Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 13 April 2005 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Date: 2005-04-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU regional policy, European Regional Development Fund

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/19

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 13 April 2005 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

(2005/C 231/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Euro-
pean Regional Development Fund, COM(2004) 495 final — 2004/0167 (COD);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 16 July 2004 to consult it on this subject,
under Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 26 May 2004 to instruct its Commission for Territorial
Cohesion to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, COM(2004) 492 final —
2004 /0163 (AVC), and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council estab-
lishing a European grouping of cross-border cooperation (EGCC), COM(2004) 496 final — 2004/0168
(COD);

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on Building our common future: policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-
2013, COM(2004) 101 final;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission on European neighbourhood policy —
strategy paper, COM(2004) 373 final;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission on a stronger partnership for the outermost
regions, COM(2004) 343 final;

Having regard to its outlook report on Governance and simplification of the Structural Funds after 2006,
CdR 389/2002 fin;

Having regard to its opinion on the Third Report on economic and social cohesion, CdR 120/2004 fin (1);

Having regard to its opinion of 18 November 1998 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the
European Regional Development Fund, COM(1998) 131 final, CdR 240/98 final (2);

Having regard to its draft opinion, adopted on 4 February 2005 by the Commission for Territorial Cohe-
sion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Rosario Condorelli, Member of Catania Municipal Council (IT ELDR) (CdR 233/
2004 rev. 2);

Whereas

1.

in response to the heightened regional imbalances in the Union stemming from enlargement in May
2004, a new and greater commitment has been made to meet the challenges of convergence,
competitiveness and employment, and European territorial cooperation by means of both specific
cohesion policy instruments, geared to the new cohesion policy objectives for 2007-2013, and a
combination of all Community funds available for this purpose, based on those under the CAP and
fisheries policies;

(1) OJ C 318, 22.12.2004, p. 1
(2) OJ C 51, 22.2.1999, p. 1

C 231/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

these cohesion policies for the 2007-2013 period must be designed and pursued consistently and in
line with the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies, which have the aim of building a knowledge-based
society in the Union under the banner of sustainable development. Responsibility for these strategies
has so far fallen primarily to the individual Member States and for this reason have not yet been
systematically built into the procedures for the integrated implementation of other Union policies;

to this end the National Strategic Framework and the operational programmes should be consistent
with the strategic guidelines for cohesion adopted by the Council, thus ensuring that Community
priorities are adequately taken into account;

the demands of simplification have resulted in monofund programmes, with the exception of
certain categories of action where both the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund may contribute to a single
programme;

in this way the requirement for integration between the various programmes and funds and for
coordination between cohesion policy and other Union policies is both confirmed and, where
possible, strengthened;

within this architecture, determined by the general regulation, the role of the ERDF may be signifi-
cantly boosted as a benchmark for linking the Union's different policies and programmes in pursuit
of the objectives of convergence, competitiveness and employment, and territorial cooperation;

the architecture, as reflected in the proposal for a general regulation and the proposal for a regu-
lation on the ERDF, also assigns the task of ensuring that such links and simplifications are carried
out mostly to the Member States and, where stipulated by the relevant constitutional provisions, to
the regions;

the Commission's proposals give greater importance than in the past to local communities, particu-
larly urban ones, albeit within operational programmes on a regional scale. The possibility of dele-
gating the global grant instrument to them is explicitly included, as has been successfully tried out
in practice through the Urban Community initiative and as is laid down in Article 36(4)(b) and
Article 41 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the funds;

maintaining and reconciling multiple objectives (alignment of Member States' regional policies with
European strategies, subsidiarity, simplification, optimisation of financial resources, etc.) entails a
broader mobilisation of all official players, ranging from the European Commission down to local
authorities within an environment increasingly geared to multilevel governance. It also entails the
adoption of measures which can — potentially in advance-foster greater vision and programming
capacity, together with enhanced management and monitoring skills of all the official players
involved, commensurate with their respective roles. At the same time, the social partners must be
encouraged to contribute actively to the proposal and to vigilance;

10.

it therefore essential that no part of the package of regulations governing cohesion policy for the
2007-2013 period, and in this particular case the regulation governing the ERDF, contain any scope
for misinterpretation or any loopholes, and that it make a precise distinction between the roles of
the different public players, accompanying the referral to national legislation with a strong reference
to the third party principle which must be applied to each official player, starting with the Commis-
sion, with respect to the next link in the institutional chain;

adopted the following opinion on 13 April 2005, during its 59th plenary session (meeting of
13 April).

