes in Saarland and Hessen of the former
programming  period  1994-96  were  closed  in  2002.  For  all  other  programmes  the
management  authorities  informed  the  Commission  that  the  deadline  permitted  (31
March  2003)  for  the  submission  of  final  reports,  payment  claims  and  Article  8
declarations would be imposed.

EAGGF & LEADER

Final  claims,  final  reports  and  Article  8  declarations  under  Regulation  (EC)
2064/1997 were submitted for three Objective 1 programmes (Brandenburg, Saxony-
Anhalt,  Saxony)  two  Objective  5(b)  programmes  (Lower  Saxony,  Schleswig-
Holstein)  and  six  Leader  II  programmes  (Brandenburg,  Saxony-Anhalt,  Lower
Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein and national network)

ESF

In  2002,  only  very  few  closure  files  and  final  ESF  payment  claims  have  been
submitted by the German authorities to the Commission - three for Objective 2, two
for Objective 1 and one for Objective 5(b). Thus, only one final payment for the ESF
could be executed and no programme could be fully closed by the end of 2002.

This means that at the present time there is a huge delay in final requests because the
deadline for submission is 31 March 2003.

7.

7.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

EAGGF & LEADER

The  ex-post  evaluations  for  the  Leader  II  and  Objective  5(b)  programmes  were
received.

Germany  has  started  the  preparation  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Leader+.  Many
regions already have launched the call for tender.

ESF

The  procedure  for  selecting  the  Objective 3  evaluator  had  to  be  relaunched  on
account of administrative problems. The evaluator was appointed at the end of 2002.

63

7.2

Controls

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97

Saxony-Anhalt, 9 - 10 April 2002, Thuringia, 11 - 12 April 2002 and Berlin, 22 - 23
April 2002:

All  three  Länder  have  made  substantial  efforts  to  address  the  shortcomings  found
during the previous audit mission and to implement the recommendations made. The
Land  of  Saxony-Anhalt  had  still  to  revise  its  5%  checks  due  to  significant
deficiencies  found  in  the  preceding  audit.  It  was  advised  to  include  in  the  closure
statement  sufficient  explanations  of  the  checks  carried  out  and  he  findings  and
conclusions.  In  this  respect,  reference  is  made  to  the  Commission’s  “Guidance
Document on Closure Statement under Article 8 of Regulation 2064/97 for Closure
of Programmes for the 1994-1999 Period” which has recently been distributed to the
Member States.

INTERREG II C Inundation RHINE-MEUSE (“IRMA”); 28 - 29 May 2002

The  coordination  of  the  implementation  of  this  Interreg  programme  has  been
undertaken by the Joint Secretariat of IRMA in The Hague. However,  the financial
control  measures  provided  for  in  the  Regulation  were  the  responsibility  of  the
participating  Member  States  which  could  not  agree  on  common  or  coherent
procedures. This has resulted in an increased risk that adequate checks may not have
been carried out consistently throughout the participating Member States.

The  Article  8  body,  established  at  the  level  of  the  federal  Ministry  of  Economic
Affairs, had only just started to carry out the control work which will be the basis for
the closure declaration. It has still to satisfy itself of the adequacy of the control work
carried out by  the  authorities  of the  Länder  responsible  for  the implementation  and
control  of  the  operations  in  Germany,  including the 5%  checks.  With  regard  to  the
latter,  the  audit  raised  doubts  as  to  whether  the  two  5%  checks  carried  out  would
satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation,  and  whether  the  sample  selected  for
Germany would be sufficient.

64

GREECE

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

CSF  III  and  the  OPs  were  approved  during  2000-2001.  2002  then  saw  an
acceleration  in  implementing  or  launching  the  OPs  adopted  later  in  2001  (the
environment and technical assistance OPs).

Community assistance covered thirteen regional and thirteen national OPs. One OP
remains to be adopted, on implementation of the national land register advocated as a
result  of  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  24  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  4253/88
under the environment OP (1994-1999).

The  programme  complements  for  all  the  OPs  were  received  and  verified.  All  the
2001 annual reports were submitted and approved by the Commission.

The CSF Monitoring Committee met in Athens on 25-26 April 2002. The Monitoring
Committees for the various OPs subsequently held meetings in May and June 2002.
Topics  discussed  covered  measures  on  speeding  up  the  progress  of  operations,
activation of integrated actions in urban, mountain, and less-favoured areas, the mid-
term evaluation and the performance reserve, setting up websites to provide private
individuals with information on the management of assistance, and on the treatment
of  income-generating  projects.  The  issue  of  reforming  the  system  for  producing
public works was also examined.

In  April  2002  a  national  evaluation  committee  involving  representatives  of  the
Structural  Funds  was  set  up  to  act  as  a  support  tool  for  the  interim  evaluation
exercise.

One  major  event  was  the  organisation  of  a  seminar  on  State  aid  involving
representatives of the Competition, Employment, and Regional Policy DGs  and the
national  Managing  Authorities.  This  was  held  in  Athens  in  February  2002  and
resulted in clarification of the two sides’ points of view and a better understanding of
Community legislation on State aid and its overlapping with CSF III.

In addition, the Commission organised a seminar on methods of evaluating financial
risk  in  Athens  in  April  2002  involving  representatives  of  the  United  Kingdom  and
the Netherlands and Commission officials. The seminar helped the Greek authorities
to reinforce their control provisions.

In October 2002, the Director-General of DG Regio had a working meeting with the
CSF Managing Authority, the Managing Authorities for the “roads, ports and urban
development” OP, the environment OP and the “East Macedonia-Thrace” OP and the
unit in the Managing Authority which is the support body for the CSF. He also gave
a talk on the future of the Structural Funds.

It transpired that there was a great need to speed up the project selection procedures.
By the end of 2002, out of a total of €14 633 500 000 (public expenditure earmarked

65

by  the  CSF  for  the  ERDF),  there  was   €4 544 032 000   in  commitments  and
€2 327 073 000 in payments, equivalent  to a take-up rate of 15.9%.

The implementation rate of the OPs varied greatly and in some cases was still a cause
for  concern  at  the  end  of  the  year,  in  particular  the  OPs  “technical  assistance”,
“fisheries”,  “Thessaly”,  “health”,  “West  Macedonia”,  “North  Aegean”,  “Epirus”,
“information society” and “continental Greece”.

There  was  also  an  unbalanced  implementation  rate  within  several  programmes.  In
general terms, while infrastructure work progressed, measures aimed at involving the
private  sector  were  late  starting  up,  as  were  the  new  measures  such  as  the
information  society  and  promoting  entrepreneurship  and  innovation  in  the  regions.
Particular  attention  also  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  starting-up  of  integrated  rural  and
urban development activities.

The above two findings reveal the need to simplify the administrative and legislative
context for the grant of Community assistance. National simplification goes hand-in-
hand with the simplification efforts undertaken at Community level. In the past there
have been significant initiatives in that direction, but they need to be supplemented
by  even  more  ambitious  measures  particularly  where  partnership  with  the  private
sector is concerned.

EAGGF

The Objective 1 CSF provides for the EAGGF Guidance Section to part-finance the
Agriculture and Rural Development priority to the tune of €2 260 300 000 over the
period 2000-2006.

For  information,  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  is  the  only  Fund  assisting
implementation of the rural development OP, to the tune of €1 233 400 000.

Along  with  the  other  Funds  it  is  also  financing  implementation  of  the  regional
development priority to the tune of €1 026 900 000.

The Monitoring Committees met and adopted minor amendments to the programme
complements  for  the  majority  of  the  OPs.  Implementation  of  the  programmes  was
slow and 2002 was a “real world” test of the CSF III’s implementation mechanisms.
Aid schemes for private investments showed the greatest start-up delays. The interim
evaluations  should  have  been  started  before  31  December  2002  but  they  too
experienced  delays,  the  only  stage  completed  being  that  of  drawing  up  tender
specifications. In addition, very little technical assistance was used.

The  2002  annual  reports  were  all  presented  to  the  Commission  on  time  and  they
reflect the situation described above.

During  2002  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  commitments  amounted  to  €385 000 000
and payments to €84 800 000.

FIFG

The  programme  for  2000-2006  (FIFG  contribution  €211  100  000)  was  adopted  by
the  Commission  on  28  March  2001  and  amended  on  23  November  2001.  (The
allocation for 2000 was redistributed to later years.)

66

This  programme’s  thrust  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 Monitoring Committee approved the latest programming document  on  23 May
2002.  Declared  FIFG  expenditure  up  to  2002  was  15.68%  of  the  2000-02
commitments. Although the Managing Authority had already started the majority of
the measures, the declared expenditure was only showing progress in five measures
(especially withdrawal of vessels).

Fund co-ordination is monitored at Commission and national levels and in the CSF
and fisheries OP Monitoring Committees.

ESF

Only  the  technical  assistance  OP  was  approved  by  the  Commission  in  2002;  its
programme complement was also received that year.

All the other Greek CSF programmes were approved in 2001.

With regard to the OPs for which the ESF is lead Fund (employment, education, and
health),  the Monitoring Committees for those programmes,  as  part  of  their  powers,
adopted  the  annual  reports  and  made  minor  amendments  to  the  programme
complements which did not require amendment of the OPs.

The  amendments were  mainly aimed  at  better defining  the  content  of  the  measures
(final beneficiaries, indicators, etc.).

The  commitments  and  payments  made by the ESF as at 31 December 2002 were
€1 338 400 000 and €719 600 000 respectively.

In 2002 commitments amounted to €713 500 000 and payments to €295 000 000.

There  were  problems  in  implementing  the  mental  health  priority  of  the  health
programme. Special measures were taken to remedy the situation.

The  employment  programme  gave  special  priority 
to  modernising  public
employment  services  and  the  education  programme  focused  mainly  on  innovative
action  to  modernise  the  education  system,  in  particular  on  aspects  of  lifelong
learning.

Simplification  was  applied  mainly  during  the  annual  programme  meetings.  These
were  political  meetings  and  the  topics  discussed  there  mainly  concerned  aspects  of
policy implementation and of monitoring priorities.

Additionality was taken into account by the inclusion of the European  employment
strategy  and  the  strategy  favouring  social  integration  in  the  implementation  of  the
various programmes.

An important complementarity factor was the inclusion of horizontal priorities (local
development, equal opportunities, NICTs) and their mainstreaming.

67

In the same vein, local development and rural and urban development activities were
given priority in the regional programmes.

2.

2.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The national OP was adopted on 19 November 2001. Its total cost is €392 600 000,
with  EAGGF  part-financing  amounting  to  €182  900  000.  The  programme  is  to
finance  a  maximum  of  40  local  action  groups  (LAGs).  The  competent  authority  in
the  Member  State  selected  the  LAGs  and  also  organised  two  meetings  of  the
Monitoring Committee, which adopted  the  programme  complement  and  the  criteria
for  selecting  applications  during  its  first  meeting  and  amended  the  programme
complement  during  its  second.  However,  the  programme  incurred  no  expenditure
except for  a small  amount on  technical  assistance.  Implementation  of  the  mid-term
evaluation  system  is  also  behindhand,  having  about  the  same  delay  as  the  CSF
programmes.

Appropriations     committed    under    the    second    annual   tranche  amounted  to
€26 500 000.

2.2

EQUAL

In Greece, out of 271 applications received in due time, 40 DPs were finally selected
in January 2002. The evaluation and selection system included 3 evaluation phases.
Objections  to  the  selection  procedure  or  the  results  of  the  evaluation  were
anticipated.

A special law had been issued in November 2001 in order to define the legal status of
the DPs and permit co-operation between the public and private sectors.

All  of  the  40  DPs  admitted  to  Action  1,  were  also  confirmed  for  participation  in
Action  2.  Most  DPs  were  established 
the  pillars  “Employability”(14),
“Entrepreneurship”  (11)  and  “Adaptability”  (10),  while  the  “Equal  opportunities”
pillar  (reducing  gender  gaps  and  desegregation)  included  4  DPs  and  “Asylum
seekers” 1 DP. All DPs have found transnational partners; transnational cooperation
agreements are already in force.

in 

In  April  2002,  the  Programme  Monitoring  Committee  approved  the  Managing
Authority’s  proposal  to  organise  primarily  3  national  thematic  networks  (a.  Social
economy, b. Networking and co-ordination of already existing and new employment
agencies  and  their  development  into  “one-stop-shops”,  and  c.  Skill  accreditation
systems) and it delegated the Managing Authority to organise a fourth one relating to
the  Reconciliation  of  family  and  professional  life.  The  Managing  Authority  in
cooperation  with  the  DPs  has  classified  them  in  the  4  NTGs,  according  to  the
relevance of their projects to the above mentioned thematic networks.

A Guide for Action 3 is being drawn up by the Managing Authority.

68

2.3

URBAN

URBAN  There  are  3  URBAN  II  programmes  in  Greece.  The  programmes  for
Perama,  Komotini    and  Iraklio  were  approved  in  December  2001.  Perama  receives
€9 550 000  million  from  the  ERDF,  Komotini  receives  €8 million  and  Iraklio
€7 950 000. The total budget for Perama is €13 380 000, for Komotini €12 390 000
and for Iraklio €10 600 000. The three  prog ramme  complements  were received on
5 September  2002  and accepted before the  end of  the  year.  None had to  submit an
annual report for 2001.

For all three programmes, the Managing  Authority is the national  government. The
Monitoring Committees for the three programmes have already met once.

The advance payments of 7% were made in January 2001; all three programmes had
sent their first payment request (in April 2003).

3.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF

The  situation  at  10  February  2003  on  the  closure  of  the  CSF  and  the  CIP  was  as
follows:

Paid: €15 777 000

Payments requested: €223 076 000

Outstanding commitments: €980 306 000.

EAGGF (1994-1999)

2002 was a period of preparation by the Member State for closure of the 1994-1999
programmes. No complete request for payment of the balance had been presented to
the Commission by 31 December 2002 so the Commission has not yet made the final
payments  to  Greece.  The  Commission  reminded  the  Member  State  of  the  final
deadline of 31 March 2003 referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 52(4) of
Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/1999  and  held  long  discussions  with  the  national
authorities to settle the outstanding problems relating to closure of the programming
period.

ESF

1989-1993

5 measures were subject to an Article 24 covering €950 790.

1994-1999

Requests for final payment amounted to 22 out of a total of 24. The remaining two
programmes have been extended to 31 March 2003.

At  the  end  of  2002  additional  information  was  being  awaited  so  that  the  dossiers
could be processed.

69

4.

4.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

Invitations to submit tenders for the selection of  evaluators were launched in 2002.
The latter will be appointed at the beginning of 2003.

4.2

Controls

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97

INTERREG  IIA  Greece/Italy,  internal  borders  (No  94.00.10.009)  and  INTERREG
IIB Greece/Italy, cable (No 94.00.10.001),

mission of 10/11 April 2002

Two projects selected by the EDEL for 5% checks were part of the audit programme
of  the  former  service  ESOE  (special  coordination  and  control  body)  before  it  was
abolished in 2001.

The  procedures  guaranteeing  follow-up  and  correction  of 
irregularities  are
satisfactory, but systematic irregularities have not been declared to OLAF (Articles 5
and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97).

Follow-up mission of 8-11 April 2002

On  the  following  two  specific  points  it  is  still  not  possible  to  conclude  that  the
obligations set out in the Regulation have been met:

– 

– 

Controls for some programmes had not been started by the date of the audit;

The number of operations controlled for some programmes was very low, thus
calling into doubt their representativeness and adequate cover of expenditure.

70

SPAIN

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

With  the  notification by Spain,  in April 2002, of its last programming complement
(for the operational programme “Information Society”), 2002 marked the end of the
first  programming  phase  for  the  23  operational  programmes  (12  regional  and  11
multi-regional) that make up the Spanish CSF. The delay in the presentation of this
complement was due to the fact that the programme to which it relates was sent by
the  Spanish  authorities  later  than  the  other  programmes  and  was  therefore  not
approved by the Commission until December 2001.

As this cycle of programming and its implementation on the ground have now come
to  an  end,  we  are  in  a  position  to  draw  an  initial  conclusions  -  which  is  not  very
positive  -  on  the  actual  time  taken  to  adopt  all  the  programming  documents.  The
procedure used by the Managing Authority to adopt the programming complements
(in  the  standard  order:  regional  programming  document  -  CSF  -  operational
programme)  together  with  the  subsequent  checks  carried  out  by  the  Commission
drew  out  the  procedure  significantly  and  caused  considerable  delays  in  funding
take-up.

As regards financial management, the implementation rate for the first three years of
operation  by  the  programmes  (based  on  provisional  data)  is  still  relatively  low
(48%).  On  the  whole,  this  situation,  which  was  discussed  with  the  Managing
Authority in the annual meetings, does not seem to be a cause for concern, given that
the trend is for the marked pick-up in implementation rates observed in the previous
years to continue. What is more, the fund take-up rate will doubtless be boosted by
the  Commission’s  confirmation  of  the  proportion  of  funding  to  be  provided  by  the
Community  for  a  large  number  of  major  projects  with  sizeable  budgets.  Sixteen
major projects were approved in 2002, with another fifteen still being assessed.

It should be pointed out (see table below) that there are considerable variations in the
implementation  rate,  both  between  regional  (49%)  and  multi-regional  (42.5%)
operational  programmes  and  within  these  two  groups.  Murcia  and  Extremadura  in
the first group and “Information Society”  and “R&D and innovation” in the second
have significantly lower take-up rates. Even given the corrective measures taken by
the Managing Authority in concert with the Commission, the outlook for these two
programmes  is  not  all  that  favourable  as  regards  the  possibility  of  automatic
decommitments under the (n+2) rule.

71

Programme

Programmed
2000 – 2002 (€m)

Implemented
2000-02 (€m)

%
implemented

Regional (integrated) operational
programmes

Andalusia

Asturias

Canary Islands

Cantabria

Castile-Leon

Castile-La Mancha

Ceuta

Valencia

Extremadura

Galicia

Melilla

Murcia

for 

Total 
operational programmes

integrated  regional

Multiregional operational
programmes

ERDF – ESF – R&D/innovation

Information Society

Competitiveness

Local

for 
Total 
operational programmes

multiregional

4 867

891

1 212

275

2 084

1 311

45

1 810

1 310

2 220

35

737

2 172

553

621

162

1 268

886

21

855

472

973

16

239

16 804

8 240

1 012

279

1 124

663

3 079

382

22

614

289

1 309

44.64

62.06

51.22

58.69

60.84

67.55

47.57

47.20

36.02

43.82

45.14

32.37

49.03

37.84

8.00

54.64

43.70

42.53

As  in  2001,  the  Monitoring  Committees  for  both  the  Spanish  CSF  and  for  the
Spanish operational programmes met once in 2002, although they were called on to
make  several  decisions  using  the  written  procedure,  in  particular  to  amend  the
programming  complements.  In  this  connection  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  the
administrative simplification that was intended to be introduced by the new rules has
not  always  yielded  the  practical  benefits  it  was  expected  to.  The  programming
complements, which in theory were supposed to have speeded up the decisions made
by  the  Monitoring  Committees  have,  in  reality,  been  shown  to  delay  matters,  with
any  amendments  to  them,  however  minor,  leading  all  too  often  to  new  amending
Decisions on the related programme.

The  annual  meetings for  this period took  place in  January  2003.  In  conclusion,  the
Managing  Authority  was  asked  to  (i)  ensure  that  the  various  economic  and  social
groups were represented on the committees of the Valencia and Melilla programmes,

72

as they are on all the others and (ii) evaluate the possible consequences of the various
outcomes of the litigation concerning Spain’s transposal of the Community directives
on public procurement and VAT.

At  the  annual  coordination  meeting,  as  well  as  looking  at  the  results  of  the  field
inspections and investigations into irregularities, members underlined the importance
of following up the inspections, at both national and Community level.

Given the vital importance of the mid-term review that will be carried out in 2003, a
major joint effort was undertaken in 2002 by Spain and the Commission to put into
place  arrangements  that  will  guarantee  the  maximum  degree  of  transparency  and
independence  for  the  interim  evaluation  and  subsequent  updates  to  the  conclusions
reached, and ensure that the level of quality is sufficient to ensure the results are both
credible  and  delivered  within 
the  periods  required  by  regulations.  These
arrangements  consist  of  three  main  elements:  technical  evaluation  groups,  thematic
working groups and a technical “performance reserve” group.

Already decided in 2001, the evaluation methods (one for the CSF and one for each
programme) were put to use in 2002 in three key activities:

– 

– 

– 

drawing up of the terms of reference for the mid-term reviews

collaboration in the selection process for independent assessors

compilation of a “Methodology Guide” for evaluating operational programmes.
This document is intended to promote a certain degree of standardisation in the
programme evaluations, thereby facilitating assessment of the CSF.

Three  thematic  work  groups  were  set  up  this  year  -  Equal  Opportunities,
Environment  and  Information  Society  -  to  provide  the  CSF  Monitoring  Committee
with the information they deem useful for its decision-making in these subject areas.
This will certainly guarantee a  greater hearing for these horizontal principles in the
reprogramming phase.

Finally,  in  2002  the  technical  “performance  reserve”  group  provided  for  in  the
implementing rules for the CSF was also set up to lay down the technical aspects of
allocating the reserve, oversee consistency between criteria and validate results. This
group  has  already  played  a  key  role  in  updating  the  financial  and  administrative
indicators for all the operational programmes.

Another  task  carried  out  in  2002  was  the  ex-post  verification  of  the  additionality
principle  in  the  1994-1999  period  for  all  Spanish  Objective 1  regions.  The  main
conclusion to emerge from the Commission’s analysis of the documentation sent by
the Spanish authorities was that eligible public spending dropped by 2.4 % from its
levels in the reference period (1989-1993).

By way of explanation for this, the Spanish authorities pointed both to the measures
adopted in the mid-90s to meet the convergence criteria for membership of the single
currency  and  to  the  exceptionally  high  levels  of  public  spending  on  structural
development in the previous programming period. As the latter reason is acceptable
under  the  terms  of  Article  9(2)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2082/94,  the  Commission
concluded  that  Spain  had  in  fact  met  its  obligations  regarding  additionality  for  the
1994-1999 period.

73

FIFG

In the 2000-2006 period, Objective 1 programmes  in Spain will continue  to address
the same issues as in the previous period, with the exception of Cantabria, which is in
the  “phasing  out”  stage.  Planned  investment  totals  €3122.4  million,  of  which  the
FIFG accounts for €1504.6 million. During 2002 (15 October 2002), 31.88% of the
total budget for the multiregional FIFG operational programme was committed and
20% of the total implemented.

The priority targets for the planned investment are the processing  and marketing of
fisheries products  and  fleet  restructuring/renewal.  However,  budget  implementation
for the priority area “adapting capacity in the fisheries sector” has barely got off the
ground.

The programming complements and the selection criteria  for projects  were adopted
by the Monitoring Committees within the deadlines specified in the legislation. The
FIFG programme for Objective 1 regions was amended in response to the adoption
by the Council of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2001 of 28 June 200116.

As the FIFG and SPD operational programmes are not multi-fund programmes, the
Monitoring  Committees  for  them  are  not  concerned.  The  FIFG  programme  for
Objective 1  regions  within  the  Community  Support  Framework,  however,  is
coordinated by DG REGIO.

Compliance  with  additionality  requirements  is  checked  in  the  meetings  of  the
Monitoring  Committee  by  assessing  the  Objective 1  CSF,  and  is  also  addressed  in
the annual reports. Additionality checks on the SPD are limited to the annual reports.

EAGGF

In  2000  and  2001,  the  Commission  approved  two  horizontal  programmes  (a
single-fund programme to improve production infrastructure in Objective 1 areas and
a multi-fund one for technical assistance), nine regional multi-fund programmes (in
Andalusia,  Asturias,  Castile-La  Mancha,  Castile-Leon,  Extremadura,  Galicia,
Murcia,  Canary  Islands  and  Valencia)  and  a  multi-fund  phasing-out  programme
(Cantabria), together with their respective programming complements.

Three years into the programming period, 53% of the total amount committed since
the beginning has been disbursed, a figure of €1215 million out of the €1984 million
committed in 2001 and 2002.

The  programming  complements  were  amended  for  the  following  Autonomous
Communities:  Canary  Islands  (rate  of  part-financing  for  measures  altered)  and
Castile-Leon (financing table amended).

16

OJ L 198, 21.07.2001.

74

                                                
ESF

Part  of  the  delay  in  implementing  the  ESF  Objective 1  programmes  in  2000  was
made good by faster implementation rates in 2001 and especially 2002. Most of the
different  forms  of  assistance  were  being  implemented  at  a  reasonably  satisfactory
pace and the programmes could indeed be said to be advancing smoothly throughout
this year.

the  entire  programmed  ESF  budget 

for  2002  was  committed
Indeed, 
(€1 293 200 000), with  the  Commission  receiving  in  that  year  42  payment  requests
under the ESF for a total of €1 663 million.

The commitments and payments made under that Fund as at 31 December 2002 were
€3 813.5 million and €2 240.4 million respectively.

(Iniciativa  Empresarial,  Lucha  contra 

The  Monitoring  Committee  for  the  four  multi-regional  operational  programmes
overseen  by  DG Employment 
la
discriminación, Fomento del empleo and Sistemas de formación profesional), which
account  for  60%  of  the  total  ESF  contribution  for  the  2000-2006  period  under  the
Objective 1 CSF, met on 17 July 2002 to adopt the 2001 annual reports and make the
corresponding alterations to all the programming complements. The annual meetings
of  the  multi-regional  programmes  took  place  on  17  and  18  December  2002.  The
main subjects discussed were  as  follows: the implementation rate of the assistance;
the  implementation  of  the  horizontal  priorities;  the  incorporation  of  the  European
Strategy  for  Employment  into  the  programmes;  reviewing  and  improving  the
selection  criteria;  fine-tuning  the  indicators  for  the  performance  reserve,  and
generally improving the quality of the information in the annual reports. The annual
meetings for the other Objective 1 programmes were held in January 2003.

It  was  mainly  the  basic  education  programmes  that  increased  their  implementation
rates,  although  the  standard  vocational-training  schemes  are  now  making  ground
after  earlier  delays.  As  regards  the  equal-opportunities  schemes,  while  rates  of
funding implementation have varied from one programme to another, on the whole
an overall effort still needs to be made. As for the implementation of the measures to
help  immigrants,  these  have  in  general  fallen  somewhat  behind  schedule.  And  the
disbursal of the budget for the programme “Sistemas de formación profesional” has
struggled to make any headway at all as a result of the delay in adopting the law on
the National System of Qualifications.

The  main  areas  in  which  the  simplification  measures  have  been  applied  are  the
annual  meetings  for  the  operational  programmes.  These  meetings  concentrated  on
strategic  aspects,  with  the  main  issues  discussed  being  the  various  aspects  of
implementing policies and monitoring the chosen priorities.

A  proactive  approach  was  taken  to  checking  compliance  with  the  additionality
principle and assessing the value added by the ESF portion of the part-financing for
these  programmes.  To  this  end,  a  number  of  inspection  visits  to  final  beneficiaries
were made in 2002.

75

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

Implementation rate – general issues

During 2002, seven SPDs continued to disburse funding at the rate achieved in 2001
after a brisk start in 2000. Work progressed as anticipated on creating the regulatory
structure necessary for the as programmes to be monitored.

As  in  2001,  the  SPD  Monitoring  Committees  met  only  once,  each  time  in  the
region in question. These meetings were held between 22 May 2002 (Aragon) and 9
July  (Rioja)  and  were  attended  by  representatives  of  the  relevant  national  public
administrations,  administrative  staff  from  the  Commission  and  a  wide  range  of
partnership  bodies  (trades  unions,  trade  bodies,  local  authorities  and  other  regional
bodies responsible for environmental-protection and equal opportunities).

The meetings looked at the 2001 implementation reports as well as certain aspects
of implementation relating to the first few months of 2002.

The observations made by  the Commission  and other participants  were  accepted to
varying degrees by the Managing Authority, which had communicated these reports
to the Commission between 30 July and 2 August. After analysing them as required,
the  Commission  declared  them  to  be  satisfactory  and  informed  the  Managing
Authority  to  that  effect  in  a  series  of  notifications  sent  during  a  period  from  25
September (Balearic islands and Basque Country) to 3 October (Catalonia).

The  programming  complements  were  amended  at  the  end  of  2002  to  include  (i)
several  aspects  of  the  programmes  that  had  been  approved  at  the  above-mentioned
meetings  of  the  Committees  (improving  the  selection  criteria  for  projects  and
tightening up certain aspects of the contents and part-financing for certain measures,
etc.), and (ii) the simplified lists of indicators of physical implementation contained
in each complement for purposes of allocating the performance reserve at the end of
2003  (as  part  of  the  measures  to  simplify  the  programmes  approved  at  the  end  of
2002).

In addition, as a result both of this simplification campaign and of the meetings held
between  the  Commission  and  the  Managing  Authority  at  the  end  of  2002,  the
management  and  financial-implementation  indicators  applying  to  the  seven  SPDs
were made more precise. The amending Decision to this effect is due to be signed in
early 2003.

At  the  end  of  the  year,  on  the  basis  of  (i)  the  annual  reports  (ii)  other  documents
relating  to  the  SPDs  and  (iii)  the  simplification  criteria  for  the  programmes  in
question,  the  Commission  drew  up  the  supporting  documents  for  the  annual
meetings,  to  be  held  in  Madrid  in  January  2003,  initially  as  a  plenary  session  (on
issues common to all 7 SPDs)  and  then  splitting  into  a  number  of  sessions  dealing
with specific issues.

The National coordination office met on 17 October in Madrid. This is an ad hoc
body in which the regional administrations and the Commission participate, set up by
the Managing Authority to coordinate certain aspects of information, monitoring and
evaluation  for  the  SPDs.  Its  meeting  assessed  the  state  of  play  regarding  the  seven

76

mid-term reviews (see also chapter on “Evaluation”) and the financial information on
the individual SPDs and the other Structural Fund assistance in Objective 2 regions.

Two amendments to SPDs were analysed at the end of 2002. The first of these was
the Basque Country SPD, which experienced a minor re-allocation of appropriations
between  funding  priorities,  to  reflect  the  re-allocation  of  several  infrastructure
projects  run  at  local  and  provincial  level  to  the  correct  measures.  Secondly,  the
Balearic  Islands  SPD,  where,  to  improve  the  management  of  the  assistance,
appropriations were  transferred from  the  ESF to the ERDF and alterations made  to
ERDF  appropriations  by  priority  (the  budget  for  the  “environment”  priority  was
increased and those for the priorities “competitiveness and employment” and “local
and urban development” reduced). The amending Decisions should have been signed
by around March 2003.

Implementation rate – take-up of appropriations

By 31  December 2002,  out of the total  for the 2000-2006 period, the percentage  of
committed  funding  disbursed  to  final  beneficiaries  varied  -  for  ERDF  assistance
between  15.92%  (Balearic  Islands)  and  36.13%  (Navarre),  and  for  ESF  assistance
between 3.77% (Catalonia) and 19.60% (Madrid).

SPD

% ERDF

% ESF

Aragon

Balearic
Islands

Catalonia

Madrid

Navarre

Basque
Country

Rioja

20.17

15.92

22.00

19.07

36.13

32.36

21.08

13.67

13.53

 3.77

19.60

16.92

11.81

 9.23

The  implementation  of  ERDF  assistance  can  thus  be  said  to  be  progressing  at  a
satisfactory  pace,  with  even  the  Navarre  and  Basque  Country  assistance  packages
having by  year-end 2002 attained the level of disbursement necessary to  avoid  any
decommitments when funding implementation is checked at the beginning of 2004.
The  only  exception  to  this  generally  positive  assessment  is  the  assistance  for  the
Balearic Islands, and this will, as pointed out, be amended.

Implementation of ESF assistance, on the other hand, with the possible exception of
Madrid and Navarre, is behind schedule. The ESF accounts for only a limited portion
of the financing in each SPD (22% for Catalonia, spread across several priorities, and
5-6%  for  the  other  regions,  all  in  the  funding  priority  “technology,  research  and
innovation”).

To  remedy  this  situation,  a  portion  of  the  appropriations  originally  allocated  to  the
ESF  will  be  re-allocated  to  the  ERDF  in  2003.  The  details  of  this  transfer  will  be

77

agreed  on in next  year’s meetings of  the  Monitoring  Committees;  some  SPDs  may
even  have  their  ESF  funding  withdrawn  altogether.  This  transfer  has  already  been
confirmed in the amendment to the Balearic Islands SPD.

Even pace of implementation

For  the  seven  SPDs  and  six  priorities  funded  under  the  ERDF,  implementation  is
progressing in different ways.

For the  SPDs  as a  whole, disbursements for priorities 3 (“technology, research  and
innovation”)  and  4  (“transport  and  energy”)  are  more  advanced,  for  example,  than
those  for  priorities  1  (“competitiveness  and  employment”)  and  5  (“rural  and  urban
development”).

However, the slower programmes still do not seem to be overly behind schedule; the
delays  are  partly  due  to  implementation  periods  that  are  generally  longer  than  the
average  necessary  for  aid  schemes  in  the  private  sector  (priority  1)  and  projects
managed at local level (priority 5).

Within  each  SPD,  the  disparities  between  priorities  are  less  marked  in  Catalonia,
Aragon and the Basque Country than in the other regions. It should still, however, be
noted that some priorities are making extremely good progress, in particular priority
4  (“transport”)  in  Navarre,  but  also  priorities  2  (“environment”)  in  the  Balearic
Islands and 1 (“competitiveness and employment”) in the Basque Country.

On 31 December, overall expenditure per priority for the 2000-2006 period as a
whole was as follows:

SPD

%
Priority 1

%
Priority 2

%
Priority 3

%
Priority
4

%
Priority
5

%
Priority
6

Aragon

Balearic
Islands

Catalonia

Madrid

Navarre

Basque
Country

22.61

17.45

16.14

20.66

27.40

40.61

7.98

56.48

16.17

1.47

2.78

37.90

20.58

8.52

26.13

23.89

26.62

27.48

23.59

5.64

25.66

1.48

93.78

31.98

23.98

3.56

19.17

33.14

2.99

25.25

25.77

17.93

24.02

11.44

0.60

22.14

Rioja

9.65

2.68

27.88

34.44

7.84

13.13

Finally,  even  though  the  amounts  of  Objective 2  funding  earmarked  for  Spain’s
transitional  areas  are  low  by  the  standards  of  other  Member  States  (apart  from  the
Madrid SPD), these areas’ disbursement rates lag behind those of areas still eligible
for “full” funding.

78

Mid-term review

Similarly  to  the  arrangements  for  Objective 1  programmes,  the  mid-term  review  of
the Objective 2 SPDs is carried out by the technical evaluation groups, the technical
evaluation coordination group and the thematic working groups.

Created  in  2001,  the  technical  evaluation  groups  for  each  SPD,  supported  by  the
technical  evaluation  coordination  group  (part  of  the  National  Coordination  Office),
carried out the following tasks in 2002:

– 

– 

– 

drew up the terms of reference.

helped in the process of selecting independent evaluators

produced a “Methodological Guide” for evaluating SPDs, in order to clarify the
expected content of the evaluations and to standardise the work somewhat.

Two thematic working groups were formed, representing the two horizontal priorities
in  the  programming,  equal  opportunities  and  environment.  Their  remit  was  to
provide information to aid decision-making in these areas and increase the degree to
which  these  two  priorities  are  taken  into  account  in  the  2004  reprogramming
exercise.

ESF

Implementation rate:

The total amount contributed by the Community for these programmes in 2000-2006
is €2 725 million, with the ESF contributing just €336 million (of which €257 million
is accounted for by the Catalonia SPD alone).

Most of the programmes are behind in disbursing their funding.

All  of  the  ESF  funding  programmed  for  2002  was  committed  by  DG Employment
(€49.08 million).

In 2002, 14 payment requests were received and processed, totalling €21.01 million.