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/21

General provisions concerning the convergence and
regional
and employment objectives
(Chapters I and II of the Commission's proposal)

competitiveness

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.1
expresses first and foremost its firm opposition to any
residual attempts to renationalise European regional policy, in
view of
cohesion
programmes bring to the pursuit of the Treaty's objectives;

added value which Community

the

— the consideration given to accessibility issues, including ICT
access, under the regional competitiveness and employment
objective,
innovation in
representing
comparison with the current period;

considerable

a

— the pivotal role played by urban policy;

— the recognition that inter-regional cooperation is a relevant
aspect of regional programming, insofar as it promotes the
objectives of convergence and of developing the regional
competitiveness of employment.

reiterates its opinion that

1.2
the Commission's funding
proposal of 0.41 % of gross national income (including rural
development and fisheries measures, 0.46 % of GNI) would be
an acceptable compromise for future cohesion policy;

1.7
regrets that, as was also recommended in the European
Parliament report on cohesion policy, interregional cooperation
will not remain a separate financing strand under the territorial
cooperation objective;

1.3
appreciates the consistency of choice demonstrated by
confirming the priority of developing the less favoured regions
of the enlarged EU and raising funding for operations in these
sectors accordingly;

1.4
urges the Member States to adopt, on behalf of so-called
‘phasing in’ regions, and within the national strategic frame-
work, adequately funded measures that effectively meet the
challenges of competition and the process of convergence;

appreciates the efforts made to simplify the funds'
1.5
administration and management, despite persistent doubts
regarding their efficacy;

1.6
welcomes both the new architecture, one of the effects
of which is to raise territorial cooperation to the status of third
objective of cohesion policy, accompanied in practice by
substantial financial resources, and the content of the actions to
be financed under the draft ERDF regulation, these proposed
actions being linked to the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. It
wishes in particular to emphasise the relevance of the proposed
options:

— the priority given to actions concerning research and inno-
vation under both the convergence and regional competi-
tiveness and employment objectives, with special considera-
tion for projects based on cooperation between scientific
research centres in the EU-15 and those in new Member
States;

— the increased attention focusing on sustainable development
issues, reflected in the environment, transport, energy and/
or natural and technological risk prevention and manage-
ment actions;

(Nordic areas

is impressed by the Commission's open-mindedness
1.8
regarding the territorial dimension of cohesion, reflected in the
case-by-case
approach to territories with highly specific
problems (urban and rural areas, islands and mountain areas,
areas dependent on fisheries, the outermost regions, sparsely
in particular) and regions
populated areas,
bordering the new Member States and on the new external
borders). It is particularly pleased that European economic and
social cohesion is considered crucial
to sustainable growth,
since it believes that Europe's future cannot be planned while
there are still abandoned rural areas or areas excluded from the
opportunities provided by the internal market. The steps to
provide appropriate support
these and the outermost
regions natural handicap, as defined in the Treaty, to compen-
sate them for the specific obstacles to their development and to
secure full access to the internal market are welcomed regrets,
however, that greater attention is not given to issues relating to
the ageing population, which is one of the greatest challenges
facing Europe over the coming decades;

for

notes, nevertheless,

that recitals (1 and 10) of

1.9
the
proposal under consideration recognise only ‘certain islands’ as
facing handicaps. This contradicts provisions under Declaration
No. 30, annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty and sanctioned
under Article III-220 of the Draft European Constitution. The
Committee considers that the above-mentioned recitals should
show greater consistency in law and of interpretation, particu-
larly in the light of Article 52(1) a) of the proposal for a
general regulation. Similar considerations apply to mountain
and border regions, in the light of Article III-116 of the Draft
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and Article 52 of
the proposal for a general regulation;

C 231/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

1.10
notes that under the new Community policy approach,
there is a recognition that the regions and local authorities are
not only the most appropriate level for taking regional and
cohesion policy decisions but also the most efficient level for
ensuring their delivery, as argued by the European associations
of regions and local authorities at the Leipzig Conference (May
2003). Greater involvement of grassroots levels is essential to
enhance the visibility of the Community's activities among its
citizens and to ensure greater effectiveness and simplification of
Community interventions;

1.11
believes however that the partnership between regional
and local authorities must be strengthened, particularly with
urban authorities, by focusing on joint objectives, and that this
partnership must be deepened in appropriate ways according
to national rules and existing practice;

2.4
adding to the introduction of Article 5 that, under the
‘regional competitiveness and employment objective’, assistance
provided by the ERDF must allow for greater flexibility in
setting priorities for the so-called ‘phasing in’ regions;

that in Article 5(3)(a) cabotage and cross connections by
2.5
air between Class I and II airports be added; and in addition to
regional,
inland waterways, maritime
routes connecting islands and, in particular, smaller islands be
added;

local and interregional

2.6
citing cooperation between maritime regions under
Article 6(1) and (2), specifying in both cases that the maritime
cooperation in question may be either bilateral or multilateral;

that greater

welcomes the fact

1.12
resources may be
earmarked for targeted, high quality actions in urban areas —
which is where in practice the greatest capacity for innovation
and opportunity for social inclusion is to be found — within
the framework of operational programmes to be managed
under sub-delegation procedures as set out in Article 36(4)(b)
of the draft general regulation on the Structural Funds;

recommends that the process of adopting the entire
1.13
Structural Funds package be completed with care before 1
January 2007, in order to provide the national implementing
bodies with sufficient time to prepare the new operational
programmes, and also to provide the appropriate Commission
bodies with enough time to verify the management capacity of
such bodies.

adding volcanic eruptions, and forest fires, together with
2.7
the ensuing deforestation, to the natural disasters listed under
Article 6(2)(c), without prejudice
to the provisions of
Article 33(1), of the proposal for a Council Regulation laying
down general provisions on the European Regional Develop-
ment Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
— COM(2004) 492 final;

that the areas referred to in Article 4(3) be included

2.8
among the priorities set out in Article 6;

2.9
that the term ‘VAT’ in Article 7(a) be replaced by ‘reim-
bursable VAT’ as in Article 11 of the draft regulation on the
ESF and in the current programming cycle;

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions recommends:

2.10
that the term ‘housing’ in Article 7(d) be replaced by
‘housing, with certain exceptions, restricted to the convergence
objective, including categories of operations of social relevance
such as residential homes for the vulnerable and temporary
accommodation for non-EU immigrants’;

that the text of Article 1, second paragraph should also

2.1
include areas with demographic handicaps;

2.2
that the text of Article 3 include types of investments
for cultural assets (in line with the provisions of the second
paragraph of Article 8(1), investments for buildings and equip-
ment for training activities and active employment policy, and
types of operating expenditure for such training and active
employment policy activities, insofar as they may be covered
by the ERDF;

that consistency between regional policy goals and

2.3
specific measures for some types of territories be improved;

2.11
concerning the final paragraph of Article 9, that the
general guidelines and criteria according to which the Member
States and the regions are to ensure complementarity and
coherence between actions co-financed by the ERDF and those
co-financed by the ESF, EAFRD and EFF and ensure in itinere
and ex post checks, be included within the national reference
framework referred to in Article 25 of the draft general regu-
lation;

2.12
that careful consideration to be given to the impact of
including the ERDF in the more general framework of reform
proposals concerning provisions on the Structural Funds in
terms of social benefits and the promotion of actions on behalf
of disadvantaged sectors of society (persons with a disability,
persons at risk of social exclusion, etc.);

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/23

2.13
to promote integration in multicultural and multilingual areas.

emphasis be given to the potential of structural funds

transnational ones, and for their submission to the European
Commission;

General provisions concerning the European territorial
cooperation objective (Chapter III of the Commission's
proposal)

3. The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

appreciates the decision to include European territorial

3.1
cooperation as a priority of the EU's cohesion policy;

welcomes

the recognition of

the maritime borders
3.2
within the framework of cross-border cooperation, as explicitly
recommended in its earlier opinion CdR 120/2004 final; and
emphasises, in particular, the importance of such cooperation
to integrating the outermost regions in the surrounding area in
a realistic way;

cooperation (EGCC)

points out that since the European grouping of cross-
3.3
border
(COM(2004) 496 final) also
addresses transnational, and not only cross-border, cooperation
programmes,
the instrument's title should be amended to
reflect its all-embracing character: ‘European grouping of trans-
European cooperation’.

4. General recommendations

The Committee of the Regions recommends:

4.1
enhancing the experience of existing regional, city and
local authority networks that have proved successful and
supporting the establishment of new networks
inter-
regional cooperation and European territorial cooperation;

for

4.2
clarifying responsibilities, procedures and timetables for
the preparation of programmes, especially cross-border and

also including Objective 3 in the national strategic
4.3
framework and so reaffirming the Member States' commitment
to supporting territorial cooperation programmes and ensuring
procedures that adequately secure national co-financing and
guarantee greater coherence for actions in the sphere of:

— programming relevant to the other two objectives;

— actions undertaken at national and regional

level using

national and regional funds;

— actions undertaken in fulfilment of the proximity policy in
relation to the accession of applicant countries and other
EU policies;

— actions undertaken within the context of regional and local
development programmes promoted by other international
bodies (e.g. OECD, the World Bank etc.);

4.4
assessing how to strengthen — in compliance with the
objectives of territorial cooperation, as defined in the relevant
national strategic reference frameworks under Article 25 of the
local and
ERDF regulation, — the active participation of
regional communities in the development and implementation
of programmes;

4.5
determining the procedures, criteria and timetables
under which the Commission is to allocate resources and adopt
programmes;

4.6
clarifying the identity of the beneficiary (Articles 16 and
21) and the related requirements as well as the position and
functions of the certification authority;

4.7 making provision for
covered by
Article 19 may, on occasion, be carried out within a single
Member State, provided they comply with at least of the four
ways set out in the article.

the operations

5. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Recommendation 1

Recital (1)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

the European
the Treaty provides that
Article 160 of
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is intended to help
redress the main regional imbalances in the Community.
The ERDF therefore contributes to reducing the gap
between the levels of development of the various regions
and the extent to which the less favoured regions and
islands, including rural areas, are lagging behind.

the European
the Treaty provides that
Article 160 of
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is intended to help
redress the main regional imbalances in the Community.
The ERDF therefore contributes
to reducing the gap
between the levels of development of the various regions
and the extent to which the less favoured regions and
islands, including rural and urban areas, islands, mountain
areas, sparsely populated areas, cross-border regions, and
declining industrial regions, are lagging behind.