The  commitments  and  disbursements  made  by  the  ESF  as  at  31  December  2002
were, respectively, €144.3 million and €44.5 million.

Given  the  low  implementation  rate,  in  the  annual  meetings  (17  January  2003)  the
Spanish authorities proposed transferring the ESF portion in measure 3.1 (R&D) to
the ERDF for 2003.

Even pace of implementation:

The implementation of measure 3.1 (R&D), present in all the SPDs,  is well behind
schedule.  In  Catalonia,  the  slowest  priorities  to  be  implemented  are  1  and  5.
However, a field inspection in Catalonia in October 2002 confirmed that the problem
was mainly due to a delay in certifying expenditure.

79

Coordination:

The annual meetings discussed the need for a timetable of the Monitoring Committee
and  annual  meetings  and  the  activities  of  the  technical  groups,  in  an  attempt  to
coordinate the dates of meetings for Objectives 2 and 3.

Additionality:

There  are  seven  Objective 2  SPDs  (Aragon,  Balearic  Islands,  Catalonia,  Navarre,
Basque  Country  and  Rioja).  In  six  of  these  SPDs  the  ESF  contributes  only  to
measure 3.1 (R&D). In the Catalonia SPD, however, the ESF participates in several
priorities.

As  regards  measure  3.1,  DG Employment  insisted  that  the  Spanish  authorities  put
into place measures to ensure the application of research results in the manufacturing
sector, although this proved more difficult than expected.

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

Implementation rate:

The  Objective 3  CSF  takes  the  form  of  twelve  operational  programmes  (seven
regional and five multi-regional / thematic).

These programmes have a range of goals, including: (i) supporting the development
and  improvement  of  vocational  training  systems  (ii)  creating  jobs  and  helping
reintegrate  the  unemployed  into  the  labour  market  by  prioritising  a  pro-active
approach  in  the  form  of  jobfinder  schemes,  and  (iii)  local  initiatives  promoting  a
series  of  goals  such  as  employment,  participation  by  women  in  the  labour  market
to  combat  gender  discrimination),  employment
(combined  with  measures 
opportunities  for  the  socially  excluded,  entrepreneurship,  and  lifelong  learning  for
working people.

In 2002, a total of €324.4 million was committed fo r Objective 3. In the same period,
fifteen  interim  payment  requests  under  the  regional  Objective 3  programmes  were
received,  totalling  €139.1  million,  and  a  further  13  requests  for  the  multi-regional
programmes, for a total of €259.6 million.

Commitments  and  disbursements  made  by  the  ESF  as  at  31  December  2002  were,
respectively, €954.3 million and €546.9 million.

Scrutiny of the ESF assistance was guaranteed by a  combination of the  Monitoring
Committees, annual meetings, analysis of the annual reports, field visits and various
meetings with the Spanish authorities and the Commission.

On  17  and  18  December  2002,  the  second  annual  meetings  of  the  Objective 3
programmes  were  held,  together  with  those  of  the  four  Objective 1  programmes
Fomento  del  Empleo,  Sistemas  of  Formación  Profesional,  Iniciativa  Empresarial  y
Formación  Continua  and  Lucha  contra  la  Discriminación.  The  idea  was  to  reach
some common conclusions and look at which corrective measures could be taken to
remedy  the  weaknesses  uncovered.  In  this  connection,  the  analysis  of  the  annual

80

reports  played  a  preventive  role  in  identifying  problems  and  proposing  possible
solutions. The main subjects discussed at these meetings were: (i) how to incorporate
the  horizontal  priorities  and  the  European  strategy  for  employment  into  the
operational programmes, (ii) how to revise and improve the selection criteria, (iii) the
state  of  play  regarding  the  evaluations  of  the  programmes  and  (iv)  generally
improving the information contained in the annual reports.

In  2002,  the  Commission  began  making  field  visits  to  the  various  programmes.
These were intended to gather information on the different programme managers in
order  to  strengthen  the  partnership,  starting  in  the  Autonomous  Community  of
Catalonia  and  moving  on  to  cover  them  all.  The  goal  is  to  improve  collaboration
between  the  Commission,  the  national/regional/local  authorities  and  the  different
programme managers.

Even pace of implementation:

For  the  five  multi-regional  programmes,  implementation  can  be  regarded  as
satisfactory  overall,  albeit  with  a  certain  imbalance  between  programmes  and  even
between  the  different priorities  within  each programme.  The implementation  of  the
programme for vocational training systems (Sistemas de Formación Profesional) was
well  behind  schedule,  due  to  the  delay  in  the  adoption  of  the  law  on  a  National
System  of  Qualifications,  a  key  prerequisite  for  the  implementation  of  this
programme.

As  regards  the  regional  programmes,  implementation  is  also  satisfactory,  although
discrepancies exist between individual programmes.

Simplification:

As  part  of  its  simplification  drive,  the  Commission,  together  with  the  Spanish
authorities,  overhauled  the  principles  on  which  the  annual  meetings  are  organised.
The accent is now on questions of a more strategic nature. The number of points to
be  dealt  with  for  each  strand  of  assistance  has  been  limited  and  priority  given  to
points that are strategically important for the assistance in question, by dint either of
their contents or their cross-cutting relevance.

Additionality:

the
A  pro-active  approach  was 
complementarily principle for the ESF  portion  of  part-financing, in particular  in  the
form of field visits to certain final beneficiaries in 2002.

towards  checking  compliance  with 

taken 

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

In 2000-2006, the areas not receiving Objective 1 funding in Spain were the same as
in  the  previous  period.  Planned  investment  in  these  areas  is  set  to  total  €824.5
million, of which €207.5 million under the FIFG . Of the total programmed funding
under the Single Programming Document for Spanish non-Objective 1 FIFG regions,
38.26% was committed and 14.89% implemented (15 October 2002).

81

Planned  investment  would  be  concentrated  on  the  processing  and  marketing  of
fisheries  products  and  fleet  renewal.  However,  the  implementation  of  the  funding
priority strand “adapting capacity” barely made any headway.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Leader+

In  2001  and  2002,  the  Commission  approved  18  Leader+  programmes  (one
horizontal and 17 regional programmes, or one for each  Autonomous  Community).
Of  these,  17  were  allocated  a  global  grant,  with  the  remaining  programme  (the
Basque  Country)  receiving  a  programming  complement.  In  all,  150  local  action
groups are planned.

After  2  years  of  implementation,  23%  of  the  total  committed  since  the  start  of  the
programming  period  has  been  disbursed,  equal  to  €35  million  of  the  €148  million
committed in 2001 and 2002. And while most of the programmes were approved in
2001,  the  financing  agreements  (which  set  down  the  details  of  the  global  grants)
were  not  sent  to  the  Commission  and  concluded  until  some  way  into  2002,  which
explains the delay in implementing the programmes.

5.2

Equal

In  2002  the  160  development  partnerships  in  Spain  selected  for  Action  1  received
confirmation  of  their  passage  to  Action  2  (implementation).  Gender  equality  is  the
theme  chosen  by  34%  of  the  selected  projects  -  this  accounts  for  31%  of  the  total
budget  for  projects  and  confirms  the  priority  given  to  equal  opportunities  issues  in
the  Spanish  Equal  programme.  The  Monitoring  Committee  set  up  a  technical
technique evaluation  committee, which started  work  on  the evaluations. A  working
group  on  “mainstreaming”  was  also  created.  As  part  of  Action  3,  the  plan  for
spreading and building on good practice is concentrating on three thematic priorities:
employability  and  tackling  racism,  entrepreneurship  and  adaptability,  and  equal
opportunities.  Promotional  measures  include  the  new  Equal  magazine  and  the
presentation of the Spanish Equal Initiative in Andalusia, an event attended by some
500 people.

At  European  level,  the  Spanish  Managing  Authority  undertook  to  jointly  lead  a
European thematic group on equal opportunities, together with its Italian counterpart.

5.3

Urban

All 10 Urban II Programmes for Spain were adopted by the Commission before the
end of December 2001.

The  total  eligible  cost  of  all  10  Urban  II  programmes  is  €179 973 333,  with  a
Community contribution of €112 600 000.

The  Managing  Authority  for  the  Spanish  Urban  II  programmes  is  the  Spanish
Ministry  of  Finance  (Ministerio  de  Hacienda)  in  partnership  with  the  local
authorities (Ayuntamientos). The Monitoring Committees meet twice a year (Art.7 of
their internal rules of procedure)  and include  representatives from the Ministry  and
the various city councils.

82

All programme complements were approved by the Monitoring Committees and sent
to  the  Commission  in  early  2002.  As  required  by  the  General  Regulation
(1260/1999), the annual reports are due in by June 2003 and the mid-term reviews by
December 2003.

Advance  payments  worth  7%  were  made  before  the  end  of  2001.  All  the  Spanish
Urban II programmes submitted interim payment requests in 2002.

6.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF

Of the 41 programmes in the Objective 1 CSF, by 31 December 2002 only four had
been  closed.  The  rest  are  still  waiting  for  the  statements  of  validity  required  by
Article  8  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97  to  be  produced,  and  some  also  for  their
final implementation report. The whole budget had been committed, and an amount
of just over €1.131 million rema ined to be disbursed.

For the seven ERDF/ESF programmes and the multi-regional ESF programme under
the Objective 2 SPD (1997-99), as  well as the seven EAGGF-Guidance/ERDF/ESF
Objective 5b SPDs (1994-1999), the deadline for accounting for incurred expenditure
is  31  December  2001,  except  for  the  Objective 2  programmes  for  Aragon  and  the
Basque Country.

For two of the programmes, the extension requests lodged by the Spanish authorities
before the end of 2001 in respect of delays caused by events beyond their control had
been  approved  by  the  Commission,  which  decided  that  they  had  provided  the
supporting documentation required by the legislation. The extension Decisions were
finally  signed  in  February  2002  for  the  Aragon  programme  and  June  2002  for  the
Basque  Country  programme.  These  decisions  granted  the  two  programmes  a
nine-month extension of the deadline for financial closure (until 30 September 2002),
to give them time to finalise the certification of expenditure.

During  2002  most  of  final  reports  on  the  Objective 2  and  5b  programmes  were
approved by the Monitoring Committees and notified to the Commission. However,
the Commission did not receive the audit statements on these programmes required
by  Article  8  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2064/97.  The  documents  needed  to  justify  the
payment of the balance have to be produced by 31 March 2003.

Overall, by Objective and Fund, the outstanding payment amounts and the
percentages these represent of the committed totals are as follows:

Objective

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF-
Guidance

2 (1997-99)

€153 m (13%)

€39 m (13%)

---

5b (1994-1999)

€12 m (6%)

€13 m (17%)

€24 m (6%)

83

EAGGF

The  Spanish  authorities  are  preparing  to  close  47  programmes  (15  Objective 1
programmes, seven Objective 5b SPDs, one Objective 5a programme, one Objective
5a SPD, 18 Leader  II ICPs, three  Interreg  II  ICPs, one Regis  II and one Territorial
Employment Pact). The final reports, together with the payment requests, should be
validated during the course of 2003.

ESF

For the 1989-1993 period, all the “mainstream” Spanish projects have been closed.

As  regards  the  1994-1999  period,  before  the  end  of  2002  Spain  sent  21  payment
requests:  one  for  Objective 1,  four  for  Objective 2,  12  for  Objective 3,  one  for
Objective 4 and  three  for  Objective  5b.  Of  these  only  four  are  complete  and  being
processed: the others have yet to be completed.

7.

7.1

EVALUATION AND CONTROLS

Evaluations

EAGGF

Evaluation working groups have been set up within the CSF Monitoring Committee
and all the operational programmes. These groups determined the specifications for
the  calls  for  tenders  issued  to  recruit  the  teams  to  evaluate  the  CSF  and  the
operational  programmes.  The  teams  were  then  selected  by  the  Spanish  authorities
and  began  work  in  the  autumn.  The  first  progress  reports  are  expected  by  the
beginning  of  2003.  This  work  is  financed  under  the  different  technical  assistance
strands  (both  the  programmed  technical  assistance  for  operational  programmes  and
ad hoc funding under the programmes).

ESF

A common methodological guide was adopted for all Objective 3 CSF programmes.
This  guide  identifies  which  aspects  deserve  closer  attention  and  lists  common
indicators for the different operational programmes. At the end of 2002, the process
of  appointing  the  evaluators  responsible  for  the  INEM  programmes  was  also
finalised.

7. 2

Controls

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation 2064/97

Autonomous Community of Cantabria:

Main findings:

– 

the audit teams are still understaffed.

84

– 

– 

– 

– 

by late October 2002 the audits of the Community Initiative Leader II and the
Proder  programme  had  still  not  started,  despite  the  fact  that  a  number  of
problems had been uncovered;

there were discrepancies between the expenditure declared to the Commission
and that actually incurred.

ineligible leasing expenditure and VAT had been declared to the Commission;

the  eligibility  rule  had  been  incorrectly  applied  as  regards  the  charging  of
income obtained from the sale of land for industrial use.

Systems audit on Interreg II A Spain / Portugal programme (14 - 17 May 2002)

Autonomous Community of Extremadura:

– 

At  the  time  of  the  audit,  the  Audit  Service  had  not  started  the  work  of
reviewing how the managers are implementing their audit findings. This could
be a cause for concern, as there is only limited time remaining to carry out this
work before the programmes must be closed.

IGAE

– 

– 

The failure of the Autonomous Communities to report audit data to the IGAE
in  certain  cases  makes  it  difficult  for  the  Article-8  body  to  systematically
monitor the amount of work done by the Communities on closure declarations.

The IGAE does not keep any centralised records of the follow-up action taken
by the regional financial inspectorates for each individual report, since it is the
regional inspectors who are responsible for following up their inspections. This
is  compounded  by  the  fact  that,  if  the  IGAE  does  not  receive  any  further
information from an inspectorate within 6 months of the inspectorate producing
its report, it assumes that the findings in the report have been corrected.

Procedure for reporting irregularities

In the procedure implemented by the Autonomous Community of Extremadura
to  comply  with  Regulation  1681/94,  there  is  no  provision  to  pass  on  what  is
reported by the managing departments to the Audit Service.

For example, one beneficiary - the  University  of Salamanca -  was potentially
liable to have ESP 68 700 413 (€412 897.8)  worth of its funding recovered by
the  Commission  for  failure  to  comply  with  the  proper  public-procurement
procedures.  This  case  should  have  been  reported  to  OLAF,  as  required  by
Article  7  of  Regulation  2064/97,  since  the  situation  had  not  been  resolved
within six months of the apparent irregularity being detected.

– 

– 

FIFG

The  management and control systems for  the  2000-2006  period  are  in  place.  Some
clarification is needed regarding the systems established in certain regions.

85

Documentation  submitted  to  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  5  of  Regulation
438/2001 should be revised.

DG Fish accompanied OLAF on an inspection visit to a single beneficiary to check
conformity  and  accounting  procedures  in  respect  of  a  number  of  modernisation
grants.

Audits of programme closures from the 1994-1996 period

Objective 2 operational programme for Catalonia 1994-1996, 10-14 June 2002

For  8  of  the  total  of  11  projects  audited  on  the  ground  it  was  found  that  the  sole
criterion used for charging expenditure to the operational program was the payment
date (i.e. all payments that occurred between 1994 and 1998 were considered eligible
under  the  programme).  However,  expenditure  incurred  in  1997-99  on  projects  that
began or even finished  before 1997  was considered  eligible for  the  1997-99  period
only  under  the  following  conditions:  (i)  a  decision  to  include  the  project  in  the
program must have been taken; (ii) a legal and financial commitment must have been
made, and (iii) the projects must have been divided into distinct financial stages - if
possible  two  physical  stages  for  each  programming  period  -  to  ensure  the
transparency  of  implementation  and  monitoring  and  facilitate  controls.  Apparently
some projects could not meet these conditions.

For one project, two work contracts worth a total of some ESP 452 million had been
signed after 31 December 1996 and were thus regarded as ineligible.

86

FRANCE

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

During 2002,  all the annual reports  for  the 31  Objective 1  and  2  programmes  were
forwarded  to  the  Commission.  Twenty-eight  of  the  reports  were  judged  to  be
satisfactory  and  were  accepted  under  Article  37(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No
1260/1999. The remaining three programmes were accepted at the beginning of 2003
after submission of additional information by the national authorities.

The  Commission,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  French  national  and  regional
authorities,  organised  two  seminars,  one  for  Objective 1  regions  and  the  other  for
those  responsible  for  European  affairs  at  the  Secretariats-General  for  Regional
Affairs and the Regional Councils.

– 

Seminar on Objective 1 from 3 to 5 July 2002 in Lille (Nord-Pas-de-Calais)

This  seminar  dealt  with  the  problems  of  both  Objective 1  regions  and  regions
receiving transitional support under Objective 1 in the areas of industrial conversion,
urban restructuring, the information society and financial engineering.

– 

Seminar for those responsible for European  affairs at the Secretariats-General
for Regional Affairs and the Regional Councils on 5 June 2002

This  seminar  covered  the  implementation  of  Objective 1  and  2  programmes  in
France (2000-2006).

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

In  addition  to  Corsica  and  Nord-Pas-de-Calais  (French  Hainault),  the  two  regions
eligible for transitional support under Objective 1, Objective 1  in  France covers the
four overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion).

Total   ERDF   assistance  in    the    six  French  Objective 1  regions  amounts  to
€2  292  million  over  the  2000-2006  period,  including  €1  908  million  (i.e.  83%)  for
the  four  overseas  departments.  These  regions  received  €84.7  million  of  ERDF
assistance  in  2002  or  3.69%  of  the  total  allocation.  The  various  interim  payments
made  since  2000  account  for  10.85%  of  the  total  ERDF  budget  for  Objective 1
regions.

On the basis of a Commission proposal, amendments17 were introduced on the legal
basis of Article 299(2) of the Treaty which allow the seven outermost regions and in

17

On  28 June  2001,  after  receiving  the  opinion  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  approved
amendments to Regulations (EC) Nos 1260/1999 (General Regulation), 1257/1999 (Regulation on rural
development)  and  2792/1999  (fisheries)  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission  proposals  of  29 November
2000.

87

                                                
particular  the  four  French  overseas  departments  covered  by  Objective 1  access  to
higher  rates  of  part-financing  from  the  Structural  Funds  (for  infrastructures  and
productive investments) than those provided for in the Regulations concerned.

On  the  basis  of  the  amended  Regulations,  proposals  for  adjustments  to  the  SPDs
were  submitted  to  the  Commission  for  two  overseas  departments:  Réunion  and
Guadeloupe.  The  Commission  approved  these  amendments  to  the  SPDs  by  two
Decisions,  on  30  August  2002  for  Réunion  and  on  23  December  2002  for
Guadeloupe. Guadeloupe also introduced into its SPD the possibility of using global
grants and specified measures on “tourism” and “development of the islands”.

EAGGF

Of  the  budget  of  €675.95  million  for  the  six  regions  over  the  period  concerned,  a
total of €60.298 million had been paid by the end of 2002.

Following  the  adoption  by  the  Council  on  28  June  2001  of  Regulation  (EC)  No
1447/2001 providing for exemptions for the outermost regions, such as an increase in
the  rate  of  public  funding  in  smaller  agricultural  holdings  and  in  the  agri-food
industries,  the  different  Monitoring  Committees  approved  the  amendments  to  the
SPD and programme complement for each of the programmes for the four overseas
departments.  These  amendments  were  approved  by  means  of  new  Decisions  for
Réunion  and  Guadeloupe.  Decisions  for  Martinique  and  French  Guiana  are  in  the
process of being approved.

With regard to Corsica and Nord-Pas-de-Calais, a formal amendment of the Decision
has  not  yet  been  adopted  to  incorporate  amendments  to  the  EAGGF  Guidance
Section of the programme, including the reinforcement of technical assistance.

However,  the  Monitoring  Committees  approved  adjustments  to  the  different
programming complements in the case of amendments not requiring an  amendment
of the SPD.

For three regions (Réunion, Corsica and Guadeloupe), at the end of 2002 the rule on
the automatic decommitment of appropriations committed for the EAGGF Guidance
Section  in  2000  was  applied.  However,  the  three  regions  were  able  to  submit
applications for interim payments in time to prevent decommitment.

FIFG

Corsica

The  2000-2006  SPD  for  Corsica  has  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €2.3  million  (an  initial
payment  of  €0.26  million  has  been  made).  St rategic  priorities  include  preserving
employment,  better  organisation  and  quality  of  production,  improvement  of
marketing, as well as increasing production capacity in fish farming whilst respecting
the  marine  environment.  The  Managing  Authority  has  committed  less  than  50%  of
2000-2002 FIFG funding for projects.

Guadeloupe

The  2000-2006  SPD  for  Guadeloupe  has  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €6.2  million  (an
initial  payment  of  €0.26  million  has  been  made).  Strategic  priorities  include

88

improving  port  facilities  and  better  marketing.  The  development  of  fish  farming
could  reduce  imports  to  cover  local  needs.  At  the  end  of  2002,  the  Managing
Authority had programmed less than 50% of the first three years’ funding for action.

French Guiana

The 2000-2006  SPD for French Guiana has  an  FIFG  allocation of  €7.6 million  (an
initial payment of €0.9 million has been made).  Strategic priorities include improving
port facilities, improving processing and marketing, as well as improving production
capacity in fish  farming.  The  fisheries sector is one of the region’s  main  economic
sectors  and  its  development  could  increase  regional  added-value.  At  31  December
2002, the Managing Authority had programmed 55% of the 2000-2002 funding  for
action.

Martinique

The 2000-2006 SPD for Martinique has an FIFG allocation of €9.1 million (an initial
reimbursement of €0.1 million ha s been made). The main objectives are to develop
employment, regional added-value and fisheries production and improve processing
and marketing.  The development  of fish  farming could reduce imports by covering
more  local  needs.  The  Managing  Authority  has  programmed  less  than  20%  of  the
2000-02 funding for action.

Réunion

The 2000-2006 SPD for Réunion has an FIFG allocation of €15.6 million (a limited
initial payment of €0.08 million has been made).  Strategic priorities for the fisheries
sector  (one  of  the  main  economic  sectors  on  the  island)  include  renewing  and
modernising  the  fleet,  improving  processing  and  marketing,  increasing  production
capacity in fish farming, as well as innovative actions to improve knowledge of the
local  fishing  environment  and  the  best  sustainable  ways  to  exploit  it.  At  19
December  2002,  the  Managing  Authority  had  programmed  about  85%  of  the  first
three years’ funding for action.

ESF

One  or  more  declarations  of  expenditure  for  the  ESF  were  introduced  in  2002  for
each of the six Objective 1 SPDs. Total justified expenditure at the end of 2002 was
16%  of  the  ESF  Objective 1  allocation  for  France  for  the  2000-2006  period
(excluding the 7% advance) and 33% of the 2000-02 commitments.

There are large differences between the regions in terms of the expenditure already
incurred, which ranges from 3% to 26% of ESF expenditure justified (not including
the 7% advance) and declared to the Commission. This partly reflects the difficulties
experienced by the regions in getting project sponsors to notify expenditure.

In  addition,  at  the  end  of  2002,  three  of  the  six  SPDs  approved  during  2000  were
affected  by  the  automatic  decommitment  rule  (N+2).  All  three  regions  avoided
decommitment.  Of  a  budget  of  €938.62  million  for  the  2000-2006  period,
commitments  totalled  €471.04  million  and  pa yments  €154.45  million  at  the  end  of
2002.

89

Progress  on  implementing  the  measures  contained  in  the  SPDs  varies  according  to
the  region  and  type  of  measure.  Less  progress  has  been  made  on  measures
concerning equal opportunities and those concerning NGOs and the local partnership
(small  grants).  A  pro-active,  targeted  approach  to  promote  these  measures  seems
essential.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

Total  ERDF  assistance    in the  21  French  Objective 2   regions   over the 2000-
2006 period  will  be     €5 380 045 086.   In  2002,   the  ERDF  paid  these   regions
€277 967 524.48 or 5.16% of the total allocati on. The interim payments made since
2000 account for 12.9% of the total ERDF allocation.

Since  the  summer  of  2002,  and  in  parallel  with  the  simplification  measures
introduced  by  the  Commission,  France  has  been  among  the  first  countries  in  the
European Union to adopt a number of simplification measures designed to increase
the flexibility of the national and Community rules on the implementation of SPDs.

These measures essentially involve:

– 

improvements  to  management,  monitoring  and  control  of  Structural  Fund
assistance,  and  more  particularly  to  the  procedure  for  amending  SPDs,  and
more effective organisation; and

– 

simplifying financial circuits.

In  2002, 
contributions to major projects:

the  Commission  adopted  six  Decisions  concerning  Community

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the “Grande Halle d’Auvergne” project, provided for in the SPD for the Region
of the Auvergne, for which the ERDF contribution was set at €18.3 million or
18.77% of the total eligible cost (€97.5 million for the project);

the  “Lioran  Tunnel”  project,  provided  for  in  the  SPD  for  the  Region  of  the
Auvergne, for which the ERDF contribution was set at €19.056 million out of a
total cost of €76.224 million, a pa rt-financing rate of 25%;

the “extension of the UNILIN factory - Phases 2 and 3” project, provided for in
the  SPD  for  the  Region  of  Champagne-Ardenne.  The  ERDF  contribution  to
this major project was set at €5.110 million.  This is 4.62% of the total eligible
cost of the project (€110.53 million);

the “Pilkington - Glass France” project in Seingbouse, provided for in the SPD
for  the  Region  of  Lorraine,  for which  the  ERDF  contribution  was set at
€2  667  858.    This  is  2.52%  of  the  total  e ligible  expenditure  for  the  project
(€105 599 300);

the “Cap’Decouverte” project, provided for in the SPD for the Region of Midi-
Pyrénées,  for  which  the  ERDF  contribution  was  set  at  €15.24  million,  which
represents 27.77% of the total eligible cost of the project (€54.88 million).

90

the “ATMEL electronic  circuits factory” project, provided  for in  the  SPD  for
the Region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, for which the ERDF  contribution
was set at €6.10 million, which is 1.88% of the  total eligible cost of the project
(€324.72 million).

– 

ESF

One  or  more  declarations  of  expenditure  for  the  ESF  were  introduced  in  2002  for
each  of  the  21  Objective 2  SPDs.  Total  justified  expenditure  under  the  21  SPDs  at
the end of 2002 was 4.5% of the ESF Objective 2 allocation for France for the 2000-
2006 period (excluding the 7% advance), i.e. ESF expenditure of 39.231 million.

There are large differences between the regions in terms of the expenditure already
incurred,  which  ranges  from  0.37%  to  17.5%  of  ESF  expenditure  justified  (not
including the 7% advance) and declared to the Commission. Particular attention will
be paid in 2003 to programmes for which there is a major risk of decommitment at
the end of the year for the 2000 and 2001 tranches.

Several  agreements  on  global  grants  from  the  ESF  were  concluded  in  2002  with
regional  councils  in  order  to  facilitate  and  accelerate  the  implementation  of  ESF
Objective 2 financing.

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

At the end of 2002, 14% of the total ESF envelope (€4.7 million) wa s certified by the
French authorities as having been spent by the final beneficiaries. Expenditure made
by the Commission (including the 7% advance) amounted to €1 007 million. The rate
at  which  expenditure  is  being  declared  seems  adequate  to  rule  out  any  risk  of
automatic decommitment at the end of 2003.

The year thus saw an acceleration in the implementation of the SPD and significant
progress was achieved in making up for the delay incurred in 2001. In particular, the
decision taken at national level by a circular of February 2002 no longer to subject
project  programming  to  the  availability  of  appropriations  allowed  considerable
increase in programming and therefore in results. This distinction between the legal
commitment  and  the  financial  commitments  of  measures  represented  a  major
positive development in the conditions of implementation of the SPD in 2002.

The  progress  made  on  implementing  Priorities  1  (“Active  labour  market  policies”)
and  3  (“Life-long  education  and  training”)  was  well  above  average.  On  the  other
hand, there were serious delays with the implementation of Priorities 4 (“Adaptation
of  workers,  business  spirit,  innovation,  research  and  technology”),  5  (“Improved
labour  market  access and participation for  women”)  and  more  particularly  measure
10  of  Priority  6  (“Support  for  local  initiatives”).  Given  that  measure  10  required  a
considerable  amount  of  preparation,  an  acceleration  in  its  implementation  can
reasonably be expected soon.

On  10  December  2002,  the  National  Monitoring  Committee  took  the  initiative  to
amend  the  programming  complement  and  propose  a  number  of  amendments  to  the
SPD. These involve increasing the ESF contribution rate to measure 7 “Developing
entrepreneurship, promoting the creation of businesses and innovation” from 40% to
50%  and  introducing  the  French  mechanism  of  “individual  training  leave”  in

91

measure  6  “Modernising  employment  organisations,  developing  skills”.  Training
leave adds to the possibilities, provided for in the SPD, for supporting the adaptation
of human resources, particularly in small and very small undertakings.

The  principal  decisions taken  by  the  National  Monitoring  Committee  to  amend  the
programming complement involve:

– 

– 

– 

the introduction of a private counterpart to national part-financing for measures
2  “Supporting  Government  policies  to  promote  integration  and  against
exclusion”  and  5  “Improving 
the
personalisation  of 
information  and
communication technologies, and improving validation”,

information  and  guidance  on  and 

in  particular  using  new 

training, 

the creation of new types of operation to promote measures under Priority 5,

the  introduction  of  individual  training  leave  in  measure  8  “Improved  labour
market access and participation for women”.

The  Commission  obtained  confirmation  from  the  French  authorities  that  all  the
changes decided on or proposed by the National Monitoring Committee respect the
principle of additionality.

The  Managing  Authority  launched  a  national  information  campaign  on  the  ESF
based  around  a  general  action  plan  for  the  2002-04  period.  This  campaign,  to  be
carried out in two phases, includes measures through the media and other measures
and will be implemented at both national and regional level.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The  2000-2006  “fisheries”  SPD  for  France  outside  Objective 1  regions  has  a
Community allocation of €233.7 million (t wo reimbursements totalling €11.2 million
have been paid). Strategic priorities are long-term management of fishery resources,
assisting  the  modernisation  of  companies  to  enable  them  to  increase  their  value-
added and reinforcing the socio-economic situation of local communities dependent
on  fishing  or  marine  stock  farming.  At  31  December  2002,  only  €56  million  had
been committed for projects.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

For the Leader + Initiative, the Centre national pour  l’aménagement des structures
des  exploitations  agricoles  (CNASEA)  was  selected  to  manage  the  global  grant.  A
total of 140 local action groups, selected at the end of 2001 and during 2002, will be
responsible  for  implementation.  The  first  action  programmes  have  just  been  drawn
up  after  signature  of  the  agreements.  A  seminar  was  held  in  December  2002  in
Nogent  le  Rotrou,  bringing  together  all  those  participating  in  this  Initiative  in  the
west of France.

In  financial  terms,  only  the  7%  advance  was  paid,  no  application  for  interim
payments having been submitted to the Commission.

92

5.2

EQUAL

In  accordance  with  the  programming,  many  more  development  partnerships  were
confirmed for measure 1 than for measure 2. Intensive efforts were made during this
preparatory  stage  to  bring  the  parties  together  and  to  carry  out  studies  and
development  work  in  order  to  forge  solid  projects.  Around  230  development
partnerships have now embarked on their work programme.

The year also saw an in-depth examination of the organisation of the programme and
in particular the mechanism to be set up to ensure that the most innovative practices
are  efficiently  identified.  The  first  networks  will  relate  to  “adaptability”  (keeping
older  workers  in  employment)  and  “equal  opportunities  between  men  and  women”
(conciliation of private and working life).

5.3

URBAN

The  nine  French  Urban  II  programmes  were  approved  between  September  and
December 2001 and the ERDF will be contributing €102 million to their total budget
of €283.609 million. The programme complement s were approved by the Monitoring
Committees and submitted to the Commission during the first half of 2002. Annual
activity reports have been submitted to the Commission for four programmes (Bastia,
Grenoble, Le Havre and Strasbourg).

For four programmes, the Managing Authority is the mayor or the chair of the inter-
municipal cooperation structure and for three others this role is played by the prefect
of  the  region.  In  the  remaining  two  cases,  the  Managing  Authorities  are  a  public
body and a public interest grouping, chaired by either the mayor or the prefect. The
payment authority is in all cases the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignation.

The Monitoring Committees met either once or twice in 2002.

The 7% advance was paid at the end of 2001 or right at the beginning of 2002. Only
one application for an interim payment was made in 2002. This was for €357 776.33
for the Grenoble programme.

6.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF

1989-1993 programming period

At  the end of  2002, only  one  measure had not  yet  been  closed:  the  Regis-Envireg-
Stride  French  Guiana  CIP  for  which  a  request  was  made  to  the  Member  State  for
partial closure in 2002.

The other three 1989-1993 period measures still open at the beginning of 2002 (Loire
Region  1991  OP,  Provence-Alpes-Côte  d’Azur  Renaval  CIP,  Upper  Normandy
Renaval) were closed during the year.    

93

1994-1999 programming period

During  2002,  the  Commission  closed  all  the  19  Objective 2  1994-96  period  SPDs
still open.

EAGGF

In 2002, the Member State did not provide the necessary documents for closing the
programmes (Objectives 5(a), 5(b) and Leader II). Consequently, this will all have to
be done during the first quarter of 2003.

During the  year,  extensions  of  the  payment  deadlines  were  accepted  for  reasons  of
force majeure (storm of 1999 in the case of some Objective 5(b) SPDs, cyclones in
the case of two Objective 1 regions). This caused a delay in drawing up the closure
reports and applications for payment of the balance for some regions.

ESF

As  regards  the  closure  of  the  1994-1999  programmes,  17  closure  files  had  been
received by the end of February 2003, broken down as follows:

– 

– 

1997-99 Objective 2: seven files,

1994-1999 Objective 5(b): ten files.

No application for payment of the balance had been received for Objective 3 (1994-
1999) by the end of 2002.

7.

7.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

ESF

The evaluator issued the first documents in 2002, the  “draft  evaluation  method”  on
the method for analysing implementation, the “regional monographs” and a national
summary  providing  a  progress  report  on  the  mid-term  evaluation.  Two  thematic
evaluations (equal opportunities and local initiatives) were commenced.

7. 2

Controls

ERDF

Audits to close programmes in the 1994-96 period

LOIRE  REGION  SPD  -  Objective 2  (1994-96)  -  missions  of  30  September  and  4
October 2002

The SGAR made commitments after the deadline of 31 December 1996. Decisions to
grant assistance were made during 1997 for a large number of projects under various
measures provided for in the SPD.

94

There were found to be a small number of cases of ineligible expenditure and a lack
of supporting documents and publicity, supporting documents for the procedure for
the  award  of  public  contracts  were  unavailable  and  one  of  the  companies  to  be
audited had gone bankrupt.

PICARDY SPD - Objective 2 (1994-96) - missions of 8 and 22 March 2002

Payments still not made: eight projects for which Picardy has not yet made the final
payment to the final beneficiary.

FIFG

In the context of the implementation of the “Mini Tranche” in the period 1994-1999,
the Member State is requested to verify all relevant dates concerning the applications
submitted in view of the eligibility of the projects involved.

In the framework of the closure for the 1994-1999 period, DG FISH insists that the
responsible  authorities  check  the  amounts  of  projects  in  order  to  avoid  similar
situations as for Regulation (EEC) No 4042/89.

95

IRELAND

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

The implementation of the ERDF in five Irish Objective 1 programmes - Economic
and  social  infrastructure,  Productive  sector,  Technical  assistance,  Border,  Midland
and  Western  region  and  Southern  and  Eastern  region  -  continued  at  a  generally
satisfactory pace in 2002. However, in view of the reduced level of investment from
the  private  sector,  the  Commission  agreed  that  the  national  co-funding  of  the
Broadband measure in the two regional programmes could be adjusted in favour of
the  public  sector.  Payments  totalling  €381  million  were  made  to  the  programmes.
the Economic and Social Infrastructure
This included an amount of €237 million to 
Operational Programme for which the Commission also approved five major projects
(one for public transport and four for roads) with a total Community contribution of
€248 million. A significant development in  2002 across all the programmes was the
commencement of the mid-term evaluation process.

As regards the EU Programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and
the  Border  region  of  Ireland  (Peace  II  programme  2000-2004),  there  is  a  rising
challenge to avoid difficulties with decommitment under the n+2 rule by the end of
2003,  as  no  payment  claims  have  been  submitted  by  the  Irish  authorities  in  2002.
There was progress in implementing the ‘distinctiveness’ criteria in selecting projects
supporting peace and reconciliation in the region.

EAGGF

After  the  foot  and  mouth  crisis  in  2001  that  hampered  the  implementation  of
investment  schemes  (farm  waste,  dairy  hygiene)  under  the  two  regional  OPs,  the
part-financed  measures  were  fully  operational  in  2002.  Payments  on  forestry
measures are proceeding well.

The Peace II operational programme was approved in 2001. A €13 million EAGGF-
Guidance  contribution is foreseen  for the  2000-2004  period.  The  programme  had  a
very  slow  start  and  no  EAGGF  expenditure  (only  €882  000  in  advances  paid)  was
recorded up to October 2002. The programme complement has not been accepted yet
by the European Commission.

FIFG

Productive sector

For the period 2000-2006 for this operational programme, the  FIFG contribution is
€42  million  (a  first  payment  of  €1.8  million  has  been  approved)  of  which  €24.5
million  goes  to  the  Border,  Midlands  and  Western  region  and  €17.6  million  to  the
Southern and Eastern region. The Sea Fisheries Development priority funding will be
provided  primarily  to  meet  the  strategic  Objective  of  enhanced  safety,  quality  and
competitiveness of the fishing fleet. In June 2002 all public and Community aid for

96

the fishing fleet was suspended until the national authorities provided an up-to-date
and complete fishing fleet register.

Border, Midland and Western region

For the period 2000-2006 for this operational programme, the  FIFG contribution is
€16  million  to  be  expended  under  the  Aquaculture  sub-measure  of  the  Fishery
Harbours,  Gaeltacht/Island  Harbours  and  Aquaculture  measure  of  the  Local
enterprise  development  priority  (sub-programme).  After  a  slow  start  spending  is
starting to pick up (€1.6 million in payments).

Southern and Eastern region

For the period  2000-2006 for  this  operational programme, the  FIFG contribution is
€9.6  million  to  be  expended  under  the  Aquaculture  sub-measure  of  the  Fishery
Harbours,  Gaeltacht/Island  Harbours  and  Aquaculture  measure  of  the  Local
enterprise  development  priority  (sub-programme).  After  a  slow  start  spending  is
starting to pick up (€0.95 million in payments).

PEACE II

FIFG  funding  has  been  approved  in  the  Peace  II  programme  to  assist  cross-border
bodies  from  both  Northern  Ireland  and  the  six  border  counties  of  Ireland  to  work
together  to  develop  fisheries  interests,  particularly  aquaculture.  No  commitments
have been made but the Ireland and Northern Ireland authorities have been working
on two major cross-border projects which should see all FIFG funding committed in
2003.

ESF

Under  the  2000-2006  Community  Support  Framework,  the  ESF  provides  slightly
over €1 billion to Ireland, about 34% of the  total Structural Funds available. 85% of
ESF support is concentrated  in  the Employment and human resources development
OP  (EHRD  OP),  which  is  structured  around  the  four  pillars  of  the  European
Employment  Strategy.  ESF  funding  in  the  two  regional  OPs  (the  Border,  Midland
and  Western  Region  (BMW)  and  the  Southern  and  Eastern  Region  (S  and  E))  is
about 11% of the total ESF and used for investment in childcare. The remaining 4%
are allocated to the Peace OP and a further €34 million is available under the Equal
Community Initiative.

Apart from the Peace programme, which is referred to under the UK section of this
report, the Irish programmes performed generally according to plan in 2002. The n+2
deadline of 31 December 2002 was met by  all programmes  in  relation to  ESF.  For
the  EHRD  OP,  implementation  under  the  Employment  and  Adaptability  priorities
was  on  schedule.  It  was  somewhat  behind  under  the  Entrepreneurship  and  Equal
Opportunities  pillars.  The  actions  undertaken  by  the  Managing  Authority  and  the
Monitoring Committee should, however, result in a more balanced uptake of funds in
2003. By the end of 2002, the programmes’ strategies and objectives were still valid.

97

Cumulative ESF payments (including 7% advance) made by 31 December:

EHRD OP

2000 IE 05 1 PO 001 €239 009 352

S and E

2000 IE 16 1 PO 005 €10 581 135

BMW

2000 IE 16 1 PO 006 €5 476 924

2.

2.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The  Leader+  programme  for  Ireland  was  adopted  on  3  July  2001  (Commission
Decision C (2001) 1296).

The 22 selected local action  groups had  signed agreements with the  Department  of
Agriculture  by  November  2001 and commenced activity  from this  date.  The  LAGs
cover  an  area  of  40  433  sq.  km  with  a  population  of  1  468  820.  Six  groups  chose
theme 1: the use of new know-how and new technologies to make the products and
services of rural areas more competitive; nine groups chose theme 2: improving the
quality  of  life  in  rural  areas;  three  groups  chose  theme  3:  adding  value  to  local
products, in particular by facilitating access to markets for small production units via
collective  actions;  and  four  groups  chose  theme  4:  making  the  best  use  of  natural
resources,  including  enhancing  the  value  of  sites  of  Community  interest  selected
under Natura 2000.

Projects were being delivered by groups.

2.2

EQUAL

EQUAL  The  21  Development  Partnerships  that  had  been  selected  for  Action  1  in
2001 were all confirmed for participation in Action 2. Slightly less than 50% of these
DPs are within Theme A under the Employability Pillar.

Two  National  Thematic  Networks  were  established  during  2002  to  promote  the
mainstreaming  of  the  results  of  the  DPs.  One,  dealing  broadly  with  Employability,
includes  the  DPs  working  under  the  Employability,  Entrepreneurship  and  Asylum-
seeker  pillars.  The  second,  dealing  with  Adaptability,  includes  DPs  from  the
Adaptability and Equal Opportunities Pillars.

The interim mid-term evaluation report was completed and sent to the Commission
in  the  latter  part  of  the  year.  This  report  will  comprise  the  first  part  of  the  formal
mid-term evaluation of Equal, to be completed in 2003.

2.3

URBAN

The  Dublin-Ballyfermot  Urban  II  programme,  approved  in  November  2001,  is  the
only  one  in  Ireland.  The  ERDF  will  contribute  a  total  of  €5.3  million  to  this
programme, whose total cost amounts to €11.4 million. The programme complement
was  approved  by  the  Monitoring  Committees  and  submitted  to  the  Commission  in
March  2002.  The  first  annual  implementation  report  for  the  Dublin-Ballyfermot
Urban II programme should be submitted to the Commission in 2003.

98

The  Managing  Authority  for  the  programme  is  the  Dublin  Corporation  and  the
functional  day-to-day  management  is  delegated  to  Urban  Dublin-Ballyfermot.  The
Monitoring Committee has met twice during 2002.

Advance  payment,  amounting  to  7%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  to  the
programme, was made in February 2002. No interim payment requests were received
in 2002.

3.

CLOSURE OF THE 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

ERDF

ERDF  During  2002,  two  Operational  Programmes  for  the  period  1994-1999  were
closed: Transport and Tallaght hospital. By the end of 2002, the preparation by  the
national  authorities  for  the  closure  of  the  remaining  Operational  Programmes  and
Community Initiatives was at an advanced stage.

EAGGF and LEADER (1994-1999)

Final claims  and  final reports were submitted  for three  programmes:  Leader  II,  OP
for  Agriculture,  Rural  Development  and  Forestry  (including  Objective  5(a)
measures) and Food sub-programme (EAGGF-funded) under the OP for Industry.

ESF

In  Ireland  there  were  six  Operational  Programmes  which  included  ESF  under  the
1994-1999  programming  period.  The  Irish  authorities  were  still  working  to  finalise
the required documents and reports for closure. At the end of 2002, none of the six
programmes was closed.

4.

4.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

ESF

In 2002 the Central Evaluation Unit was put into operation and calls for offers were
issued to select evaluators. The latter will be appointed at the beginning of 2003.

LEADER

The ex-post evaluation for Leader II was received in September 2002.

4. 2

Controls

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97

Operational  Programmes:  Transport,  Industrial  development,  tourism,  local  urban
and rural development - Date of inspection visit: 07-08 March 2002

99

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  Article  8  body  will  to  a  large  extent  have  to  rely  on  the  attestations
provided  by  the  internal  audit  units  down  through  the  cascade  both  as  to  the
satisfactory follow-up of all findings and as to the adequacy of the 5% checks.
Given  the  absence  of  auditors  in  certain  bodies  and  the  diversity  of  levels  of
experience, this creates certain risks which will have to be taken into account.

Given  that  the  IAUs  at  the  different  levels  are  also  reporting  to  their  own
management, the Article 8 body will have to be satisfied that the confirmations
it  receives  are  entirely  Objective  and  independent.  It  is  evident  that  it  cannot
rely  on  affirmations  made  by  the  management  services  in  relation  to  the
transaction checks, since it is precisely in relation to the work of these services
that it has to draw conclusions.

The principal shortcomings identified in the 2001 audit - failure to cover pre-
1998 expenditure and failure to carry out controls down to the level of the final
beneficiary  -  were  accepted  by  the  Department  of  Finance,  even  if  not  by
certain  Lead  Departments.  The  evidence  obtained  during  the  audit  was  that
significant steps have in general been taken to deal with these points. It was not
possible to verify this for all implementing bodies.

Indications  remained,  however,  that  checks  on  expenditure  not  carried  out  to
the  level  of  the  final  beneficiary  (for  example,  checks  by  the  DETE  and  by
Enterprise Ireland in the Industry OP) could still be taken into account for the
5%  requirement.  However,  only  the  expenditure  checked  at  the  level  of  the
final  beneficiary  (directly  or  on  the  basis  of  an  adequate  sample)  can  be
counted toward the 5% requirement.

The  risk  inherent  in  the  cascade  system  of  implementation  remains,  namely  that  a
weakness  in  one  link  of  the  chain  may  have  wide-reaching  consequences  for  the
effectiveness of the system.

100

ITALY

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

2002 saw the  practical  introduction  of  the  development  strategies  mentioned  in  the
CSFs  and  the  fourteen  operational  programmes  (seven  regional  programmes  and
seven multi-regional programmes), while expenditure progressed at a pace designed
to prevent the automatic decommitment of funds through the application of the ‘n+2’
rule.

Much  of  the  effort  on  implementation  went  into  establishing  the  regional  strategy
plans  for  certain  kinds  of  assisted  operations  (the  information  society,  innovation,
transport) and into establishing the bodies and territorial plans needed to fully carry
out measures in other key fields, such as water resources, waste management and the
clean-up of polluted areas.

There  have  been  delays  in  establishing  the  strategy  plans  mentioned  above,
particularly  in  the  transport  sector,  where  the  coherence  of  the  general  assistance
policy  in  the  Mezzogiorno  still  needs  to  be  fully  clarified,  and  partly  in  the
innovation  and  information  society  sectors,  where  certain  regions  must  still  finish
adjusting their plans to make them fully consistent with the priorities and objectives
of the CSF.

In  terms  of  adjustments  to  the  programming  documents,  the  experience  gained  in
2000  and  2001  made  it  possible  to  make  further  changes  to  the  programme
complements.  Some  operational  programmes  had  to  be  amended  (the  regional
programmes  for  Campania  and  Calabria,  and  the  national  local  development
programme)  on  grounds  of  sound  management,  consistency  with  new  Community
legislation (on the EAGGF in particular) or with competition rules, while some types
of assistance had to be rejigged in order to make them more consistent with the needs
of the area concerned.

In the last two months of the year the national coordinating authorities (the Ministry
for  the  Economy)  launched  a  very  detailed  exercise  to  verify  programme
implementation,  in  cooperation  with  the  Managing  Authorities.  This  identified  the
most  problematic  measures  and  proposed  practical  corrective  measures,  to  be
discussed and decided on by the programme Monitoring Committees.

Because of  the  major effort involved  in completing  the  verification exercise by  the
end  of  2002,  the  meetings  of  the  programme  Monitoring  Committees  planned  for
November-December  2002  had  to  be  postponed  to  January-February  2003.  The
programme  Monitoring  Committees  met  only  once  in  2002,  whereas  the  CSF
Monitoring Committee met twice (in February and July).

The  second  annual  meetings  were  held  in  Rome  in  October,  at  which  the
Commission  thoroughly  discussed  key  implementation  issues  with  the  Managing
Authorities, in particular:

101

– 

– 

– 

better administrative and operating structures within the managing and paying
authorities;

better monitoring and control systems;

problems in implementing the strategy.

The annual meetings also agreed on a work-plan for 2003 with a view to adopting the
necessary amendments to the programmes and programme complements in response
to  the  verification  exercise  mentioned  above  and  to  discussing  and  preparing  the
mid-term  review,  in  particular  by  redirecting  the  activities  of  the  CSF’s  sectoral
working groups.

The  thoughts  of  the  independent  operational  programme  evaluators  who  worked
through 2002 and who have already produced some ideas and suggestions will also
help the preparation of the mid-term review. In contrast, the procedure for choosing
the independent CSF evaluator started very late and the evaluator has only just been
chosen (January 2003).

On 30 September 2002, the  national  monitoring  system  reported  that  commitments
and payments represented 31.4% and 8.9% respectively of the total cost of the CSF
(most recent available data).

As regards financial execution, the efforts made to speed up  expenditure mean that
no automatic decommitment will arise on the basis of the expenditure declared on 31
December 2002, the exception being the multi-regional “Security” programme where
there  is  a  persistent  problem  and  €1.1  million  could  conceivably  be  decommitted
under the ESF.

Coordinating  the  activities  of  the  Structural  Funds  is  having  encouraging  results.
Regionally, and except for some examples (notably Apulia), cooperation between the
different  offices  responsible  for  the  various  Funds  has  improved  considerably.
Nationally,  coordination  capacity  needs  to  improve  in  some  sectors  between  the
national  and  regional  programmes  (in  particular  transport,  which  is  the  most
problematic, then innovation/research and education). There is still appreciable room
for improved coordination between the various Ministries responsible nationally for
each Structural Fund.

Where simplification is concerned, the new rules introduced by Regulation (EC) No
1260/99 have produced some major changes in management procedures and even in
the attitude of the Italian authorities towards Community programmes.

The  Managing  Authorities  certainly  now  have  a  greater  sense  of  responsibility,
particularly  in  the  Management  Committees  where  the  Commission’s  role  is
primarily to advise  and encourage, thereby  facilitating  the  decision-making  process
within  the  Committees.  Procedures  have  become  a little more  cumbersome  relative
to  the  preceding  period  because  of  dual  programming  (SPD  and  programme
complement).  The  programme  complements  can  be  amended  quite  often,  so
requiring  the  Commission  to  conduct  at  least  a  minimum  analysis  of  the  new
documents each time, in order to ensure consistency with the SPDs and the relevant
legislation.

102

EAGGF

The  regional  operational  programmes  approved  in  2000  provide  for  an  EAGGF
Guidance  Section  contribution  of  €2  982 626  million  for  the  seven  Objective 1
regions:  Sicily,  Sardinia,  Calabria,  Basilicata,  Campania,  Apulia,  Molise  (where
Objective 1 is being phased out).

€419 million was committed in 2002. Tota l payments reached €245 million.

Before  the  end  of  the  year  all  the  regions  had  submitted  EAGGF  payment
applications totalling €238 milli on, well above the amount needed to avoid a cut in
the funds committed by the Commission in 2000.

The 2002 reports describe the first actions and expenditure on measures part-funded
by  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section,  involving  in  particular  rural  infrastructure,
forestry,  premiums  for  the  installation  of  young  farmers  and  for  investments  on
agricultural holdings.

Most  measures  were  started  both  financially  and  physically  in  2002.  Expenditure
related notably to the measures on water resources, rural villages and investments in
the  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural  products.  After  initial  approval  of  the
programme complements, several amendments and  additions were made to them in
2002 in order to ensure better programme implementation.

All the independent evaluators were appointed and an initial report was presented to
the Monitoring Committees for most of the programmes.

FIFG

The  operational  programme  for  2000-2006  has  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €122  million
devoted to fleet measures. Strategic priorities include  adjusting  fishing  effort  to  the
fish resources available, renewing and modernising the fleet and technical assistance.
Other  fisheries  measures  for  Objective 1  regions  are  contained  in  separate
programmes for each of the regions concerned. €34.318 million had been spent by 31
December 2002, - mainly on the scrapping of boats.

Calabria

The operational programme for 2000-2006 has an FIFG allocation of €18.6 million.
As  of  31  December  2002,  a  first  intermediate  payment  of  €0.25  million  had  been
reimbursed. Strategic  objectives include  protection  and  development  of  fish  stocks,
improving port facilities and promoting marketing campaigns.

Campania

The operational programme for 2000-2006 has an FIFG allocation of €38 million. As
of  31  December  2002,  a  first  intermediate  payment  of  €0.160  million  had  been
reimbursed. Strategic objectives include support for fishing communities, protection
of marine and coastal resources and modernisation of the aquaculture sector.

103

Molise

The operational programme for 2000-2006 has an FIFG allocation of €0.46 million -
mainly for aquaculture. Because of late State aid approval and a ban on sea bass and
sea bream production, no projects have been approved.

Apulia

The operational programme for 2000-2006 has an FIFG allocation of €30 million. As
of 31 December 2002,  two  intermediate  payments  totalling  €0.84  million  had  been
reimbursed.  Strategic  objectives  include  improving  competitiveness  and  facilitating
the formation of producer associations.

Sardinia

The operational programme for 2000-2006 has a FIFG allocation of €27 million. As
of 31 December 2002, two intermediate payments totalling €0.965 million had been
reimbursed.

Sicily

The  operational  programme  for  2000-2006  has  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €50  million.
Strategic  objectives  include  promoting  local  produce,  improving  the  local  fishing
environment  and  better  working  conditions,  production  and  marketing.  Because  of
late State aid approval, no projects have been approved.

ESF

The gap between the activity rate in Italy (54.8% in 2001) and the European average
(64%)  is  still  considerable,  particularly  where  women  and  ageing  workers  are
concerned.  There  is  still  insufficient  job  creation  to  overcome  the  regional
differences:  while  the  South  suffers  from  structural  employment,  the  North  suffers
from bottlenecks and the demand in jobs for some qualifications outstrips supply.

Public  and  private  employment  services  must  thus  get  involved  in  a  flexible  and
appropriate way.

ESF assistance to  the Objective 1  regions of  Italy  has  supported  implementation  of
the  employment  strategy  in  accordance  with  the  commitments  made  in  the  Italian
national action plan for employment.

The  programmes  covering  the  Objective 1  regions  are  now  all  operational:  in
financing  terms,  overall  ESF  commitments  exceed  25%  of  all  programming,  while
expenditure is about 7%.

For  the  authorities  managing  the  regional  Operational  Programmes,  this  has  meant
above all  concentrating  efforts  on  improving  the  quality  of  the  training  on  offer  so
that  it  can  keep  contributing  in  a  real  way  to  regional  development  and  the  fight
against unemployment.

In this context the main problem has been opening up the training market (under the
Italian  CSF,  there  will  be  no  more  direct  invitations  to  tender  for  ESF  funds  from

104

June  2003),  a  transformation  that  must  occur  through  the  certification  of  training
bodies in accordance with quality criteria established by Italian law.

This  process  of  transformation  has  required  a  special  effort  from  the  regions  with
significant  public  training  structures;  they  must  henceforth  operate  under  the  same
terms as private ones.

Another  key  goal  in  2003  is  to  support  the  reform  of  public  employment  services.
Despite the work done, the Objective 1 regions still lag behind the other regions of
Italy,  particularly  as  regards  investment  in  human  resources  and  provision  of  the
necessary facilities.

Lastly, despite the best efforts of the Italian authorities, the strategy to promote equal
opportunities  and  to  bring  the  black  economy  into  the  legal  mainstream  is  behind
schedule.

Furthermore, some regions have incomplete or inefficient administrative structures.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

The late adoption (July 2000) of the list of eligible Objective 2 areas in Italy for the
2000-2006 programming period meant that the decisions approving the 14 SPDs for
the  Italian  regions  concerned  were  only  issued  between  September  and  December
2001.  The  SPDs  provide  for  total  public  expenditure  (Objective 2  areas  and  areas
enjoying only transitional support) of €6.496 million, with a Community contribution
of 
€3.888  million.  The
programmes  are  funded  from  a  single  Fund,  the  Community  contribution  coming
from  the  ERDF.  Assistance  from  the  ESF  and  EAGGF  is  provided  under  the
Objective 3 programmes and the rural development (PDR) and Leader+ programmes.

€2.608  million  and  national  public 

expenditure  of 

Assistance  thus  began  to  flow  in  2002.  Once  the  SPDs  were  adopted,  the  relevant
Monitoring  Committees  were  established  at  the  end  of  2001  or  early  2002  and  the
Italian  authorities  were  able  to  adopt  an  initial  version  of  the  programme
complements  for  all  the  Objective 2  SPDs,  with  the  Monitoring  Committees’
agreement.  Following  receipt  of  the  complements,  the  Commission  sent  letters
commenting  on  their  compliance  with  the  SPDs  and  relevant  legislation.  A  second
version of the complements was then drawn up, incorporating a large number of the
Commission’s comments and remarks.

The first meetings with  the  authorities  managing the SPDs  were  held in  November
2002. These meetings considered, strategy-wise, the progress of  the  measures, with
particular attention being paid to dedicated programme sectors (in particular “water”,
“waste”  and  “information  society”),  as  well  as  the  horizontal  implementing
provisions  (in  particular,  monitoring,  information  and  publicity  and  controls).  The
evaluators were appointed in all the regions.

Information  on  the  financial  execution  of  the  measures  is  still  rather  incomplete
because  the  regional  authorities  are  still  finalising  the  procedures  for  choosing  the
projects to be charged to the SPD. The first monitoring data on 30 September 2002
(sent in mid-February 2003) indicate that average payments relative to the amounts
programmed  vary  greatly  between  the  best  performing  regions  of  Valle  d’Aosta,
Tuscany and Lazio, being 13.5%, 5.5% and 3.5% respectively. The data has not yet

105

been included for four regions. In the case of the priorities, while generalisations are
not easy to make and matters need to be looked at in greater detail, it would appear
that,  in  particular  for  the  most  advanced  regions,  progress  has  been  fastest  on  the
environmental  measures  but  slower  for  the  measures  relating  to  aid  schemes.
Harmonised data on financial monitoring as of 31 December 2002 will be available
for all the regions in April 2003.

By 31 December 2002, only one certification of expenditure/payment application had
been sent to the Commission; it related to the Province of Trento.

The  new  rules  introduced  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/99  have  resulted  in  some
significant changes in terms of management arrangements and even in terms  of the
attitude of the Italian authorities towards Community programmes.

The  Managing  Authorities  certainly  now  have  a  greater  sense  of  responsibility,
particularly  in  the  Management  Committees  where  the  Commission’s  role  is
primarily to advise  and encourage, thereby  facilitating  the  decision-making  process
within  the  Committees.  Procedures  have  become  a little more  cumbersome  relative
to  the  preceding  period  because  of  dual  programming  (SPD  and  programme
complement).  The  programme  complements  can  be  amended  quite  frequently,  so
requiring  the  Commission  to  conduct  at  least  a  minimum  analysis  of  the  new
documents each time, in order to ensure consistency with the SPDs and the relevant
legislation.

As regards coordinating the Community Funds, the Italian authorities have opted for
single-Fund (ERDF) SPDs. The requirement to coordinate the Objective 2 measures
with  those  under  Objective 3  and  the  rural  development/Leader+  programmes  was
emphasised in the SPDs. Provision was also made in the context of Objective 3 for a
minimum financial concentration 5% above the average for the Objective 2 regions.
The programme complements describe satisfactorily (to a greater or lesser extent) the
practical  arrangements  for  organising  coherence  and  synergies vis-à-vis the  various
measures  existing  in  the  same  area  (as  regards  coordinating  the  administrative
structures  and  project  selection  criteria,  for  example).  Close  monitoring  of  these
issues in the annual reports is needed if the results of the actual application of these
coordination rules are to be evaluated.

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

ESF assistance to the Objective 3 regions of Italy in 2002 supported implementation
of  the  employment  strategy  in  accordance  with  the  commitments  given  in  the
national action plan for employment.

The  fifteen  programmes  covering  the  Objective 3  regions  are  fully  operational.  In
financial terms, overall commitments exceed 30% of the entire programming, while
expenditure  is  around  15%  and  no  Objective 3  programme  has  suffered  automatic
decommitment.

As regards the strategy’s central themes, most of the Managing Authorities have paid
particular  attention  to  social  exclusion  and  measures  centred  on  promoting  equal
opportunities and opening employment centres, which had fallen behind schedule in
the Objective 3 regions but are now back on track.

106

By way of contrast, the implementation of lifelong learning measures is problematic
and  behind  schedule,  especially  in  the  SMEs.  This  is  especially  true  of  training  in
key fields like research and development or business formation.

Overall, the ESF contribution to the goals of the CSF (in particular the better quality
jobs and  better vocational  integration  of  disadvantaged  groups),  plays  an  important
role in revitalising and regulating the jobs markets in northern Italy.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The  SPD  for  2000-2006  has  an  FIFG  allocation  of  €99.6  million  of  which  €46
million  are  for  fleet  measures.  As  of  31  December  2002,  €18.9  million  had  been
spent - mainly on the scrapping of boats.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The  Leader  +  programme  in  Italy  comprises  21  regional  programmes  and  one
national  programme  (network),  public  expenditure  being  €482.262  million  with  an
EAGGF contribution of €284.1 million.

The adoption of 8 Leader + programmes in 2002 (for the seven Objective 1 regions
and  the  national  network)  has  allowed  approval  of  all  Italian  programmes  to  be
finalised.

The EAGGF Guidance Section committed €64.5 million to the 22 programmes and
paid an advance of 7%, i.e. €18 887 000.

Of the twelve regions required to present their first annual report for 2002, Sardinia,
Calabria, Umbria and Emilia-Romagna failed to do so.

Monitoring  Committees  were  established  for  all  the  programmes  and  this  ensured
adoption  of  the  programme  complements  with  account  taken  of  the  amendments
sought by the Commission to the initial texts presented. The Commission has either
not  received  or  not  yet  accepted  four  programme  complements  (Emilia-Romagna,
Apulia, Sicily, and Trento).

The procedures for selecting the local action groups and the technical assistance and
evaluatory  bodies  were  begun  in  2002  but  have  been  completed  in  only  a  few
Regions.

5.2

EQUAL

The EQUAL Initiative has got off to a very good start in Italy, with 1 333 proposals
submitted.  Following 
the  selection  process,  42  geographical  development
partnerships  (DPs)  and  237  sectoral  DPs  are  receiving  finance.  Several  national
topic-based  seminars  have  been  organised.  An  information  guide  and  a  2001-2003
compendium,  presenting  all  the  sectoral  and  geographical  EQUAL  projects,  have
been published.

107

Lastly, at European level the Managing Authority agreed to be co-leader (with Spain)
of a European Thematic Group (ETG) on equal opportunities.

5.3

URBAN

All 10 URBAN II Programmes for Italy were adopted by the European Commission
in    November  2001.  The    total    eligible    cost  of  all  10  URBAN  II  programmes  is
€264 397 654, with an EU contribution of €114 800 000 and €18 476 573 from the
private sector.

The Managing Authority of each  Italian URBAN II Programme is the Municipality
of  the  city.  So  the  Monitoring  Committees,  chaired  by  the  Town  Council,  are
organised  at  local  level  and  include  both  institutional  bodies  and  environmental,
social-economic  partners.  Local  residents  and  local  partnerships  are  often  directly
involved in the programme design and implementation. The Monitoring Committees
met twice in 2002.

All programme complements were approved by the Monitoring Committee and sent
to  the  Commission  in  early  2002.  In  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No
1260/1999, the annual reports are due in June 2003, while the mid-term evaluations
are to be submitted by December 2003.

The  advance  payments  of  7%  were  made  before  the  end  of  2001.  All  the  Italian
URBAN II Programmes submitted interim payment requests in 2002.

6.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ESF

No  application  for  payment  of  the  balance  for  the  1994-1999  programming  period
had been received by 31 December 2002.

EAGGF

Fifty  one  (51)  applications  for  payment  of  the  balance  were  submitted  in  2002
(including  13  Leader  II  OPs  and  one  INTERREG  II  OP).  However,  only  9
programmes  (including  one  Leader  II  OP)  could  be  closed  in  2002  because  the
Italian authorities submitted some incomplete or ineligible applications. Through the
various Monitoring Committees and meetings the competent authorities were able to
indicate how prepared they were for meeting  the  deadline of 31  March 2003 (most
were not).

108

7.

7.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

ESF

2002 saw intense coordination between the various evaluators (the permanent ISFOL
structure  and  independent  regional  evaluators)  in  the  following  areas:  placement
surveys;  indicators;  evaluation  of  implementation;  analysis  of  vocational  training
quality.

7. 2

Controls

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97

Apulia  and  the  Ministry  for  Productive  Activities  -  the  Internal  Borders  and  Cable
programmes  -  missions  of  15-16  April  2002  (Internal  Borders)  and  8  July  2002
(Cable).

The  Apulia  Region  and  the  Ministry  for  Productive  Activities  are  the  Managing
Authorities for several programmes part-funded by the ERDF. It was found that these
two administrations have given responsibility for controls and the preparation of the
declaration  referred  to  in  Article  8  of  the  Regulation  to  a  different  body  for  each
programme  that  they  manage.  This  practice  does  not  appear  to  sit  well  with  the
principles  of  sound  financial  management,  prejudices  the  effectiveness  of  the
controls and, what is more, risks compromising standardised auditing, given the lack
of common guidelines. No explanation was given of the grounds for this approach.

The Internal Borders Programme

The Apulia Region was very late in adopting the measures need to apply Regulation
(EC) No 2064/97 to the Interreg programmes: at the time of the mission, the audit of
expenditure declarations concerned just one project. Moreover, the systems audit laid
down in Article 3(1)(a) was not carried out.

Project sampling was not done in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No
2064/97:  the Commission auditors  noted that the selection was made  randomly  but
without taking account of the risk analysis.

There are no procedures for monitoring infringements or for dealing with any system
irregularities  that  might  be  detected  (Articles  5  and  7  of  Regulation  (EC)  No
2064/97).

The  administrative  departments  of  the  Apulia  Region  responsible  for  managing
ERDF funds for the Interreg programme do not apply optimal control procedures.

Application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 to the ‘Cable’ programme

The rule contained in point 4.3 of the Annex to Commission Decision (EC) 342/94 of
31  May  1994 on  information  and  publicity  measures  was  not  complied  with  in  the

109

brochure entitled “L’Interconnessione Elettrica Italia Grecia” because the cover page
did not make reference to the Community contribution to the project.

See also Greece, 4.2. INTERREG IIA controls

Audits to close programmes in the 1994-96 period

Tuscany SPD for Objective 2 (1994-96) - audit mission of 3 and 7 June 2002

The  Tuscany  Region  overestimated  the  conversion  into  euro  by  1.19%  of  all  the
expenditure contained in the final expenditure declaration.

Expenditure on twelve projects amounting to LIT 60 862 719 020 was checked. The
amount  of  ineligible  expenditure  discovered  amounted  to  LIT  7  733  725  287,
corresponding to 12.70% of the checked expenditure.

The  problems  encountered  involve  non-compliance  with  the  rules  on  commitments
and the declaration of ineligible expenditure for ERDF part-funding (simple repair or
maintenance work, the purchase of a utility vehicle, rental cases where rent payments
paid  after  the  measure  was  completed  were  treated  as  eligible,  uncertainty  as  to
whether  environmental  goals  were  achieved)  and  the  holding  back  of  4%  of  the
payments from the ERDF (not in conformity with Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No
4253/88).

FIFG

Following a case in the Court of Justice, DG FISH checked two aquaculture projects
for conformity and accounting compliance.

A further control will probably be required by the Commission in order to establish
expenditure eligibility.

110

LUXEMBOURG

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

By  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 2001. The assistance is from a
single Fund (ERDF).

The  Objective 2  programme  (single  Fund,  ERDF)  was  formally  approved  on  27
December  2001,  and  2002  was  largely  devoted  to  preparing  and  implementing
management tools and tools for the operational monitoring of the programme.

The  Monitoring  Committee  met  in  February,  July  and  November  2002.  The
programme  complement  was  finalised  in  June  and  contains  the  project  selection
criteria  and  the  indicators  and  quantitative  objectives  of  the  programme’s  various
operational  measures.  The  public  call  for  projects  was  then  launched  in  August  by
the Ministry of Economics, closed in October and followed by the project selections
procedure  in  late  2002  and  early  2003.  In  addition,  the  specifications  for  the  mid-
term review  were validated by the Monitoring Committee, with  a view  to  selecting
the assessor early in 2003.

No  interim  payment  requests  were  submitted  to  the  Commission  in  2002  for  this
programme.

2.

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, with Community assistance of
€39  million.  In  fact,  despite  employment  growth  above  the  average  for  EU-15,  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 take early retirement.

The  Luxembourg  programme  has  set  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 annual meeting in December 2002, the Luxembourg authorities reported that
2002 had seen a great deal of progress in particular in implementing those measures
which had  yet to be covered at the end of 2001, namely measures relating to equal
opportunities in continuing training  and to the expansion of child-care  facilities. At
the end of December 2002, almost 43% of total ESF resources available had already

111

been  committed.  The  risks  of  an  automatic  decommitment  at  the  end  of  the  N+2
period in 2002 did not materialise, and there would not appear to be any such risk in
2003.

3.

3.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The status quo was maintained for Leader+ in Luxembourg in 2002, no programme
complement having been submitted to the Commission.

3.2

EQUAL

The three development partnerships chosen by the Member State each cover the two
axes  of  social  exclusion  and  equal  opportunities,  and  also  asylum  seekers.  The
agreements  have  been  signed  with  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Employment,  and
transnational cooperation has been activated and the work programmes implemented.
Luxembourg  is  not  directly  involved  in  a  thematic  network,  but  the  Managing
Authority  is  planning  to  distribute  the  results  of  the  projects  and  integrate  their
experiences  into  national  policies,  by  organising  thematic  seminars  on  social
exclusion,  improved  labour  market  access  and  equal  opportunities  for  the  public  at
large.

4.

CLOSURE OF THE 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

ERDF

Luxembourg  is  involved  in  around  ten  programmes  for  which  the  final  request  for
payment must be sent to the Commission by 31 March 2003 at the latest.

The  programmes  for  this  period  were  completed  on  31  December  2001  and  could
have  been  the  subject  of  a  closure  request  in  the  middle  of  2002.  However,  the
Luxembourg authorities informed the Commission in June that these requests would
be delayed but would be submitted before the regulatory deadline.

The Commission did not receive any ERDF closure requests in 2002.

EAGGF & LEADER

Luxembourg has not yet produced the documents required to close the programmes
(Objectives  5(a),  5(b)  and  Leader  II).  As  a  result  this  entire  exercise  should  take
place in the first quarter of 2003.

ESF

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.

112

Objectives 3 and 4: The €23 million of ESF  assistance has been used, according to
the provisional statement. The final statement and the certification of expenditure are
expected by the deadline.