C 231/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

R e a son

Recitals 1 and 10 of the proposal under consideration recognise only ‘certain islands’ as facing handicaps
(and establish a totally arbitrary connection with Article 160 of the Treaty). This contradicts the provisions
of Declaration no. 30, annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty, which are reaffirmed under the Conclusions of
the Nice Council of December 2000 and sanctioned under Article III-220 of the Draft European Constitu-
tion. In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the above-mentioned recitals should show
greater consistency in law and of interpretation, particularly in the light of Article 52(1) a) of the proposal
for a general regulation, and the specific reference to the matter made in Article 10 of the proposal under
consideration. Similar considerations apply to mountain areas, in the light of the above-mentioned Article
52, and, for the sake of completeness, should be extended to all regions that suffer a handicap.

Recommendation 2

Recital (6)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Building on the experience and strengths of the Urban
Community initiative foreseen by Article 20(1)(b) of
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999
laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,
the urban dimension should be reinforced by fully inte-
grating measures
field into the operational
programmes co-financed by the ERDF.

in that

Building on the experience and strengths of the Urban
Community initiative foreseen by Article 20(1)(b) of
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999
laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,
through
the urban dimension should be
adequate level of investment in the objective of sustainable
urban development, by fully integrating measures in that
field into the operational programmes co-financed by the
ERDF.

reinforced,

R e a son

The urban dimension can only be reinforced if an adequate level of investment in sustainable urban devel-
opment is ensured.

Recommendation 3

Recital (10)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The ERDF should address the problems of accessibility and
remoteness from large markets confronting areas with an
extremely low population density, as
referred to in
Protocol No 6 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland
and Sweden. The ERDF should also address the specific
difficulties encountered by certain islands, mountain areas
and sparsely populated areas whose geographical situation
slows down their development.

The ERDF should address the problems of accessibility and
remoteness from large markets confronting areas with an
extremely low population density, as
referred to in
Protocol No 6 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland
and Sweden. The ERDF should also address the specific
difficulties encountered by certain islands, mountain areas,
rural and urban areas, sparsely populated areas and cross-
border areas whose geographical situation slows down
their development.

R e a son

This amendment brings the wording of Recital 10 in line with the amendments proposed under Recital (1)
and ensures that the two recitals are more generally consistent, which is not wholly the case in the present
version of the proposal.

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/25

Recommendation 4

Article 1(2)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

It lays down specific provisions concerning the treatment
of urban and rural areas, of areas dependent on fisheries,
of the outermost regions, and of areas with natural handi-
caps.

It lays down specific provisions concerning the treatment
of urban and rural areas, of areas dependent on fisheries,
of the outermost regions, and of areas with natural or
demographic handicaps.

R e a son

Explicit reference to demographic handicap, insofar as it covers sparsely populated regions, fulfils the need
for completeness and coherence.

Recommendation 5

Article 3(2)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The ERDF shall contribute towards the financing of:
a) productive investment;
b) infrastructure;
c) other development

initiatives

including services

to
enterprises, creation and development of
financing
instruments such as venture capital, loan and guarantee
funds and local development funds, interest subsidies,
neighbourhood services, and exchange of experience
between regions, towns, and relevant social, economic
and environmental actors;

The ERDF shall contribute towards the financing of:
a) productive investment;
b) infrastructure;
c) other development

initiatives

including services

to
enterprises, creation and development of
financing
instruments such as venture capital, loan and guarantee
funds and local development funds, interest subsidies,
neighbourhood services, and exchange of experience
towns, and relevant
cooperation between regions,
social, economic and environmental actors;

d) technical assistance as referred to in Articles 43 and 44

d) technical assistance as referred to in Articles 43 and 44

of Regulation (EC) No (…).

of Regulation (EC) No. (…);

e) investment in the cultural heritage;

R e a son

Limiting territorial cooperation to the exchange of experience appears unduly restrictive since the latter
constitutes only one aspect of the former.

Furthermore, it would also seem appropriate, on the basis of positive experiences under ERDF funding, to
identify and specify investment in restoring, restructuring and showcasing cultural heritage. It would also
seem appropriate to clearly define eligibility with regard to current expenditure in order to ensure comple-
teness and consistency with other articles in the proposal (see Article 8(2)).