113

NETHERLANDS

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

The  phasing-out  SPD  for  Flevoland  is  the  only  Objective 1  programme  in  the
Netherlands;  a  first  modifying  decision  was  taken  in  2002  by  the  Commission  in
order to bring the national part-financing for the fisheries fleet reduction measure in
line  with  the  ceiling  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2792/99.  Subsequently,  the
programme complement has been revised for the same reason.

As  regards  the  financial  execution,  sufficient  expenditure  has  been  declared  to  the
Commission  by  the  end  of  2002  to  prevent  the  application  of  the  n+2  rule  for  the
2000 instalment of the ERDF.

Two  meetings  of  the  Monitoring  Committee  took  place.  Besides  progress  of  the
implementation  of  the  program,  national  part-financing  of  EAGGF-part-financed
projects and the preparation of the mid-term evaluation have been discussed during
the  meetings.  A  thematic  discussion  around  advanced  technology  clusters  has  also
been organised within this committee.

Following  the  analysis  of  the  otherwise  acceptable  annual  report  2001,  the
Commission observed among others that only limited information had been included
on the co-ordination with other community policies (employment, rural development
plan,  …).  The  Commission  also  noted  that  no  notable  progress  had  been  made  as
regards  electronic  exchange  of  information  with  the  Commission.  The  same  issues
have also been the object of discussion in the annual meeting in December 2002.

EAGGF

Flevoland  is  classified  as  a  phasing-out  Objective 1  region.  The  programme  was
approved in July 2000. By December 2002 payment requests were received that did
not cover the total budget for EAGGF of the year 2000. Following the N+2-rule the
relevant part of the budget will be automatically decommitted.

FIFG

Within the Single Programming Document 2000-2006 for the regions of Objective 1,
adopted  by  the  Commission  on  27  July  2000,  an  amount  of  €6,0  million  has  been
allocated to FIFG-measures.

The envisaged investment mainly  concerns the  adjustment  of  fishing  effort  and  the
processing and marketing of fish.

114

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

For two (“Noord”, “Oost”) out of the four Objective 2 SPDs in the Netherlands, the
programme  complement  has  been  accepted  by  the  Commission  in  the  first  half  of
2002. For the other 2 (“Steden”, “Zuid”) this had happened already in 2001. For all 4
programs  the  annual  reports  2001  have  been  submitted  to  and  accepted  by  the
Commission.

By the end of 2002, all Managing Authorities of the Objective 2 programs indicated,
on  the  basis  of  the  progress  up  till  that  moment,  not  to  expect  any  problems  as
regards  the  first application of the n+2  rule  by  the  end  of  2003.  However,  national
part-financing  problems  for  the  rural development  measures  in  some  programs  still
require close attention of the authorities in order prevent loss of funds in later years.
Considerable progress in the phasing out areas appears for some programs to be the
short-term escape-route from automatic de-commitments.

As  for  the  Objective 1  program,  a  series  of  topics  have  been  discussed  during  the
Monitoring Committee meetings as well as in the joint annual meeting (bringing all
Objective 1  and  2  programs  together).  The  “Zuid”  committee  put  the  Commission
priorities  on  equal  opportunities  and  sustainable  development  on  the  agenda.  The
authorities of the “Steden” programme (like the other Objective 2 programs with the
ERDF as the only structural fund) raised both in the Monitoring Committee meetings
and in the annual meeting the issue of eligibility of socially focused projects by the
ERDF. “Noord”, in financial terms the most advanced of the 4 programs (more then
80%  of  the  2001  ERDF  instalment  had  been  paid  by  end  December),  discussed
during  a  committee  meeting  the  experience  of  the  social  partners  in  the
implementation  and  oversight  of  the  SPD.  The  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  of
“Oost”  dealt  among  others  with  the  particularly  problematic  rural  development
measures  as  well  as  with  communication  and  publicity.  The  Committees  of  all  4
programs met twice, with the exception of “Zuid” (3 times).

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

As  a  result  of  the  irregularity  problems  in  the  previous  period  the  start  of  the
programme  was  very  much  delayed.  2002  has  been  the  first  full  year  of
implementation. So it not a surprise that the absorption of funds is much lower than
is foreseen in the financial plan. Already an amount of €22.183.486,64 will have to
be decommitted as a result of the application of the N+2 rule for the 2000 tranche.

The under-consumption is concentrated in the first two measures of the programme,
which  are  aimed  at  the  reintegration  of  unemployed  and  inactive.  The  other  two
measures aimed at training of workers and at early school-leavers are performing up
to expectations.

The  Dutch  authorities  are  of  course  very  aware  of  the  under-consumption  problem
and  have  taken  various  steps  to  increase  the  usage  of  the  fund.  They  have,  among
other things,  increased  the number  of final  beneficiaries to  all  the  municipalities  in
the  Netherlands.  And  recently  they  have  asked  the  Insurance  Agencies  for  Worker

115

Benefits (UWVs) to become final beneficiary under Objective 3. Training of worker
projects  is  successful so  currently  the  idea  is  developed  to  link  the  reintegration  of
unemployed and the training of workers into one project.

Although  these  steps  will  certainly  help  to  increase  consumption  remains  it  to  be
seen  whether  this  is  enough  to  solve  the  whole  problem  because  the  problem  is
getting  bigger.  By  the  end  of  2003  the  2001  tranche  of  €260  million  becomes  due
which  is  almost  twice  the  size  of  the  2000  tranche  if  the  payment  on  account  is
deducted. For this reason more future decommitments remain likely.

One  explanation  why  there  is  a  lack  of  in  interest  in  the  Dutch  Objective 3
programme  is  that  many  potential  applicants  regard  the  rules  under  which  the  ESF
subsidies are granted as very complicated and therefore risky. This picture has in the
eyes  of  the  Dutch  authorities  not  really  changed  as  a  result  of  the  recent
simplification exercise

The  Netherlands  has  adopted  Objective 2  programmes  without  ESF.  This  was
permitted provided that a more than proportionate share of Objective 3 money would
trickle down in Objective 2 areas. This share was put in the Objective 3 SPD at 20%
and  has  so  far  been  met.  Nevertheless  some  of  the  Managing  Authorities  for  the
Objective 2  programmes  have  indicated  that  they  would  also  like  to  become  final
beneficiary  for  Objective 3.  For  the  moment  this  request  was  turned  down  by  the
Monitoring Committee and the Minister of Social Affairs but this request will have
to be reviewed at the time of the Mid Term Review.

The 2000 and 2001 annual report did not yet provide any specific information about
additionality. This topic is also included in the upcoming Mid Term Review.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The  Structural  Programme  Fisheries  for  the  regions  outside  Objective 1  has  been
submitted to the Commission on 29 December 2000 and provides a FIFG-allocation
of €32,1 million. The programme was only  approved on 17 January 2002 and covers
the period 2001-2006.

In the course of 2002 the administrative infrastructure for the implementation of this
programme was set up : Monitoring Committee, Programme complement.

No reimbursement claim for this programme has yet been made.

The new approach about simplification has not yet had any major impact in 2002.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The 4 Leader+ programmes are operational but progress is lagging behind compared
to the 2002 budget: the Leader+ programmes have only spent 15% of the budget for
2002  (and  in  2002  only  54%  of  this  budget  is  contracted  by  the  Managing
Authorities).

116

The Commission has received  the programming complements that  were  considered
satisfactory. The Commission also received the annual reports on the implementation
of the programme in 2001.

On 17 December 2002 the first annual review meeting for Leader+ was organised in
The Hague.

5.2

EQUAL

On 15th of May 100 DP’s had submitted applications for Action 2, subsequently 95
were approved to continue into Action 2 for a total commitment of €78 932 916.

At European level, the Managing Authority decided to be co-leader of the European
thematic group (ETG) on Asylum seekers, together with Sweden.

5.3

URBAN

There  are  3  URBAN  II  programmes  in  the  Netherlands.  The  programmes  for
Amsterdam,  Rotterdam  and  Heerlen  were  approved  on  20  Sept.  2001.  Amsterdam
and  Rotterdam  receive  €8.94  million  from  the  ERDF,  Heerlen  receives  €11.92
million. The total budget for Amsterdam is €31.14 million, for Rotterdam is €23.74
million and for Heerlen €32.18 million. The prog ramme complement for Amsterdam
has  been  received  on  06  February  2002,  for  Rotterdam  on  31  May  2002  and  for
Heerlen on 20 June 2002. None had too submit an annual report for 2001.

For  all  three  programmes,  the  Managing  Authority  is  the  city.  The  Monitoring
Committee  have  all  met  at  least  once.  The  three  Managing  Authorities  also
participate  in  a  national  network  which  allows  them  to  learn  from  each  other  and
exchange experience.

The advance payments of 7% were made at the  end  of 2001,  all three  programmes
have sent their first payment requests.

6.

CLOSURE OF THE 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

ERDF

In  2002,  the  Commission  closed  a  last  ERDF  part-financed  project  of  the  period
before  1994.  The  ERDF-part  of  all  5  Objective 2  programs  covering  the
programming  period  1994-1996  has  been  financially  closed  that  year  (Arnhem-
Nijmegen, Twente, Zuid-Oost Brabant, Groningen-Drenthe, and Zuid-Limburg). To
this list can be added one community initiative programme (RETEX, 1994-1997) and
the  technical  assistance  contribution  of  the  ERDF  to  the  Dutch  territorial
employment pacts.

For the remaining programs of the 1994-1999 period with an ERDF component (23
programs  related  to  Objective 1,  2,  5(b)  or  to  a  community  initiative  in  the
Netherlands  and  4  Interreg  programs  involving  the  Netherlands),  the  closure
procedure is still on-going. For the majority of these programs, all closure documents
have been submitted to the Commission in 2002. In one third of these programs, one
or  more  of  the  required  documents  must  still  be  submitted  before  the  deadline  of
31/3/2003. The analysis of the closure documents gave for most programs  rise to a

117

series of comments that have been transmitted to the competent authorities in order
to  complete  or  correct  these  documents.  Examples  of  the  problems  detected  in  the
closure  documents  are:  absence  of  a  description  of  the  activities  of  the  Monitoring
Committee;  absence  or  limited  description  of  the  control  activities  related  to  the
program, in particular those carried out under Article 3 of Regulation 2067/97.

EAGGF

Final  claims,  final  reports  and  Article  8  declarations  following  Regulation  (EC)
2064/1997  were  submitted  for  the  Objective 1  programme  Flevoland,  5  Objective
5(b)-programmes and 5 Leader II-programmes.

ESF

To this date the Dutch authorities have not yet sent in any final payment declarations
for  the  1994-1999  period.  All  in  all  thirteen  programmes  need  to  be  closed.  The
Article 24 correction decision  of  the Commission C(2002)970 was  accepted  by  the
Dutch  authorities.  All  programmes,  except  for  Objective  4,  are  affected  by  this
decision which has been arrived at by way of extrapolation. This means that the years
1994-1996 can be considered as closed for the programmes concerned.

7.

7.1

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

Evaluations

ESF

The evaluator was appointed in 2001. First reports have been finalised during 2002.

LEADER

The ex-post evaluation for the Leader II programmes was received.

The 4 Leader+ programmes started with the preparations for the midterm-evaluation.
Following the  approach of the  ex-post  evaluations for the  Leader  II  programmes,  a
common evaluation will be done for the 4 programmes.

7. 2

Controls

ERDF

Audits on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2064/97

INTERREG  II  C  Inundation  RHINE-MEUSE  (“IRMA”);  Date  of  mission  :  22/23
May 2002

The  coordination  of  the  implementation  of  this  Interreg  programme  has  been
undertaken by the Joint Secretariat of IRMA in The Hague. However, the  financial
control  measures  provided  for  in  the  Regulation  were  the  responsibility  of  the
participating  Member  States  which  could  not  agree  on  common  or  coherent
procedures. This has resulted in an increased risk that adequate checks may not have
been carried out consistently throughout the participating Member States. In order to

118

address  this  risk,  the  auditors  consider  it  important  that  the  Article  8-statements,
which  will  be  issued  separately  by  each  Member  State,  contain  sufficient  and
coherent  information  which  permit  the  Commission  services  to  conclude  on  the
regularity of the expenditure declared for the programme as a whole.

The  Dutch  authorities  have,  with  regard  to  the  operations  carried  out  in  the
Netherlands,  in  general  complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation.  This
applies in particular to the management and control systems used to implement these
operations,  to  the  5%  controls  during  which  the  functioning  of  the  aforementioned
systems  has  been  examined,  and  to  the  Article  8-person  who  is  functionally
independent  and  who  has  devised  a  work  programme  which  should  provide  an
adequate basis for issuing the closure statement in relation to the Dutch projects.

119

AUSTRIA

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

During  2002,  the  main  feature  of  the  implementation  of  ERDF  assistance  was  the
follow-up  of  changes 
to  programming  documents  already  approved.  The
Commission  approved  the  third  amendment  to  the  SPD  of  the  Burgenland
Objective 1 in December 2002. The change applies to the list of state aid schemes to
include all the schemes currently necessary for implementation.

The  amendment  to  the  Programme  Complement  was  approved  by  the  third
Monitoring  Committee  meeting  in  June  and  submitted  to  the  Commission  on  31
December 2002 after adoption of the new version of the Burgenland SPD.

The  “2001  annual  report”  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  in  July  2002  and  was
approved in the same month. The financial data corroborate the trend that, especially
in  the  fields  of  human  resources,  infrastructure,  research  and  development  and
tourism marketing, the programme is on schedule. For measures part-financed by the
ERDF the SPD accounts for €173 million; by the end of 2002 the Commission had
reimbursed €45 million.

The  SPD  includes  €55 million  for  HHuummaann   rreessoouurrcceess  measures  part-financed  by  the
ESF. By the end of 2002 the Commission had reimbursed €18 million.

The SPD includes €41 million for agricultural  and rural development measures part-
financed by the EAGGF; by the end of 2002 the Commission had paid €12 million.

EAGGF

The  procedures  for  implementing  the  Objective 1  rural  development  measures  are
laid  down  in  the  framework  of  the  Burgenland  Objective 1  Programme.  This
programme  provides  for  an  allowance  of  €41 million  under  the  EAGGF  (Fund)
measures out of a total cost of €157 milli on. By the end of 2002,  the payments per
Member  State  reached  a  total  of  €43 million,  of  which  the  EAGGF  accounted  for
€9 million.

FIFG

Under  the  Single  Programming  Document  2000-2006  for  Objective 1  regions  in
Austria,  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  7  April  2000,  some  €0.8  million  were
allocated for FIFG-measures, mainly for aquaculture.

The  progress  of  implementation  is  very  slow.  Up  to  the  end  of  2002  the  Austrian
authorities had submitted only one reimbursement claim for a small amount.

ESF

A programme modification was formally approved by the Commission in December
2002. The ESF is not concerned.

120

The total ESF commitments amount to €55  million. Some €17.8 million were paid by
the end of 2002.

A  Monitoring  Committee  Meeting  was  held  in  Eisenstadt  on  10  June  2002.  The
Annual  Meeting  took  place  in  Vienna  on  20  November  2002.  According  to  the
information given on the  occasion  of those meetings, 4 800 projects were accepted
by  end  2002  (1  200  in  2002).  Measures  relating  to  venture  capital  (1.5)  and
innovative activities (2.1 and 2.3) are still lagging behind. A possible adjustment is
envisaged for the mid-term evaluation. The n+2 rule does not constitute any risk with
respect to the ESF.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

After a late start in 2001, the year 2002 was the first full year of implementation and
there are quite broad differences in the financial implementation between the various
Objective 2 programmes. According to the annual reports and presentations made by
the  managing  authorities  at  the  annual  meeting,  the  Objective 2  programmes  for
Carinthia, Lower Austria, Salzburg and Vorarlberg are the most successful in terms
of expenditure which have been made so far. The Objective 2 programmes for Styria,
Upper Austria and Tyrol were behind schedule as well as the Objective 2 programme
for  Vienna  that  was  approved  by  the  Commission  later  than  the  other  Objective 2
programmes.

The  Monitoring  Committees  were  held  in  June  2002  in  Upper  Austria  (Lower
Austria,  Styria,  Upper  Austria  and  Vienna)  and  in  Tyrol  (Vorarlberg,  Salzburg,
Tyrol,  and  Carinthia).  At  the  meetings,  changes  to  the  SPD  and  the  programme
complements were discussed.

In the reporting year there have been amendments to all Objective 2 programmes in
Austria. In most cases the changes apply to the list of state aid schemes to include all
the  schemes  currently  necessary  for  implementation  (Objective 2  programmes  for
Austria  -  Carinthia,  Lower  Austria,  Styria,  Salzburg,  Tyrol,  Upper  Austria,  Vienna
and  Vorarlberg).  In  the  Objective 2  programmes  for  Tyrol,  Vienna  and  Upper
Austria there have been changes to the financial tables  (financial  transfers  between
priority axes), in Vienna and Upper Austria due to the August 2002 flooding in these
regions. In the Objective 2 programme for Upper Austria a new measure was added
in the light of the flood catastrophe for “operationally flood assistance”.

The  annual  meeting  with  the  Management  Authorities  for  Objectives  1  and  2  in
Austria  took  place  on  20  November.  The  first  part  was  devoted  to  the
implementation  of  the  programmes  with  presentations  made  by  the  managing
authorities.  After  a  discussion,  the  second  part  of  the  meeting  dealt  with
administrative topics and all the issues concerning the annual reports, experiences of
programme management, the closure of the programmes for the period 1995-99 and
with  thematic  discussions  proposed  by  the  Commission  (simplification  of  the
administration of Structural Policy, conclusion of the Structural Funds for the period
1995-99).  The  terms  of  reference  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  were  handed  over  to
the representatives of the Commission. The mid-term evaluation has been launched
for Objective 1 and all Objective 2 programmes in Austria.

121

ESF

The  ESF  is  covered  by  three  programmes:  Carinthia,  Styria  and  Vienna.  The  total
ESF contribution amounts to €28.9 million.  By end 2002, Carinthia  had committed
€3.8  million  and  paid  €0.61  million,  Styria  €20.3  million  and  €1.6  million  and
Vienna €4 million and €0.5 million.

Monitoring Committee Meetings were held in Linz on 12-14 June 2002. The Annual
Meeting  for  Objectives  1  and  3  took  place  in  Vienna  on  20  November  2002.  The
Annual Reports for all Objective 2 programmes were received on 24 July 2002.

Carinthia  is  implementing  best  with  respect  to  all  Objective 2  programmes.
Innovative  activities,  as  in  Burgenland,  face  similar  difficulties  of  implementation.
They will be the subject, too, of the mid-term evaluation.

Styria  implements  well  with  regard  to  Measure  4.1  -Qualification.  Measure  4.2  -
Innovative qualifications- still faces difficulties as projects form part of a network.

Vienna faces a shift between funds from the ESF to the ERDF. The implementation
as such has to be accelerated.

The  forthcoming  annual  reports  for  the  programmes  including  ESF  will  include  a
chapter relating to the ESF's contribution to the European Employment Strategy.

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

The total commitments amount to €548.2 mill ion. €190.1 million were paid by end
2002.

The  4th  Monitoring  Committee  Meeting  took  place  on  11  July  2002,  a  follow-up
meeting with the Austrian authorities on 26 September 2002 and the Annual Meeting
was  held  on  16  December  2002.  The  Annual  Implementation  report  2001  was
submitted in September 2002.

The state of implementation is as follows:

Priority  1-prevention  and  fight  against  adult  and  youth  unemployment-  is
implemented  by  the  Labour  Market  Service  and  runs  smoothly  and  without  any
problems. The other priorities, with the exception of Priority 3 -lifelong learning- are
being implemented without problems. A shift between funds within Priority 3, from
schools  to  adult  education,  is  still  possible  but  not  very  probable  as  the  absorption
rate  for  the  school  measure,  which  continued  to  lag  behind,  was  considerably
enhanced. This problem was discussed at a technical meeting on 30 April 2003.

A  Monitoring  Committee  Meeting  covering  the  questions  related  to  the  mid-term
evaluation will be held on 23 June 2003. The draft report on the mid-term evaluation
is scheduled to be  available at  that  date.  During  the  first  half  of  September  2003  a
national ESF Conference will be organised in Vienna linking the results the ESF can
deliver  with  the  European  Employment  Strategy  and  the  formal  discussions  on  the
future of the structural funds.

122

The  n+2  rule  does  not  constitute  any  risk.  The  Article  8  declaration  is  still  being
negotiated between the Commission and the Austrian authorities.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The  Structural  Fisheries  Programme  for  Austria  2000-2006  (regions  outside
Objective 1)  was  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  30  October  2000.  It  provides  an
FIFG-allocation for the above period of €4 2 million.

The  implementation  of  the  programme  for  the  period  2000-02  is  in  line  with  the
planning. No major particular problems have been noted during the past period.

The new approach about simplification has not yet had any major impact in 2002.

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The  Austrian  Leader+  programme  was  approved  by  the  Commission  on  26  March
2001 and provides for a total EAGGF allocation of €75 500 000, or 46.75% of  the
total  cost  of  €103  500  000.  The  programme   complement  was  accepted  by  the
Commission on 20 August 2001. The 56 LAGs were selected in two stages, ending
in  March  2002.  A  LEADER+  forum  was  held  In  July  2002  in  which  the  LAGs
participated.  Over  40  LAGs  presented  their  programme  at  this  meeting,  using  the
opportunity to develop new initiatives and build up cooperation. By the end of 2002,
the payments made by Austria totalled €5 658 000, €2 246 000 under the EAGGF.

5.2

EQUAL

In  Austria,  out  of  148  applications  received,  75  DPs  were  admitted  to  Action  1  in
November  2001.  Most  DPs  (37)  were  established  in  the  pillar  "Employability".
Others  were  Entrepreneurship  (social  economy)  16  DPs,  Adaptability  (life  long
learning)  7  DPs,  Equal  opportunities  (reducing  gender  gaps  and  desegregation)  12
DPs and 3 DPs in the Asylum-seekers pillar. A half-year of preparation ensured that
detailed concepts had been devised and that all the organisations concerned had had
the opportunity to constitute their DPs properly. The Partnerships and concepts were
either regional or sectoral.

On  18  July  2002  58  DPs  were  approved  for  Action  2  and  Action  3.  The  DPs
submitted proposals for Action 3, which is obligatory for all DPs, in conjunction with
Action 2. For Action 3 the managing authorities have chosen a bottom up approach
by  giving  much  room  to  the  DPs  to  define  priorities,  operational  modalities  and
contents  of  the  networks.  A  launch  event  for  the  national  thematic  work  was
organised for all DPs in November 2002.

The  National  Support  Structure  (NSS)  EQUAL  Büro  Österreich  proposed  seven
priority areas under the six national EQUAL themes plus gender mainstreaming as a
compulsory  transversal  theme.  The  DPs  organised  themselves  in  clusters  and
submitted proposals to the NSS.

123

In  addition  an  Evaluation  Steering  Group  had  been  established  in  April  2002  as  a
sub-committee to the Monitoring Committee. For the evaluation at national level, the
evaluation  team  "IfGH"  was  selected  in  2002.  Their  first  interim  report  will  be
delivered at the end of January 2003.

5.3

URBAN

There are two Urban II programmes for Austria: the Vienna programme approved on
16 November 2001 and the Graz programme on 16 October 2001. Each programme
receives €4 2 million from the ERDF. The total cost  for  Vienna  is €15.904 million
and for Graz €20 555 million. The programme  complement for Vienna was received
on 08 April 2002 and for Graz on 25 March 2002. For both programmes an annual
report 2001 was approved in 2002.

The  Managing  Authority  for  both  programmes  is  the  city.  The  programmes  co-
ordinate  with  respect  to  their  management  committees  and  represent  each  other  on
their committees. The Monitoring  Committees  met  twice,  first  in  February  2002  in
Vienna and a second time in October 2002 in Graz. The second meeting was linked
to a meeting of the German-Austrian Urban II network.

The advance payments of 7% were made at the end of 2001; a first payment request
was sent by both cities in 2003.

6.

CLOSURE OF THE 1994-1999 PERIOD

ERDF

Objective 1

For the only Objective 1 (Burgenland) 2002 was a year in which the work necessary
for  the  closure  of  the  programme  was  done.  The  Final  Report  was  sent  to  the
members of the Monitoring Committee for approval in December 2002.

Objective 2

Also for the four Objective 2 programmes (Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Styria and
Vorarlberg)  2002  was  the  year  in  which  all  the  work  needed  for  the  closure  was
done.  Two  Objective 2  programmes  have  been  closed  already  Lower  Austria  in
November  and Vorarlberg in  December.  For  the  Objective 2  programme  for  Upper
Austria the Commission approved the final report in December.

EAGGF

In total, 24 programmes remain to be closed. The majority of the documents needed
for closure were sent in by Austria between July and the end of 2002 and have been
scrutinised by Commission staff.

124

ESF

Objective 1

Austria  had  one  Objective 1  programme:  Burgenland.  All  necessary  elements  for
closure are still open (final report, Article 8 declaration, final payment request). 93%
out of €33.12 million (ESF contribution) had b een paid by the end of 2002. The audit
report due to be produced by the Ministry of Economics and Labour has not yet been
submitted to the Commission.

Objective 2

Four  programmes  are  concerned:  Upper  Austria,  Lower  Austria,  Styria  and
Vorarlberg. As far as the ESF is  concerned, €32.353 million ha ve been committed.
Some 83% were paid by the end of 2002. All necessary elements for closure are still
open.

125

PORTUGAL

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

The implementation of assistance in 2000-2006 has in particular involved following
up the many changes to the programming complements already adopted (12) and six
decisions  to  amend  operational  programmes.  As  a  result  of  the  guidelines  on
simplification presented by the Commission at the ministerial meeting on 7 October
2002, several programmes were proposed for reprogramming. Processing of the files
and the administrative  procedures  relating to them  were  started  but  not  finalised  in
2002.  During  2002,  Portugal  submitted  five  major  projects  which  were  scrutinised
and led to three decisions.

In  order  to  ensure  monitoring  of  aspects  cutting  across  the  various  operational
programmes,  the  Portuguese  CSF  makes  provision  for  thematic  groups  on  the
following  topics:  the  environment,  gender  equality,  the  information  society,  small
businesses/  competitiveness/  innovation/  improving  skills,  human  resources,  health
and  transport.  The  activities  of  these  groups  in  2002  generally  seemed  not  very
satisfactory  and  led  to  several  comments  from  the  Commission  suggesting  they  be
given a new impetus.

For each OP, two meetings of the Monitoring Committees took place in 2002.

The  meetings  of  the  first  six  months  of  the  year  concentrated  on  discussing  and
approving the required reports. The second round of Monitoring Committee meetings
for  almost  all  the  Portuguese  programmes  mainly  dealt  with  substantial  proposed
amendments to programming complements and operational programmes.

An  annual  meeting  for  Portugal  on  all  programmes  was  held  in  Lisbon  and  took
place within the framework of simplification. Some programmes (6) were the subject
of  separate  annual  meetings,  given  the  nature  of  the  problems  which  had  arisen.
Another programme (technical assistance), which also had special problems, was the
subject of a letter to supplement the results of the general annual meeting.

the  regional  programmes, 

In  order  to  make  the  distinction  between  the  annual  meeting  and  the  Monitoring
Committees more clear, the Commission chose a number of key topics in the CSF on
the basis of the problems encountered during the monitoring of programmes (POLIS
incomplete
operations  part-financed  by 
information  systems,  follow-up  to  the  results  of  controls)  and  because  of  their
strategic importance: innovation, productivity and competitiveness in the Portuguese
economy, involving a range of programmes such as OP Economy,  OP Ciencia, OP
Information  Society,  OP  Employment  and  Human  Resources  and  the  regional
programmes.  During  these  meetings  the  importance  of  reinvigorating  the  thematic
groups  was  strongly  underlined,  as  they  should  contribute  to  a  horizontal  view  of
certain themes in the CSF and play a role both in the mid-term review and as part of
the effort to envision the working of Structural Funds after 2006.

the  still 

126

During 2002, there was significant progress in implementing  most measures and in
speeding  up  spending.  By  31  December  2002,  the  financing  decisions  adopted  at
national level and financial execution accounted respectively for 49.3% and 23.5% of
the  total  volume  of  the  CSF  and  47,5%  of  public  expenditure  programmed  for  the
first three years of the programming period.

Accumulated ERDF payments by 31 December 2002 came to 55.8% of the amount
programmed for the first three years of the period. In all, 60 expenditure declarations
were  submitted  to  the  Commission  during  2002.  There  was  at  least  one  payment
request under each programme and the “n+2” rule was not applied in 2002.

EAGGF

EAGGF’s Guidance Section is contributing €1 097.2 million to Priority 2 of CSF III
- the OP Agriculture and rural development.

Along with the other Funds, it is also contributing to 7 regional POs under Priority 4
-  promoting  sustainable  development  in  the  regions  and  national  cohesion  -  with  a
total of €1 020.1 million.

The  5  regional  POs  on  the  mainland  were  the  subject  of  an  amending  decision  in
2002 with a view to changing the operation involving “small-scale farmers”.

All the annual reports for the 8 programmes involving the EAGGF Guidance Section
were received and led to requests for additional information.

In terms of execution, the OP Agriculture and rural development saw four payments
carried out in 2002 totalling €158.7 million and accounting for 14% of the EAGGF
Guidance Section appropriation for this programme.

The  annual  meeting  between  the  Commission  and  the  management  of  the  OP
Agriculture  and  rural  development,  under  Article  34(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No
1260/1999,  took  place  in  November  2002.  This  meeting  covered  in  particular  the
improvement  of  the  2001  report,  the  system  of  controls,  a  round-up  on  the
implementation of measures, and information about compliance with environmental
policy, in particular the application of the Directive on nitrates.

FIFG

Mainland

In  2000-2006,  the  FIFG  contribution  to  the  fisheries  operational  programme  is
€163.3  million  of  which  €64  million  is  for  fleet  measures  and  €56  million  for
protection  and  development  of  aquatic  resources,  port  equipment,  processing  and
marketing.  By  30  September  2002,  €29.7  milli on  had  been  reimbursed  -  mainly  as
compensation  for  inactivity  following  the  renewal  of  the  EU-Morocco  fishing
agreement.

Azores

In  2000-2006,  the  FIFG  contribution  is  €29  million.  The  main  objectives  include
modernising  the  fleet,  protecting  and  developing  fishery  resources  and  developing
aquaculture. By 25 October 2002, €1.7 million had been reimbursed.

127

Madeira

In  2000-2006,  the  FIFG  contribution  is  €20  million  -  16%  of  expenditure  is
earmarked  for  fleet  measures.  Objectives  include  doubling  fish  production  and
increasing aquaculture production fourfold. By 30 September 2002, €1.4 million had
been reimbursed.

Alentejo

In 2000-2006, the FIFG contribution is €0.55 million for improving the conditions of
production, processing and marketing in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. By 30
November 2002, the Managing Authority had spent less than 1%.

Algarve

In 2000-2006, the FIFG contribution is €1.8 million for developing aquaculture and
improving the quality of fish products. By 30 November 2002, 0.3 % had been spent
by the Managing Authority.

Central region

In 2000-2006, the FIFG contribution is €1.5 million for developing aquaculture and
improving the quality of fish products. By 30 November 2002, 0.2% had been spent
by the Managing Authority.

Nord

In 2000-2006, the FIFG contribution is €1.65 million for developing aquaculture and
improving the quality of fish products. By 30 November 2002, 0.2% had been spent
by the Managing Authority.

ESF

In 2000-2006, the FIFG contribution is €1.65 million for developing aquaculture and
improving  the  quality  of  fishery  products.  By  30  November  2002,  0.2%  had  been
spent  by  the  Managing  Authority.  ESF  The  activities  of  the  ESF  under  the  two
programmes  for  which  DG  Employment  and  Social  Affairs  has  principal
responsibility 
(OP  Education  and  OP  Employment,  Training  and  Social
Development)  continued  systematically  in  line  with  the  guidelines  in  the  strategies
on  employment  and  the  fight  against  social  exclusion.  The  joint  annual  meeting,
which took place at the end of the year, made it possible to analyse basic problems
typical  of  the  human  resources  situation  in  Portugal,  in  particular  early  school-
leaving and continuing training for workers. This meeting between the management
authorities  concerned  and  Commission  staff  was  an  occasion  to  emphasise  the
contribution of the ESF to implementing the European strategies for employment and
social inclusion.

In terms of  financial execution, the total amount  of  ESF  payment  appropriations in
2002,  as intermediate payments under  CSF  III,  was  about  €671  million;  cumulated
certified expenditure at 31 December 2002 accounted for 23% of the total envelope
programmed  for  2000-2006.  The  programmes  with  the  most  expenditure  were:
“Employment,  Training  and  Social  Development”,  “Education”,  “Lisbon  and  the
Tagus  Valley”  and  “Science,  Technology  and  Innovation”  and  the  OP  of  the

128

autonomous  regions  of  the  Azores  and  Madeira.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be
pointed  out  that  the  problems  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  only  measure
part-financed  by  the  ESF  in  the  OP  Health  led  to  application  of  the  “n+2”  rule,
leading to a decommitment of €1.069  million of the 2000 annual allocation.

2.

2.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The  national  programme  under  this  Community  Initiative  (€161.6  million  from  the
EAGGF) was adopted on 25 July 2001 in  the  form  of  a  global  grant,  the  financing
agreement being signed on 14 December 2001, and was the subject of two payments
in 2002. The procedure to select the 52 local action groups was finalised (46 on the
mainland, 4 in the Azores and 2 on Madeira).

2.2

EQUAL

At the end of Action 1, which took place during the first months of 2002, 109 of the
116 development partnerships initially selected were authorised to pass on to Action
2 and 107 of  them were actually  in the  implementation  phase  of  their  projects.  All
had signed trans-national cooperation agreements.

The  distribution  of  projects  by  priority  seems  relatively  balanced  in  the  specific
context  of  Portugal,  with  the  topic  “Capacity  for  vocational  integration”  attracting
the largest number of projects (36).

The  introduction  of  thematic  networks  at  national  level  also  started:  nine  thematic
networks are envisaged, of which the first - “reconciling work and social and family
life” - was launched at the end of the year.

2.3

URBAN

There  are  three  Urban  II  programmes  in  Portugal  -  Amadora  (Damaia-Buraca),
Lisbon (Vale de Alcântara) and Oporto-Gondomar - and all three had been approved
by  30   November  2001. The  total  eligible  cost  for   the  three  programmes  is
€29  591  535.  The  total  ERDF  contribution  is  €19  200  000.  Amadora  is  receiving
support of €3 562 152, Lisbon €5 663 822 a nd Oporto-Gondomar €9 974 026. All the
programme  complements  had  been  received  in  March  2002  and  the  final  versions
were accepted in June 2002.

The  management  authority  for  the  programmes  is  at  a  regional  level  through  the
Regional  Coordination  Commissions,  and  for  Amadora  and  Lisbon  from  Lisboa  e
Vale do Tejo Region and for Oporto-Gondomar from Norte Region. The Monitoring
Committees for all the programmes have already met twice.

Advance  payments  of  7%  were  made  at  the  beginning  of  2002.  The  Lisbon  and
Amadora programmes submitted the first interim payment request in April 2003.

129

3.

CLOSURE OF THE 1989-1993 AND 1994-1999 PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF

Period 1989-1993: All the programmes for the period 1989-1993 are closed, except
for  the  programmes  PNICIAP  (ERDF  No  87.12.09.001)  and  FORAL  (ERDF  No
93.12.07.002):  in  the  first  case,  there  is  still  an  amount  to  settle  by  debit  note;  the
latter was the subject of a communication to OLAF on suspicion of fraud.

Period  1994-1999:  The  closure  of  the  programmes  for  1994-1999  is  behind  the
forecasts,  which  indicated  that  all  requests  concerning  programmes  which  had  not
benefited  from  an  extension  of  the  deadline  for  payments  should  have  been
submitted before the end of 2002.

The rules stipulate that all requests must reach the Commission by 31 March 2003 or
else an automatic decommitment will be applied.