Recommendation 6

Article 4(4)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Prevention of

4)
including development and
implementation of plans to prevent and cope with natural
and technological risks;

risks,

risks,

Prevention of

4)
including development and
implementation of plans to prevent and cope with natural
risks (forest fires and floods for example) and technological
risks;

C 231/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

R e a son

Forest fires and floods should be specifically mentioned because these constitute a frequent risk in large
areas of the EU.

Furthermore, the new wording clarifies ‘to cope with’ in the sense that it includes activities (extinguishing
forest fires, for example) needed to reduce as much as possible the negative impacts of a phenomenon of
this type (fire, flood) which is not classed as a major disaster and therefore not eligible for assistance from
the EU Solidarity Fund.

Recommendation 7

Article 4
Add new point 10

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Social infrastructures and services which contribute

10)
to the creation of jobs and to gender equality at work;

R e a son

The areas on which the ERDF is to focus its assistance, listed in Article 4 of the Proposal for a Regulation,
do not include some of the actions being financed in the current period 2000-2006, in particular social
infrastructures and services.

It makes sense to continue these actions, since they create jobs in an area currently considered a potential
source of new jobs that the European institutions, amongst others, hope to exploit.

Furthermore, this employment sector can enable women to access the job market in less developed
regions, reinforcing the principle of gender equality and the reconciliation of family and professional life.

Recommendation 8

Article 5

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Under the ‘Regional competitiveness and employment’
objective,
in the
context of regional sustainable development strategies, on
the following priorities:

focus its assistance,

the ERDF shall

Under
the ‘Regional competitiveness and employment’
objective, and without prejudice to the provisions of
Article 8, the ERDF shall focus its assistance, in the context
of regional sustainable development strategies, on the
following priorities, demonstrating greater flexibility in the
so-called ‘phasing-in’ regions:

R e a son

This addition makes the opinion more consistent with the recommendations made by the Committee of
the Regions in its opinion on the Third report on economic and social cohesion.

Recommendation 9

Article 5(1)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Innovation and the knowledge economy, through support
to the design and implementation of regional innovation
strategies
innovation
to efficient
systems, and specifically:

conducive

regional

Innovation and the knowledge economy, through support
to the design and implementation of regional innovation
strategies
innovation
to efficient
systems, specifically inter alia, the following:

conducive

regional

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/27

R e a son

Given the economic and social specificity of each territory and their different development potential and
needs, more flexibility should be allowed to define the specific measures in the different regions and urban
areas in the context of the three priorities set for ERDF intervention.

Recommendation 10

Article 5(1) — add new indent

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

e)
The impetus to growth and employment provided
by SMEs, i.e. areas of entrepreneurial activity like the estab-
lishment of a firm, the transfer of ownership, entrepre-
neurial dynamism, foreign trade, the development of areas
of expertise and the establishment of suitable infrastruc-
ture.

R e a son

Support is particularly important in regions with socio-economic problems, so as to create the conditions
for economic and employment growth.

Recommendation 11

Article 5(1) — add new indent

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

building and equipping technology and research and

f)
development centres

R e a son

In order to fulfil the objectives of the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy with regard to research and innova-
tion, the creation of high quality research and technology centres should also be supported. Therefore, the
areas for action in the priorities proposed in Article 5 of the ERDF Regulation should be geared to the
objectives set out in the Community strategy, otherwise the implementation of a policy for growth and
real cohesion between the EU's regions will prove impossible.

Recommendation 12

Article 5(2) — add new indent

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Environment and risk prevention, and specifically:

Environment and risk prevention, and specifically inter
alia, the following:
a)
areas which promote sustainable development and
have a clear environmental dimension, and investments
that help to fulfil the objectives of Article 174 of the
Treaty with regard to the environment;

R e a son

The eligible areas mentioned in the Proposal are only examples, as in the current ERDF; therefore the
proposed text should be clear and consistent with the current regulations, which state,
‘inter alia, the
following’. The example of sustainable development is added because it is considered particularly inter-
esting.

C 231/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

Recommendation 13

Article 5(2) — add new indent

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

f)
building infrastructures
supply and waste-water treatment.

for waste disposal, water

R e a son

The priority on ‘environment and risk prevention’ should include activities in the area of water supply,
waste water and waste disposal, since problems still persist which hinder competitiveness in European
regions.

Recommendation 14

Article 5(3)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3)
access, outside major urban centres, to transport and
telecommunication services of general economic interest,
and specifically:

3)
access, outside major urban centres, to transport and
telecommunication services of general economic interest,
and specifically inter alia, the following:

R e a son

When promoting access to transport and telecommunications services, major urban centres should not be
excluded from the outset.

Recommendation 15

Article 5(3)(a)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

a) strengthening secondary networks by improving links
to TEN-transport networks, to regional railway hubs,
airports and ports, or to multimodal platforms, by
providing radial
links to main railways lines, and by
promoting regional and local inland waterways;

a) strengthening secondary networks by improving links
to TEN-transport networks, to regional railway hubs,
airports and ports, or to multimodal platforms, by
providing radial
links to main railways lines, and by
promoting regional and local inland waterways, cabo-
tage, maritime routes connecting islands, and especially
smaller islands, ports which are smaller than Class A
ports, and cross connections by air between Class I and
II airports;

R e a son

All islands, regardless of size, share a number of common problems. Islands depend on both sea and air
transport for links between each other and with the mainland. This fact should he highlighted, and it
should be emphasised that these problems are worse in the case of smaller islands.

This would ensure that certain types of sea and air routes in European peripheral maritime regions are not
neglected.

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/29

Recommendation 16

Article 6(2)(c)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

c)

erosion,

risk prevention, including the promotion of maritime
security and protection against flooding, marine and
inland water pollution, prevention of and protection
against
avalanches.
earthquakes
Programmes may include the provision of equipment
and development of infrastructure, drawing up and
implementing transnational assistance plans, common
risk mapping systems, and the development of
common instruments for studying, preventing, moni-
toring and controlling natural and technological risks

and

c) risk prevention, including the promotion of maritime
security and protection against flooding, marine and
inland water pollution, prevention of and protection
against erosion, earthquakes and seismic risks, volcanic
eruptions, forest fires and avalanches. Programmes may
include the provision of equipment and development of
infrastructure, drawing up and implementing transna-
tional assistance plans, common risk mapping systems,
and the development of common instruments for
studying, preventing, monitoring
controlling
natural and technological risks.

and

R e a son

These particular types of disaster should be mentioned for the sake of completeness.

Recommendation 17

Article 6(2)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

d)
the creation of scientific and technological networks
connected with issues relating to the balanced develop-
ment of transnational areas, including the establishment of
networks between universities and links for accessing
scientific knowledge and technology transfer between
R&TD facilities and international centres of R&TD excel-
transnational consortia for
lence,
sharing R&TD resources, twinning of technology transfer
institutions, and development of joint financial engineering
instruments directed at supporting R&TD in SMEs.

the development of

d)
the creation of scientific and technological networks
connected with issues relating to the balanced develop-
ment of transnational areas, including the establishment of
networks between universities, higher education institu-
tions and links for accessing scientific knowledge and tech-
nology transfer between R&TD facilities and international
centres of R&TD excellence, the development of transna-
tional consortia for sharing R&TD resources, twinning of
technology transfer institutions, and development of joint
financial engineering instruments directed at supporting
R&TD in SMEs; regions of different geographical position
should be encouraged to take part in each of these coop-
eration instruments, with the aim of extending competi-
tiveness and innovation throughout Europe.
e)
the development of SMEs, tourism, culture, and IT-usage

by encouraging entrepreneurship and, in particular,

R e a son

The involvement of regions coming under the convergence and competitiveness objectives, as well as the
various transitional arrangements (regions affected by the statistical effect and the natural effect) in the
same cooperation instrument will facilitate more fruitful exchange of experience and will have a more posi-
tive impact on cohesion.

Furthermore networks should not be limited to universities, but should include other higher education
institutions, since these tend to be closer to business and since not all regions have a university though
they will often have another higher education institution.

Strengthening entrepreneurship with respect to developing tourism, IT, etc., are ideal forms of cooperation
in terms of pooling experience. Regions can support each other, and borders are often irrelevant. This key
aspect of the knowledge economy should therefore not be excluded from transnational cooperation.

C 231/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

Recommendation 18

Article 6(3)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

reinforcement of the effectiveness of regional policy
3)
by promoting networking and exchange of experience
among regional and local authorities focusing on the
topics referred to under Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 8,
including cooperation network programmes covering the
whole Community and actions involving studies, data
collection, and the observation and analysis of develop-
ment trends in the Community.

promotion of

inter-regional cooperation aimed at
3)
reinforcement of the effectiveness of regional policy by
promoting support
for networking and exchange of
experience among regional and local authorities focusing
on the topics referred to under Article 5(1) and (2) and
Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 including cooperation network
programmes covering the whole Community and actions
involving studies, data collection, and the observation and
analysis of development trends in the Community. Further-
more, networks and experience sharing are instruments for
implementing the activities cited under paragraphs 1 and
2 of this Article.

R e a son

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission's proposal to create a new objective ‘European
territorial cooperation’. Nevertheless, the new objective covers only cross-border and transnational coopera-
tion, but not interregional cooperation. The latter would therefore only be possible in the form of coopera-
tion networks and experience sharing, as is the case for the framework programmes for the other objec-
tives. The Committee is opposed to such a separation of the three tried and tested types of cooperation
that have thus far characterised European territorial cooperation. The new objective should provide for a
specific strand of financing for interregional cooperation.

It is possible that, for a variety of reasons, certain regions throughout Europe might feel affinities with each
other, and for this reason fairly substantial cooperation cannot be excluded.

Regions may learn from each other and often borders have no significance in this context. Projects cannot
therefore be excluded at the outset.