Of 40 assistance packages still to be closed, 8 files are already closed and another 32
are still under examination: in 15 cases, the three essential documents  (final report,
payment request and declaration under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2064/1997)
have been sent in, but in two cases a suspension has been called for in order to obtain
additional  information;  in  the  17  remaining  cases,  no  documents  have  been  sent  in
except, in some cases, the final implementation report.

Some  programmes  will  be  subject  of  partial  closure  because  assistance  was  not
transferred in its entirety to the beneficiary companies but was in part held back by
the  intermediate  body  to  cover  management  expenditure  (a  reasoned  opinion  was
sent about this to the Member State).

The late sending of payment requests is said to be due to the fact that the Portuguese
authorities are submitting these requests  along  with the “Article  8”  declaration,  but
that  these  control  reports  are  being  produced  more  slowly  by  an  independent  body
(IGF).

The amount remaining to be settled for these 32 operations still open now comes to
€662 765 544.40.

ESF

Period 1989-1993:

DG  Employment  and  Social  Affairs  expects  that  all  the  still  open  dossiers  will  be
closed before the summer of 2003.

Period 1994-1999:

The closure of programmes involving the ESF is not expected until 2003 because the
majority  of  OPS  will  be  submitting  final  payment  requests  before  the  regulatory
deadline of  31 March 2003. The payment  authority for the  ESF  in Portugal sent in
two  OPs  for  closure  (“Madeira”  and  “Pediza”)  but  the  related  closure  operations
have  proved  slower  than  planned  as  a  result  of  procedural  difficulties  and  will  be

130

finalised only in 2003. The outstanding amount to be settled the 9 operations of the
ESF under CSF II comes to €181,015,308.

4.

Evaluation and financial control

ERDF

For each of the programmes and the CSF a technical evaluation group has been set
up whose brief is to monitor the work connected with evaluation. During 2002 all the
groups  met  at  least  twice  and  work  concentrated  especially  on  preparing  terms  of
reference  for  the  evaluations  and  launching  calls  for  tenders.  Interdepartmental
preparatory  meetings  as  well  as  meetings  with  the  evaluation  units  preceded  the
creation of these groups. All the calls for tenders were launched in 2002 and all the
contracts  were  signed  in  2002  except  for  two  programmes  (OP  Economy  and  OP
Algarve), where tenderers have appealed against the award decision. Some progress
reports  were  received  in  2002  (OP  C&T,  Education,  Information  Society,  Culture,
Health, Accessibility and Transport and Norte).

Apart from the  regulatory  evaluations,  other thematic evaluations  were started  (e.g.
OPs Education and Economy).

INTERREG II A SPAIN/PORTUGAL - Date of mission 13 May 2002

There is the risk of an excessive weight of projects of important size in the sample of
projects audited for the purpose of compliance with Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC)
No  2064/97  considering  the  selection  criteria  applied  by  the  Inspecção  Geral  de
Administração do Território (IGAT).

The  Inspecção  Geral  de  Finanças  (IGF),  the  Article  8  body,  engaged  an  external
audit  firm  (BDO)  to  carry  out  specific  work  to  support  the  issue  of  the  Article  8
declaration.  The  closure  work  of  BDO  did  not  comment  on  the  above-mentioned
issue of the representativeness of the sample.

FIFG

The systems checked on the spot meet the standards required in the Regulations. The
national  authorities  are  requested  to  continue  the  review  of  the  separation  between
the management and control procedures as well as to specify certain elements.

ESF

The ESF management institute carried out coordination work to guarantee a common
approach in the evaluation of the ESF measures in the various OPs. The evaluators of
the  OPS  and  the  CSF  were  almost  all  appointed  at  the  end  of  2002.  In  December
2002  the  results  came  in  of  four  thematic  evaluations  concerning  the  measures
“traineeships 
in  higher  education”,  “short-term  diversified  supply”,  “Ano
qualificante pos basico” and “diversified streams in basic education” within the OP
Education.

131

FINLAND

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF General and ERDF

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,  self-governing  region  of  the
Åland Islands. The total Structural Funds support for the period 2000-2006 is 1455
million,  of  which  ca  60%  ERDF  funding  or  €868  million  (ca.  €471  million  for
Objective 1 and ca. €397 million for Objective 2).

In  2002  financial  implementation  of  both  the  Objective 1  and  2  programmes  in
mainland  Finland  continued  well.  By  the  end  of  2002  the  Objective 1  and  2
programmes,  taken  together,  had  allocated  (committed)  ca.  40%  of  the  total  EU
funding to the projects. Due to the high level of demand on the ground especially in
the mainland Finland programmes, payment claims presented to the Commission by
the  end  of 2002  were large enough to  avoid  any de-commitments of  the  year  2000
budget  of  all  four  Structural  Funds.  Payments  from  the  Commission  were  between
18% and 25% of the total budget for ERDF and ESF, and between 15% and 17% for
EAGGF, FIFG and the single-fund (ERDF) Objective 2 programme of Åland.

In 2002 the first Monitoring Committee meetings met in May (mainland Objective 2)
and  in  June  (Objective 1  and  Åland  Objective 2)  .  The  main  points  on  the  agendas
were the approval of the annual implementation reports for 2001 and launch of mid-
term evaluation. In the context of these meetings, press conferences as well several
project visits and presentations were organised, for example, ICT and technological
innovation  related  projects  were  visited  in  Lappeenranta.  The  second  Monitoring
Committee meetings were held as joint meetings in Helsinki in December, the main
points of which covered distribution of technical assistance funds of 2003 and initial
preparation for the mid-term review, and programme modifications. In the context of
the these meetings a joint seminar was organised on Information Society. For Åland
Islands, the second meeting was held on November in Mariehamn.

The  Commission  received  the  annual  reports  2001  for  the  five  Finnish  Objective 1
and 2 programmes at the end of June 2002. The Commission sent letters approving
the reports at the end of August. The main monitoring indicators of the programmes,
i.e. creation of new jobs and businesses, showed good results: the Objective 1 and 2
programmes had altogether reached over 31% of the target set for new jobs, i.e. 245
535 out of 77 670 jobs, and ca 14% of the target for new businesses, i.e. 2 684 out of
19 100 businesses (this data is partly based on projections).

The  final  agreement  on  the  ERDF  part-financing  of  Finnvera  (public  specialised
financing  company)  soft  loans  for  small  businesses  in  the  mainland  Finland
Objective 1 and 2 programmes was signed between DG Regional Policy and Finnish
authorities on 4 October 2002 in Oulu.

The  second  annual  review  meeting  between  the  Commission  and  the  Åland
Managing Authority was held on 4 November and between the Commission and the

132

mainland  Finland  Managing  Authority  on  25  November  2002  in  Brussels.  The
review  covered  annual  reports  2001,  the  main  events  and  results  of  year  2001  and
follow-up, management issues, developments in the operational environment and in
the  socio-economic  situation,  and  exchange  of  information  including  development
around the future cohesion policy. The mainland Finland review meeting concluded
that  the  programmes  were  progressing  well  and  it  was  agreed,  among  others,  that
work would continue to improve programme level analysis in the annual reports. It
was noted in the Åland review  that due to the so-called  N+2 rule on automatic de-
commitments,  swift  implementation  of  the  programme  and  quick  payments  to
projects  are  indispensable  to  secure  full  use  of  EU  financing  throughout  the  whole
programming period.

As for the debate on future cohesion policy, both the Finnish authorities and regions
were  active  by  submitting  position  papers  as  well  as  participating  in  seminars  and
organising  events,  such  as  the  round  table  organised  by  the  Finnish  Association  of
Local  and  Regional  Authorities  in  Brussels  in  spring  of  2002  to  discuss  with  the
representatives of the DG Regional Policy.

EAGGF

the  programming  period  2000-2006 

The  EAGGF  part-finances  during 
two
Objective 1  programmes  implemented  in  Finland;  Eastern  Finland  (€127.6  million
EAGGF part-financing) and Northern Finland (€69.5 million EAGGF part-financing)
corresponding  to  20%  of  the  total  EU  part-financing.  In  both  of  these  programmes
rural  development  measures,  50%  part-financed  by  the  EAGGF  Guidance,  are
gathered to respective Rural Development Priority.

Progress was made in the implementation of both of the programmes in 2002, and a
total of 2692 project decisions were taken in Eastern Finland and 1569 in Northern
Finland. as in 2001, the fastest uptake was on the “Farm investments” measure.

The  EAGGF  expenditure  targets  set  for  the  end  of  2002  were  met  in  both
programmes.  An  amount  of  €32.1  million  ha s  been  paid  out  of  the  €69  million
committed in 2000-02.

FIFG

The  total  FIFG  contribution  for  the  Finnish  Objective 1  programmes  2002-2006  is
ca. €6.9 million (€2.646  million in Eastern  Finland and €4.207  million  in Northern
Finland).  The  biggest  bulk  of  the  funding  is  allocated  for  aquaculture,  fishing  port
facilities  and  processing  and  marketing.  The  progress  of  the  Eastern  Finland  this
programme  has  been  very  good  (53%  of  the  FIFG  funds  for  2000-2006  was
committed  and  30%  was  paid),  whereas  the  implementation  of  the  FIFG  part  of
Northern  Finland  programme  is  lagging  behind  (21%  of  the  FIFG  funds  for  2000-
2006  was  committed  and  14%  was  paid).  Major  reason  for  this  slow  progress  has
been  the  ongoing  CFP  reform  and  thereby  related  uncertainty  -  particularly
concerning the future fleet and conservation policies.

One  financial  modification  concerning  the  FIFG  funding  was  approved  by  the
Northern  Finland  Monitoring  Committee  in  2002  concerning  an  increase  of  the
technical assistance for all the measures. The Eastern Finland Monitoring Committee

133

approved the increase of the technical assistance for all the measures and the transfer
of funds within the fisheries measure from processing and marketing to aquaculture.

ESF

OBJECTIVE 1

The ESF contribution for the Finnish Objective 1 programmes amounts to ca.  €273
Million  (Northern  Finland  €89.375  million  and  Eastern  Finland  €183.592  Million).
The  human  resources  measures  of  these  programmes  are  in  accordance  with  ESF
policy  frame  of  reference  comprising,  among  others,  developing  personnel
businesses, promoting entrepreneurship and  expertise, promoting  employability  and
preventing  unemployment,  and  preventing  exclusion  from  the  labour  market  and
promoting equality in the labour market.

By  the  end  of  September  2002,  33.7%  of  ESF  funding  was  committed  and  14.7%
was  paid  in  Northern  Finland  (aid  was  granted  to  230  projects,  in  which  12  999
persons had started. Women account for 51%.

The  ESF  contribution  for  Eastern  Finland  was  €183  592.  The  measures  adopted
under  the  ESF  cover  setting  up  training  schemes  and  improving  the  quality  and
efficiency  of  education,  developing  expertise  and  strengthening  workers’  skills,
promoting labour market functionality and developing employability, and promoting
a better quality working life. By the end of September 2002, 36.4% of ESF funding
was committed and 17.2% was paid in Eastern Finland (aid had been granted to 323
projects, in which 32 704 persons started. Women account for 49%).

OBJECTIVE 2

The  ESF  contribution  for  the  Finnish  Objective 2  programmes  amounts  to  €110
Million  (Western  Finland  €65  million  a nd  Southern  Finland  €45  million).  ESF
measures  comprise,  among  others,  promoting  entrepreneurship  and  developing
personnel, increasing the competence of labour force and improving the availability
of  training,  strengthening  employment  and  the  links  between  training  and  working
life, preventing exclusion and increasing the expertise of cultural and environmental
sector actors.

By  the  end  of  September  2002,  35%  of  the  ESF  funding  was  committed  and  13%
was paid in Western Finland (aid had been granted to 313 projects, in which 23 896
persons had started), and 37% was committed and 17% paid in Southern Finland (aid
had been granted to 215 projects, in which 22 149 persons had started).

In  the  joint  annual  review  meeting  of  the  Objective 1  and  2  programmes,  links
between  ESF  and  European  Employment  Strategy  as  well  as  complementarity
between ESF in Objective 2 and Objective 3 were discussed.

2.

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:

134

1.

2.

3.

4.

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

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

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

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

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

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;  a  relatively  low  rate  of
entrepreneurs; skills shortages concerning especially ageing workers with a low level
of  education  and  outdated  skills;  gender-based  segregation  in  the  labour  and
educational  market;  need 
research,
education/training and working life; and to increase life-long learning opportunities
and practices.

relationship  between 

improve 

the 

to 

By the end of September 2002 commitments were 34.85% and payments 30.76% of
the ESF allocation for 2000-2006. Aid had been granted to 1041 projects, in which
130 668 persons had started.

The  second  annual  review  took  place  in  Helsinki  in  October.  The  following  issues
were dealt with: coherence with the proposed strategy, link with the National Action
Plan  for  Social  Inclusion,  financial  implementation,  monitoring,  simplification  and
follow-up of last year’s conclusions. Steps to be taken to improve the monitoring and
management arrangements for the assistance were agreed to.

The  separate  Objective 3  programme  for  the  self-governing  region  of  the  Åland
Islands,  with  €2.6  million  funding  from  th e  ESF,  proceeded  as  follows:  ESF
commitments  35.2%,  payments  18.5%,  number  of  projects  24,  and  some  1  000
persons participating in them. The second annual review was organised in the form
of  exchange  of  letters  about  the  implementation  of  assistance.  The  main  topics  of
discussion were possibilities to speed up implementation of a particular measure, link
with  European  Employment  and  Social  inclusion  strategies,  and  performance
reserve.

The  evaluation  of  the  Objective 3  programme  was  launched  in  2001  and  second
progress  reports  were  submitted  in  September  2002.  The  Finnish  authorities  have
appointed different consortiums for each priority and a leader team for the evaluation
of the Objective 3.

135

3.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The total FIFG contribution for 2002-2006 is €32 million. Of this, 55% is allocated
for  the  protection  and  development  of  aquatic  resources,  aquaculture,  fishing  port
facilities, processing and marketing and inland fishing. Åland Islands have a separate
plan receiving  11%  of the funds.  Until now 35% of the  FIFG funds for 2000-2006
have been committed and 15% have been paid. Thus the programme has progressed
according to its targets.

The programme implementation has been quite unbalanced. Operations by members
of the trade and innovative measures have reached 100% commitment levels, while
scrapping,  small  scale  coastal  fishing,  socio-economic  measures  and  temporary
cessation  of  activities  have  no  commitments.  The  receipt  of  two  intermediary
payment requests in 2002 has guaranteed the respect of the N+2 rule.

After  the  original  programme  complement  was  received  by  the  Commission  on  9
January  2002,  the  Monitoring  Committees  have  approved  both  technical  and
financial modifications. In 2002, modification to the performance reserve indicators
was approved.

4.

4.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

In  Finland  there  is  one  LEADER+  programme.  The  total  public  cost  for  the
programme is €110.8 million of which the c ontribution of EAGGF Guidance is €55.4
million (50%).

Under  this  programme  there  are  25  Local  Action  Groups  (LAGs)  selected  in
different  regions  of  Finland  and  supported  by  a  national  network.  There  are  two
national  themes  in addition  to the  European  wide  ones.  The  national  themes  are  1)
slowing  down  migration  from  rural  areas  to  population  centres,  encouraging
migration  towards  the  rural  areas,  and  2)  increased  interaction  between  rural  and
urban areas.

In 2002 two Monitoring Committee meetings were held. The Commission received
the  annual  report  for  Leader+  2001  in  June  2002  and  considered  the  document
satisfactory. The second Annual Review meeting with the Managing Authority was
held on 5 December 2002.

An amount of €5.8 million has been paid out of the €16.5 million committed in 2001-
2002.

4.2

EQUAL

In Finland, 37 Development Partnerships (DPs) had been chosen at end of 2001 for
the preparatory stage (Action 1). Employability pillar was over-committed (19 DPs),
Entrepreneurship  pillar  (5  DPs)  and  Adaptability  pillar  (10  DPs)  were  under-
committed.  During  the  preparatory  stage  most  of  the  DPs  had  to  revise  their  work
programmes  due  to  reduced  budgets,  to  finalise  their  national  and  transnational
partnerships  and  to  draft  a  work  programme  for  Action  3.  In  this,  most  of  them
needed a lot of support from the NSS. However, all of them succeeded in providing

136

acceptable  documents  to  the  Managing  Authority  and  were  approved  on  15.5.2002
for  Action  2  and  Action  3.  Mainstreaming  strategy  and  national  themes  have  been
approved by the Monitoring Committee and responsibility for organising the national
thematic networks will be given to one DP, which has been chosen on the basis of an
open call for tender. National thematic networks will be organised under all themes
of CIP. A seminar on national thematic work was organised for all DPs and several
key actors in September 2002.

The evaluation of the Equal CIP in Finland was launched in 2002.

4.3

URBAN

The  Helsinki-Vantaa  URBAN  II  programme,  approved  in  December  2001,  is  the
only  one  in  Finland.  The  ERDF  will  contribute  a  total  of  €5.3  million  to  this
programme, whose total cost amounts to €22.5 million. The programme complement
was  approved  by  the  Monitoring  Committees  and  submitted  to  the  Commission  in
July 2002. Annual implementation report for 2001 of the Helsinki-Vantaa URBAN II
programme was submitted to the Commission in August 2002.

The  Managing  Authority  for  the  programme  is  the  City  of  Helsinki  and  the
functional  day-to-day  management  is  delegated  to  URBAN  Helsinki-Vantaa.  The
Monitoring Committee has met twice during 2002.

Advance  payment,  amounting  to  7%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  to  the
programme, was made in March 2002. No interim payment requests were received in
2002.

5.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF

The  last  date  for  payments  to  projects  of  the  1995-1999  regional  development
programmes was 31 December 2001. Although the Commission in 2002 did not yet
officially receive many final reports and payment claims from Finland, for which the
final submission date is 31 March 2003, the closures of all programmes were being
prepared  by  national  authorities  and  most  of  the  draft  final  reports  were  also
discussed with the Commission in 2002. Preliminary data for the Objective 2 and 6
programmes showed that a high  percentage of the EU  budget had been  paid  out  to
projects  by  end  of  2001  (Objective  6  ca.  99%  and  Objective 2  over  94%).  Three
Territorial  Employment  Pacts  (TEPs),  one  INTERREG  and  one  Urban  programme
submitted  their  final  claims  and  reports  and  were  closed  by  end  of  2002.  Thirteen
programmes part-financed by the ERDF remained to be closed in 2003.

LEADER+

The final reports, final claims and closure statements required for closing the 1994-
1999 programmes have been received for the ‘Improving processing  and marketing
conditions of agricultural products’ programme (Regulation (EC) No 951/97), for the
Objective  5(b)  Programme  for  the  Åland  Islands  and  for  the  Leader  II  National
Network.

137

ESF

There  are  6  ESF  OPs  to  close  for  the  1994-1999  programming  period.  The
Commission  did  not  receive  any  closure  files  from  Finland  in  2002.  Finland  has
informed the Commission that these documents and the final payment claims will be
submitted by the end of March 2003.

6.

EVALUATIONS

Objective 1 and 2

ERDF

The mid-term evaluations of the mainland Finland Objective 1 and 2 programmes are
steered by a joint evaluation group, in which regions, ministries and the Commission
are  represented,  and  which  convened  four  times  in  2002.  The  Managing  Authority
signed  the  contracts  with  the  evaluation  consortia  in  April  2002  (one  covering  the
two Objective 1 programmes and one for each of the Objective 2 programmes). For
the mid-term evaluation of the Åland Islands programme, the contract was signed in
October, and the steering group convened three times.

EAGGF - LEADER+

The  evaluation  steering  group  was  established  in  2002  to  steer  the  mid-term
evaluation. It consists of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
local action groups, NGOs and the Commission. The terms of reference for the mid-
term  evaluation  were  agreed,  calls  for  tender  launched  and  the  evaluators  for  mid-
term evaluation appointed.

ESF

In 2001 an evaluation of the implementation of ESF policy frame of reference in the
Objective 1, 2, and 3 was launched. Five final reports were submitted in December
2002  covering  the  following  themes;  information  society,  gender  mainstreaming
equality, sustainable development, local partnership and anticipation. The summary
report of the strategic priorities are foreseen in 2003.

Ex-post evaluation Objective 6

By  the  end  of  2002  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Finnish  Objective  6  programme,
which was commissioned by DG Regional Policy, was finalised and the Objective 2
ex-post  evaluation  was  about  to  be  finished.  The  Objective  6  evaluation  estimates
that  almost  12.500  jobs  were  created  or  safeguarded,  circa  3.700  new  firms  were
established  and  circa  110.000  people  participated  in  training.  The  evaluators  found
that given the magnitude of the de-population problem, which has been a persistent
problem  for  decades,  it  would  not  be  realistic  to  expect  the  programme,  with  the
amount  of  money  available,  to  be  able  to  reverse  it.  However,  Objective  6
programme had a positive impact on the regions covered, and the strategic choice to
focus on human resource development and entrepreneurship was highly relevant.

138

SWEDEN

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

There  are  two  Swedish  Objective 1  programmes,  Norra  Norrland  and  Södra
Skogslänsregionen.  The  total  Structural  Funds  support  for  the  period  2000-2006  is
€722 million.

The implementation is running smoothly and demand is still at a very high level. By
the  end  of  2002  some  67%  of  the  total  2000-2006  budget  had  been  allocated  to
projects,  and  23%  of  the  total  budget  was  paid  out  to  projects.  Payment  claims
presented  to  the  Commission  by  the  end  of  2002  were  large  enough  to  avoid  any
automatic de-commitments of the 2000 budget. For both programmes payments from
the Commission were between 20 and 25% of the total budget for ERDF, ESF and
EAGGF.

In  2002  two  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  were  held  for  each  programme,  in
February/March  and  in  November.  The  first  meetings  included  project  visits  and
press  conferences.  A  working  group  involving  members  of  both  Monitoring
Committees,  the  Managing  Authorities  and  the  Commission  has  been  actively
involved  in  the  preparations  of  the  mid-term  evaluation,  i.e.  contributed  to  the
drafting  of  the  terms  of  reference.  The  group  had  three  meetings  in  2002.  The
procurement procedure for the mid-term evaluation was initiated in the autumn and
the contract was expected to be signed in the beginning of 2003.

After a formal review, the Commission considered the annual implementation reports
for the  year 2001  as satisfactory. The  reports  were  also  discussed  in  the  context  of
the  annual  review  meeting  with  all  the  Swedish  Managing  Authorities  for  both  the
Objective 1  and  2  programmes,  which  took  place  in  Brussels  on  9  December.  The
agenda for the annual meeting covered programme management and implementation,
evaluations,  the  mid-term  review  and  a  general  exchange  of  information.  The
meeting concluded that the programmes were progressing well and the Commission
did not request any additional information or follow up.

The  Swedish  Objective 1  regions  have  actively  participated  in  the  debate  on  the
future cohesion policy. Position papers have been submitted to the Commission and
seminars  involving  local  and  regional  politicians,  MPs,  MEPs  and  representatives
from the  Swedish  Government  and  the  European Commission have been organised
twice per year in the context of the so called “Forum Europe Northern Sweden”. The
debate has focused on the specific situation and needs of regions with extremely low
population density.

FIFG

The Commission adopted two Objective 1 programmes for the period 2000-2006 on
24 May 2000, one for Södra Skogslänsregionen and one for Norra Norrland.

139

In the programme for Norra Norrland €5.8 million are available from FIFG and total
investments in the fisheries sector of €13 million are envisaged. 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.

In the new programming period Södra Skogslänsregionen will benefit from a FIFG
allocation  of  €5.7  million  which  should  lead   to  total  investments  of  €13  million.
According to the  strategy  established  for fisheries, three  quarters 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.

EAGGF

The implementation rate of the EAGGF-funded measures within the two Objective 1
programmes, Norra Norrland and Södra Skogslänsregionen, intensified during 2002.
For  each  programme  two  Monitoring  Committees  were  held.  After  three  years  of
implementation the financial execution is 53% for both programmes in relation to the
funds  committed  in  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period,  thus  an  amount  of
€25.3 million paid out of the €47.8 million committed during 2000-02.

ESF

The  demands  have,  for  some  measures,  been  three  times  the  available  funding.  In
order not to drain the programme, a general selection will be done concerning project
applications.  For  the  ESF,  intense  “marketing”  has  been  done  together  with  the
partnerships, which has given this good result. The outcome of the indicators so far
was  presented  at  last  Monitoring  Committee  meetings,  but  they  are  still  very
uncertain at this early stage. For the ESF, the indicators “participating men/women”
seem  to  be  in  line  with  the  figures  foreseen,  however  there  might  be  some  over
estimations,  since  the  figures  have  not  been  followed  up  closely  yet.  And  there  is
also the fact that many projects are running for three years, and no final figures are
reported yet.

Concerning the pre-study of the evaluation of Objective 3 in Objective 1, a draft has
been  approved  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  of  Objective 3.  This  report  will  be
finalised in November 2003, and so far, this part of the programme seems to be very
successful.

No modifications to the programme have been made so far concerning the ESF part.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

ERDF

There are four Objective 2 programmes, the North, West, South and the Islands with
a  total  Structural  Funds  support  of  €406  million  for  the  period  2000-2006.  The
programmes are progressing very well and at the end of 2002 on average 63% of the
total 2000-2006 budget had already been allocated to projects (62% for ERDF, 65%
for  ESF)  and  23%  had  been  paid  out  to  projects.  At  year  end  the  Commission  had

140

paid out between 18% and 29% for all programmes and funds, which were more than
the commitment for year 2000 so no money was lost due to the n+2 rule.

Each  programme  held  two  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  during  2002,  one  of
which  included  one  day  of  project  visits.  For  each  meeting  a  press  release  was
prepared. Major  topics  at  the  meetings  were  the  mid-term  review;  “was  the  budget
used  up  too  quickly”,  which  in  several  programmes  resulted  in  an  introduction  of
weighting the selection criteria; the need for a reallocation of money within priorities
etc.

The Commission approved the annual reports after some complementary information
had been added.

On 11 April 2002 the Commissioner Michel  Barnier visited the area of Bergslagen
which  had  an  Objective 2  programme  1995-99  and  in  this  period  it  is  partially
covered by the Objective 2 programmes North and West. Commissioner Barnier was
given a presentation of several ongoing projects; among  others  from Steel to Meal,
the transformation of a steel town to a tourist and gourmet centre; the Growth Group,
which showed how three small municipalities are co-operating in the development of
local industry. He also received a position paper on the future of the Structural Funds
support.  The  following  day  was  spent  in  Stockholm  meeting  parliamentary
committees,  minister  Ulrika  Messing,  responsible  for  the  Swedish  regional  policy,
and regional representatives.

ESF

A  co-ordinated  call  for  tender  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  all  Swedish
Objsective 1 and 2 programmes has been published. The selection of evaluator was
done in December 2002, the preliminary report will be available in September 2003,
and it will be approved by the Monitoring Committee in November  and sent to the
Commission before end 2003. In the November meeting it will also be decided how
to distribute the performance reserve, and if there will be a re-programming as well.

The ESF part of the programmes had a somewhat slower start in the beginning of the
programming  period.  It  was  difficult  to  commit  funds  for  some  ESF  measures,  but
commitment rates have now risen to a very satisfactory level. In some Island regions
it was difficult to get the required part-financing.

Payment rates did also rise tremendously last year, and no funds were lost due to the
n+2 rule.

No modifications in the programme have been made so far concerning the ESF part.

In September 2002, DG Employment performed an Objective 2 preventive audit on
management and control systems for one of the managing and paying authorities in
Jönköping, Sweden. Overall it could be concluded that, with the exception of some
minor modifications, the management and control systems applied by the managing
and  paying  authorities  provide  sufficient  guarantees  to  certify  expenditure  claims
towards the Commission.

141

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

As to the Objective 3 programme Sweden is eligible for €747 million in ESF funds
with the overall budget of €2.780 million, of  which €729 million national public and
€1.303  million  private  co-funds.  By  the  end  of  2002  the  Commission  has  paid  out
14.6% of ESF funds for the whole period.

In  2002  the  programme  progressed  very  rapidly.  It  reached  28%  of  the  whole
financial plan at the level of commitments and 22.6% at the level of payments (€617
million,  out  of  which  ESF  €164.2  million).  This  meant  altogether  787 207
participants (53.3% women) and 30 804 projects. The priorities and measures have,
however, progressed very  differently: the measure  on  analysis  of  skill development
of  employees  (1:1)  has  far  exceeded  the  targets  as  well  as  increased  employability
measure (2:2), while job rotation (2:1) measure continues to have difficulties.

In  2002  the  Managing  Authority  has  pursued  to  improve  the  management  of  the
programme  due  to  recommendations  of  the  preventive  audit  mission  by  the
Commission in May 2002.

The  second  annual  review  meeting  was  held  6-7  November,  2002  jointly  with
EQUAL programme. As the result, the Commission paid an attention to a necessity
to further improve the management system and to the unbalanced development of the
programme. The job rotation measure needs still to be closely monitored to find new
solutions for improvement. The role of social partners is to be further elaborated.

The  mid-term  evaluation  started  at  the  beginning  of  2002  after  the  selection  of  the
evaluators at the end of the previous year. The first Initial Report was forwarded to
the  Commission  at  the  beginning  of  September  and  a  large  national  evaluation
seminar was held on the basis of the Report in September.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

The Commission on 15 December 2000 had adopted Sweden’s structural programme
for the period 2000-2006. In this programme, a FIFG contribution of €62 million and
total investments of €360 million  are provided for the restructuring of the processing
industry and a modernisation of the fleet as its main focus areas.

As  for  the  1995-1999  programme  (Objective  5(a)),  the  year  2002  saw  the
continuance of the closure procedures after the completion of commitments in 1999
(€40  million  of  FIFG  aid  was  committed)  and  payments  by  the  end  of  2001.
According to preliminary information, almost all of the said total FIFG amount had
been paid out to the final beneficiaries by the end of the programming period. Only
the final payment of the Community remains to be made - this payment will be made
on  the  basis  of  the  closure  procedures.  More  than  1,000  projects  have  been  part-
financed by FIFG.

142

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

The Swedish Leader+ programme covering the whole of Sweden, with the exception
of  the  counties  of  Norrbotten,  Västerbotten,  Jämtland  and  Västernorrland,  was
approved  in  2001  when  a  total  of  12  LAGs  were  selected.  During  2002  the
implementation  of  the  programme  intensified  and  two  Monitoring  Committee
meetings  were  held.  After  two  years  of  implementation  the  financial  execution  is
24%  in  relation  to  the  amount  committed  in  the  beginning  of  the  programming
period, thus €2.8 million paid out of the €12.1 million committed in 2001 and 2002.

5.2

EQUAL

Equal  in  Sweden  involved  in  total  51  Development  Partnerships  in  the  preparatory
Action 1 during 2002. In a process of merging some projects and a quality check on
all,  a  total  of  46  Development  partnerships  continued  their  work  and  started
implementing  their  ideas  in  Action  2  during  2003.  Since  the  EQUAL  programme
was  launched  in  2002  only  small  amounts  of  technical  assistance  from  the  total
commitment  of  86.2  million.  The  programme  have  also  added  and  applied  an
additional  national  transversal  issue,  “diversity”.  Sweden  has  high  ambitions  with
transnationality and the way the development partnerships are coached and evaluated
in  the  programme.  The  Monitoring  Committee  is  very  active  and  have  taken  the
initiative to use their executive committee that meets between Monitoring committee
meetings to enhance and initiate mainstreaming activities on their own initiative with
the support of the Managing Authority. National Thematic groups have been set up
from national needs and do not always correspond to those of the European Thematic
Groups even though links exist.

The mid-term evaluation process was launched in the beginning of 2002 and the first
interim evaluation report was submitted in October 2002. This report is focusing on
the  administration  and  implementation  of  the  CIP  in  Sweden,  the  selection  of  DPs
and the support to the DPs in the first call of Action 1. An evaluation conference was
arranged  in  November  2002.  The  purpose  of  the  conference  was  to  inform  the
evaluators  of  the  DPS  of  the  evaluation  process  at  national  and  union  level  and  to
synchronise the self- assessment with the other evaluations.

5.3

URBAN

The Göteborg URBAN II programme, approved in December 2001, is the only one
in  Sweden.  The  ERDF  will  contribute  a  total  of  €5.3  million  to  this  programme,
whose  total  cost  amounts  to  €16.0  milli on.  The  programme  complement  was
approved by the Monitoring Committees and submitted to the Commission in August
2002.  The  first  annual  implementation  report  for  the  Göteborg  URBAN  II
programme should be submitted to the Commission in 2003.

The Managing Authority for the programme is the County Administrative Board in
Örebro  and  the  functional  day-to-day  management  is  delegated  to  URBAN
Secretariat in Göteborg. The Monitoring Committee has met twice during 2002.

143

Advance  payment,  amounting  to  7%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  to  the
programme, were made in March 2002. No interim payment requests were received
in 2002.

6.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF 1995-1999

At the end of 2002 there were 25 Swedish programmes open. Most of expected final
payment  claims  were  received  by  the  Commission  but  most  of  them  were
incomplete.

EAGGF

The  Swedish  authorities  were  preparing  the  closure  of  the  five  Objective  5(b)
programmes  and  the  two  Leader  II  programmes.  Final  reports  and  final  payment
claims are expected during the beginning of 2003.

ESF

There  are  13  ESF  OPs  to  close  for  the  1994-1999  programming  period.  None  of
these were closed in 2002. Final payment claims where received in March 2003.

The  ex-post  evaluation  for  the  previous  Objective 2  Bergslagen,  Fyrstad  and
Blekinge  programmes is  on-going,  and  a  first  draft  report  was  available  in  January
2003.  The  Objective  6  evaluation  report  has  been  approved  by  the  commission  as
well.

7.

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

EAGGF - LEADER

As  concerns  Leader+  the  terms  of  reference  for  the  mid-term  evaluations  were
agreed, calls for tender launched and evaluators have been appointed.

ESF

The two evaluators in charge of the Objective 3 SPD have been under contract since
the start of 2002. A major seminar was held in September to discuss the evaluation
strategy and its organisation with the various stakeholders.

144

UNITED KINGDOM

1.

OBJECTIVE 1

ERDF

The ERDF provides a total of €4 074 million to the Objective 1 programmes in the
United  Kingdom.  The  assistance  is  implemented  through  five  single  programming
documents  concerning  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
small  and  medium-sized  business,  support  for  business  modernisation,  community
economic  regeneration,  human  resource  development  and  development  of  strategic
infrastructure.

In  addition  there  are  two  operational  programmes  under  the  Northern  Ireland
Community  Support  Framework:  the  “Building  Sustainable  prosperity”  transitional
Objective 1  programme  and  the  EU  programme  for  peace  and  reconciliation  in
Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland (Peace II programme 2000-2004).
As a region in transition from Objective 1 and emerging from conflict to peace, the
thrust  of  the  “Building  Sustainable  prosperity”  operational  programme  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  technology  future.  This  is
complemented  by  the  Peace  II  programme  which  builds  on  the  experience  of  the
special  support  programme  Peace  I  1995-99  and  illustrates  the  concrete  support  of
the EU to the peace process after the Belfast Agreement.

During 2002, the implementation  of all  the  programmes  continued  at  an  increasing
pace  and  total  ERDF  payments  to  the  programmes  amounted  to  €338  million.
Significant  development  in  2002  included  the  commencement  of  the  mid-term
evaluation  process  across  all  the  programmes  with  the  appointment  of  external
evaluators; programme amendments in West Wales and the Valleys and Merseyside
and  changes  to  programme  management  arrangements  in  Merseyside.  Three  major
projects  were  approved  during  2002:  in  Cornwall  and  the  Isles  of  Scilly,  the
“Combined  Universities  in  Cornwall  (CUC)”  project  and  in  South  Yorkshire  the
“The  Frenchgate  Interchange,  Doncaster”  and  “South  Yorkshire  e-Learning
Programme”  projects.  In  the  case  of  Peace  II,  there  is  a  rising  challenge  to  submit
sufficient  payment  claims  to  avoid  difficulties  with  decommitment  under  the  n+2
rule  by  the  end  of  2003.  There  was  progress  in  implementing  the  ‘distinctiveness’
criteria in selecting projects supporting peace and reconciliation in the region.

EAGGF

Rural  development  plays  a  significant  role  in  the  development  of  four  UK
Objective 1  regions:  Cornwall  and  the  Scilly  Isles,  West  Wales  and  the  Valleys,
Northern Ireland and Highlands and Islands. For these four programmes the planned
EAGGF contribution for 2000-2006 is €327 million which represents 16%, 13%, 9%
and 7% respectively of the total Structural Fund contribution.

145

In  programmes  for  Merseyside  and  South  Yorkshire,  predominantly  urban  regions,
rural development measures are less important with €29 million of EAGGF funding
or  only  2%  of  the  Structural  Fund  contribution  to  both  programmes.  Noteworthy
progress  was  made  during 2002,  following  the  serious  delays  to  implementation  of
the  rural  development  measures  during  2001  due  to  foot-and-mouth  disease.  High
priority was given to speed up the implementation of EAGGF expenditure in order to
meet  the  targets  set  for  the  end  of  2002.  Only  one  programme  failed  to  meet  its
expenditure target. EAGGF  payments amounted to €39 million or 10%  of  the  total
allocated from EAGGF for the period.

The  implementation  of  the  rural  development  measures  under  the  Northern  Ireland
Objective 1  Programme  was  slower  than  originally  anticipated  and  no  EAGGF
payment was requested before the end of 2002.

PEACE II

The  €32  million  funding  allocated  to  rural  development  measures  under  this
programme in Northern Ireland is part of the Objective 1 financial envelope for this
region and represents 8% of Community funding for the five-year period 2000-2004.
No EAGGF payment was requested in 2002 and substantial efforts will be needed to
ensure expenditure targets are met for the end of 2003.

FIFG

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

The total FIFG allocation for fisheries is €16.99 million which represents 3% of total
Community  aid  for  the  programme.  In  terms  of  organisation,  DEFRA  has  overall
responsibility  for  implementing  the  programme  plus  the  management  and  control
arrangements; the company South West Pesca Ltd has the development role and was
active  in  assisting  with  the  local  delivery  of  the  FIFG  programme;  a  Fisheries
Priority  Management  Group  continued  to  met  regularly  to  review  progress  and
approve  applications.  Progress  in  2002  has  been  satisfactory  and  initiatives  and
studies  have  been  undertaken  to  look  at  the  local  strategy  fishing  industry  and  the
port of Newlyn. However, only 20% of the programme was committed.

Merseyside

The total FIFG for fisheries is small, €0.4 million for the period 2000-2006. Within
the Objective 1 area fisheries activity includes an offshore fishery for trawlers which
land  their  catch  in  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. Interest in FIFG continued to be low.

Highlands and Islands Objective 1 (transitional Objective 1)

The  total  FIFG  for  fisheries  for  the  period  2000-2006  is  €27.76  million  which
represents 9% of total Community aid to the programme. The Highlands and 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. Over 50% of the programme was committed before the
end of the year.

146

Examples of types of projects which have been approved include: development of a
commercial marine cod hatchery, mussel farm expansion, construction of processing
premises  and  purchase  of  equipment,  vessel  modernisation  to  maintain  quality,
training of fishermen.

A Scottish strategy for aquaculture was published during the year.

Northern Ireland (BSP transitional Objective 1)

Although  the  total  amount  of  FIFG  (€27.76  million)  is  small  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 yearly in 2001 and it has taken until the end of 2002 to launch all 10
proposed  FIFG  support  measures.  During  2002  a  total  of  27  fishing  vessels  were
scrapped. General progress is slow. Commitment of FIFG to date is 20% but with the
likely introduction of another decommissioning scheme absorption will accelerate. A
Fisheries Working Group was established during the year.

Northern Ireland Peace II

FIFG  has  been  approved  in  the  Peace  II  programme  to  assist  cross-border  bodies
from both Northern Ireland and the six border counties to work together to develop
fisheries interests, particularly aquaculture. No commitments have been made but the
Ireland  and  Northern  Ireland  authorities  have  been  working  on  two  major  cross-
border projects which should see all FIFG committed in 2003.

Wales

The amount of FIFG for the period 2000-2006 is €15.2 million and is considerably
more than had been taken up by the Welsh fisheries industry in the past. Following
Commission approval of the programme progress has been slow, mainly as a  result
of  the  fact  that  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  FIFG.  Absorption  of  Funds
was  slow  initially  but  with  considerable  effort  and  attention  the  commitment  has
risen quickly to around 45%, mainly for aquaculture projects.

ESF

West Wales and the Valleys

The West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 area covers an area where around two-
thirds of the total Welsh population lives. The total value of the programme exceeds
€3.9 billion, of which the Structural Funds  contribute €1.8 billion which makes it the
largest UK Objective 1 programme ever. The ESF share in the programme amounts
to 33% or €592.7 million.

The programme is progressing well, especially in Priority 4 (developing people) with
all of the indicative allocation to the end of 2002 committed, whereas Measure 1 of
Priority  3  (community  action  for  social  inclusion)  and  technical  assistance  are
lagging behind (37% and 6%).

147

The advance payments (€41 420 400) and th e two interim payments (22 April 2002:
€14 889 283; 8 November 2002: €65 532 909) add up to €121 842 592.

Northern Ireland

The Community Support Framework for this transitional Objective 1 region consists
of  two  Operational  Programmes.  Nearly  all  ESF  in  the  CSF  is  concentrated  in  an
Employment, Human Resource Development and Social Inclusion priority.

ESF  in  the  transitional  Operational  Programme  (Building  sustainable  prosperity  -
BSP  OP)  is  concentrated  in  the  employment  priority,  whilst  ESF  in  the  Peace  II
Operational Programme is spread over four priorities.

The  total  Structural  Fund  support  to  the  Northern  Ireland  CSF  amounts  to  €1  315
million. The ESF contributes 33% or €430  million (€280 million in the  transitional
Operational Programmes and €189.7 million in the Peace OP).

Whereas for the BSP OP, interim payments over €60 million were processed in 2002,
there were no interim payments made for the Peace II OP.

Cumulative ESF payments (including 7% advance) made by 31 December:

PEACE II OP

€13 279 000 (advance payments)

BSP OP

€80 410 004

Special transitional Programme - Highlands and Islands

The total assistance from the ESF for this programme is €59 540 million, i.e. 19.3%
of the total community contribution. The  programme has four operational  priorities
and a fifth  relating  to  technical  assistance.  ESF  assistance  is  available  in  Priority  3
Developing  the  Region’s  Human  Resources  (€58.076  million  ESF),  Priority  4
Assisting  Rural  Communities  (€0.5  million  ES F)  and  in  Priority  5  Technical
Assistance (€0.964 million ESF).

The  programme  performed  well  in  2002.  As  far  as  the  ESF  is  concerned  measures
3.1- 3.5 performed very well in terms of commitments and payments.

Commitments to date are €30 577  000 (51% of the total ESF share). Expenditure to
date is €23 186 453.18. The n+2 target fo r the 2000 commitments has been reached.

During 2002 there were two interim payments: €2 122 717.23 and €17 108 652.

2.

OBJECTIVE 2

Objective 2 in the United Kingdom is implemented through 14 single programming
documents. Ten programmes concern the English regions (West Midlands, Yorkshire
and  Humber,  East  Midlands,  North  East  of  England,  North  West  of  England,  East
England, South East England, South West England and London) and Gibraltar, three
concern  Scotland  (South  of  Scotland,  East  of  Scotland  and  Western  Scotland)  and
one  concerns  Wales  (East  Wales).  Each  programme  covers  an  average  of  three
priority areas, grouped around three main themes: developing diverse, dynamic and

148

competitive  business  bases,  strategic  spatial  development,  and  community
regeneration and economic and social development. The total ERDF funding decided
under  the  fourteen  UK  Objective 2  programmes  is  €4.325  million  while  the  ESF
provides a further €527 million.

Following  their  adoption  in  2001,  the  Objective 2  programmes  in  the  United
Kingdom increased their level of activity in 2002 and payments to the programmes
amounted  to  €78  million.  Significant  developments  during  the  year  included
technical  amendments  to  the  three  Scottish  programmes  and  the  East  Wales
programme, the approval of a major project in the East of Scotland programme and
the  commencement  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  process  across  the  programmes.
However, all the programmes face the major challenge of fully absorbing their 2000
and 2001 commitments by the end of 2003. These commitments amount to €1 554,
of which €1 404.5 is from the ERDF and €149.5 from the ESF. The Commission and
the national authorities are actively exploring how the level of expenditure under the
programmes can be maximised.

3.

OBJECTIVE 3

The  UK’s  Objective 3  programme  is  implemented  through  the  UK  Community
Support  Framework  and  three  operational  programmes  for  England,  Scotland  and
Wales. All these programming documents are structured along the five policy fields
approach of the ESF Regulation.

The  English  Objective 3  programme  (1999GB053PO003  -  €4 111.6  million)  is
highly  decentralised:  78%  of  the  funding  is  decided  and  implemented  by  nine
Regional Government Offices and regional Monitoring Committees.  The remaining
22%  is  used  to  finance  nation-wide  projects,  technical  assistance  and  projects  in
Gibraltar.

The programme performed well in 2002. Almost half of the total financial allocation
(2000-2006) is committed to approved projects. One third of these approved projects
are  implemented  through  Part-financing  Organisations  and  it  is  intended  that  the
majority of future programme commitments will be made through the part-financing
route.

Levels of expenditure are satisfactory in the majority of priorities and measures. The
two  research  measures  (combating  discrimination  in  the  labour  market  and
combating  gender  discrimination)  are  slightly  under  performing.  Priority  5  (gender
equality)  is  proving  the  most  difficult  area  to  commit  and  to  spend.  However,  the
percentage of women being supported across the programme is above expectations in
a  number  of  measures,  suggesting  that  gender  issues  at  programme  level  are  being
addressed.

After  a  careful  review  of  the  levels  of  spending  for  nation-wide  projects,  it  was
decided  at  the  end  of  2002  to  transfer  €90  million  to  the  Regional  Government
Offices  mainly  for  funding  of  projects  under  priorities  1  (active  labour  market
policies) and 3 (lifelong learning).

Concerning the achievement of quantified targets, it can be said that, on the basis of
provisional monitoring data, the programme is succeeding in placing more people in

149

jobs  than  was  originally  forecast.  The  proportion  of  beneficiaries  completing  their
courses  is  also  higher  than  the  forecast  target.  Although  the  proportion  of
beneficiaries  achieving  a  positive  outcome  is  slightly  below  the  target,  the  final
figure will probably be near target.

The  n+2  deadline  was  met  by  the  programme  and  the  first  indications  for  the
following years are optimistic.

The Monitoring Committee approved a new Programme Complement in September
2002, introducing some technical modifications to the original. By the end of 2002,
the strategies and objectives of the programme were still considered to be valid.

The annual review meeting was held in England on 9 October 2002.

Cumulative  ESF  payments  (including  7%  advance)  made  on  31  December  2002:
€853 948 623.74 (of which €471 199 267.67 in 2002).

East Wales

The  Wales  Objective 3  programme  (1999GB053PO001)  covers  the  seven  Unitary
Authorities  areas  (Cardiff,  Newport,  Vale  of  Glamorgan,  Powys,  Monmouthshire,
Wrexham  and  Flintshire).  The  population  covered  by  Objective 3  funds  is  about  1
million, which is approximately one third of the total for Wales.

The East Wales region will receive in total €132 million from the EU over the seven-
year period of the programme. A further €161m of public sector expenditure and an
estimated €23 million from the private sector w ill match ESF funds; thus, in total the
Programme will be worth an estimated €317 million.

The programme is progressing well. Priority 2 (equal opportunities for all and social
inclusion), 4 (promoting business competitiveness) and Priority 3 (lifelong learning),
with  respectively  87%  and  95%  of  the  indicative  allocation  at  the  end  of  2002
committed,  are  performing  better  than  Priority  1  (developing  active  labour  market
policies  to  prevent  and  combat  long-term  unemployment)  with  73%  and  Priority  5
(promoting  gender  equality  in  the  labour  market)  with  51%  of  the  indicative
allocation  at  the  end  of  2002  committed.  The  lowest  percentage  shows  technical
assistance with 32%.

The annual review meeting was held in Wales on 15 October 2002.

The  advance  payments  (€9  254  210)  and 
2001:  €4 275 142;   8 November  2002:  €11 264 952)   add  up  to  the  total  of
€24 794 304.

the  2  interim  payments  (28  November

Scotland

The  Objective 3  programme  (1999GB053PO002)  covers  all  of  Scotland,  bar  the
North  and  Western  regions  that  are  provided  for  by  the  Highlands  and  Islands
Partnership.  Over  4.5  million  people  live  within  the  area.  The  ESF  assistance
amounts  to  €498.84  million.  The  programme  es tablished  a  framework  of  five
operational  priorities  and  technical  assistance.  The  programme  also  contains  five
horizontal themes, which apply to each vertical priority.

150

The programme is progressing well. The best performing measures are: Measure 2.1
addressing  exclusion  of  thematic  groups  and  2.2  addressing  urban  exclusion  with
79%  and  62%  of  the  financial  provision  committed  at  July  2002.  The  measures
performing 
(6-24  months
unemployment)  and  5.1  promoting  positive  actions  (equal  opportunities)  with  13%
and 11% of the financial provision committed.

less  effectively  are  1.2 

raising  employability 

Commitment in the Scottish Objective 3 programme is €223 342 000 (44.8% of the
ESF total). The total spend (including 7% advance) is currently €81 817 331.41.

The  programme  has  achieved  the  n+2  target  for  the  2000  commitment.  An  n+2
Action Plan has been set up, which takes into account all areas of implementation of
the programme which affect achievement of the n+2 target each year.

During 2002 there were two interim payments: €19 518 454 and €27 380 497.

4.

FIFG OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS

For  the  period  2000-2006  the  UK  non-Objective 1  fisheries  programme  covers  all
areas  of  the  UK  not  eligible  under  Objective 1.  It  covers  most  of  England,  all  of
Scotland  excluding  Highlands  &  Islands  and  a  very  small  part  of  Wales.  The  total
FIFG allocation over the period 2000-2006 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  put  in  place  the  various  procedures  and  documentation
required  under  fisheries  regulations.  This  has  been  done.  A  Monitoring  Committee
which included representatives from all sectors of the fishing industry plus members
with a specific interest in the environment was set up and has now met three times.
FIFG  grant  schemes  together  with  programme  complements,  application  forms,
guidance notes and state aid approvals have been drawn up. Separate schemes were
prepared for England, Scotland and Wales. A fisheries management  working  group
was set up in Scotland and meets regularly to review progress.

During  the  early  part  of  the  year  the  decommissioning  schemes,  which  had  been
launched in Scotland and England in 2001, were implemented resulting in 99 vessels
being scrapped for areas outside Objective 1.

The non-Objective 1 fisheries programme had been slow to start but almost 25% of
the FIFG allocation for the period 2000-2006 has now been committed with the main
interest  from  the  fisheries  areas  of  Scotland  outside  Objective 1.  While  absorption
and interest in FIFG in the Objective 1 areas of Wales has been very satisfactory no
projects  have  as  yet  been  approved  in  the  small  part  of  Wales  outside  Objective 1.
The  Welsh  administration  has  accepted  that  more  attention  will  be  directed  to
accelerating progress.

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.  Of  the  total  of  219  projects  approved  161  were  in  Scotland  and  58  in

151

England. The processing and marketing measure had 70 projects approved and was
the second most important measure after decommissioning.

Coming up to the end of the year the most important issues arising were the crises in
fish  stocks,  the  possible  closure  of  the  cod  fishery  and  the  review  of  the  Common
Fisheries Policy The mid-term evaluation was launched. Community Initiatives

5.

5.1

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LEADER+

There are four Leader+ programmes in the UK: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland
and Wales. The total planned expenditure is around €262 million with a contribution
from  the  Structural  Funds  (EAGGF-Guidance)  of  €113  million.  In  all  cases  the  57
local  action  groups  are  selected  and  beginning  to  implement  their  agreed  strategies
(‘business plans’). The Monitoring Committees have been established and meetings
held.  Programme  Complements  were  approved  in  2002  for  Northern  Ireland  and
Wales. The first expenditure claims were submitted and payments (including the 7%
advance)  of  €8  million  were  made.  The  UK  national  network  has  been  established
during 2002.

5.2

EQUAL

The year 2002 was a challenging one for Equal in the UK, with the approval of 76
Development  Partnerships  for  Action  2  and  the  launch  of  Action  3.  Although  the
national thematic networks were established at the beginning of the programme, their
role has developed during 2002. This has been helped by events which have brought
together people from the DPs and the policy fields - to agree mainstreaming plans for
each theme.

Northern Ireland

Six DPs have progressed for Action 1 to Action 2 and have been issued their Letters
of Offers. All transnational cooperation agreements are now in force, and some DPs
have already had their first transnational meetings.

The two National Thematic Groups initially created, respectively on employment and
equal  opportunities,  in  order  to  capitalise  and  mainstream  innovation  were  merged
into one, due to the fact there is only one DP left under the equal opportunities pillar.
Nevertheless,  the  focus  on  equal  opportunities  is  maintained  via  the  chairperson  of
the new NTG.

The interim evaluation report was produced and accepted in 2002, and a training day
on evaluation and monitoring took place with the Managing Authority, the national
support structure, the evaluators and the DPs.

The first issue of the Equal newsletter in Northern Ireland was published.

5.3

URBAN

The  11  Urban  II  programmes  in  the  UK  were  approved  in  December  2001.  The
ERDF will contribute a total of €124.3 million  to these programmes, whose total cost

152

amounts to over €271.9 million. The programme  complements were approved by the
Monitoring  Committees  and  submitted  to  the  Commission  during  the  first  half  of
2002.  Annual  implementation  reports  for  the  UK  Urban  II  programmes  are  not
required to be submitted to the Commission until 2003.

The Managing Authorities for the programmes are the Regional Government Offices
in England and the appropriate Government Department in other parts of the UK. In
most  cases,  however,  functional  responsibility  has  been  delegated  to  the  local
authority  most  concerned.  The  Monitoring  Committee  for  each  of  the  UK
programmes met at least twice during 2002.

Advance  payments,  amounting  to  7%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  to  the
programme,  were  made  in  December  2001  or  in  early  2002.  No  interim  payment
requests were received in 2002.

6.

CLOSURE OF PRECEDING PROGRAMMING PERIODS

ERDF

At  the  end  of  2002,  the  closure  of  all  the  ERDF-funded  programmes  was  at  an
advanced stage of preparation with a view to the submission by the authorities of the
required documents by the deadline of 31 March 2003.

ESF

The  final  reports,  claims  and  closure  statements  required  for  closing  of  the  1994-
1999  programmes  have  been  received  for  the  two  Leader  II  programmes  for
Scotland.

In the United Kingdom there were 29 Operational Programmes which included ESF
under this programming period. The UK authorities were still working to finalise the
required  documents  and  reports  for  closure.  At  the  end  of  2002,  none  of  the  29
programmes was closed.

EAGGF

In the UK there were 23 programmes which included a  contribution from EAGGF.
By  the  end  of  2002,  two  Leader  II  programmes  had  submitted  the  relevant
documents  necessary  for  closure.  It  is  expected  that  all  other  documents  for  the
remaining programmes will be submitted in March 2003.

7.

EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

ERDF: Audits on the closure of programmes for the period 1994-1996

SPD East Midlands Objective 2 1994-96 Date: 22-26 April 2002

In spite of the notice given by the GOEM as regards the dates and the objectives of
the  Commission  audit,  there  were  four  projects  where  the  beneficiaries  failed  to
present  important  documentation  necessary  to  carry  out  the  on-the-spot  audit.
Moreover, the documentation available to the auditors indicates that for one project,

153

the  Adams  Building,  the  legal  and  financial  commitment  for  the  works  may  have
been  carried  out  outside  the  31  December  1996  deadline  for  commitments  for  the
SPD;  for  the  Robin  Hood  Line  Stage  III  project,  an  apparent  situation  of  non-
compliance with public procurement Directive 93/37/EEC needs to be investigated.

Some shortcomings were detected at the level of the management of the SPD by the
GOEM, namely an  error  in  the  declaration  of  expenditure  sent  to  the  Commission;
failure to take action in one case where an invalid project audit report was presented;
undocumented  decisions  regarding  the  part-financing  rates  to  be  granted  for  the
projects.

EAGGF

Concerning  Leader+,  for  three  regions,  the  terms  of  reference  for  the  mid-term
evaluations  were  agreed,  calls  for  tender  launched  and  evaluators  have  been
appointed.  For  Northern  Ireland  the  terms  of  reference  will  be  agreed  at  the
beginning of 2003.

ESF

During  2002  a  variety  of  sectoral  studies  and  evaluations  have  been  finalised  or
launched. They will be summarised next year in the mid-term evaluation reports.

154

Annexe 2a

Financial execution 2002

155

Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
Objective 1

Country

Belgique-België

Deutschland

Ellada

España

France

Ireland

Italia

Nederland

Österreich

Portugal

1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

ERDF

409.789.200,00
222.072.457,00
93.129.238,30
54,19%
22,73%
11.295.539.037,00
4.921.116.660,00
2.569.126.380,50
43,57%
22,74%
14.608.000.000,00
4.535.931.999,00
2.327.581.378,87
31,05%
15,93%
24.178.700.000,00
10.374.529.539,00
6.407.456.786,92
42,91%
26,50%
2.292.647.330,00
956.150.953,00
248.825.392,90
41,71%
10,85%
1.812.313.000,00
1.080.877.000,00
646.826.141,76
59,64%
35,69%
14.276.534.000,00
6.717.391.240,00
1.976.452.918,46
47,05%
13,84%
76.660.000,00
47.200.000,00
5.733.602,91
61,57%
7,48%
173.815.630,00
75.042.173,00
45.641.175,28
43,17%
26,26%
12.428.157.000,00
6.130.547.000,00
3.419.601.035,53
49,33%
27,51%

ESF

191.903.797,00
72.786.495,00
34.948.533,36
37,93%
18,21%
5.863.937.494,00
2.575.529.293,00
1.964.358.465,55
43,92%
33,50%
4.241.200.000,00
1.338.399.999,00
719.624.190,06
31,56%
16,97%
8.843.500.000,00
3.813.500.000,00
2.240.466.513,40
43,12%
25,33%
938.618.020,00
471.038.573,00
227.598.812,37
50,18%
24,25%
1.016.487.000,00
540.753.000,00
255.067.411,90
53,20%
25,09%
4.092.696.000,00
1.627.352.000,00
473.381.552,48
39,76%
11,57%
33.340.000,00
10.600.000,00
2.333.800,00
31,79%
7,00%
55.013.336,00
23.751.143,00
17.876.873,70
43,17%
32,50%
4.415.336.000,00
2.065.430.000,00
1.334.646.670,83
46,78%
30,23%

Period 2000-2006

EAGGF
41.571.749,00
16.320.320,00
7.532.448,00
39,26%
18,12%
3.442.245.769,00
1.465.938.920,00
866.204.359,00
42,59%
25,16%
2.260.300.000,00
726.184.001,00
347.419.945,00
32,13%
15,37%
5.021.200.000,00
1.983.886.077,00
1.214.823.593,00
39,51%
24,19%
675.953.218,00
292.434.897,00
89.411.484,00
43,26%
13,23%
169.400.000,00
89.970.000,00
23.208.583,00
53,11%
13,70%
2.982.626.000,00
1.187.098.000,00
244.583.457,00
39,80%
8,20%
10.000.000,00
4.600.000,00
781.193,00
46,00%
7,81%
41.345.471,00
17.850.260,00
12.053.691,00
43,17%
29,15%
2.117.353.000,00
1.026.647.000,00
438.202.931,00
48,49%
20,70%

FIFG
1.735.254,00
820.728,00
121.800,00
47,30%
7,02%
105.277.700,00
73.410.800,00
20.301.226,75
69,73%
19,28%
211.100.000,00
59.964.000,00
14.814.477,77
28,41%
7,02%
1.504.600.000,00
649.000.000,00
394.091.745,43
43,13%
26,19%
40.781.432,00
16.974.918,00
4.237.457,76
41,62%
10,39%
67.800.000,00
24.400.000,00
6.467.849,00
35,99%
9,54%
286.323.000,00
117.227.000,00
55.594.989,34
40,94%
19,42%
6.000.000,00
3.600.000,00
420.000,00
60,00%
7,00%
825.563,00
356.424,00
58.759,76
43,17%
7,12%
217.694.000,00
105.375.000,00
46.920.618,74
48,41%
21,55%

Total SF
645.000.000,00
312.000.000,00
135.732.019,66
48,37%
21,04%
20.707.000.000,00
9.035.995.673,00
5.419.990.431,80
43,64%
26,17%
21.320.600.000,00
6.660.479.999,00
3.409.439.991,70
31,24%
15,99%
39.548.000.000,00
16.820.915.616,00
10.256.838.638,75
42,53%
25,94%
3.948.000.000,00
1.736.599.341,00
570.073.147,03
43,99%
14,44%
3.066.000.000,00
1.736.000.000,00
931.569.985,66
56,62%
30,38%
21.638.179.000,00
9.649.068.240,00
2.750.012.917,28
44,59%
12,71%
126.000.000,00
66.000.000,00
9.268.595,91
52,38%
7,36%
271.000.000,00
117.000.000,00
75.630.499,74
43,17%
27,91%
19.178.540.000,00
9.327.999.000,00
5.239.371.256,10
48,64%
27,32%

ERDF
63.989.563,00
63.989.563,00
62.044.154,17
100,00%
96,96%
1.655.305.804,00
1.655.301.477,00
1.163.314.051,75
100,00%
70,28%
2.413.531.999,00
2.413.531.999,00
866.011.216,61
100,00%
35,88%
3.541.727.790,00
3.541.727.790,00
3.342.508.041,92
100,00%
94,38%
338.552.698,00
338.794.625,00
84.678.053,27
100,07%
25,01%
316.983.000,00
318.583.000,00
362.632.579,96
100,50%
114,40%
2.374.933.240,00
2.374.933.240,00
971.455.984,92
100,00%
40,90%
12.400.000,00
12.400.000,00
367.402,91
100,00%
2,96%
25.655.444,00
25.655.444,00
24.340.471,44
100,00%
94,87%
1.961.697.000,00
1.961.697.000,00
1.561.411.906,87
100,00%
79,59%

ESF

29.717.475,00
29.715.146,00
11.934.843,18
99,99%
40,16%
872.436.234,00
872.436.234,00
913.557.898,90
100,00%
104,71%
713.500.000,00
715.079.333,00
296.114.020,09
100,22%
41,50%
1.293.200.000,00
1.293.200.000,00
1.532.389.354,88
100,00%
118,50%
136.586.090,00
136.586.090,00
115.658.957,65
100,00%
84,68%
157.807.000,00
157.807.000,00
107.285.257,90
100,00%
67,99%
554.861.000,00
554.861.000,00
174.785.042,62
100,00%
31,50%
6.600.000,00
6.600.000,00

100,00%
-
8.120.049,00
8.120.049,00
6.313.654,30
100,00%
77,75%
675.831.000,00
675.831.000,00
671.132.475,79
100,00%
99,30%

Financial year: 2002
EAGGF
6.964.671,00
6.964.671,00
4.622.548,00
100,00%
66,37%
494.304.462,00
494.304.462,00
409.495.181,00
100,00%
82,84%
384.984.001,00
384.984.001,00
86.303.645,00
100,00%
22,42%
759.720.100,00
759.720.077,00
611.722.895,00
100,00%
80,52%
101.728.126,00
101.728.126,00
39.780.888,00
100,00%
39,11%
26.810.000,00
26.810.000,00
11.350.583,00
100,00%
42,34%
419.065.000,00
419.065.000,00
33.694.267,00
100,00%
8,04%
1.400.000,00
1.400.000,00
81.193,00
100,00%
5,80%
6.102.653,00
6.102.653,00
7.347.909,00
100,00%
120,41%
329.557.000,00
329.557.000,00
234.852.824,00
100,00%
71,26%

FIFG

328.291,00
328.291,00

100,00%
-
24.953.500,00
24.953.500,00
12.931.787,75
100,00%
51,82%
33.464.000,00
33.464.000,00
37.477,77
100,00%
0,11%
220.000.000,00
220.000.000,00
172.801.212,72
100,00%
78,55%
5.187.721,00
5.187.721,00
1.382.757,76
100,00%
26,65%
11.400.000,00
11.400.000,00
1.721.849,00
100,00%
15,10%
22.186.000,00
39.586.000,00
24.411.922,29
178,43%
110,03%
600.000,00
600.000,00

100,00%
-
121.854,00
121.854,00
970,76
100,00%
0,80%
33.914.000,00
33.914.000,00
25.014.086,74
100,00%
73,76%

Total SF
101.000.000,00
100.997.671,00
78.601.545,35
100,00%
77,82%
3.047.000.000,00
3.046.995.673,00
2.499.298.919,40
100,00%
82,02%
3.545.480.000,00
3.547.059.333,00
1.248.466.359,47
100,04%
35,21%
5.814.647.890,00
5.814.647.867,00
5.659.421.504,52
100,00%
97,33%
582.054.635,00
582.296.562,00
241.500.656,68
100,04%
41,49%
513.000.000,00
514.600.000,00
482.990.269,86
100,31%
94,15%
3.371.045.240,00
3.388.445.240,00
1.204.347.216,83
100,52%
35,73%
21.000.000,00
21.000.000,00
448.595,91
100,00%
2,14%
40.000.000,00
40.000.000,00
38.003.005,50
100,00%
95,01%
3.000.999.000,00
3.000.999.000,00
2.492.411.293,40
100,00%
83,05%

156

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

United Kingdom 1.Decided

Ireland /
United Kingdom 2.Committed
(PEACE II)

Total

2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

ERDF

471.034.000,00
216.624.000,00
115.021.616,52
45,99%
24,42%
465.739.352,00
199.825.896,00
111.078.203,37
42,91%
23,85%
3.780.467.000,00
1.810.541.000,00
602.941.880,90
47,89%
15,95%
293.010.000,00
172.210.000,00
20.510.700,00
58,77%
7,00%
86.562.405.549,00
37.460.059.917,00
18.589.926.452,22
43,28%
21,48%

ESF

272.967.000,00
118.347.000,00
46.999.510,55
43,36%
17,22%
158.735.508,00
68.108.007,00
32.449.354,33
42,91%
20,44%
1.830.356.000,00
822.439.000,00
376.574.397,24
44,93%
20,57%
189.700.000,00
111.490.000,00
13.279.000,00
58,77%
7,00%
32.143.790.155,00
13.659.524.510,00
7.739.605.085,77
42,50%
24,08%

Period 2000-2006

EAGGF

197.146.000,00
69.092.000,00
32.108.390,00
35,05%
16,29%
111.757.760,00
47.943.974,00
25.300.166,00
42,90%
22,64%
355.819.000,00
161.226.000,00
34.412.212,00
45,31%
9,67%
44.830.000,00
26.350.000,00
3.138.100,00
58,78%
7,00%
17.471.547.967,00
7.115.541.449,00
3.339.180.552,00
40,73%
19,11%

FIFG
6.853.000,00
2.937.000,00
835.281,00
42,86%
12,19%
11.767.380,00
5.047.186,00
1.109.403,15
42,89%
9,43%
89.358.000,00
37.794.000,00
9.237.781,37
42,30%
10,34%
3.460.000,00
1.950.000,00
242.200,00
56,36%
7,00%
2.553.575.329,00
1.098.857.056,00
554.453.590,07
43,03%
21,71%

Total SF
948.000.000,00
407.000.000,00
194.964.798,07
42,93%
20,57%
748.000.000,00
320.925.063,00
169.937.126,85
42,90%
22,72%
6.056.000.000,00
2.832.000.000,00
1.023.166.271,51
46,76%
16,90%
531.000.000,00
312.000.000,00
37.170.000,00
58,76%
7,00%
138.731.319.000,00
59.333.982.932,00
30.223.165.680,06
42,77%
21,79%

ERDF
69.188.000,00
69.188.000,00
73.917.320,23
100,00%
106,84%
67.869.080,00
67.902.580,00
69.231.953,37
100,05%
102,01%
585.693.000,00
585.693.000,00
338.309.190,90
100,00%
57,76%
58.480.000,00
58.480.000,00

ESF

38.806.000,00
38.806.000,00
26.519.301,44
100,00%
68,34%
23.131.086,00
23.339.916,00
19.469.345,69
100,90%
84,17%
268.335.000,00
268.335.000,00
248.449.477,24
100,00%
92,59%
37.920.000,00
37.920.000,00

Financial year: 2002
EAGGF
29.027.000,00
29.027.000,00
14.407.452,00
100,00%
49,63%
16.285.900,00
16.466.952,00
11.630.932,00
101,11%
71,42%
53.959.000,00
53.959.000,00
9.433.403,00
100,00%
17,48%
8.950.000,00
8.950.000,00

100,00%
-
13.486.006.618,00
13.487.877.718,00
8.920.222.328,32
100,01%
66,14%

100,00%
-
4.816.850.934,00
4.818.636.768,00
4.123.609.629,68
100,04%
85,61%

100,00%
-
2.638.857.913,00
2.639.038.942,00
1.474.723.720,00
100,01%
55,88%

FIFG

979.000,00
979.000,00

100,00%
-
1.713.933,00
1.731.151,00
209.620,35
101,00%
12,23%
15.013.000,00
15.013.000,00
2.982.721,37
100,00%
19,87%
650.000,00
650.000,00

100,00%
-
370.511.299,00
387.928.517,00
241.494.406,51
104,70%
65,18%

Total SF
138.000.000,00
138.000.000,00
114.844.073,67
100,00%
83,22%
108.999.999,00
109.440.599,00
100.541.851,41
100,40%
92,24%
923.000.000,00
923.000.000,00
599.174.792,51
100,00%
64,92%
106.000.000,00
106.000.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
21.312.226.764,00
21.333.481.945,00
14.760.050.084,51
100,10%
69,26%

157

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Belgique-België

Danmark

Deutschland

España

France

Italia

Luxembourg
(Grand-Duche)

Nederland

Österreich

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

United Kingdom

Total

1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
Objective 2

ERDF

397.452.386,00
149.048.250,00
34.772.636,17
37,50%
8,75%
134.146.177,00
66.291.770,00
24.171.649,67
49,42%
18,02%
3.137.782.667,00
1.345.383.858,00
531.970.704,63
42,88%
16,95%
2.412.049.020,00
1.066.676.777,00
681.215.662,69
44,22%
28,24%
5.380.045.086,00
2.486.571.259,00
656.195.502,92
46,22%
12,20%
2.608.000.000,00
903.100.000,00
182.651.430,71
34,63%
7,00%
41.000.000,00
13.450.000,00
2.870.000,00
32,80%
7,00%
823.000.000,00
308.470.000,00
93.253.299,86
37,48%
11,33%
674.093.106,00
320.072.658,00
112.984.165,56
47,48%
16,76%
396.831.000,00
179.636.000,00
91.419.331,95
45,27%
23,04%
373.300.443,00
176.346.822,00
85.960.423,09
47,24%
23,03%
4.324.648.000,00
2.075.405.000,00
380.636.674,67
47,99%
8,80%
20.702.347.885,00
9.090.452.394,00
2.878.101.481,92
43,91%
13,90%

Period 2000-2006
ESF

Total SF

ERDF

Financial year: 2002
ESF

49.547.614,00
17.300.752,00
3.797.003,97
34,92%
7,66%
54.853.823,00
23.708.230,00
8.136.515,76
43,22%
14,83%
488.217.329,00
186.091.840,00
73.444.489,92
38,12%
15,04%
335.950.980,00
144.323.223,00
44.531.723,05
42,96%
13,26%
881.953.914,00
388.998.627,00
100.967.173,09
44,11%
11,45%

-
-

-
-

-
-
28.906.894,00
11.903.342,00
2.699.418,99
41,18%
9,34%
110.169.000,00
47.364.000,00
17.815.288,52
42,99%
16,17%
49.699.557,00
21.653.178,00
9.188.674,24
43,57%
18,49%
527.352.000,00
226.595.000,00
37.976.729,00
42,97%
7,20%
2.526.651.111,00
1.067.938.192,00
298.557.016,54
42,27%
11,82%

447.000.000,00
166.349.002,00
38.569.640,14
37,21%
8,63%
189.000.000,00
90.000.000,00
32.308.165,43
47,62%
17,09%
3.625.999.996,00
1.531.475.698,00
605.415.194,55
42,24%
16,70%
2.748.000.000,00
1.211.000.000,00
725.747.385,74
44,07%
26,41%
6.261.999.000,00
2.875.569.886,00
757.162.676,01
45,92%
12,09%
2.608.000.000,00
903.100.000,00
182.651.430,71
34,63%
7,00%
41.000.000,00
13.450.000,00
2.870.000,00
32,80%
7,00%
823.000.000,00
308.470.000,00
93.253.299,86
37,48%
11,33%
703.000.000,00
331.976.000,00
115.683.584,55
47,22%
16,46%
507.000.000,00
227.000.000,00
109.234.620,47
44,77%
21,55%
423.000.000,00
198.000.000,00
95.149.097,33
46,81%
22,49%
4.852.000.000,00
2.302.000.000,00
418.613.403,67
47,44%
8,63%
23.228.998.996,00
10.158.390.586,00
3.176.658.498,46
43,73%
13,68%

80.255.554,00
80.254.554,00
19.952.909,17
100,00%
24,86%
20.863.066,00
20.863.066,00
12.710.890,67
100,00%
60,93%
530.516.238,00
530.516.238,00
303.323.936,35
100,00%
57,18%
357.919.958,00
357.919.958,00
402.749.984,69
100,00%
112,53%
817.856.511,00
819.384.106,00
277.967.524,48
100,19%
33,99%
491.100.000,00
491.100.000,00
91.430,71
100,00%
0,02%
7.450.000,00
7.450.000,00
2.870.000,00
100,00%
38,52%
149.070.000,00
149.070.000,00
35.310.800,35
100,00%
23,69%
105.134.746,00
105.134.746,00
44.336.509,98
100,00%
42,17%
59.824.000,00
59.824.000,00
42.155.793,95
100,00%
70,47%
57.705.664,00
57.705.664,00
59.829.393,09
100,00%
103,68%
670.900.000,00
670.900.000,00
77.911.314,67
100,00%
11,61%
3.348.595.737,00
3.350.122.332,00
1.279.210.488,11
100,05%
38,20%

9.094.448,00
9.094.448,00
2.495.660,99
100,00%
27,44%
8.136.934,00
8.136.934,00
4.071.458,88
100,00%
50,04%
79.193.461,00
79.193.461,00
39.269.276,93
100,00%
49,59%
49.080.042,00
49.080.042,00
21.015.155,05
100,00%
42,82%
130.751.017,00
130.751.017,00
34.780.813,81
100,00%
26,60%

-
-

-
-

-
-
4.371.254,00
4.371.254,00
512.177,99
100,00%
11,72%
16.177.000,00
16.177.000,00
9.911.976,47
100,00%
61,27%
7.294.336,00
7.294.336,00
5.709.704,24
100,00%
78,28%
77.100.000,00
77.100.000,00
1.062.089,00
100,00%
1,38%
381.198.492,00
381.198.492,00
118.828.313,36
100,00%
31,17%

Total SF
89.350.002,00
89.349.002,00
22.448.570,16
100,00%
25,12%
29.000.000,00
29.000.000,00
16.782.349,55
100,00%
57,87%
609.709.699,00
609.709.699,00
342.593.213,28
100,00%
56,19%
407.000.000,00
407.000.000,00
423.765.139,74
100,00%
104,12%
948.607.528,00
950.135.123,00
312.748.338,29
100,16%
32,97%
491.100.000,00
491.100.000,00
91.430,71
100,00%
0,02%
7.450.000,00
7.450.000,00
2.870.000,00
100,00%
38,52%
149.070.000,00
149.070.000,00
35.310.800,35
100,00%
23,69%
109.506.000,00
109.506.000,00
44.848.687,97
100,00%
40,96%
76.001.000,00
76.001.000,00
52.067.770,42
100,00%
68,51%
65.000.000,00
65.000.000,00
65.539.097,33
100,00%
100,83%
748.000.000,00
748.000.000,00
78.973.403,67
100,00%
10,56%
3.729.794.229,00
3.731.320.824,00
1.398.038.801,47
100,04%
37,48%

158

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Belgique-België

Danmark

Deutschland

España

France

Italia

Luxembourg
(Grand-Duche)

Nederland

Österreich

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

United Kingdom

Total

Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
Objective 3

Period 2000-2006
ESF

Financial year: 2002
ESF

1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

765.174.700,00
328.660.700,00
130.953.020,98
42,95%
17,11%
378.953.400,00
162.769.500,00
49.112.691,01
42,95%
12,96%
4.756.126.501,00
2.042.869.400,00
1.314.869.956,44
42,95%
27,65%
2.221.809.800,00
954.320.100,00
546.901.725,70
42,95%
24,62%
4.713.559.300,00
2.024.585.800,00
1.007.442.315,05
42,95%
21,37%
3.887.129.100,00
1.669.614.403,00
672.369.349,01
42,95%
17,30%
39.452.700,00
16.945.800,00
6.908.901,06
42,95%
17,51%
1.750.454.000,00
751.861.600,00
123.140.579,94
42,95%
7,03%
548.184.800,00
235.458.400,00
190.120.439,20
42,95%
34,68%
418.406.300,00
179.715.500,00
72.599.682,26
42,95%
17,35%
747.524.800,00
321.079.700,00
109.315.995,95
42,95%
14,62%
4.742.629.600,00
2.037.072.200,00
960.560.258,88
42,95%
20,25%
24.969.405.001,00
10.724.953.103,00
5.184.294.915,48
42,95%
20,76%

111.729.800,00
111.729.800,00
58.050.445,99
100,00%
51,96%
55.334.400,00
55.334.400,00
22.149.448,23
100,00%
40,03%
694.484.800,00
694.484.800,00
484.824.413,19
100,00%
69,81%
324.426.400,00
324.426.400,00
361.897.674,40
100,00%
111,55%
688.269.200,00
688.269.200,00
422.312.406,00
100,00%
61,36%
567.594.701,00
567.594.701,00
335.523.902,41
100,00%
59,11%
5.760.800,00
5.760.800,00
4.147.212,06
100,00%
71,99%
255.599.500,00
255.599.500,00
608.799,94
100,00%
0,24%
80.045.400,00
80.045.400,00
87.518.498,75
100,00%
109,34%
61.095.300,00
61.095.300,00
40.907.665,82
100,00%
66,96%
109.152.800,00
109.152.800,00
56.989.259,95
100,00%
52,21%
692.514.000,00
692.514.000,00
529.363.170,66
100,00%
76,44%
3.646.007.101,00
3.646.007.101,00
2.404.292.897,40
100,00%
65,94%

159

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
Objectives 1, 2, 3

Country

Belgique-België

Danmark

Deutschland

Ellada

España

France

Ireland

Italia

Luxembourg
(Grand-Duche)

Nederland

1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

ERDF

ESF

807.241.586,00
371.120.707,00
127.901.874,47
45,97%
15,84%
134.146.177,00
66.291.770,00
24.171.649,67
49,42%
18,02%
14.433.321.704,00
6.266.500.518,00
3.101.097.085,13
43,42%
21,49%
14.608.000.000,00
4.535.931.999,00
2.327.581.378,87
31,05%
15,93%
26.590.749.020,00
11.441.206.316,00
7.088.672.449,61
43,03%
26,66%
7.672.692.416,00
3.442.722.212,00
905.020.895,82
44,87%
11,80%
1.812.313.000,00
1.080.877.000,00
646.826.141,76
59,64%
35,69%
16.884.534.000,00
7.620.491.240,00
2.159.104.349,17
45,13%
12,79%
41.000.000,00
13.450.000,00
2.870.000,00
32,80%
7,00%
899.660.000,00
355.670.000,00
98.986.902,77
39,53%
11,00%

1.006.626.111,00
418.747.947,00
169.698.558,31
41,60%
16,86%
433.807.223,00
186.477.730,00
57.249.206,77
42,99%
13,20%
11.108.281.324,00
4.804.490.533,00
3.352.672.911,91
43,25%
30,18%
4.241.200.000,00
1.338.399.999,00
719.624.190,06
31,56%
16,97%
11.401.260.780,00
4.912.143.323,00
2.831.899.962,15
43,08%
24,84%
6.534.131.234,00
2.884.623.000,00
1.336.008.300,51
44,15%
20,45%
1.016.487.000,00
540.753.000,00
255.067.411,90
53,20%
25,09%
7.979.825.100,00
3.296.966.403,00
1.145.750.901,49
41,32%
14,36%
39.452.700,00
16.945.800,00
6.908.901,06
42,95%
17,51%
1.783.794.000,00
762.461.600,00
125.474.379,94
42,74%
7,03%

Period 2000-2006
EAGGF
41.571.749,00
16.320.320,00
7.532.448,00
39,26%
18,12%

FIFG
1.735.254,00
820.728,00
121.800,00
47,30%
7,02%

3.442.245.769,00
1.465.938.920,00
866.204.359,00
42,59%
25,16%
2.260.300.000,00
726.184.001,00
347.419.945,00
32,13%
15,37%
5.021.200.000,00
1.983.886.077,00
1.214.823.593,00
39,51%
24,19%
675.953.218,00
292.434.897,00
89.411.484,00
43,26%
13,23%
169.400.000,00
89.970.000,00
23.208.583,00
53,11%
13,70%
2.982.626.000,00
1.187.098.000,00
244.583.457,00
39,80%
8,20%

105.277.700,00
73.410.800,00
20.301.226,75
69,73%
19,28%
211.100.000,00
59.964.000,00
14.814.477,77
28,41%
7,02%
1.504.600.000,00
649.000.000,00
394.091.745,43
43,13%
26,19%
40.781.432,00
16.974.918,00
4.237.457,76
41,62%
10,39%
67.800.000,00
24.400.000,00
6.467.849,00
35,99%
9,54%
286.323.000,00
117.227.000,00
55.594.989,34
40,94%
19,42%

10.000.000,00
4.600.000,00
781.193,00
46,00%
7,81%

6.000.000,00
3.600.000,00
420.000,00
60,00%
7,00%

160

Total SF

1.857.174.700,00
807.009.702,00
305.254.680,78
43,45%
16,44%
567.953.400,00
252.769.500,00
81.420.856,44
44,51%
14,34%
29.089.126.497,00
12.610.340.771,00
7.340.275.582,79
43,35%
25,23%
21.320.600.000,00
6.660.479.999,00
3.409.439.991,70
31,24%
15,99%
44.517.809.800,00
18.986.235.716,00
11.529.487.750,19
42,65%
25,90%
14.923.558.300,00
6.636.755.027,00
2.334.678.138,09
44,47%
15,64%
3.066.000.000,00
1.736.000.000,00
931.569.985,66
56,62%
30,38%
28.133.308.100,00
12.221.782.643,00
3.605.033.697,00
43,44%
12,81%
80.452.700,00
30.395.800,00
9.778.901,06
37,78%
12,15%
2.699.454.000,00
1.126.331.600,00
225.662.475,71
41,72%
8,36%

ERDF

144.245.117,00
144.244.117,00
81.997.063,34
100,00%
56,85%
20.863.066,00
20.863.066,00
12.710.890,67
100,00%
60,93%
2.185.822.042,00
2.185.817.715,00
1.466.637.988,10
100,00%
67,10%
2.413.531.999,00
2.413.531.999,00
866.011.216,61
100,00%
35,88%
3.899.647.748,00
3.899.647.748,00
3.745.258.026,61
100,00%
96,04%
1.156.409.209,00
1.158.178.731,00
362.645.577,75
100,15%
31,36%
316.983.000,00
318.583.000,00
362.632.579,96
100,50%
114,40%
2.866.033.240,00
2.866.033.240,00
971.547.415,63
100,00%
33,90%
7.450.000,00
7.450.000,00
2.870.000,00
100,00%
38,52%
161.470.000,00
161.470.000,00
35.678.203,26
100,00%
22,10%

ESF

150.541.723,00
150.539.394,00
72.480.950,16
100,00%
48,15%
63.471.334,00
63.471.334,00
26.220.907,11
100,00%
41,31%
1.646.114.495,00
1.646.114.495,00
1.437.651.589,02
100,00%
87,34%
713.500.000,00
715.079.333,00
296.114.020,09
100,22%
41,50%
1.666.706.442,00
1.666.706.442,00
1.915.302.184,33
100,00%
114,92%
955.606.307,00
955.606.307,00
572.752.177,46
100,00%
59,94%
157.807.000,00
157.807.000,00
107.285.257,90
100,00%
67,99%
1.122.455.701,00
1.122.455.701,00
510.308.945,03
100,00%
45,46%
5.760.800,00
5.760.800,00
4.147.212,06
100,00%
71,99%
262.199.500,00
262.199.500,00
608.799,94
100,00%
0,23%

Financial year: 2002
EAGGF

6.964.671,00
6.964.671,00
4.622.548,00
100,00%
66,37%

FIFG

328.291,00
328.291,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%

494.304.462,00
494.304.462,00
409.495.181,00
100,00%
82,84%
384.984.001,00
384.984.001,00
86.303.645,00
100,00%
22,42%
759.720.100,00
759.720.077,00
611.722.895,00
100,00%
80,52%
101.728.126,00
101.728.126,00
39.780.888,00
100,00%
39,11%
26.810.000,00
26.810.000,00
11.350.583,00
100,00%
42,34%
419.065.000,00
419.065.000,00
33.694.267,00
100,00%
8,04%

24.953.500,00
24.953.500,00
12.931.787,75
100,00%
51,82%
33.464.000,00
33.464.000,00
37.477,77
100,00%
0,11%
220.000.000,00
220.000.000,00
172.801.212,72
100,00%
78,55%
5.187.721,00
5.187.721,00
1.382.757,76
100,00%
26,65%
11.400.000,00
11.400.000,00
1.721.849,00
100,00%
15,10%
22.186.000,00
39.586.000,00
24.411.922,29
178,43%
110,03%

1.400.000,00
1.400.000,00
81.193,00
100,00%
5,80%

600.000,00
600.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%

Total SF
302.079.802,00
302.076.473,00
159.100.561,50
100,00%
52,67%
84.334.400,00
84.334.400,00
38.931.797,78
100,00%
46,16%
4.351.194.499,00
4.351.190.172,00
3.326.716.545,87
100,00%
76,46%
3.545.480.000,00
3.547.059.333,00
1.248.466.359,47
100,04%
35,21%
6.546.074.290,00
6.546.074.267,00
6.445.084.318,66
100,00%
98,46%
2.218.931.363,00
2.220.700.885,00
976.561.400,97
100,08%
44,01%
513.000.000,00
514.600.000,00
482.990.269,86
100,31%
94,15%
4.429.739.941,00
4.447.139.941,00
1.539.962.549,95
100,39%
34,76%
13.210.800,00
13.210.800,00
7.017.212,06
100,00%
53,12%
425.669.500,00
425.669.500,00
36.368.196,20
100,00%
8,54%

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Österreich

Portugal

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

United Kingdom

Ireland /
United Kingdom
(PEACE II)

Total

1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)
1.Decided
2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

ERDF

ESF

847.908.736,00
395.114.831,00
158.625.340,84
46,60%
18,71%
12.428.157.000,00
6.130.547.000,00
3.419.601.035,53
49,33%
27,51%
867.865.000,00
396.260.000,00
206.440.948,47
45,66%
23,79%
839.039.795,00
376.172.718,00
197.038.626,46
44,83%
23,48%
8.105.115.000,00
3.885.946.000,00
983.578.555,57
47,94%
12,14%
293.010.000,00
172.210.000,00
20.510.700,00
58,77%
7,00%
107.264.753.434,00
46.550.512.311,00
21.468.027.934,14
43,40%
20,01%

632.105.030,00
271.112.885,00
210.696.731,89
42,89%
33,33%
4.415.336.000,00
2.065.430.000,00
1.334.646.670,83
46,78%
30,23%
801.542.300,00
345.426.500,00
137.414.481,33
43,10%
17,14%
955.959.865,00
410.840.885,00
150.954.024,52
42,98%
15,79%
7.100.337.600,00
3.086.106.200,00
1.375.111.385,12
43,46%
19,37%
189.700.000,00
111.490.000,00
13.279.000,00
58,77%
7,00%
59.639.846.267,00
25.452.415.805,00
13.222.457.017,79
42,68%
22,17%

Period 2000-2006
EAGGF
41.345.471,00
17.850.260,00
12.053.691,00
43,17%
29,15%
2.117.353.000,00
1.026.647.000,00
438.202.931,00
48,49%
20,70%
197.146.000,00
69.092.000,00
32.108.390,00
35,05%
16,29%
111.757.760,00
47.943.974,00
25.300.166,00
42,90%
22,64%
355.819.000,00
161.226.000,00
34.412.212,00
45,31%
9,67%
44.830.000,00
26.350.000,00
3.138.100,00
58,78%
7,00%
17.471.547.967,00
7.115.541.449,00
3.339.180.552,00
40,73%
19,11%

FIFG

Total SF

ERDF

ESF

Financial year: 2002
EAGGF

825.563,00
356.424,00
58.759,76
43,17%
7,12%
217.694.000,00
105.375.000,00
46.920.618,74
48,41%
21,55%
6.853.000,00
2.937.000,00
835.281,00
42,86%
12,19%
11.767.380,00
5.047.186,00
1.109.403,15
42,89%
9,43%
89.358.000,00
37.794.000,00
9.237.781,37
42,30%
10,34%
3.460.000,00
1.950.000,00
242.200,00
56,36%
7,00%
2.553.575.329,00
1.098.857.056,00
554.453.590,07
43,03%
21,71%

1.522.184.800,00
684.434.400,00
381.434.523,49
44,96%
25,06%
19.178.540.000,00
9.327.999.000,00
5.239.371.256,10
48,64%
27,32%
1.873.406.300,00
813.715.500,00
376.799.100,80
43,44%
20,11%
1.918.524.800,00
840.004.763,00
374.402.220,13
43,78%
19,52%
15.650.629.600,00
7.171.072.200,00
2.402.339.934,06
45,82%
15,35%
531.000.000,00
312.000.000,00
37.170.000,00
58,76%
7,00%
186.929.722.997,00
80.217.326.621,00
38.584.119.094,00
42,91%
20,64%

130.790.190,00
130.790.190,00
68.676.981,42
100,00%
52,51%
1.961.697.000,00
1.961.697.000,00
1.561.411.906,87
100,00%
79,59%
129.012.000,00
129.012.000,00
116.073.114,18
100,00%
89,97%
125.574.744,00
125.608.244,00
129.061.346,46
100,03%
102,78%
1.256.593.000,00
1.256.593.000,00
416.220.505,57
100,00%
33,12%
58.480.000,00
58.480.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
16.834.602.355,00
16.838.000.050,00
10.199.432.816,43
100,02%
60,59%

92.536.703,00
92.536.703,00
94.344.331,04
100,00%
101,95%
675.831.000,00
675.831.000,00
671.132.475,79
100,00%
99,30%
116.078.300,00
116.078.300,00
77.338.943,73
100,00%
66,63%
139.578.222,00
139.787.052,00
82.168.309,88
100,15%
58,87%
1.037.949.000,00
1.037.949.000,00
778.874.736,90
100,00%
75,04%
37.920.000,00
37.920.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
8.844.056.527,00
8.845.842.361,00
6.646.730.840,44
100,02%
75,15%

6.102.653,00
6.102.653,00
7.347.909,00
100,00%
120,41%
329.557.000,00
329.557.000,00
234.852.824,00
100,00%
71,26%
29.027.000,00
29.027.000,00
14.407.452,00
100,00%
49,63%
16.285.900,00
16.466.952,00
11.630.932,00
101,11%
71,42%
53.959.000,00
53.959.000,00
9.433.403,00
100,00%
17,48%
8.950.000,00
8.950.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
2.638.857.913,00
2.639.038.942,00
1.474.723.720,00
100,01%
55,88%

FIFG

121.854,00
121.854,00
970,76
100,00%
0,80%
33.914.000,00
33.914.000,00
25.014.086,74
100,00%
73,76%
979.000,00
979.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
1.713.933,00
1.731.151,00
209.620,35
101,00%
12,23%
15.013.000,00
15.013.000,00
2.982.721,37
100,00%
19,87%
650.000,00
650.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
370.511.299,00
387.928.517,00
241.494.406,51
104,70%
65,18%

Total SF
229.551.400,00
229.551.400,00
170.370.192,22
100,00%
74,22%
3.000.999.000,00
3.000.999.000,00
2.492.411.293,40
100,00%
83,05%
275.096.300,00
275.096.300,00
207.819.509,91
100,00%
75,54%
283.152.799,00
283.593.399,00
223.070.208,69
100,16%
78,78%
2.363.514.000,00
2.363.514.000,00
1.207.511.366,84
100,00%
51,09%
106.000.000,00
106.000.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
28.688.028.094,00
28.710.809.870,00
18.562.381.783,38
100,08%
64,70%

161

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
FIFG outside Objective 1

Country  

Belgique-België 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Danmark 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Deutschland 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

España 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

France 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Italia 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Nederland 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Österreich 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Suomi/Finland 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Sverige 1. Decided

  2.Committed

3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

United Kingdom 1. Decided

2.Committed

  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Total 1.Decided

2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Period 2000-2006
FIFG

Financial year: 2002
FIFG

35.300.000,00
15.100.000,00
3.298.906,00
42,78%
9,35%
204.500.000,00
87.800.000,00
30.844.479,68
42,93%
15,08%
111.200.000,00
47.800.000,00
9.689.476,00
42,99%
8,71%
207.500.000,00
89.200.000,00
45.402.821,19
42,99%
21,88%
233.700.000,00
100.400.000,00
27.561.198,00
42,96%
11,79%
99.600.000,00
42.800.000,00
25.967.226,97
42,97%
26,07%
32.100.000,00
10.200.000,00
2.247.000,00
31,78%
7,00%
4.200.000,00
1.800.000,00
1.618.441,95
42,86%
38,53%
32.100.000,00
13.800.000,00
3.608.689,00
42,99%
11,24%
62.300.000,00
26.700.000,00
7.751.045,93
42,86%
12,44%
125.500.000,00
53.800.000,00
14.309.072,00
42,87%
11,40%
1.148.000.000,00
489.400.000,00
172.298.356,72
42,63%
15,01%

5.200.000,00
5.200.000,00
827.906,00
100,00%
15,92%
29.900.000,00
29.900.000,00
16.529.479,68
100,00%
55,28%
16.300.000,00
16.300.000,00
1.905.476,00
100,00%
11,69%
30.400.000,00
30.400.000,00
18.456.516,31
100,00%
60,71%
34.200.000,00
34.200.000,00
11.202.198,00
100,00%
32,75%
14.600.000,00
14.600.000,00
13.151.707,95
100,00%
90,08%
10.200.000,00
10.200.000,00
2.247.000,00
100,00%
22,03%
600.000,00
600.000,00
875.147,59
100,00%
145,86%
4.700.000,00
4.700.000,00
1.361.689,00
100,00%
28,97%
9.100.000,00
9.100.000,00
3.366.021,64
100,00%
36,99%
18.300.000,00
18.300.000,00
5.524.072,00
100,00%
30,19%
173.500.000,00
173.500.000,00
75.447.214,17
100,00%
43,49%

162

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Community  
initiative  

Emploi 1.Decided

ERDF

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Equal 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Interreg 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Leader 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Urban 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Total 1.Decided

2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

5.160.302.000,00
1.567.127.710,00
350.404.920,88
30,37%
6,79%

743.600.000,00
235.700.000,00
64.895.290,89
31,70%
8,73%
5.903.902.000,00
1.802.827.710,00
415.300.211,77
30,54%
7,03%

Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
Community Initiatives

Period 2000-2006

Financial year: 2002

EAGGF

ESF
102.000.000,00
32.826.000,00
7.140.000,00
32,18%
7,00%
2.871.000.000,00
926.920.073,00
210.671.571,74
32,29%
7,34%

2.106.300.000,00
628.126.239,00
156.854.169,00
29,82%
7,45%

2.973.000.000,00
959.746.073,00
217.811.571,74
32,28%
7,33%

2.106.300.000,00
628.126.239,00
156.854.169,00
29,82%
7,45%

Total SF

102.000.000,00
32.826.000,00
7.140.000,00
32,18%
7,00%
2.871.000.000,00
926.920.073,00
210.671.571,74
32,29%
7,34%
5.160.302.000,00
1.567.127.710,00
350.404.920,88
30,37%
6,79%
2.106.300.000,00
628.126.239,00
156.854.169,00
29,82%
7,45%
743.600.000,00
235.700.000,00
64.895.290,89
31,70%
8,73%
10.983.202.000,00
3.390.700.022,00
789.965.952,51
30,87%
7,19%

ERDF

863.477.360,00
972.829.020,00
267.520.533,10
112,66%
30,98%

126.300.000,00
126.300.000,00
21.870.815,89
100,00%
17,32%
989.777.360,00
1.099.129.020,00
289.391.348,99
111,05%
29,24%

EAGGF

ESF
17.226.000,00
17.226.000,00

100,00%
-
486.020.300,00
486.720.300,00
10.009.571,74
100,14%
2,06%

305.395.502,00
356.791.684,00
74.895.299,00
116,83%
24,52%

503.246.300,00
503.946.300,00
10.009.571,74
100,14%
1,99%

305.395.502,00
356.791.684,00
74.895.299,00
116,83%
24,52%

Total SF

17.226.000,00
17.226.000,00
_
100,00%
-
486.020.300,00
486.720.300,00
10.009.571,74
100,14%
2,06%
863.477.360,00
972.829.020,00
267.520.533,10
112,66%
30,98%
305.395.502,00
356.791.684,00
74.895.299,00
116,83%
24,52%
126.300.000,00
126.300.000,00
21.870.815,89
100,00%
17,32%
1.798.419.162,00
1.959.867.004,00
374.296.219,73
108,98%
20,81%

163

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  

Belgique-België 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Danmark 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Deutschland 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Ellada 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

España 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

France 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Ireland 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Italia 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Luxembourg 1.Decided
(Grand-Duche) 2.Committed

  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Nederland 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Annexe 2a: Financial execution 2002
Community Initiatives by country

Period 2000-2006

Financial year: 2002

ERDF

21.200.000,00
7.600.000,00
1.484.000,00
35,85%
7,00%
5.300.000,00
1.700.000,00
371.000,00
32,08%
7,00%
148.700.000,00
47.400.000,00
12.946.672,56
31,88%
8,71%
25.500.000,00
8.100.000,00
1.785.000,00
31,76%
7,00%
112.600.000,00
35.900.000,00
13.767.008,14
31,88%
12,23%
102.000.000,00
32.600.000,00
7.439.477,41
31,96%
7,29%
5.300.000,00
1.700.000,00
371.000,00
32,08%
7,00%
114.800.000,00
36.600.000,00
12.280.243,98
31,88%
10,70%

-
-
29.800.000,00
9.400.000,00
3.075.888,56
31,54%
10,32%

ESF
74.100.000,00
26.855.998,00
5.198.498,44
36,24%
7,02%
29.900.000,00
9.628.000,00
2.126.537,22
32,20%
7,11%
514.500.000,00
165.538.000,00
36.015.000,00
32,17%
7,00%
104.100.000,00
33.479.775,00
7.320.156,81
32,16%
7,03%
515.400.000,00
165.856.000,00
36.797.461,06
32,18%
7,14%
320.000.000,00
102.956.000,00
24.034.312,00
32,17%
7,51%
33.900.000,00
10.936.000,00
2.597.473,00
32,26%
7,66%
394.400.000,00
126.908.000,00
27.615.837,16
32,18%
7,00%
4.400.000,00
1.426.300,00
370.663,66
32,42%
8,42%
208.400.000,00
67.060.000,00
14.588.000,00
32,18%
7,00%

EAGGF

15.900.000,00
5.300.000,00
1.113.000,00
33,33%
7,00%
17.000.000,00
5.100.000,00
1.190.000,00
30,00%
7,00%
262.800.000,00
78.030.000,00
18.441.176,00
29,69%
7,02%
182.900.000,00
54.500.000,00
12.803.000,00
29,80%
7,00%
496.900.000,00
148.096.619,00
34.783.000,00
29,80%
7,00%
268.100.000,00
80.000.000,00
18.767.000,00
29,84%
7,00%
47.900.000,00
14.200.000,00
3.353.000,00
29,65%
7,00%
284.100.000,00
84.699.620,00
19.887.000,00
29,81%
7,00%
2.100.000,00
600.000,00
147.000,00
28,57%
7,00%
82.900.000,00
24.700.000,00
5.803.000,00
29,79%
7,00%

164

Total SF

111.200.000,00
39.755.998,00
7.795.498,44
35,75%
7,01%
52.200.000,00
16.428.000,00
3.687.537,22
31,47%
7,06%
926.000.000,00
290.968.000,00
67.402.848,56
31,42%
7,28%
312.500.000,00
96.079.775,00
21.908.156,81
30,75%
7,01%
1.124.900.000,00
349.852.619,00
85.347.469,20
31,10%
7,59%
690.100.000,00
215.556.000,00
50.240.789,41
31,24%
7,28%
87.100.000,00
26.836.000,00
6.321.473,00
30,81%
7,26%
793.300.000,00
248.207.620,00
59.783.081,14
31,29%
7,54%
6.500.000,00
2.026.300,00
517.663,66
31,17%
7,96%
321.100.000,00
101.160.000,00
23.466.888,56
31,50%
7,31%

ERDF

3.900.000,00
3.900.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
900.000,00
900.000,00
371.000,00
100,00%
41,22%
25.200.000,00
25.200.000,00
2.537.672,56
100,00%
10,07%
4.300.000,00
4.300.000,00
1.785.000,00
100,00%
41,51%
19.100.000,00
19.100.000,00
5.885.008,14
100,00%
30,81%
17.300.000,00
17.300.000,00
1.877.557,41
100,00%
10,85%
900.000,00
900.000,00
371.000,00
100,00%
41,22%
19.400.000,00
19.400.000,00
4.244.243,98
100,00%
21,88%

-
-
5.000.000,00
5.000.000,00
989.888,56
100,00%
19,80%

ESF
13.756.000,00
13.756.000,00
11.498,44
100,00%
0,08%
5.028.000,00
5.028.000,00
33.537,22
100,00%
0,67%
86.838.000,00
86.838.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
17.580.000,00
17.580.000,00
33.156,81
100,00%
0,19%
87.056.000,00
87.056.000,00
719.461,06
100,00%
0,83%
54.056.000,00
54.056.000,00
1.634.312,00
100,00%
3,02%
5.736.000,00
5.736.000,00
224.473,00
100,00%
3,91%
66.608.000,00
66.608.000,00
7.837,16
100,00%
0,01%
726.300,00
1.426.300,00
370.663,66
196,38%
51,03%
35.160.000,00
35.160.000,00

100,00%
-

EAGGF

Total SF

2.500.000,00
5.300.000,00
1.113.000,00
212,00%
44,52%
2.500.000,00
2.500.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
38.099.000,00
53.889.000,00
15.520.076,00
141,44%
40,74%
26.500.000,00
26.500.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
71.997.762,00
73.628.944,00
33.957.000,00
102,27%
47,16%
38.900.000,00
38.900.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
6.900.000,00
6.900.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
41.198.740,00
68.038.740,00
12.813.500,00
165,15%
31,10%
300.000,00
300.000,00
147.000,00
100,00%
49,00%
12.000.000,00
12.000.000,00

100,00%
0,00%

20.156.000,00
22.956.000,00
1.124.498,44
113,89%
5,58%
8.428.000,00
8.428.000,00
404.537,22
100,00%
4,80%
150.137.000,00
165.927.000,00
18.057.748,56
110,52%
12,03%
48.380.000,00
48.380.000,00
1.818.156,81
100,00%
3,76%
178.153.762,00
179.784.944,00
40.561.469,20
100,92%
22,77%
110.256.000,00
110.256.000,00
3.511.869,41
100,00%
3,19%
13.536.000,00
13.536.000,00
595.473,00
100,00%
4,40%
127.206.740,00
154.046.740,00
17.065.581,14
121,10%
13,42%
1.026.300,00
1.726.300,00
517.663,66
168,21%
50,44%
52.160.000,00
52.160.000,00
989.888,56
100,00%
1,90%

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  

Österreich 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Portugal 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Suomi/Finland 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Sverige 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

United Kingdom 1.Decided

  2.Committed
  3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

EU 1.Decided

internal needs 2.Committed
(URBACT) 3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

EU 1.Decided

interregional 2.Committed
cooperation 3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

EU 1.Decided

cross border 2.Committed
cooperation 3.Paid

% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Total 1.Decided

2.Committed
3.Paid
% (2)/(1)
% (3)/(1)

Period 2000-2006

Financial year: 2002

ERDF

8.400.000,00
2.700.000,00
588.000,00
32,14%
7,00%
19.200.000,00
6.100.000,00
1.344.001,00
31,77%
7,00%
5.300.000,00
1.700.000,00
371.000,00
32,08%
7,00%
5.300.000,00
1.700.000,00
371.000,00
32,08%
7,00%
124.300.000,00
39.700.000,00
8.700.999,24
31,94%
7,00%
15.900.000,00
2.800.000,00

17,61%
0,00%
3.283.510.199,00
976.616.297,00
220.346.067,84
29,74%
6,71%
1.876.791.801,00
590.511.413,00
130.058.853,04
31,46%
6,93%
5.903.902.000,00
1.802.827.710,00
415.300.211,77
30,54%
7,03%

ESF
102.000.000,00
32.826.000,00
7.140.000,00
32,18%
7,00%
113.800.000,00
36.650.000,00
10.324.126,65
32,21%
9,07%
72.300.000,00
23.298.000,00
5.130.944,48
32,22%
7,10%
86.200.000,00
27.776.000,00
6.902.513,10
32,22%
8,01%
399.600.000,00
128.552.000,00
31.650.048,16
32,17%
7,92%

-
-

-
-

EAGGF

75.500.000,00
22.500.000,00
6.903.630,00
29,80%
9,14%
161.600.000,00
48.200.000,00
17.128.113,00
29,83%
10,60%
55.400.000,00
16.500.000,00
5.811.250,00
29,78%
10,49%
40.500.000,00
12.100.000,00
2.835.000,00
29,88%
7,00%
112.700.000,00
33.600.000,00
7.889.000,00
29,81%
7,00%

-
-

-
-

-
-
2.973.000.000,00
959.746.073,00
217.811.571,74
32,28%
7,33%

-
-
2.106.300.000,00
628.126.239,00
156.854.169,00
29,82%
7,45%

Total SF

185.900.000,00
58.026.000,00
14.631.630,00
31,21%
7,87%
294.600.000,00
90.950.000,00
28.796.240,65
30,87%
9,77%
133.000.000,00
41.498.000,00
11.313.194,48
31,20%
8,51%
132.000.000,00
41.576.000,00
10.108.513,10
31,50%
7,66%
636.600.000,00
201.852.000,00
48.240.047,40
31,71%
7,58%
15.900.000,00
2.800.000,00
0,00
17,61%
0,00%
3.283.510.199,00
976.616.297,00
220.346.067,84
29,74%
6,71%
1.876.791.801,00
590.511.413,00
130.058.853,04
31,46%
6,93%
10.983.202.000,00
3.390.700.022,00
789.965.952,51
30,87%
7,19%

ERDF

1.400.000,00
1.400.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
3.200.000,00
3.200.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
900.000,00
900.000,00
371.000,00
100,00%
41,22%
900.000,00
900.000,00
371.000,00
100,00%
41,22%
21.100.000,00
21.100.000,00
3.067.445,24
100,00%
14,54%
2.800.000,00
2.800.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
531.085.347,00
583.330.604,00
186.797.477,06
109,84%
35,17%
332.392.013,00
389.498.416,00
80.723.056,04
117,18%
24,29%
989.777.360,00
1.099.129.020,00
289.391.348,99
111,05%
29,24%

ESF
17.226.000,00
17.226.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
19.250.000,00
19.250.000,00
2.358.126,65
100,00%
12,25%
12.198.000,00
12.198.000,00
69.944,48
100,00%
0,57%
14.576.000,00
14.576.000,00
868.513,10
100,00%
5,96%
67.452.000,00
67.452.000,00
3.678.048,16
100,00%
5,45%

-
-

-
-

EAGGF

10.900.000,00
10.900.000,00
1.618.630,00
100,00%
14,85%
23.400.000,00
23.400.000,00
5.816.113,00
100,00%
24,86%
8.000.000,00
8.000.000,00
1.933.250,00
100,00%
24,17%
5.900.000,00
5.900.000,00

100,00%
0,00%
16.300.000,00
20.635.000,00
1.976.730,00
126,60%
12,13%

-
-

-
-

-
-
503.246.300,00
503.946.300,00
10.009.571,74
100,14%
1,99%

-
-
305.395.502,00
356.791.684,00
74.895.299,00
116,83%
24,52%

Total SF

29.526.000,00
29.526.000,00
1.618.630,00
100,00%
5,48%
45.850.000,00
45.850.000,00
8.174.239,65
100,00%
17,83%
21.098.000,00
21.098.000,00
2.374.194,48
100,00%
11,25%
21.376.000,00
21.376.000,00
1.239.513,10
100,00%
5,80%
104.852.000,00
109.187.000,00
8.722.223,40
104,13%
8,32%
2.800.000,00
2.800.000,00
0,00
100,00%
0,00%
531.085.347,00
583.330.604,00
186.797.477,06
109,84%
35,17%
332.392.013,00
389.498.416,00
80.723.056,04
117,18%
24,29%
1.798.419.162,00
1.959.867.004,00
374.296.219,73
108,98%
20,81%

165

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2b : List of Major Projects

Germany

Title

Bayer Bitterfeld AG
Ausbau der Schienenstrecke Berlin- Frankfurt/Oder-Grenze Deutschland/Poland
Neubau der Bundesautobahn A17 von Dresden (B173) - Tschechische Republik
A113, B96 and B96a
Neubau der Bundesstrasse B 6n in den Abschnitten Wernigerode-Blankenburg und Quedlinburg-Bernburg
Neubau der Bundesautobahn A71 AD Oberrölingen (A 38)- AS Erfurt-Bindersleben
B96n (Federal Road A 20 Rüngen)
Zollverein
Propylen Pipeline
Salziger See
AMD Piesteritz

Spain

Title

Circunvalacion de Las Palmas
Autovía: Albacete-Murcia-Tramo: Albacete-Venta del Olivo
Presa de la Breña II
Desaladora de Agua Marina de Carboneras en Almeria
Autovia A-49 Sevilla -Frontera Portuguesa. Tramo: San Juan del Puerto-Enlace de Lepe
Gran Telescopio de Canarias, SA
Amoliacion de la Darsena de Escombreras en Cartagena
Ampliacion del Puerto de Castellon
Autovia Ruta de la Plata CN-630-Construccion del tramo Enlace de Gerena-Enlace de Camas
Autovia Ciudad Real-Atalaya de Cañavate-Tramo : Enlace de Miguelturra-Enlace de Daimiel
Autovia de Castilla-La Mancha-Tramo: Abia de la Obispalia y Cuenca
Ampliacion Puerto del Ferrol (Puerto Exterior)
Autovia A-381 Tramo: Jerez- Los Barrios, Provincia de Cádiz
Autovia de la Plata.CN-630 de Gijon a Sevilla. Tramo:Plasencia (Sur)- Canaveral(Este)
Presa del Arenoso
Autovía A-92 Sur, Guadix-Almería, Tramo Hueneja-Intersección N-340
Linea Ferroviaria de alta velocidad entre Cordoba y Malaga
Autovia de Castilla. Tramo Martín de Yeltes-Ciudad Rodrigo
Planta de Regasificacion de gas natural licuado en la isla de Gran Canaria
Impulsion de la IDAM de Carboneras, Almeria
Glapilk, A.I.E.
Solmed Galvanizados, S.L.
Asturiana de Zinc, S.A.
CONEXION ALMANZORA-PONIENTE ALMERIENSE FASE I - TRAMO VENTA DEL POBRE-NIJAR EN ALMERIA
Autopista Santiago de Compostela-Orense, Tramo: Santiago de Compostela-Alto de Santo Domingo
Autovia del Cantabrico. Carretera Nacional 632, de Ribadesella a Luarca. Tramo: Grases(Villaviciosa)-Infanzon (Gijon)
Delphi Automotive System España, S.A.
Construcción del nuevo Hospital General Universitario de Murcia
Autovia del Cantabrico. Carretera Nacional 632, de Ribadesella a Luarca. Tramo: Soto del Barco-Muros de Naón
Conducción Júcar-Vinalopó
Autovía Alacant-Alcoi y Villena Ibi (Tramo: Rambla de Rambuchar-Catalla)
Maspalomas Resort S. L.
Dupont Iberica, S. L.
Autovia de la Plata. Tramo Valverde de la Virgen-Ardón
Nueva Carretera de acceso al Puerto de Castellón
Fibras del Noroeste S. A.
Bioetanol Galicia S. A.
Autovia del Mediterraneo CN-240- Tramo: Nerja-Almuñecar
Autovía del Cantabrico. Carretera National 632, de Ribadesella a Luarca. Tramo: Vegarrozadas- Soto del Barco

France

Title

Port 2000 Le Havre
Route Nationale 106 (Lanquedoc-Roussillon
Grand Projet ATMEL
Deviation de Sainte-Marie (Ile de la Réunion)
Cap’Decouverte
Grande Halle d’Auvergne
ATMEL ROUSSET(Bouches du Rhône) Phase 3
Pilkington-Glass France à Seingbouse
Tunnel du Lioran
SEVELNORD
Lenglet

CCI

2002 DE 16 1 PR 001
2002 DE 16 1 PR 002
2002 DE 16 1 PR 003
2002 DE 16 1 PR 004
2002 DE 16 1 PR 004
2002 DE 16 1 PR 006
2002 DE 16 1 PR 007
2002 DE 16 2 PR 001
2002 DE 16 2 PR 002
2003 DE 16 1 PR 001
2003 DE 16 1 PR 002

CCI

2001 ES 16 1 PR 001
2001 ES 16 1 PR 002
2001 ES 16 1 PR 003
2001 ES 16 1 PR 004
2001 ES 16 1 PR 005
2002 ES 16 1 PR 001
2002 ES 16 1 PR 002
2002 ES 16 1 PR 003
2002 ES 16 1 PR 004
2002 ES 16 1 PR 005
2002 ES 16 1 PR 006
2002 ES 16 1 PR 007
2002 ES 16 1 PR 008
2002 ES 16 1 PR 009
2002 ES 16 1 PR 010
2002 ES 16 1 PR 011
2002 ES 16 1 PR 012
2002 ES 16 1 PR 013
2002 ES 16 1 PR 014
2002 ES 16 1 PR 015
2002 ES 16 1 PR 016
2002 ES 16 1 PR 017
2002 ES 16 1 PR 018
2002 ES 16 1 PR 019
2002 ES 16 1 PR 020
2002 ES 16 1 PR 021
2002 ES 16 1 PR 022
2002 ES 16 1 PR 023
2002 ES 16 1 PR 024
2002 ES 16 1 PR 025
2002 ES 16 1 PR 026
2002 ES 16 1 PR 027
2002 ES 16 1 PR 028
2002 ES 16 1 PR 029
2003 ES 16 1 PR 001
2003 ES 16 1 PR 002
2003 ES 16 1 PR 003
2003 ES 16 1 PR 004
2003 ES 16 1 PR 005

CCI

2001 FR 16 2 PR 001
2001 FR 16 2 PR 002
2001 FR 16 2 PR 003
2002 FR 16 1 PR 001
2002 FR 16 2 PR 001
2002 FR 16 2 PR 002
2002 FR 16 2 PR 003
2002 FR 16 2 PR 004
2002 FR 16 2 PR 005
2003 FR 16 1 PR 001
2003 FR 16 2 PR 001

166

CCI

2001 GB 16 1 PR 001
2001 GB 16 1 PR 002
2001 GB 16 1 PR 003
2002 GB 16 1 PR 001
2002 GB 16 1 PR 002
2002 GB 16 1 PR 003
2002 GB 16 1 PR 004
2002 GB 16 1 PR 005

2002 GB 16 2 PR 001

2002 GB 16 2 PR 002
2003 GB 16 2 PR 001

CCI

2003 GR 16 1 PR 001
2003 GR 16 1 PR 002
2003 GR 16 1 PR 003
2003 GR 16 1 PR 004
2003 GR 16 1 PR 005

CCI

2001 IE 16 1 PR 001
2002 IE 16 1 PR 001
2002 IE 16 1 PR 002

2002 IE 16 1 PR 003
2002 IE 16 1 PR 004
2002 IE 16 1 PR 005
2002 IE 16 1 PR 006

CCI

2001 PT 16 1 PR 001
2001 PT 16 1 PR 002
2001 PT 16 1 PR 003
2001 PT 16 1 PR 004
2001 PT 16 1 PR 005
2001 PT 16 1 PR 006
2001 PT 16 1 PR 007
2002 PT 16 1 PR 001
2002 PT 16 1 PR 002
2003 PT 16 1 PR 001
2003 PT 16 1 PR 002
2003 PT 16 1 PR 003
2003 PT 16 1 PR 004

UK

Title

Merseyside Special Investement Fund
South Yorkshire Investment Fund
Finance Wales
Infrastructure Investement- Combined Universities in Cornwall (C.U.C.)
Infrastructure investment - Frenchgate interchange, Doncaster, South Yorkshire
Gas Pipeline-NI programme
Infrastructure Investement- South Yorkshire e-Learning Programme (SYeLP)
Infrastructure Investment- Northern Ireland Natural Gas Project- Gas Pipelines from Gormanstown (Republic of Ireland) to Antrim and
from Carrickfergus to Londonderry
Request  for  confirmation  of  the  rate  of  assistance-productive  investment  obj  2  priority  5  Yorkshire  and  the  Humbner  Partnership
Investment Fund
Edinburgh Biomedical Research Institute GB PR
Productive Investment: Objective 2 Finance Wales and Transitional Objective 2 Finance Wales Investment Funds

Greece

Title

Developpement du tram d’Athènes
Renouvellement de la flotte des bus et des trolleybus Ethel-Ilpap
Thessaloniki East Ring Road from km 4 to km 12 (measure 1.6 of the ROP)
extension, amélioration et modernisation de l’aéroport de Thessalonique - Makedonias
Hôpital Agioi Anargyroi

Ireland

Title

ESIOP
Purchase of Diesel Railcars
Infrastructure Investement-Nothern Ireland Natural Gas Project-Gas Pipelines from Gormanstown (Republic of Ireland) to Antrim and
from Carrickfergus to Londonderry
N8 Watergrasshill By-Pass
N11 Rathnew/Ashford By-Pass
N18 Hurlers Cross By-Pass
N22 Ballincollig By-Pass

Portugal

Title

Terminal de Regasificacao de Gas Natural Liquefeito à Sines-PO Alentejo
Armazenagem subterrânea de Gas Natural no Carriço(Pombal)
Linha do Douro-Remodolaçao do Troço Cête-Caide
IC 10 - Ponte sobre o Tejo em Santarem e acessos imediatos
Metro de PORTO
Prolongamento da Linha Amarela-Campo Grande/Odivelas
Plano de Expansão do Aeroporto de Faro PT PR
Aquisiçao de 29 Unidades Multiplas Electricas par a Unidade de Suburbnos do Grande Porto
EPCOS-Peças e Componentes Electrónicos SA
CIMPOR-Industria de Cimentos S.A.
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
MABOR CONTINENTAL
Plano de Expansão do Aeroporto Sá Carneiro

167

ANNEX 3

Financial Monitoring of FIFG

Measure

Service

Forecast commitments

 Committed before Dec.2002

Point A: Studies
Study on fish consumption – part-financed by Eurostat (J. Soenens)
Study on genetic engineering in aquaculture (FISH/2002/14)
Sub-total
Point B: Technical Assistance, information and exchanges of experience
Communication and information about the structural aspect of the CFP:
- Audiovisual files (image bank)
- Participation in Seafood 2003
- Poster on processing industry
Meetings of experts
External experts
Sub-total
Point C: Computerised monitoring and evaluation systems
Maintenance and development of the Fishing Vessel Register

Sub-total
Point D : Evaluation
Ex post evaluations of FIFG assistance in 1994-1999
Sub-total

TOTAL

C-0
C-4

D-2

C-1

A-2

C-1

25 290
44 715
70 005

116 159
107 273
18 678
75 000

317 110

30 720
61 107
98 560
190 387

357 310
357 310
934 812

SI2.345676
SI2.348700

SI2.342584
SI2.339533
SI2.347610
SI2.333926

SI2.334892
SI2.339969
SI2.345442

SI2.348182

168

Monitoring implementation of the Structural Funds

DG FISH-1
Monitoring implementation of the Structural Funds 1994-1999
Situation at 31/12/02

Country

Total
programme
according to latest
decision

Commitments
1994-2001

Decommit-
ments
1994-2001

Commitments
1994-2002

Remaining to be
committed/
decomm-itted

Payments
1994-2001

Payments
2002

Payments
1994-2002

Theoretical balance to be paid

Commit-
ments
currently
outstanding

B21050 -1994-1999 programmes - ex Obj. 1
Belgium

1.619.000

1.619.000

0

1.619.000

Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France - Corsica
France - Guadeloupe
France - French Guiana
France - Martinique

France - Réunion
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands

Austria
Portugal - Mainland
Portugal - Azores
Portugal - Madeira
Finland
Sweden
UK - Highlands & Islands
UK - Northern Ireland
UK - Merseyside
Subtotal

0
73.824.000
135.100.000
1.037.690.000
3.336.000
4.398.049
6.451.000
7.500.000

3.887.000
48.770.900
219.670.000
0
11.357.000

0
164.127.000
25.945.000
15.200.000
0
0
24.265.000
18.620.000
51.082
1.801.811.031

0
75.751.000
142.394.000
1.122.280.000
5.764.000
4.398.049
7.461.000
7.500.000

3.887.000
50.702.900
244.803.000
0
11.927.000

0
164.127.000
25.945.000
15.200.000
0
0
37.642.000
18.620.000
80.000
1.940.100.949

0
-1.927.000
-7.294.000
-84.590.000
-2.428.000
0
-1.010.000
0

0
-1.932.000
-25.133.000
0
-570.000

0
0
0
0
0
0
-13.377.000
0
-28.918
-138.289.918

0
73.824.000
135.100.000
1.037.690.000
3.336.000
4.398.049
6.451.000
7.500.000

3.887.000
48.770.900
219.670.000
0
11.357.000

0
164.127.000
25.945.000
15.200.000
0
0
24.265.000
18.620.000
51.082
1.801.811.031

B21050 - 1994-1999 programmes - ex Obj.
6

Finland
Sweden
Subtotal
Total 94-99

4.140.000
4.120.000
8.260.000
1.810.071.031

4.140.000
4.120.000
8.260.000
1.948.360.949

0
0
0
-138.289.918

4.140.000
4.120.000
8.260.000
1.810.071.031

B21050 - programmes < 1994

Former programmes < 1994
Total < 94

0

0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0

912.000

912.000

707.000 S94=0,074 ; S95=0,154

707.000

0
71.354.000
119.135.000
990.196.000
2.926.300
3.380.238
5.912.665
4.863.766

2.364.500
43.792.240
191.650.800
0
7.603.100

0
149.795.000
22.820.600
13.716.537
0
0
23.413.200
16.884.000
40.000
1.670.759.946

0
71.354.000
119.135.000
990.196.000
2.926.300
3.380.238
5.912.665
4.863.766

2.826.681
43.792.240
191.650.800
0
7.603.100

0
149.795.000
22.820.600
13.716.537
0
0
23.413.200
16.884.000
40.000
1.671.222.127

462.181

462.181

;1AV99=0,240 ; 2AV99=0,143 ;
S99=0,096

0

2.470.000 S99
15.965.000 S99
47.494.000 2AV99=1,350 ; S99=46,144

409.700 S99

1.017.811 2AV99=0,458 ; S99=0,560

538.335 S99

2.636.234 S97=0,060 ; S98=0,427 ;
2AV99=1,290 ;
S99 =0,860

1.060.319 2AV99=0,406 ; S99=0,654
4.978.660 S99
28.019.200 S99

0

3.753.900 S98=0,695 ; 2AV99=1,835 ;

S99=1,223

0

14.332.000 S99
3.124.400 S99
1.483.463 S99

0
0
851.800 S99
1.736.000 S99

11.082 STU97

130.588.904

3.607.200
3.509.953
7.117.153
1.677.877.099

0
0
0
462.181

3.607.200
3.509.953
7.117.153
1.678.339.280

532.800 S99
610.047 S99

1.142.847
131.731.751

0

0

0

0

0
2.470.000
15.965.000
47.494.000
409.700
1.017.811
538.335
2.636.234

1.060.319
4.978.660
28.019.200
0
3.753.900

0
14.332.000
3.124.400
1.483.463
0
0
851.800
1.736.000
11.082
130.588.904

532.800
610.047
1.142.847
131.731.751

6.329.823
6.329.823

169

DG FISH-1
Monitoring implementation of the Structural Funds 1994-1999
Situation at 31/12/02
Country

Total
programme
according to latest
decision

Engagements
94-01

Dégagements
94-01

Dégagements
01

Net commitments
1994-2002

Reste à engager
/dégager

Payments
1994-2001

Payments
2002

Payments
1994-2002

Theoretical balance to be paid

B21310 - 1994-1999 programmes
- ex Obj. 5a

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands

25.434.000
132.983.000
77.338.000
0
124.160.000
197.135.000
0
114.520.000
1.125.000
45.876.000

27.727.000
136.060.711
78.891.000
0
132.131.000
209.203.000
0
130.109.000
1.125.000
47.838.000

-2.293.000
-3.077.711
-1.553.000
0
-7.971.000
-12.068.000
0
-15.589.000
0
-1.962.000

Austria

2.103.000

2.103.000

-42.997

Portugal
Finland
Sweden
UK
Subtotal

0
24.222.000
42.085.000
63.450.000
850.431.000

0
24.222.000
42.085.000
63.807.000
895.301.711

0
0
0
-357.000
-44.913.708

0

B21310 - 1994-1999 payments -
2% FIFG

2% FIFG

Total

25.434.000
132.983.000
77.338.000
0
124.160.000
197.135.000
0
114.520.000
1.125.000
45.876.000

2.060.003

0
24.222.000
42.085.000
63.450.000
850.388.003

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0

20.347.200
121.487.800
74.518.400
0
118.514.000
176.968.000
0
95.709.000
330.000
16.814.100

2.060.003

0
19.377.600
37.550.600
58.321.000
741.997.703

20.347.200
121.487.800
74.518.400
0
118.514.000
176.968.000
0
95.709.000
330.000
16.814.100

2.060.003

0
19.377.600
37.550.600
58.321.000
741.997.703

5.086.800 STU
11.495.200 S99
2.819.600 S99

0

5.646.000 S99
20.167.000 S99

0

18.811.000 S99
795.000 STU

29.061.900 2AV99=20,7585 ;

S99=8,3034

0 Closure

(decommitment of
€42.997)

0
4.844.400 STU
4.534.400 S99
5.129.000 S99

108.390.300

0

356.272
356.272

170

Commit-ments
currently
outstanding

5.086.800
11.495.200
2.819.600
0
5.646.000
20.167.000
0
18.811.000
795.000
29.061.900

0

0
4.844.400
4.534.400
5.129.000
108.390.300

98.627
108.488.927

546.400 S99
1.800.600 S99

-524.000 To be recovered

2.394.200 S99
3.156.785 2AV99=0,820;

S99=2,337

2.134.400 S99
55.975 S99
2.106.658 S99

Commitments
currently
outstanding

546.400
1.800.600
0
2.394.200
3.156.785

2.134.400
55.975

2.543.493 The €436.835

difference is to be
decommitted

DG FISH -1
Monitoring implementation of the Structural Funds 1994-1999
Situation at 31/12/02

Country

Total
programme according
to latest decision

Commitments
1994-2001

Decommit-
ments
1994-2002

Commitments
1994-2002

Remaining to be
committed/
decommitted

Payments
1994-2001

Payments
2002

Payments
1994-2002

Theoretical balance to be paid

B21440 - 1994-1999 programmes - ex
Pesca

2.005.600
7.202.400
1.915.000
9.204.800
21.162.419

8.537.600
3.456.800
8.426.632

0
2.915.000
0
20.528.800
120.640.000
2.132.800
6.672.600

Belgium
Denmark
Germany (1)
Greece
Spain

France
Ireland
Italy

Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

2.552.000
9.003.000
1.391.000
11.599.000
24.319.204

10.672.000
3.512.775
10.533.290

0
3.638.000
0
25.661.000
2.050.000
2.666.000
9.012.000

2.552.000
9.003.000
4.490.000
11.599.000
24.319.204

0
0
-2.575.000
0
0

21.403.000
4.321.000
10.970.125

-10.731.000
-808.225
0

0
5.720.000
0
25.661.000
2.050.000
2.666.000
9.012.000

0
-2.082.000
0
0
0
0
0

2.552.000
9.003.000
1.915.000
11.599.000
24.319.204

10.672.000
3.512.775
10.970.125

0
3.638.000
0
25.661.000
2.050.000
2.666.000
9.012.000

0
0
-524.000
0
0

0
0
-436.835

2.005.600
7.202.400
1.915.000
9.204.800
21.162.419

8.537.600
3.456.800
8.426.632

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2.915.000
0
20.528.800
120.640.000
2.132.800
6.672.600

Subtotal

116.609.269

133.766.329

-16.196.225

117.570.104

-960.835

214.800.451

B21440 - 1994-1999 programmes - other
CIs

Ex B21410 - Interreg

Ex B21412 - Peace Ireland
Ex B21412 - Peace UK - Northern Ireland
Ex B21440 - Regis II Guadeloupe
Ex B21440 - Regis II French Guiana (2)

2.676.000
1.041.000
1.274.150
381.123
118.700

2.676.000
1.041.000
1.274.150
381.123
150.000

0
0
0
0
-31.300

2.141.600
871.800
1.064.920
114.337
150.000

500.000

-350.000

Ex B21440 - Regis II Réunion
Subtotal
Total

231.000
5.721.973
122.331.242

500.000
134.266.329

-350.000
-16.546.225

231.000
5.753.273
123.323.377

0
-31.300
-992.135

205.800
4.548.457
219.348.908

B21440 - 1994-1999 programmes -
networks

Networks
Total

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

178.257
178.257

0
723.000 S99
0

5.132.200 S99
-118.590.000 S99
533.200 S99

2.339.400 2AV99=0,783;

S99=1,556

0
723.000
0
5.132.200
410.000
533.200
2.339.400

214.800.451

-98.191.182

21.769.653

2.141.600
871.800
1.064.920
114.337
150.000

534.400 STU
169.200 STU
209.230 STU
266.786 2AV + STU
-31.300 Recoveries

issued:
€53.106,04 
€28.316,49 
€55040 
€136.463)

-
-
(total

205.800
4.548.457
219.348.908

25.200 S99

1.173.516
-97.017.666

534.400
169.200
209.230
266.786
0

25.200
1.204.816
22.974.469

195.014
23.169.483

(1)

(2)

Germany: €524.000 is to be recovered since the payments were made prior to the latest reprogramming, which reduced the total FI FG contribution to €1.391.000.

REGIS II - French Guiana: Subject to verification, the programme will be closed at €13.537,47. Since recovery orders were issue d for an amount of €136.463, no decommitments are required.

171

DG FISH - 1
Monitoring Structural Funds programming 2000-2006
Situation at 31/12/02

Objective 1 - B2101

Country

Total FIFG
programming
2000-2006

Commitments
2000 instalment

Commitments
2001 instalment

Commitments
2002 instalment

Commitments
2000-02

Payments on
account 7%
2000

Payments on
account 7%
2001

Interim
payments 2001

Interim payments
2002

Payments
2000-02

Germany
Austria - Burgenland
Belgium - Hainaut
Spain
Finland - North
Finland - East
France - Réunion
France - Corsica
France - French Guiana
France - Martinique
France - Guadeloupe
Greece
Ireland - PI
Ireland - BMW
Ireland - SE
Italy - Calabria
Italy - Campania
Italy - Molise
Italy - Apulia
Italy - Sardinia
Italy - Sicily
Italy - Multiregional
Netherlands - Flevoland
Portugal - Azores
Portugal - Algarve
Portugal - Alentejo
Portugal - Centre
Portugal - Madeira
Portugal - North
Portugal - Mainland
UK - Northern Ireland OP
UK - H&I
UK - WV
UK - Merseyside
UK - Cornwall
Sweden - Northern
Sweden - Southern
Total B2101

105.277.700,00
825.563,00
1.735.254,00
1.504.600.000,00
2.646.000,00
4.207.000,00
15.588.000,00
2.286.735,00
7.622.451,00
9.125.000,00
6.159.246,00
211.100.000,00
42.120.000,00
16.070.000,00
9.610.000,00
18.605.000,00
38.249.000,00
458.000,00
30.000.000,00
27.011.000,00
50.000.000,00
122.000.000,00
6.000.000,00
28.923.000,00
1.757.000,00
549.000,00
1.537.000,00
19.962.000,00
1.647.000,00
163.319.000,00
29.000.000,00
27.763.000,00
15.200.000,00
400.000,00
16.995.000,00
5.952.000,00
5.815.380,00
2.550.115.329,00

16.347.100,00
115.762,00
210.000,00
212.700.000,00
378.000,00
601.000,00
2.212.000,00
339.237,00
1.088.922,001
1.317.000,001
895.791,00
0,00
2.020.000,00
0,00
0,00
2.424.000,00
5.741.000,00
0,00
2.904.000,00
3.550.000,00
6.546.000,00
17.400.000,00
1.500.000,00
4.777.000,00
360.000,00
113.000,00
314.978,00
3.336.793,00
337.005,00
27.088.224,00
700.000,001
5.053.000,00
2.331.000,00
100.000,00
3.144.000,00
836.283,00
814.165,00
327.595.260,00

32.110.200,00
118.808,00
282.437,00
216.300.000,00
378.000,00
601.000,00
2.273.000,00
339.237,00
1.088.922,00
1.330.000,00
903.088,00
26.500.000,00
7.790.000,00
1.940.000,00
1.250.000,00
2.484.000,00
5.856.000,00
87.000,00
2.904.000,00
3.638.000,00
6.707.000,00
17.400.000,00
1.500.000,00
4.644.000,00
299.000,00
93.000,00
261.977,00
3.223.038,00
281.006,00
26.331.979,00
1.700.000,00
4.913.000,00
2.291.000,00
0,00
2.549.000,00
851.105,00
831.700,002
382.050.497,00

24.953.500,00
121.854,00
328.291,00
220.000.000,00
378.000,00
601.000,00
1.509.000,00
339.237,00
1.088.922,00
1.342.000,00
908.562,00
33.464.000,00
7.490.000,00
2.450.000,00
1.460.000,00
2.545.000,00
5.975.000,00
162.000,00
2.904.000,00
3.727.000,00
6.873.000,00
17.400.000,00
600.000,00
4.511.000,00
269.000,00
84.000,00
234.977,00
3.107.306,00
252.006,00
25.455.711,00
5.200.000,00
4.747.000,00
2.247.000,00
100.000,00
2.719.000,00
865.925,00
848.008,00
387.261.299,00

73.410.800,00
356.424,00
820.728,00
649.000.000,00
1.134.000,00
1.803.000,00
5.994.000,00
1.017.711,00
3.266.766,00
3.989.000,00
2.707.441,00
59.964.000,00
17.300.000,00
4.390.000,00
2.710.000,00
7.453.000,00
17.572.000,00
249.000,00
8.712.000,00
10.915.000,00
20.126.000,00
52.200.000,00
3.600.000,00
13.932.000,00
928.000,00
290.000,00
811.932,00
9.667.137,00
870.017,00
78.875.914,00
7.600.000,00
14.713.000,00
6.869.000,00
200.000,00
8.412.000,00
2.553.313,00
2.493.873,00
1.096.907.056,00

7.369.439,00
57.789,00
121.800,00
105.322.000,00
185.220,00
294.490,00
1.091.160,00
160.071,00
0,00
0,00
431.147,00
0,00
2.020.000,00
0,00
0,00
1.302.350,00
2.677.430,00
0,00
2.100.000,00
1.890.770,00
3.500.000,00
8.540.000,00
420.000,00
2.024.610,00
122.990,00
38.430,00
107.590,00
1.397.340,00
115.290,00
11.432.330,00
0,00
1.943.410,00
1.064.000,00
28.000,00
1.189.650,00
416.640,00
407.076,00
157.771.022,00

533.572,00
638.750,00

14.777.000,00
928.400,00
1.124.900,00
672.700,00

32.060,00

115.968.532,71
107.691,00
247.880,00

11.140.457,05

2.030.000,00

6.667.952,00

20.737.382,00

11.197,67
64.869,13
134.208.579,56

12.931.787,75
970,76
0,00
172.801.212,72
0,00
0,00
76.136,40
0,00
944.458,00
100.568,63
261.594,73
37.477,77
0,00
769.111,00
952.738,00
25.579,30
160.124,07
0,00
83.926,27
964.731,12
0,00
23.177.561,53
0,00
1.703.716,52
0,00
0,00
0,00
1.394.748,22
0,00
21.915.622,00
0,00
2.970.376,00
9.539,72
982,40
1.823,25
129.598,50
80.021,85
241.494.406,51

20.301.226,75
58.759,76
121.800,00
394.091.745,43
292.911,00
542.370,00
1.167.296,40
160.071,00
1.478.030,00
739.318,63
692.741,73
14.814.477,77
2.948.400,00
1.894.011,00
1.625.438,00
1.327.929,30
2.837.554,07
32.060,00
2.183.926,27
2.855.501,12
3.500.000,00
42.858.018,58
420.000,00
3.728.326,52
122.990,00
38.430,00
107.590,00
2.792.088,22
115.290,00
40.015.904,00
2.030.000,00
4.913.786,00
1.073.539,72
28.982,40
1.191.473,25
557.436,17
551.966,98
554.211.390,07

(1)

(2)

€3.105.922 relating to the 2000 instalment committed in 2001 from C3 appropriations

incl. €17.218 relating to the 2001 instalment committed in 2002 from C3 appropriations

172

Objective 1 - PEACE - B21041

Country

Total FIFG
programming
2000-2006

Commitments
2000 instalment

Commitments
2001 instalment

Commitments
2002 instalment

Commitments
2000-02

Payments on
account 7%
2000

Payments on
account 7%
2001

Interim
payments 2001

Interim payments
2002

Payments
2000-2002

Ireland - Peace II
UK - Peace II
Total B2101

2.700.000,00
16.995.000,00
19.695.000,00

500.000,001
150.000,001
650.000,00

500.000,00
150.000,00
650.000,00

500.000,00
150.000,00
650.000,00

1.500.000,00
450.000,00
1.950.000,00

0,00
0,00
0,00

189.000,00
53.200,00
242.200,00

0,00

0,00
0,00
0,00

189.000,00
53.200,00
242.200,00

(1)

€650.000 relating to the 2000 instalment committed in 2001 from C3 appropriations

Total B2101 and B21041

2.569.810.329,00

328.245.260,00

382.700.497,00

387.911.299,00

1.098.857.056,00

157.771.022,00

20.979.582,00

134.208.579,56

241.494.406,51

554.453.590,07

EX MOROCCO - B2200
Country

Specific measures

Commitments 2000
instalment

Commitments
2001 instalment

Commitments
2002 instalment

Commitments
2000-02

Payments on
account 2000

Payments on
account 2001

Interim
payments 2002

Payment on
account 2002

Payments
2000-02

Spain
Spain pollution
Portugal
Total B2101

156.362.000,00
30.000.000,00
10.638.000,00
197.000.000,00

0,00

0,00

145.002.205,00
30.000.000,00
9.989.555,00
184.991.760,00

145.002.205,00
30.000.000,00
9.989.555,00
184.991.760,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

36.894.000,00

36.894.000,00

2.106.000,00
39.000.000,00

2.106.000,00
39.000.000,00

173

DG FISH-1
Monitoring Structural Funds programming 2000-2006
Situation at 31/12/02
Non-Objective 1 - B2130

Country

Total FIFG
programming
2000-2006

Commitments
2000 instalment

Commitments
2001 instalment

Commitments
2002 instalment

Commitments
2000-02

Payments on
account 7%
2000

Payments on
account 7%
2001

Interim
payments 2001

Payments on
account 7%
2002

Interim
payments
2002

Payments
2000-02

Germany
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Spain
Finland
France
Italy
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Sweden
Total B2130

111.200.000,00
4.200.000,00
35.300.000,00
204.500.000,00
207.500.000,00
32.100.000,00
233.700.000,00
99.600.000,00
32.100.000,00
125.500.000,00
62.300.000,00
1.148.000.000,00

15.600.000,00
600.000,00
4.900.000,00
28.700.000,00
29.100.000,00
4.500.000,00
32.800.000,00
14.000.000,001
0,00
17.600.000,00
8.700.000,00
156.500.000,00

15.900.000,00
600.000,00
5.000.000,00
29.200.000,00
29.700.000,00
4.600.000,00
33.400.000,00
14.200.000,00
4.600.000,002
17.900.000,00
8.900.000,00
164.000.000,00

16.300.000,00
600.000,00
5.200.000,00
29.900.000,00
30.400.000,00
4.700.000,00
34.200.000,00
14.600.000,00
5.600.000,00
18.300.000,00
9.100.000,00
168.900.000,00

47.800.000,00
1.800.000,00
15.100.000,00
87.800.000,00
89.200.000,00
13.800.000,00
100.400.000,00
42.800.000,00
10.200.000,00
53.800.000,00
26.700.000,00
489.400.000,00

7.784.000,00
294.000,00
0,00
14.315.000,00
14.525.000,00
2.247.000,00
16.359.000,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
4.361.000,00
59.885.000,00

2.471.000,00

449.294,36

0,00
12.421.304,88

6.972.000,00

5.843.519,02

8.785.000,00

18.228.000,00

24.024,29
18.738.142,55

(1)

(2)

€14.000.000 relating to the 2000 instalment committed in 2001 from C3 appropriations

€4.600.000 relating to the 2001 instalment committed in 2002 from C3

1.905.476,00
875.147,59
827.906,00
16.529.479,68
18.456.516,31
1.361.689,00
11.202.198,00
13.151.707,95

5.524.072,00
3.366.021,64
73.200.214,17
75.447.214,17

2.247.000,00

2.247.000,00
2002 ->

9.689.476,00
1.618.441,95
3.298.906,00
30.844.479,68
45.402.821,19
3.608.689,00
27.561.198,00
25.967.226,97
2.247.000,00
14.309.072,00
7.751.045,93
172.298.356,72

174