To achieve territorial cohesion, it is vital that the ERDF should fund cooperation networks on subjects
relating to regions with specific geographical features.

Recommendation 19

Article 7(a)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The following expenditure is not eligible for a contribution
from the ERDF:
a) VAT;

The following expenditure is not eligible for a contribution
from the ERDF:
a) reimbursable VAT;

R e a son

This would ensure that the rule endorses previous and ongoing practice for ERDF programmes. It would
also comply with the provisions of the ESF regulation and so avoid incomprehensible discrepancies within
the European cohesion policy.

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/31

Recommendation 20

Article 7(d)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

d)

housing;

R e a son

housing, with certain exceptions, restricted to the
d)
convergence objective, including categories of operations
of social relevance such as residential buildings for the
vulnerable and temporary accommodation for non-EU
immigrants;

The eligibility of expenditure for constructing or restructuring residential buildings, under the convergence
objective, for specific vulnerable categories and for non-EU first generation immigrants would appear to be
consistent with the social objectives of European cohesion. It would also be instrumental in enabling Com-
munity policy to overcome structural problems generated by migratory flows from non-EU countries.

Recommendation 21

Article 8(1),

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

integrated strategies

In the case of action involving urban regeneration as
referred to in Article 25(4) a) and 36(4) b) of Regulation
(EC) No (…), the ERDF shall support the development of
participative,
to tackle the high
concentration of economic, environmental and social
problems affecting urban agglomerations.
This may combine the rehabilitation of the physical envir-
onment, brownfield redevelopment, and the preservation
and development of the historical and cultural heritage
with measures to promote entrepreneurship, local employ-
ment and community development, as well as the provi-
sion of services to the population taking account of chan-
ging demographic structures.

integrated strategies,

In the case of action involving urban regeneration as
referred to in Article 25(4) a) and 36(4) b) of Regulation
(EC) No (…), the ERDF shall support the development of
to be implemented
participative,
within the context of the Member States' legal frameworks,
to strengthen sustainable growth and to tackle the high
concentration of economic, environmental and social
problems affecting urban agglomerations.
This may combine the rehabilitation of the physical envir-
onment, brownfield redevelopment, and the preservation
and development of the historical and cultural heritage
with measures to promote innovation and the knowledge
economy, entrepreneurship,
local employment and com-
munity development, as well as the provision of services
to the population taking account of changing demographic
structures.

R e a son

The legal basis for the relevant participative strategies is strengthened by anchoring the participative strate-
gies cited in the proposal, with implicit reference to sub-delegation under Article 36(4)(b) of the coordina-
tion regulation, to the Member States' organisational frameworks and the principle of subsidiarity.

Given the crucial role of cities for regional development, it is important for the effectiveness of cohesion
policy and their contribution to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, that structural funding is more
explicitly related to urban needs and potential in the regions. This can be achieved by introducing sustain-
able urban development actions, which should include, but at the same time go beyond, ‘urban regenera-
tion’ measures.

In the context of integrated urban development actions, emphasis should be put amongst others on
measures aiming to promote innovation and the knowledge economy in light of the goals set by the
Lisbon Agenda.

C 231/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

Recommendation 22

Article 9(3)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Member States and regions shall ensure complementarity
and coherence between the actions co-financed by the
EAFRD and those co-financed by the EFF on the one hand,
and the actions co-financed by the ERDF on the other
hand. To this end, for actions under points 1), 3) and 5)
Member States
set when preparing operational
programmes clear demarcation criteria for actions to be
supported from the ERDF by virtue of this Article, on the
one hand, or from the EAFRD by virtue of Article 49(1),
a), b) and i) of Regulation (EC) No. (…), for rural areas, or
from the EFF by virtue of Article (…) of Regulation (EC)
No. (…) for areas dependent on fisheries.

shall

Member States and regions shall ensure, within the frame-
work of the operational programmes under Article 36 of
Council Regulation (EC) (.....), complementarity and coher-
ence, in compliance with the coordination measures under
Article 25(4)(c) between the actions co-financed by the
EAFRD and those co-financed by the EFF on the one hand,
and the actions co-financed by the ERDF on the other
hand. To this end, for actions under points 1), 3) and 5)
Member States and regions shall set when preparing opera-
tional programmes clear demarcation criteria for actions to
be supported from the ERDF by virtue of this Article, on
the one hand, or from the EAFRD by virtue of Article
49(1), a), b) and i) of Regulation (EC) No. (…), for rural
areas, or from the EFF by virtue of Article (…) of Regu-
lation (EC) No. (…) for areas dependent on fisheries. In
addition, provision should be made for in itinere checks to
monitor compliance with the above-cited need for comple-
mentarity and coherence.

R e a son

The main intention is to establish a link with the relevant coordination rules. If appropriately included in
the text, alongside the measures under Article 25(4)(c) (national reference framework), its scope would be
reinforced.

Reference to Member States and regions would be consistent with the beginning of the paragraph, where
both Member States and regions are mentioned.

The amendment at the end of the paragraph refers to mechanisms that are typical of the acquis communau-
taire and instrumental in strengthening the functions to which they apply.

Recommendation 23

Article 11

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In accordance with the additional allocation referred to in
Article 16(1) d) of Regulation (EC) No (…) and by way of
derogation from Article 3(2) of this Regulation, the ERDF
shall help finance operating aid in the outermost regions
to offset the additional costs incurred in the areas covered
by Article 4 and in the following additional areas, with the
exception of products falling within Annex I to the Treaty:
a) support for goods transport services and start-up aid

for transport services;

b) support linked to storage constraints, the excessive size
and the maintenance of production tools, and the lack
of human capital on the local labour market.

In accordance with the additional allocation referred to in
Article 16(1) d) of Regulation (EC) No (…) and by way of
derogation from Article 3(2) of this Regulation, the ERDF
shall help finance operating aid in the outermost regions
to offset the additional costs incurred in the areas covered
by Article 4 and in the following additional areas, with the
exception of products falling within Annex I to the Treaty:

a) support for goods transport services and start-up aid

for transport services;

b) support linked to storage constraints, the excessive size
and the maintenance of production tools, and the lack
of human capital on the local labour market.

It shall also help to finance the investment needs arising
from the remoteness of these regions, especially invest-
ment in the transport infrastructure necessitated by terri-
torial fragmentation and investment necessitated by rapid
population growth.

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/33

R e a son

The specific programme should cover not only operating costs but also the investment needs arising from
the remoteness of these regions. It should be pointed out that some outermost regions will no longer be
covered by Objective 1 in the forthcoming period, but will still suffer the permanent constraints affecting
such regions and will still have investment needs arising from their remoteness, which has to date received
financial support under cohesion policy.

Recommendation 24

Article 12(6)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

the implementing provisions for the operational

6)
programme:
a) designation by the Member State of all the entities

stipulated in Article 14;

the implementing provisions for the operational

6)
programme:

a) designation by the Member State of all the entities

stipulated in Article 14;

b) a description of the monitoring and evaluation systems
the monitoring

composition of

the

as

as well
committee;

b) a description of the monitoring and evaluation systems
the monitoring

composition of

the

as

as well
committee;

c) a definition of the procedures for the mobilisation and
circulation of financial flows in order to ensure their
transparency;

d) the provisions laid down to ensure the publicity of the

operational programme;

e) a description of the procedures agreed between the
Commission and the Member State for the exchange of
computerised data to meet the payment, monitoring
and evaluation requirements laid down by Regulation
(EC) No. (…);

c) a definition of the procedures for the mobilisation and
circulation of financial flows in order to ensure their
transparency;

d) the provisions laid down to ensure the publicity of the

operational programme;

e) a description of the procedures agreed between the
Commission and the Member State for the exchange of
computerised data to meet the payment, monitoring
and evaluation requirements laid down by Regulation
(EC) No. (…);

f) a description of modalities for regional and local invol-
vement,
implemented by each Member State partici-
pating in the operational programme, as provided
under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) (.....) during
the preparatory phase of said programme, and any
future programmes;

R e a son

It is essential that Member States apply partnership rules even in the context of territorial cooperation
objectives, especially at the level of regional and local authorities. For instance, it would be inconceivable
to implement cross-border cooperation programmes without the large-scale involvement of local cross-
border communities, from the proposal phase onwards. The same applies to cities in the case of promoting
European city networks. It would therefore appear that the success of an operational programme and its
acceptance by the European Commission depend entirely on each participating Member State indicating
how the relevant rules have been applied and how it intends to apply them during the implementing
phase.

Recommendation 25

Article 12 — add new paragraph

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Member States shall ensure that the regional and local
authorities participate in the programming, managing and
monitoring of cross-border and transnational cooperation
operations.

C 231/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

R e a son

It is necessary to ensure that regional authorities participate in all phases of cross-border and transnational
cooperation programmes.

Recommendation 26

Article 14(3)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Each Member State participating in the operational
programme shall appoint representatives to sit on the
monitoring committee referred to in Article 64 of Regu-
lation (EC) No. (…).

Each Member State participating in the operational
programme shall appoint representatives to sit on the
monitoring committee referred to in Article 64 of Regu-
the participating
(…), ensuring that
lation (EC) No.
regional and local authorities are appropriately repre-
sented, in accordance with the institutional and constitu-
tional framework.

R e a son

In the view of the successful role played by regional and local bodies during INTERREG III A, B and C,
Member States would be in compliance with the principles of partnership and subsidiarity if they included
representatives of regional and local authorities amongst their delegates to the monitoring committee of
the operational programme. Representatives would be selected from the appropriate public body, on a case
by-case-basis.

Brussels, 13 April 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB