7th ANNUAL REPORT on the STRUCTURAL FUNDS - 1995 - ERDF - ESF - EAGGF - FFIG
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 30. 10. 1996 COM(96) 502 final 7tk ANNUAL REPORT m tte STRUCTURAL FVNBS Î99S (Presented by the Commission) L This Report has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion (DG XVI) in collaboration with the Directorates-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs (DG V), Agriculture (DG VI), Fisheries (DG XIV) and Budgets (DG XIX) and with contributions from the Directorates-General for Competition (DG IV), Transport (DG VII), Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection (DG XI), Science, Research and Development (DG XII), the Internal Market and Financial Services (DG XV), Energy (DG XVII), Financial Control (DG XX) and Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives (DG XXIII). 7 th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION A. 1995 1. The new Commission and the group of Members responsible for economic and social cohesion 2. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies 3. Launch of the Community Initiative programmes 4. The first full year of implementation of assistance B. A REPORT WITH A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS 1. Background 2. Complementarity between cohesion policy and environmental policy C. EMPLOYMENT, A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR THE UNION D. THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 1. Implementation of appropriations in 1995 2. Concentration 3. Programming 4. Additional ity 5. Partnership 6. Monitoring and evaluation CHAPTER I IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING A. ASSISTANCE BY OBJECTIVE 1. Introduction 1. 1. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 1. 2. Greater integration of the "environment" factor 1. 3. Monitoring and interim assessment 1. 4. Verification of additionality 2. Objective 1 Implementation of Objective 1 in 1995 2. 1. 2. 2. Country-by-country survey 15 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 25 27 27 27 29 32 34 37 37 39 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3. Objective 2 Implementation of Objective 2 in 1995 3. 1. 3. 2. Country-by-country survey 4. Objectives 3 and 4 Implementation of Objectives 3 and 4 in 1995 4. 1. 4. 2. Country-by-country survey 5. Objective 5(a) 5. 1. Objective 5(a) for agriculture 5. 2. Objective 5(a) for fisheries 6. Objective 5(b) , 6. 1. Programming for 1994-99 6. 2. 6. 3. Country-by-country survey Implementation of Objective 5(b) in 1995 7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies 7. 1. Objectives 1 and 6 7. 2. Objective 2 7. 3. Objectives 3 and 4 7. 4. Objective 5(a) 7. 5. Objective 5(b) B. OTHER ASSISTANCE 1. Community Initiatives Introduction 1. 1. 1. 2. The individual Initiatives in the Twelve Member States ADAPT (1994-99) EMPLOYMENT and HUMAN RESOURCES (1994-99) LEADER II (1994-99) PESCA( 1994-99) SME (1994-99) REGIS (1994-99) RECHARII (1994-97) KON VER (1994-97) RESIDER II (1994-97) RETEX (1994-97) URBAN (1994-99) INTERREG II (1994-99) PEACE (1994-97) 1. 3. Community Initiatives in the three new Member States 1. 4. Summary by Member State - EUR 12 62 63 64 80 80 81. 93 93 98 103 103 106 108 116 117 121 125 129 131 134 134 134 141 141 142 146 148 149 150 151 153 154 156 158 161 165 166 170 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2. 4. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Articles 7 and 10 of the ERDF Regulation Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation CHAPTER II BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION OF THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES A. BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS 1. Budget implementation in 1995 1. 1. General implementation in 1995 1. 2. Implementation of each Fund in 1995 in the context of 1994-99 2. Implementation of programming for 1994-99 2. 1. 2. 2. Implementation 1994-95 Implementation of each Fund in 1994-95 in the context of 1994-99 B. CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1. Checks 1. 1. Checks carried out by the Commission's Structural Funds departments Inspections carried out by Financial Control 1. 2. 2. Improving financial management C. COORDINATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 1. Cohesion Fund 2. EIB 3. ECSC 4. European Investment Fund 5. The financial mechanism of the European Economic Area 5 174 174 176 178 179 181 183 183 183 189 197 197 198 202 202 202 204 205 207 207 208 209 209 210 6 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) D. COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 1. The Structural Funds, equal opportunities and combatting social exclusion 2. The Structural funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development 3. The Structural Funds and the common fisheries policy 4. The Structural Funds and SMEs 5. The Structural Funds, research and technological development 6. The Structural Funds and trans-European networks 7. The Structural Funds and the transparency of public contracts 8. The Structural Funds and competition policy 9. Structural policy and education and training CHAPTER III INTER-INSTITUTIONAL REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP, DIALOGUE WITH THE SOCIAL PARTNERS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION DIALOGUE, A. INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE 1. Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee - 1. 1. The European Parliament 1. 2. The Economic and Social Committee 2. Relations with the Committee of the Regions 3. Informal meetings of the ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning 4. Committee opinions B. REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 1. Overview 2. Implementation of the regional partnership in the Member States C. DIALOGUE WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 1. The socio-economic partnership in monitoring structural assistance 1. 1. Overview 1. 2. Implementation of the socio-economic partnership in the Member States 211 212 213 214 214 215 216 218 218 219 221 223 223 223 225 225 226 227 229 229 230 235 235 235 235 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 7 _ O D. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION OF BEST PRACTICE 1. Information and communication 2. Measures to disseminate good practice CHAPTER IV FURTHER REVIEW OF THE 1989-93 PERIOD A. EX POST EVALUATION OF ADDITIONALITY 1. Objectives 1 and 2 2. Objectives 3 and 4 B. EX POST EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES 1. Objectives 3 and 4 2. Objective 5(a) 3. Objective 5(b) C. EX POST EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 1. Regional development Initiatives 2. Human resources Initiatives: NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM 3. The rural development Initiative: LEADER I ANNEXES ANNEX I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 ANNEX II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 ANNEX III: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives, 1994-95 ANNEX IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures ANNEX V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation ANNEX VI: Major projects adopted in 1995 ANNEX VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 241 241 242 245 247 247 247 248 248 248 249 250 250 257 259 261 263 273 283 295 301 315 319 337 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 INDEX QF TABLES Financial allocations 1994-96/99 Number of programming documents adopted in 1994-95 Assistance adopted programmed for 1994-96/99 in 1994-95 as a percentage of appropriations Commitments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance committed Payments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance paid ; Regional Objectives of programming for 1994-96/99 directly related to the environment the Structural Funds - measures under Average annual investment required between 1993 and 2003 to provide the least-favoured regions with environmental infrastructure in conformity with European Directives Objective - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 Objective directly to and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated he environment in 1994-99 Objective - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPD Objective - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes Objective - Greece - Financial implementation of the programmes Objective - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes Objective - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective - Ireland - Financial implementation of the programmes Objective - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes Objective - the Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPD Objective - Portugal - Financial implementation of the programmes Objective - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPDs Summary of Objective 2 OPs/SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 Objective 2 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Objective 2 and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the environment in 1994-96 Object ve 2 - Belgium - Financial implementationof the SPDs Object ve 2 - Denmark - Financial implementation of theSPDs Object ve 2 - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs Object ve 2 - Spain - Programme priorities adopted in 1995 Object ve 2 - Spain - Financial implementation of programmes Object ve 2 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs Object ve 2 - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs Object ve 2 - Luxemburg - Financial implementation of the SPD Object ve 2 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs Object ve 2 - United Kingdom - Financial implementationof the SPDs ves 3 and 4 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-95 and Objecti 1996-99 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 37 38 39 42 45 48 50 52 54 55 58 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 70 70 72 74 75 77. 79 80 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 10 Table 34: Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Table 38: Table 39: Table 40: Table 41: Table 42: Table 43: Table 44: Table 45: Table 46: Table 47: Table 48: Objectives 3 and 4 - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objectives 3 and 4 - Denmark - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objectives 3 and 4 - Germany - Financial programmes implementation of the Objectives 3 and 4 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes Objectives 3 and 4 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objectives 3 and 4 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes Objectives 3 and 4 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the programmes Objectives 3 and 4 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objectives 3 and 4 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPD Extent of less-favoured areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC Objective 5(a) agriculture - Implementation forecasts for 1994-99 Objective 5(a) agriculture - Financial implementation in 1995 Objective 5(a) agriculture - Physical implementation in 1994 Objective 5(a) agriculture - State of financial implementation of the programmes Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Operational priorities of single programming documents for 1994-99 Table 49: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994- Table 50: Table 51: Table 52: Table 53: Table 54: Table 55: Table 56: Table 57: Table 58: Table 59: Table 60: Table 61: Table 62: Table 63: Table 64: Table 65: Table 66: Table 67: 99 Objective 5(a) fisheries - Financial implementation of SPDs Objective 5(b) - area and population of eligible areas and funding allocated to each Member State, 1994-99 Objective 5(b) and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the environment, 1994-99 Objective 5(b) - Summary of SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 Objective 5(b) - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 Objective 5(b) - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 5(b) - Denmark - Financial implementation of the SPD Objective 5(b) - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 5(b) - Spain - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 5(b) - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 5(b) - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 5(b) - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the SPD Objective 5(b) - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 5(b) - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 1 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPD Objective 6 in Finland and Sweden - basic statistics Objective 6 - Financial implementation of the SPDs Objective 2 in the new Member States - basic statistics 82 83 85 87 88 89 90 91 92 95 96 97 97 97 99 100 100 103 104 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 113 114 115 118 118 121 121 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 68: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund Table 69: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 70: Objective 2 - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPD Table 71: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund Table 72: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 73: Objectives 3 and 4 - Indicative breakdown of appropriations for the new Member States Table 74: Objectives 3 and 4 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 75: Objectives 3 and 4 - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 76: Objective 3 - Sweden - Financial implementation of the SPD Table 77: Table 78: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Forecast implementation in the new Member States 1995-99 Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Priorities for assistance in the new Member States Table 79: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 80: Objective 5(b) - SPDs adopted in 1995 in the new Member States Table 81: Objective 5(b) - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 82: Objective 5(b) - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPDs Table 83: Table 84: Table 85: Table 86: Number of Community Initiative programmes presented and adopted in 1995 Summary of Commission decisions on Community Initiatives in 1994-95 (ECU million) Allocation of the reserve between Initiatives proposed by Commission in 1995 Community Initiatives - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994- 97/99 Table 87: Summary of Community Initiative programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995-EUR 15 : Table 88: ADAPT Programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 Table 89: Implementation of EMPLOYMENT programmes - EUR 12 Table 90: LEADER II programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 Table 91: PESCA programmes adopted in 1995 and 1994-EUR 12 Table 92: SME programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 Table 93: REGIS programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 Table 94: RECHARII programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 Table 95: KONVER programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 Table 96: RESIDER II programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995-EUR 12 Table 97: Situation of RETEX programmes in 1995 - EUR 12 Table 98: URBAN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 Table 99: URBAN - Detailed financing of the programme in Spain Table 100: INTERREG/REGEN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 11 121 122 123 124 125 125 126 128 129 129 130 130 131 132 132 134 136 138 138 139 141 143 146 148 149 151 152 153 155 156 159 160 161 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 12 Table 101: INTERREG II cross-border cooperation programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 Table 101 bis: PEACE programme Table 102: Table 103: Table 104: Table 105: Table 106: Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Indicative allocation of appropriations 1995-99 Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Programmes adopted in 1995 Community Initiatives - Summary of financial allocations by Member State 1994-99 Innovative measures (Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation) - priorities for assistance, 1995-99 Measures financed under Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation in 1995 - commitments Table 107: Measures financed under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation in 1995 Table 108: Measures financed under Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation, 1989-95 Table 109: Table 110: Table 111: Table 112: Table 113: Measures financed under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation in 1995 Origin and implementation of commitment appropriations in 1995 Implementationof appropriations in 1995 Implementation of appropriations in 1995 by budget heading Commitments in 1995\f Table 114: Payments in 1995 Table 115: Payments in 1995 in respect of assistance prior to the second programming Table 116: Table 117: Table 118: Table 119: Table 120: Table 121: Table 122: Table 123: Table 124: Table 125: Table 126: Table 127: Table 128: Table 129: Table 130: period Appropriations outstanding at 31 December 1995 Implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 ERDF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 ESF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 EAGGF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 FIFG implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 Implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 ERDF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 ESF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 EAGGF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 FIFG implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 E1B - Financing for regional development ÊIB - Breakdown by sector of financing for regional development Community Initiatives 1989-93 - Assistance by Initiative and Member State Interreg I: Breakdown of projects by sector 162 166 166 167 170 174 176 177 178 179 183 183 184 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 194 196 197 198 199 200 201 208 209 251 257 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 1 3 - ^U NOTE TO THE READER A number of points should be borne in mind when reading the tables in this Report because it looks at Structural Fund assistance from a variety of viewpoints. As far as possible, these are indicated in the text. What are these various viewpoints? • The programming period: Usually this is 1994-99. Only in Chapter II. A Budgetary implementation has a desire to be comprehensive resulted in the inclusion of earlier programming periods in order to show all budgetary activity relating to the Structural Funds in 1995 (this relates only to the settling of payments). Naturally, Chapter IV refers to the period 1989-93. • The programming phase: At Community level, the first phase is that of the CSF. In the summary tables in Chapter I, these are "programmed" appropriations. The second phase is that of operational programmes, global grants or major projects. This phase is referred to as "adopted" in the summary tables. In the case of single programming documents, these two phases of programming coincide and the amounts are therefore the same. • The number of Member States (EUR 15, EUR 12 or EUR 3) depending on the year (1994 or 1995) and the form of assistance (Objective, Community Initiative, technical assistance, innovative measure). These data are presented in integrated form in the Annexes and in Chapter II. A on budgetary implementation. In Chapter I a distinction is made between assistance at the initiative of the Member State and studies and technical assistance carried out at the initiative of the Commission and relating to this assistance because the regulatory basis is different. These studies and technical assistance are, however, included in commitments and payments in the Annexes if the budget heading is the same. • Assistance (operational programme, SPD, technical assistance) without regard to the budget heading from which the appropriations were committed or paid or the budget heading from which the commitment or payment was made, without regard to the form of assistance. Commitments and payments are presented in accordance with the first criterion in Chapter I and according to the second in Chapter II. A and Annexes I to IV. • The type of appropriation, that is appropriations for the financial year or appropriations carried over or made available again. This distinction is made only when considering appropriations implemented for each budget heading, i. e. in Chapter II. A and the Annexes. Unless otherwise indicated in the title or a note, appropriations carried over and made available again are always included. • The year of reference in which prices are expressed. The amounts of assistance granted are expressed in prices in the year of adoption, whether this was the point of programming (CSF) or adoption (operational programme, SPD, etc. ). Appropriations implemented are, however, expressed in prices of the year of implementation (current prices). /5", At TNTJ^DJTO» 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) j 7 This report is compiled pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended and the detailed provisions in Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended. It presents the application in 1995 of the Structural Fund regulations, particularly the implementation of their Objectives (Objectives 1 to 6). The report is structured in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations, but is also shaped by the main activities or trends of the year in question. It also includes certain innovations. From the point of view of content, it deals with new matters such as the practical implementation of partnership with the regions and presents, in a single section, all the measures implemented by the Commission to disseminate good practice. In terms of form, the financial aspects have been dealt with exhaustively and 1995 has been placed in the context of the 1994-99 programming process. A major innovation is the environmental thread which runs through the report, reflecting various aspects of the way in which environmental considerations are taken into account in the programming of all measures. Chapter I presents the implementation of the various structural operations in 1995 in the context of multiannual programming. Attention is given to measures under the different Objectives, but also to the integration of the three new Member States into the structural policies and the adoption of the new Community Initiative programmes. In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended, a list of the major projects is given in the Annex, but a more detailed assessment has begun, the results of which will be presented in a future annual report. Chapter II concerns budgetary implementation in 1995, also presented in its multiannual context, and other financial matters such as financial management and monitoring of utilization. As in last year's report, it pays particular attention to the complementarity between the Structural Funds and the various Community policies, which is highlighted by a horizontal treatment running throughout the report. Chapter HI is devoted to various institutional matters concerning the Structural Funds, ranging from relations between the Community's different institutions and dialogue with the social and regional partners to information on the work of the Funds. As mentioned above, there is a special focus on partnership with the regions and measures at Community level to disseminate good practice. Chapter IV carries on where the same chapter in last year's report left off, describing the achievements of the 1989-93 programming period. It deals only with those aspects not yet touched on in previous annual reports (1993 and 1994). A more general assessment of the period is given in the first three-yearly report on economic and social cohesion. This introduction will deal in turn with the main features of 1995 for the Structural Funds, an explanation of the importance of environmental concerns and the main elements of the report. A. 1995 1. The new Commission and the group of Members responsible for economic and social cohesion In 1995 a new Commission took office under the presidency of Mr Santer. Right at the beginning of its term, in order to stimulate its debate on certain broad areas of Community policy, the Commission set up six working groups, on External Relations; Growth, Competitiveness and Employment; Trans-European Networks; Cohesion; the Information Society and Equal opportunities for Men and Women. The working group on Cohesion is chaired by Mrs Wulf-Mathies, the member of the Commission with special responsibility for the regional policies and cohesion, and includes Mr Flynn (employment and social affairs), Mr Fischler (agriculture and rural development), Mrs Bonino (fisheries), Mrs Bjerregaard (environment), Mr Kinnock (transport) and Mr de Silguy (economic and financial affairs). The group held its first meeting in March 1995 and gave itself the task of debating the broad lines of the following issues: improving the perception of the cohesion policy as a way in which the Community 18 7{h Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) adds value; improving the implementation of action by the Structural Funds (and the Cohesion Fund), first thoughts on what a future policy for economic and social cohesion might look like. The working group met a further three times in 1995, to discuss the following subjects: utilization of the budget reserve for the Community Initiatives; employment and the Structural Funds; cohesion policy and the environment; guidelines for the Community's rural development policy; information and communication on the cohesion policy. These discussions provided a basis for orienting the work of the Commission's departments in the areas concerned and for preparing the Commission's decisions on the allocation of the Community Initiatives reserve, its communications to the other institutions on "Cohesion policy and the environment" and "Employment and the Structural Funds". The meetings also gave Mrs Wulf-Mathies an opportunity to brief her colleagues on the results of the informal meetings of the ministers responsible for regional policy and regional planning held in Strasbourg and Madrid. 2. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies In 1995 three new Member States: Austria, Finland and Sweden acceded to the Community. A study of the impact of this enlargement on the structural policies began starting in 1994* and preparations for adopting operational programmes under the different Objectives were commenced at the beginning of 1995. Discussions with the three new Member States were concluded rapidly and effectively: with a few exceptions, all the measures under the different Objectives were adopted and underway before the year was out. As in the case of the other Member States, the programmes which had not yet been approved by the end of 1995 mostly concerned the Community Initiatives. 3. Launch of the Community Initiative programmes After adopting guidelines for the 13 Community Initiatives according to a timetable staggered over 1994^, the Commission gradually adopted the Community Initiative programmes during 1995. The profusion of programmes presented by the Member State (400 in all) required intensive preparation and discussions with the various national authorities. Two thirds of the envisaged programmes could be adopted in 1995, representing more than 80% of the funding allocated to the twelve Member States and almost 45% of the allocation for the three newcomers. 4. The first full year of implementation of assistance Following the adoption of most programmes and other forms of assistance in 1994, actual implementation for most assistance, i. e. programmes (CSFs and SPDs) under the different Objectives, took place in 1995. Further new programmes, mainly under Objectives 1 and 5(b), were adopted in 1995, bringing the rate of adoption of programmed appropriations up to almost 100% for the twelve Member States for the period 1994-99. During this first full year of implementation of operations, the Commission had two main concerns. Firstly, much effort went into seeking the greatest possible degree of effectiveness. To ensure effective monitoring of operations, Monitoring Committees were set up and criteria for the selection of projects adopted. The Commission drew the attention of the different partners to the need for rigorous monitoring and the importance of selecting projects most likely to attain the objectives of the programmes. The drive for effectiveness could also be seen in the intensive work on evaluation: the preparation of mid term reviews, prior appraisal of projects and continuing ex post evaluation of assistance implemented during the period 1989-93. Furthermore, the effectiveness of management and of the socio-economic 1 See the 1994 Annual Report. 2 See the 1994 Annual Report. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 9 impact of programmed measures is aided by thorough cooperation between a wide variety of partners. Since 1994 the Commission has invested much effort in convincing the various authorities responsible for structural measures of the importance of extending partnership to a wide range of actors, including local and regional authorities and the economic and social partners. Lastly, in 1995 the Commission continued to encourage rigorous financial management of operations, stepping up its checks on utilization of the Funds as well as discussing with the Member States ways of improving the joint management of Community appropriations by the Member States and the Commission and making it more effective. Another major concern in the implementation of programmes in 1995 was consistency with all the Community's other policies and financial assistance. Since the Structural Funds involve very large amounts of Community finance, the Commission takes great care to ensure that operations are consistent with the Community's other instruments, be they legislative, financial or political. Discussions on this matter therefore resulted in communications describing the links between the Structural Funds and other policies (employment, environment, equal opportunities, integrated development of certain areas). In addition, the drive begun in 1994 to improve coordination between the different financial instruments was continued in 1995, particularly in the case of Cohesion Fund assistance. B. A REPORT WITH A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS In the effort to ensure that assistance by the Structural Funds is consistent with the Community's other policies, special attention has been given to environmental concerns. Both the principle of economic and social cohesion and that of environmental protection are mentioned in the preamble to the Treaty on European Union. In practical terms, as far as the environment is concerned this means that environmental protection measures must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies (Article 130r of the Treaty). This requirement is particularly relevant to the Structural Funds because of the context in which they operate as well as the links between structural policy (particularly its regional aspect) and environmental policy. 1. Background The 1993 review of the regulations governing the Structural Funds introduced new environmental requirements. As a result, there has been a clear improvement in the way in which account has been taken of the environment in the programming for 1994-99. The new rules also require greater vigilance in preventing and penalizing infringements of Community law in the environmental field. The Commission is keen to increase the awareness of its various partners to this matter and makes sure the rules are observed. 1995 witnessed a still greater commitment to the environment, which received special attention in the form of the mid-term progress report on the Fifth Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment-' and a communication on cohesion policy and the environment \ Both of these documents stress that, since the environment is a horizontal issue, implementation of the major objectives of the Fifth Programme is essential. 2. Complementarity between cohesion policy and environmental policy The Commission's communication on cohesion -policy and the environment demonstrates the complementarity which exists between cohesion policy and environmental policy, whereby sustainable socio-economic development is sought taking care to preserve natural resources. This complementarity should also be illustrated with specific examples. Firstly, the environment is a factor in regional 3 COM(95) 624 final, 10 January 1996. 4 COM(95) 509 final, 22 November 1995. 20 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) development. A high-quality environment can play an important role in attracting potential investors to a region. Furthermore, activities related to the environment can be a substantial source of employment and create major opportunities for SMEs to provide goods and services. Lastly, the environment is an excellent justification for diversification as regards both activities (in rural areas, for example) and new skills and qualifications for the work force. Secondly, structural policy itself contributes to the environment in two ways. Not only does it generate large injections of funds with direct or indirect spin-offs for the environment, which also enable less- favoured regions to finance the investments needed to comply with Community environmental standards, but it is also a vector for other instruments which can promote sustainable development. It can encourage a more rigorous analysis of the environmental effects of projects by requiring an environmental impact assessment, reliable statistical data on environmental aspects or the development of physical indicators for the evaluation of programmes. Involvement of the Structural Funds in environmental measures also helps increase public awareness of environmental issues, for example by providing training in new skills related to the environment and encouraging public authorities to give greater care to their town and country planning and the preservation of natural resources. This complementarity and its context called for a clear description of the ways in which the need for environmental protection is taken into account in the programming of the Structural Funds. Rather than dedicating a section of the Annual Report on the Structural Funds to the complementarity between these two policies, therefore, it has been deemed appropriate to weave a thread throughout the Report to demonstrate that each aspect of the implementation of the Structural Funds has an environmental dimension and to show how that dimension is taken into account to the greatest possible extent in programmes which, it should not be forgotten, aim primarily at economic and social development. C. EMPLOYMENT, A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR THE UNION The serious employment situation is a central concern of the European Union, where there are now some 18 million people without work. In December 1994 the Essen European Council reaffirmed the prime importance of combatting unemployment and of equal opportunities. The Council took the view that the essential return to steady growth also required the structural reform of the employment market and identified five areas for priority measures to overcome the structural problems of employment. It asked the Member States to turn each of its recommendations into a multi-annual programme. In its 1995 communication "Community Structural Policies and Employment"^, the Commission proposed a number of guidelines to ensure coherence between the policy decided on in Essen and the use of the Structural Funds and to increase their impact by incorporating them into the European strategy for employment. These were ensuring the conditions for long-term growth, raising the employment content of this growth, developing an economy of solidarity in addition to this performing competitive economy and making the most of partnership arrangements, and encouraging those involved at local level. In practice, this means using the flexibility offered by the implementation of the CSFs/SPDs and directing the monitoring and assessment systems towards the gradual implementation of the priorities selected without undermining the programming of the Structural Funds as adopted, for the most part, in 1994. The Madrid European Council in December 1995 confirmed the need for coordination between national job-creation policies and the Community structural policies. The Structural Funds are essential instruments for the promotion of growth and employment, particularly in the Member States and regions which benefit most from them. Structural assistance helps support demand by increasing regional 5 A communication originally presented to the informal ministerial meeting in Madrid on 30 November and 1 December 1995). 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 21 income through finance for investment in infrastructure, productive capacity, human resources and technological potential, all of which will make the region more competitive. This approach also implies stressing proactive and preventive measures. This is particularly true of Objective 4, the implementation of which occupied the whole of 1995. It is an approach which requires a concerted effort from all those involved in the implementation of structural assistance and one in which the Commission has undertaken to support its partners. D. THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 1. Implementation of appropriations in 1995 In total, of the ECU 24 069 million available in 1995 for all assistance, ECU 21 938 million was committed, as compared with ECU 21 323 million and ECU 19 246 million respectively in 1994. At 91%, the rate of implementation is high (90% in 1994), with 82% of committed appropriations paid as against 76% in 1994. There was a clear improvement in the implementation of Community Initiatives, with an implementation rate of 91% of available appropriations (i. e. ECU 2 358 million) compared with 12% in 1994. This improvement is due to the fact that most of the new programmes were adopted in 1995. Looking at the different Objectives, commitments for Objective 1 amounted to ECU 14 518 million; for Objective 2, to ECU 1 735 million; for Objective 3 and 4, to ECU 1 607 million and 94. 5 million respectively; for Objective 5(a), to ECU 655. 9 million for agriculture and 179 million for fisheries; for Objective 5(b), to ECU 571. 9 million and lastly, for Objective 6, to ECU 125. 9 million. In absolute terms, there is a great difference in the value of the appropriations committed for each of the Funds, ranging from ECU 485. 5 million for the FIFG (2% of total commitments) to ECU 12 211 million for the ERDF (56% of total commitments). Nevertheless, the rate of implementation of the available appropriations is similar for all of the Funds, at 99% (for all types of assistance), except for the ESF, with 76%. 2. Concentration The principle of concentration is one of the key concepts behind the 1988 reform of the Structural Funds. It involves the concentration of assistance on a limited number of objectives, geographical concentration on certain eligible areas, concentration of funding on the severest problems and areas in greatest difficulty and concentration of assistance on certain thematic areas. There has been little progress in geographical, financial and thematic concentration in 1995 because the decisions and guidelines relating to these aspects for the entire programming period (1994-99; 1994-96 for Objective 2) were taken in 1993 and 1994. 6 However, while the principle of financial concentration has mainly meant the fixing of financial allocations for 1994-99, activity in 1995 has clearly confirmed the principle in practice: the greater part of the Commission's work has been concentrated on Objective 1. 64% of all the appropriations committed in 1995 under the newly-adopted Community Initiative programmes (taken together) were allocated to Objective 1 regions. The same trend is reflected in budgetary activity, with Objective 1 accounting for 66% of all commitments and 70% of all payments implemented in 1995. These figures also reveal a remarkable dynamism in the implementation of Objective 1 in comparison with other structural assistance. 6 See the 1994 Annual Report. 22 3. Programming 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Another characteristic of Structural Fund operations is multiannual programming over a six-year period. It was introduced in 1994, when most of the programming documents for assistance under the different Objectives were adopted (CSFs, followed by operational programmes; single programming documents (SPDs)). The programming documents for the new Member States were adopted in 1995 (36 in all, with a further six Swedish SPDs still to come) as were a large number of Community Initiative programmes (265 in all). Looking back on the first two years of the programming period (1994 and 1995), implementation has been relatively satisfactory. With regard to assistance under the Objectives, 97% of the funds programmed in CSFs or SPDs have been committed in the form of SPDs, operational programmes, global grants or major projects. As stated in last year's Annual Report, the possibility of submitting single programming documents has. enabled the arrangements for programming to be simplified. Furthermore, a glance at the situation regarding overall financial implementation shows that in two years almost one third (31%) of available assistance has been committed and one fifth (19%) has been paid. Although generally speaking there is room for improvement in the rate of payment, which reflects progress in the actual implementation of measures, the situation varies depending on the Objective. The rate of implementation of Objectives 1, 3 and 5(a) is in line with the overall figures. Objectives 4 and 5(b), however, are progressing at a much slower rate (Objective 4: 24% of assistance has been committed and 12% paid; Objective 5(b): 18% committed and 10% paid). Lastly, while the rate of implementation of Objective 2 appears at first sight to be higher because it is programmed in three-year phases (52% of assistance committed and 26% paid), it is actually lower than average when related to the full period 1994-99. The implementation of programming is also progressing at different rates in the different Member States. Taking the Objectives as a whole, the percentage of total aid committed ranges from 21% for Belgium and Finland to 41% for the United Kingdom, while the percentage of total aid paid ranges from 10% for Finland and 11% for Italy to 25% for the United Kingdom. Programming has turned out to be more problematic where the Community Initiatives are concerned. The process has been hindered by the number of programmes presented by the Member States (400 for all 15, i. e. about the same number of operations as for the OPs/SPDs), which has resulted in an administrative overload. However, three quarters of the programmes have been adopted, accounting for 81% of the appropriations allocated to the Twelve and 42% of those allocated to the three new Member States. At the informal Council meeting in Venice in May 1996 the Commission and the Member States acknowledged the problem caused by the excessive number of programmes and the resulting complexity, especially for the Community Initiatives, and recognized the need to remedy the situation. 4. Additionality Compliance with the principle of additionality requires continuous financial monitoring. For the new programmes for 1994-99, the detailed procedures for this monitoring are laid down in the programming documents. It was thus possible for the prior appraisal of additionality to be largely carried out in 1994 and more or less completed in 1995. Most of the work on additionality in 1995 concerned expost evaluation of the period 1989-93 and ongoing monitoring of the second period. The results of the expost evaluation of the first programming period vary according to the Objective and the Member State concerned. The procedure has been successfully completed for Objectives 1 and 2 and additionality was verified in 1995 for five Member States, although it was still impossible to verify for others, either because of incomplete data (three Member States) or total absence of data (four Member States). Similarly, for Objectives 3 and 4 additionality was verified for four Member States, is still uncertain for two and is impossible to verify for five others. Objective 5(b) was the only Objective for which it was possible to confirm in 1995 that additionality had been observed in all Member States. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 23 - â. ^ Ongoing assessment concerned only Objective 1 in 1995, but results were limited because only one Member State observed the principle and the verification procedures. 5. Partnership Implementation of partnership entered an active phase in 1995 with the setting up of Monitoring Committees for the programmes. Partnership with the regional authorities is now a widespread and accepted practice and functions satisfactorily on the whole. However, partnership with other geographically-based authorities, particularly at local level, is less well-developed. This report reveals very different situations depending on institutional arrangements and types of assistance. It also reveals a degree of complexity which requires thought to be given to ways of simplifying monitoring methods at regional level. The trend is towards greater involvement of the social and economic partners in the Monitoring Committees, although here also the situation varies greatly, from no involvement in some Member States, through indirect representation or mere information procedures in others, to real involvement in decision-making in others. In order to avoid the danger of increasingly unwieldy procedures in increasingly complex partnership structures, the Commission is aware of the need to develop the most appropriate possible procedures for involving the different partners more closely, to the degree called for by their respective roles and responsibilities. 6. Monitoring and evaluation Intensive monitoring and evaluation continued in 1995, in two directions. Monitoring Committees were set up for the current programming period and, at the same time, the Commission issued a Common guide for Monitoring and Interim evaluation intended to ensure that all the partners use the same procedures for qualitative and quantitative monitoring of the financial situation and the progress made in implementing programmes. The partners also launched the mid-term review process, scheduled for completion in 1996, whereby measures are subject to systematic critical analysis. However, the process has been slow to start, although there is a clear improvement compared to the past. The other aspect of evaluation work has been the continuing ex post evaluation of the first programming period. The preliminary results received by the Commission at the end of 1994 for Objectives 3 and 4 and Objective 5(b) were confirmed during 1995 and results were received for Objective 5(a) and for some of the 1991-93 Community Initiatives. Although these results arrived after the programmes for the second period had been adopted, their lessons will still be used to improve current operations, particularly in the context of the mid-term reviews. c?5\S6 CHAPTER I IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 27 A. ASSISTANCE BY OBJECTIVE • 1. Introduction 1. 1. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period Table 1: Financial allocations 1994-96/99 (ECU million) B DK D EL E F IRL I L N AT P Fl SE UK TOTAL Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5(a) agriculture fishaies Objective 5(b) Objective 6 13. 980,0 0,0 730,0 160,0 396,2 25,4 194,9 roj 24. 5 78,1 13. 640,0 733,0 1682,1 104,5 1. 144,4 1. 069. 9 74. 5 1. 229,0 56,0 263,0 13,0 266,9 12'0 139. 9 54,0 26. 300,0 1. 130,0 1. 474,4 368,6 445,6 3260 119. 6 664,0 2. 189,2 1. 763,2 2 562,4 299,6 1. 935,4 1. 745. 5 1S9. 9 2. 239,4 5. 620,0 0,0 14860,0 684,0 1. 316,3 398,8 814,4 680. 0 134. 4 903,7 13 980,0 0,0 150 0 300,0 922,8 156,2 164,6 118,0 46,6 150,0 165,6 101,0 334,0 61,0 387,8 385. 8 2. 0 411,0 7,0 20,7 0,9 40,1 39. 0 U 6,0 69,2 258,4 84,6 354,0 331,0 23,0 194,0 459,9 160,0 347,0 173,0 130,1 90,1 40,0 138,0 252,0 2. 359,8 2. 142,0 1. 501,0 329,7 449,7 361,0 88. 7 820,5 93. 974,6 7. 305,4 11. 0783 2. 0153 6327,9 5. 443,7 884,2 6. 887,7 711,9 TOTAL 1. 584,6 652,9 18. 533,0 13. 980,0 30382,6 10. 989,2 5. 620,0 18. 977,2 74,7 1. 843,6 1. 460,4 13. 980,0 1. 420,1 1. 200,1 7. 602,7 128301,1 Where Structural Funds assistance programmed by Objective was concerned, 1995 had two key elements: adoption of the programmes for the new Member States and the actual implementation of the programmes adopted and begun in 1994 in the other twelve. Most of the last remaining programmes were adopted in 1995 and implementation (establishment of the Monitoring Committees, project selection) was on the whole satisfactory. The result after two years of launching new programmes is quite significant. A total of 407 programming documents other than CSFs (OPs, SPDs, global grants, major projects) were adopted in 1994 and 1995 in the twelve Member States. This was an average of 34 per Member State, but the number varied from 8 programmes for Denmark and Luxembourg to 83 in Spain. For the 15 Member States a total of 442 programmes had been adopted by the end of 1995, in other words, 35 in the new Member States. If we add the Community Initiative programmes, mainly approved in 1995, we obtain a total of 733 programmes for the 15 Member States (an average of 49 per Member State: 29 OPs/SPDs and 17 CIPs). Table 2: Number of programming documents adopted in 1994-95 B DK D EL E F IRL I L N P UK EUR12 AT FI SE EUR3 EUR15 Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5(a) agric. Objective 5(a) fisheries Objective 5(b) Objective 6 10 31 1 4 5 5 6 1 3 18 9 12 1 11 1 8 2 1 1 2 1 1 53 8 11 1 2 1 7 6 19 1 1 2 1 20 24 11 16 1 2 1 13 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 17 3 13 1 0 2 1 11 164 72 50 12 31 9 69 1 4 1 1 1 7 Total - objectives 25 8 60 31 83 50 10 68 8 16 17 31 40' 1' 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 5 I 0 1 1 0 1 9 1 10 3 2 5 3 9 2 165 82 53 14 36 12 78 2 35 442 Community initiatives Inlcrrt'g/l'eace Other (1) 16 5 rt7 10 23 4' 6 19 4 12 11 28 248 4 2 2 8 291 35 256 TOTAL 41 13 127 41 106 97 16 87 12 28 28 59 655 21 11 11 43 733 (1) Including Retex for 1993 If we compare the actual adoption of programmes with what was programmed for 1994-99, the situation at the end of the first two years seems satisfactory. 97% of the programmed appropriations were adopted in the form of SPDs, OPs, global grants or major projects. All the assistance in four Objectives (2, 3, 5(a) 1 Readers should note the following: Measures in the new Member States have been grouped into one section, A. 7; throughout the Report, unless otherwise indicated, amounts relate to prices in the year the measures were adopted (1994 or 1995) where programming is concerned and to current prices where budget execution in terms of commitments or payments is concerned. 28 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) fisheries and 6) was adopted in 1995. Three other Objectives (1, 5(a) agriculture and 5(b)) also had very high adoption rates (between 96% and almost 100%). All the SPDs for Objective 1 had been adopted in 1994 (1995 for Austria), and of the measures in the various CSFs only technical assistance in Germany and Ireland and some OPs in Greece, Spain and Italy remained to be adopted. All the Objective 5(a) agriculture SPDs have been adopted except those under Regulations (EEC) Nos 866/90 and 867/90, where a number of OPs in a single CSF in Italy have yet to be adopted. In the case of Objective 5(b), only the SPDs for Sweden and the technical assistance programme for France still remained to be adopted. Only Objective 4 had a lower rate of adoption, 75%, the reason being that the United Kingdom did not present any programmes for 1994-96 and the SPD for Sweden had not yet been adopted. If we look at the situation in each of the Member States, the vast majority of the Twelve, taking all Objectives together, had programme adoption rates of 100% (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal). Three Member States had rates between 90% and 100%) (Italy, Spain and Greece); this was because a few Objective 1 OPs had still to be adopted in each. The United Kingdom had a rate of 96% if Objective 4 is taken into account (the other programmes were adopted in their entirety). The situation in the three new Member States was also well advanced by the end of 1995, with all measures having been adopted in Austria and Finland and the SPDs for Objectives 4 and 5(b) remaining to be adopted in Sweden. Table 3: Assistance adopted in 1994-95 (SPDs, OPs global grants, major projects) as a percentage of appropriations programmed for 1994-96/99 Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5(a) agriculture Objective 5(a) fisheries Objective 5(b) Objective 6 B DK D EL E F IRL I L N AT 100% 100% 100% 101% 101% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% p 99% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 98% 95% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% FI SE UK 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100%. 96% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 74% TOTAL 96% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 98% 100% 97% The financial progress of programme implementation appears normal. Overall, the rate of commitment of the funds at the end of the first two years was nearly one third (31%), which reflects mainly commitments made in 1995 given that most of the programmes were adopted in the second half of or at the end of, 1994. Table 4: Commitments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance committed (ECU million) B DK D EL E F IRL I L N AT P Fl SE UK Total Objective 1 %of assistance Objective 2 %of assistance Objective 3 %of assistance Objective 4 %of assistance Objective 5(a) (agriculture) %of assistance Objective 5(a) (fisheries) %of assistance Objective 5(b) %of assistance Objective 6 %of assistance 107,0 15% 62,2 39% 97,8 24% 4,6 18% 53,0 31% 4,1 17% 9,2 12% - 30,3 54% 85,0 32% 6,0 46% 38,7 30% 46,6 33% 9,8 18% 3. 892,1 4. 544,9 8. 372,4 497,6 1. 680,1 3. 024,7 29% 286,9 39% 307,8 18% 29,6 28% 322,7 30% 24,9 33% 261,7 21% 33% ; - - • • - 34% 659,2 58% 23% 904,4 51% 426,6 778,4 29°/< 118,1 32°/< 101,9 31°/ 39,8 33% 162,1 24% 30% 95,4 32% 678. 6 39% 63,3 33% 373,2 17% 30% ; - - • ; • 22% 299,9 44% 200,5 15% 60,6 15% 117,5 17% 44,8 33% 107,0 12% - 8,0 114% 6,5 31% 0,5 59% 12,2 31% 1,1 100% 0,8 14% 37,2 25% 105,0 35% 282,3 31% 22,2 14% 25,3 21% 9,2 20%: 25,6 17% 28,8 4548,8 17% 54,1 54% 64,1 19% 11,7 19% 61,5 16% 2,0 100% 78,3 19% 33% ; •. • - TOTAL 337,8 216,3 5. 125,6 4544,9 9. 880,1 3. 390,9 1. 680,1 3. 855,0 29,1 506,8 300,5 4. 548,8 "/oofaxsislcaxx 21% 33% 28% 33%, 34% 31% 3(f% 22% 3<M 27% 21%, 33% - 31,1 45% 60,3 23% 14,8 18% 61,4 19% 23,0 - 532,3 23% 105,8 1. 250,0 27. 265,9 30% 3. 796,9 66% 73,0 21% 0,0 13,7 15% 40,0 58% 52% 975,0 3. 357,1 65% 0,0 85,2 24% 14,8 17% 30% 363,6 24% 1. 571,6 29% 313,4 35% 100% 100% 32,8 17% 81,0 18% 304,5 21%, 0,0 120,7 1. 181,2 15%. 2. 978,0 18% 125,9 18% 37. 975,8 41% 31% 44,9 18% 277,4 31%, Payments, which represent the actual progress of the measures since they are a function of applications from the final beneficiaries, stand at 19%, which is evidence of the delay in 1994 but is logical given that most payments were made in 1995. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 29 Table 5: Payments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance paid (ECU million) Ubjective 1 % of assistance Objective 2 % of assistance Objective i % of assistance Objective 4 %of assistance Objective i(a) (agriculture) %of assistance Objective 5(a) (nshenes) % of assistance Objective 5 ( b )— % of assistance Ubjective b % of assistance TJK 2. 470,1 18% T553T 21% 3 3 43 14% 7478! 14% 3 0 93 20% 3 63 22%| 7 3 47 11% 3 0 7/ 36% "747? 2 8% 370] 2 3% T97I 15% 303 22% " 37 10% "793 11% 7 93 18% "743 19% 7 63 10% " 3J 13% 33 6% TT 2. 76U. 7 20% 537071 23% 40% "2443 17% 18% TRTT 1. 369,6 24% 3 8 67 13% 3233 24% 30377 20%| "477 16% 25% 23% 70701 TTJ 22% 307 7T874 18% 1. 555,4] 12% 75070" 22% 7007 8% 3 03 8% 3 83 9% 3J I9£j 13% 3 23 18% "7533 27%| TTJ 7%| 10%| &7 13% T01 57% 27%| lT3 3 8% 14% " 37 15% 3. 263,4 2 3% TTT 7 43 9% 7 T3 21% 10%i 10% 3077 8%| 10%| 397 10% TOTALI % oj'assistance 3 T 03 13% 7527* 23% 3. 236,2 17% 77607 20% 6. 5J7,0| 23% T9733 17% 1. 307,0 24% 11% 3 57 21% 35731 20% 143,9 3. 263,4 10% 23% "FT "75751 22% 3 07 12% "774" 9%| 3 03 9% 30%,| T579] 8% 3 03 9% 7 4 77 10% 26% 2. 4U7. 6 l'otal 17. 721,1 20% 3 8 7T 2 4% 3 63 11% TJTJ "SE" TJIT "33T7T 14% 3T879| 24% "8TB751 55% 2 2% 73701 7 8 87 12% 3T479" 17%, 7 4 93 17% 3 6 77 10% TTJ 12% 7T7S| 30% 13% 7J7J 3974" 8%| "679" 8%| 7 23 9% 7T57 1. 791,8 25% 337OI 9% 23. 984,2 79% 1. 2. Greater integration of the "environment" factor Implementation of the second Structural Funds programming period coincided with the desire to integrate the environment more fully into Community policies with the aim of promoting sustainable development. Thus, the 5th Environmental Action Programme was aimed more at a preventive approach and extended the range of measures, targeting live activity sectors (industry, transport, energy, agriculture and tourism) to which the Structural Funds give major financial support under the development and conversion objectives. In addition, the regional development analyses conducted by the Commission identified persisting environmental infrastructure requirements in the least-favoured regions2, and, more broadly, territorial development requirements linked to the distribution of activities or infrastructures, in particular in the 5th Action Programme's target sectors3. The revised Structural Funds regulations introduced the principle of sustainable development into the programming process and defined the obligations to be respected by the regional development plans to be submitted by the Member States (assessment of the environmental situation, environmental impact assessment for the proposed measures, quantified environmental objectives for the development priorities and involvement of the environmental authorities). The obligations helped to markedly improve the appraisal of the environmental impact of the programmes4. But alongside that appraisal and the obligation to comply with environmental legislation during programme implementation, the Structural Funds grant very substantial and varied financial support to environmental protection where, in accordance with the tasks of the Funds, such support is linked to the economic development of the regions. This is all the more important since the operators involved in implementing the Structural Funds at all levels are agreed that the environment should no longer be seen as an isolated sector but as an essential dimension of sustainable development and a source of economic initiative and innovation, and so of job creation, particularly at local and regional levels. The Structural Funds, instruments for promoting sustainable development Between 1989 and 1993 ECU 2 751 million (about 7% of the total) was allocated to measures directly relating to the environment in Objective 1, 2 and 5(b) regions. The protection and improvement of the environment is therefore a dimension that has been taken into account since the 1988 Structural Funds reform. For the new period 1994-99 (1996 in the case of Objective 2), a total of ECU 9 445 million is currently earmarked for those regions (9% of the total programmed). 2 See the 5th periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions in the Community. 3 See Europe 2000+ - cooperation for European territorial development. 4 See 1994 Annual Report. 30 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 6: Regional Objectives of the Structural Funds - measures under programming for 1994-96/99 directly related to the environment (EUR 12 - ECU million- 1994 prices) Cbj. 1 Obj. 2 (1994-99) Total environment (1994-96) Total environment Obj. 5(b (1994-99) Total environment Total Objectives IRL L N B DK 730 92 160 8 78 7 968 107 - - 56 pm(l) 54 pm(i) 110 0 D 13. 640 1. 106 733 52 1229 • 207 15. 602 1. 365 EL 13. 980 624 - - - - 13. 980 624 C 26300 3. 034 1. 130 40 664 67 28. 094 3. 141 F 2. 189 323 1. 763 103 2239 245 6. 191 671 I 14. 860 1. 867 684 48 904 94 16. 448 1009 5. 620 74 - - - - 5. 620 74 P 13. 980 1. 056 - - - - 13. 980 1. 056 UK 2. 360 146 2. 142 138 820 64 5. 322 348 Total 93. 809 8J27 6. 975 397 6. 144 721 106. 928 9. 445 100% 8,9% 100% 5,7% 100% 11,7% 100% 9°/, 150 5 300 5 150 36 600 46 - - 7 2 6 1 13 3 TOTAL environment (1) Impossible to give an exact figure since aivironmental measures are largely incorporated into other categories of expenditure The work of the Structural Funds in favour of sustainable development is multi-facetted. It can be seen as acting at two different times, when the assistance is planned and when it is actually implemented, and as taking on four different aspects. At the time the assistance is planned, it is Structural Funds assistance which provides for investment directly relating to the environment. Such investment is aimed at two types of measure: • Direct investment in environmental projects. This is most often investment in the modernisation and development of infrastructure for some of the target areas in the 5th Environmental Action Programme (water, waste, coastal areas and river basins, industrialised urban environments, natural areas and biodiversity). In these areas infrastructure requirements are long-term, particularly in the least-favoured regions (see Table below), or they are taking on a new urgency as a result of the need for industrial or agricultural conversion. However, they vary greatly according to region, and this is clear from the respective proportion of the different investments. For example, it is water - the purification, collection, distribution and management of coastal or inland water resources - which dominates (83%) environmental investments in Objective 1 regions. In contrast, cleaning up pollution and waste treatment dominates in the industrial Objective 2 areas (53%), although it is also important (30%) in the rural Objective 5(b) areas. Lastly, among the directly environmental measures under Objective 5(b), nearly 60% relates to the management of the natural environment, preservation of the countryside and biodiversity. Table 7: Average annual investment required between 1993 and 2003 to provide the least-favoured regions with environmental infrastructure in conformity with European Directives (ECU million - 1994 prices) Member State Urban waste water Urban waste Industrial or dangerous waste Water distribution TOTAL Spain Greece Ireland Italy Portugal Total Source1. Fifth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development in the regions of the Community 458 240 95 208 113 656 19 35 20 15 35 105 372 95 30 288 149 562 10 2 7 14 14 37 859 372 152 525 311 1. 360 Investments of a preventive nature. These are measures which are applying the basic principles and recommendations of the 5th Environmental Action Programme, in other words, action at the source, encouraging the development of production processes by combining direct and indirect incentives and diversifying the action instruments. More specifically, the measures financed relate to certain sectors: in "green products", "clean technologies" and energy-saving processes); energy (promotion of renewable energy sources, more rational use linked to trans-European networks); transport (promotion of urban public transport and multimodal transport at European level, coordination within the framework of trans-European towards "cleaner" methods, networks); agriculture (promotion of agricultural diversification industry, particularly SMEs (productive investments 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3 \ combination with the agri-environmental measures under the CAP reform); and tourism, where the aim is to develop it more rationally with less pressure on the environment (in particular "green tourism"). Preventive measures also comprise indirect long-term action, such as environmental research linked to technological applications and the training of workers in new environmental technologies. These two fields, research and training, also benefit from appropriations specifically earmarked for them under Objectives 1 and 2; they represent 1% of the environmental resources for Objective 1 and 6% for Objective 2. When the programmes are implemented, measures in favour of the environment are directed more at compliance with legislation and rules. Major efforts have been made in two directions, and these need to be pursued and intensified: • Intensification of assessment and monitoring. This was particularly evident in the prior appraisal of regional development plans and programmes in compliance with the new rules which stress assessment of the environmental impact of programming. So environmental objectives were systematically included and quantified in the programming documents (CSFs or SPDs) and special care was taken to specify environmental impact indicators, a process which has been improved. However, there is no doubt that the environmental assessment and monitoring of the programmes can be improved (see below): Quantified environmental objectives: The 1994-99 programming documents include a series of quantified environmental objectives. In Objective 1 regions water and waste management predominates. To take a few examples: in Spain, waste water treatment capacity should increase from 59% to 75% of the population and for dangerous and toxic waste treatment it should rise from 0. 5 to 1. 2 million tonnes; in Greece, surface water quality should improve by 10% and the urban waste treatment rate should increase from 25% to 45%; in Ireland, urban waste recycling should increase from 8% to 15%; in Italy (Mezzogiorno), population coverage by waste treatment facilities should increase from 50% to 70%; lastly, in Portugal, the percentage of the population having access to mains public drinking water should increase from 77% to 95%. • The selection and implementation of projects. The integration of environmental concerns at this stage is vital to guarantee the impact of the investments and to ensure that the prior appraisals are correctly applied. The new rules allow environmental authorities to be associated with the the implementation and monitoring of environmentally sensitive measures. In addition, environment Directives have to be complied with, the main ones for the Structural Funds being the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive5 and the "Birds" and "Habitats" Directives. The rules and the standard clauses in the programming documents expressly stipulate compliance with those provisions. However, experience has shown that progress is needed in the quality and transparency of these studies. In addition, when it comes to project eligibility, the selection criteria must take account of a project's environmental sustainability. The Monitoring Committees are the forum for considering what progress remains to be accomplished on these two points. The Communication on cohesion policy and the environment In order to report on the progress already accomplished in integrating the environment into economic and social cohesion policy and to discuss the options for future action towards sustainable development, the Commission adopted in 1995 a communication entitled "Cohesion policy and the environment"6. It recognised the progress already made, but identified various aspects which would promote still further the environmental dimension of Structural Fund assistance: 5 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, OJNoL 175,5. 7. 1985. 6 COM(95) 509 final of 22 November 1995. 32 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) The Commission will intensify its work towards a better understanding of preventive measures, which are the key to sustainable development. It plans to undertake a critical review of programming documents to identify preventive measures which could be emphasised in the future. To encourage environmentally sustainable investment, the Commission will give priority to environmental measures when new programmes are adopted or existing ones revised. To that end, it plans to make more use of the opportunity to differentiate the Community's rate of assistance for environmental measures, as provided for in Article 13 of the Framework Regulation. The Commission intends to intensify discussions with the Member States and regions with a view to improving environmental objectives and impact indicators in programmes. This will include a strategic assessment as well as an appraisal of projects. The Monitoring Committees will play a key role here, given that the Member States are responsible for implementing the programmes. With regard to project selection and implementation, the Commission wishes to see better application of environmental legislation such as the EIA Directive. The Commission intends to play a more active role in preventing infringements of environmental legislation and, if necessary, will make vigorous use of sanctions, including the repayment of Community funds. To improve and speed up information on this, dialogue with representative non-governmental environmental organisations could be improved. Structural Fund assistance should go beyond mere conformity with environmental rules, so the Commission will require project eligibility and selection criteria to reflect the imperatives of sustainable socio-economic and environmental development. The Commission will intensify its discussions on this topic with the Member States and regions in the Monitoring Committees. The experience of the environmental authorities is essential for the planning and implementation of the environmental dimension of the programmes, so the Commission will encourage Member States to increase their capacity and participation. 1. 3. Monitoring and interim assessment Reinforcing monitoring The monitoring and assessment of Fund assistance, the improvement of which is one of the elements of the revised rules and a key factor in their impact, are carried out in the Member States by Monitoring Committees, taking full account of the special nature of the Funds concerned and of local, regional and national circumstances. The new rules insist on the need for better appraisal and for a procedure which goes beyond mere financial monitoring in order to identify how Community resources have actually been used, in other words, to monitor physical implementation, results and the impact of the measures part-financed. With regard to the purely quantitative aspects of such monitoring, the current generation of programmes (1994-96/99) can be regarded as considerably better than the previous one. Where the more qualitative aspects are concerned, it is certainly necessary to improve the monitoring systems and methods applied to appraisals and assessments. To that end, the Commission has drawn up a working document entitled "Common guide for Monitoring and Interim Evaluation" which contains guidelines intended to assist those responsible for implementing the Structural Funds in the Member States. It should provide a clearer picture of what monitoring and assessment cover and act as a reference manual. It is flexible enough to be adaptable to the very varied situations in each of the Member States while presenting a coherent approach at Community level. As such it supports the monitoring requirements contained in each CSF and SPD. The Commission has no intention of imposing a single framework on Member States, but rather of providing a working document which can be used as a common reference work. To establish effective monitoring rules, the guide requires: • a definition of the data to be collected, which have to provide the information needed to assess the measures, their results and their impact; • a definition of the content of the information to be supplied to the Monitoring Committees, whose meetings are the culmination of the work on monitoring the assistance and which provide the 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3 3 • opportunity for examining the data on monitoring, the results of interim assessment work and proposals for amending the programmes; recognition of the importance of the annual progress reports submitted to the Commission, which supply information on the measures taken and their results, progress in administration, the general operational bases, the results of interim assessments and the discussions and decisions in the Committees during the programming period. Implementation of the interim assessments General principles: The main purpose of the interim assessments is to reinforce the monitoring mechanism and to give the Monitoring Committees a genuinely useful management tool. They therefore consist of a critical analysis of all the data collected, in particular during the monitoring procedure, and a measurement of the way in which the objectives pursued are gradually achieved, while providing an explanation of any deficiencies and a forecast of the results of the assistance. They also assess the validity of the assistance in progress and the relevance of its objectives. The assessments provide the Monitoring Committees with assessment factors and specific proposals relating to problems arising, with the aim of improving or adjusting, if necessary, the implementation of the measures using the possibilities for amendment offered by the regulations. As a general rule, assistance lasting longer than three years is subject to a mid-term assessment after the end of the third year; this is intended to provide a basis for any necessary amendments. It also undergoes an ex post evaluation at the end of the reference period. In the case of Objective 2, where assistance lasts for three years, the mid-term assessment is to be replaced by a provisional report on the assistance provided during the first programming period. Operational procedure: The interim assessment consists in adopting a systematic procedure for the critical analysis of the information provided by the monitoring system. This procedure, which should be established by each Monitoring Committee, must permit the collection of quantitative data on the physical and financial execution of the measures and on the observed results and impact. In partnership with the Commission, the Monitoring Committees must also organise the assessment procedure: selection of an independent assessor (expert or group of experts), preparation of work specifications, establishment of the timetable for reports, information for the assessor, appraisal of the assessment reports. This procedure must fit in with the Monitoring Committee timetable and its administration work. As a general rule, because of legal requirements, it is intended to organise the interim assessment process for the 6-year Objectives in the following way: • a preliminary report on the feasibility of the assessment, covering an analysis of the quality and content of the programming document and of the monitoring system established; • a mid-term assessment report prepared after the third year of activity, followed by additional reports; • a first summary report at the end of 1999 which will provide the preparatory work for the final ex post assessment. In the case of Objective 2, the mid-term report will be replaced by an analysis before the end of 1996 of the initial results; this will be reinforced by the Objective 2 expost evaluation for 1989-93. Implementation: After adoption of the CSFs, SPDs and other forms of assistance under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), the Commission discussed the general interim assessment approach with the Member States. At the end of often laborious negotiations, a general consensus was reached which, allowing for sometimes substantial nuances of interpretation, finally resulted in support for that approach at the informal ministerial meeting in Madrid in December 19957. However, the Committees' assessment procedures are being introduced very slowly and often run up against problems of an organisational nature. For instance, by the end of December 1995, eight of the nearly 130 Objective 1 committees or 7 See Chapter III. A. 3. Informal meetings of the ministers responsible for regional policy and planning. 34 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) sub-committees had appointed their experts (Ireland, Belgian Hainaut and Corsica), 80 had programmed invitations to tender for the first half of 1996 and 40 had not yet taken a decision. In respect of the 80 which have programmed invitations to tender, the Commission has ensured that special work specifications are being established and adopted by the Monitoring Committees so that assessor selection procedures can be launched. With regard to Objective 2, the specifics of the interim assessments appear to vary from country to country and will be detailed separately in each case. The Monitoring Committees have paid particular attention to the operational implementation of the method. By the end of December 1995 only three committees (two in Germany and one in Belgium) out of 80 had appointed their assessors. Denmark, Sweden and Finland had launched invitations to tender, France and the Netherlands were planning them but Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and Austria had not yet adopted any provisions. This made it difficult at the end of 1995 to forecast how many summary reports could actually be prepared before the end of 1996 and be usable for the second Objective 2 programming period (1997-99). Similarly, for Objectives 3 and 4, the guidelines contained in the "Common guide for Monitoring and Interim Evaluation" were presented in the Member States at special meetings or at meetings of the Monitoring Committees. There was a need to make ESF partners more aware of the assessment of programming and management activities so that the Monitoring Committees could use the results of assessments for the management of measures. In order to formalise the methodology of assessment work, technical assessment groups were set up in the Monitoring Committees; this was accomplished with some difficulty because of the schedule for the procedures for the selection of the independent assessors, which had not yet started by December 1995 in all Member States. An initial report by the independent assessors was awaited at the beginning of 1996. This will provide an analysis of the existing monitoring and assessment systems to be drawn up and recommendations for their improvement within the framework of the interim assessments. The first report assessing the measures will be available at the beginning of 1997. With regard to Objective 5(b), the interim assessment is based on the guidelines approved in September 1994 by the Committee for Agricultural Structures and Rural Development. That assessment will provide the initial results of the execution and impact of the programmes up to mid 1997. The assessors, whose selection is in progress, will also provide their support for the collection and analysis of data used for preparation of the annual reports by the Monitoring Committees. In general, considerable progress was made compared with the previous programming period but it will be necessary to ensure that Community expenditure has a significant economic and social return. 1. 4. Verification of additionality Work on verification of additionality in 1995 was a very heavy statistical and accounting exercise both for the Commission and for the Member States. ' It made all partners aware, sometimes reluctantly, of the importance of the question: to guarantee that eligible public expenditure, whether or not part-financed by the Structural Funds, in eligible regions is maintained at at least the same level in the current programming period as it was in the previous period, 1989-93, so that the funds granted have a genuine impact. However, the results of the work vary greatly according to the stage of the verification process, the Objective and the Member State concerned. Prior appraisal of additionality Objective 1 : The principle of additionality had been verified by prior appraisal for the eligible regions in 1994 for the period 1994-99 and for the ten Member States concerned at the time the programming documents were being prepared and adopted. In 1995, this was also confirmed for Austria (Burgenland). However, in 1995 there was still a problem with France, which had undertaken to provide, before 31 December 1994, an update of the data in the financial tables included in the SPDs, 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3 5 those figures being insufficiently representative of the total amount of eligible national expenditure under Objective 1. That undertaking was not respected in 1994, nor was it in 1995. At the end of that year the Commission had still not received any updating of the French SPD data under Objective 1. The principle of additionality for the regions eligible under Objective 2 had also been verified by prior appraisal in 1994 for the nine Member States concerned, with the exception of Belgium, France, Italy and Luxembourg; a suspensory clause was inserted in the decisions adopting the programming documents for those countries. That clause suspends payment of the second Structural Funds advance until the relevant information needed for a prior appraisal of additionality is provided. The clause was lifted in May 1995 for Belgium and in December 1995 for France after the figures needed to verify that the principle of additionality had been correctly respected ex ante were transmitted. It was, however, still in force at the end of 1995 for Italy and Luxembourg8. The additionality principle was verified for the three new Member States in 1995 during the adoption of the Objective 2 programming documents. Objective 5(b): Here, verification has run up against methodological problems. Definition of the eligible areas does not always correspond to the administrative units and this poses problems-regarding the availability of data on public expenditurein those areas. In such cases, Member States fell back on methods for estimating expenditure within the areas. For a large number of the eligible areas, additionality information was included in the programming documents or supplied separately by the national administrations. In those cases the Commission was able to verify additionality before approving the programmes. Where the information was not yet available the approval decisions contained a clause suspending Community payments (for example in Germany and the Netherlands) pending transmission of the necessary information. Since then the information has been supplied and the Commission has been able to verify compliance with the additionality principle in all Objective 5(b) areas. The additionality principle also applies to all measures under Objective 5(a). However, verification poses problems relating to the nature of the measures. Although it has proved possible to verify application of the principle for measures intended to improve structures for the processing and marketing of agricultural and forestry products (Regulations (EEC) Nos 866/90 and 867/90) which were subject to programming, the principle is only partly applicable to measures intended to improve production structures. The diversity of national aid measures for identical purposes and the vast dispersion of administrations makes the gathering of coherent and comparable data difficult. A working paper was discussed in depth with the Member States at a STAR Committee meeting and in the Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 Monitoring Committees during 1995. The two Member States affected by Objective 6, Sweden and Finland, have both respected the principle of additionality. On-going assessment of additionality Nearly all the Objective 2 programming documents were adopted at the end of 1994 so the on-going assessment of additionality for those zones did not commence in 1995, so as not to place an additional burden on procedures. The Commission was to start work in 1996, as for Objective 6. Objective 1 programmes were adopted earlier, in mid 1994, and the rules for the on-going assessment of additionality were included in the programming documents. This is therefore an obligation resulting from a partnership agreement between each Member State and the Commission which consists in the annual updating of the information initially provided in the programming documents. The Commission did not receive any updated information from the Member States except for Portugal, so in October 1995 it restarted the procedure by sending a letter to all Member States concerned by Objective 1. At that time, three countries (France, Italy and the United Kingdom) had still not respected the time limits in the 8 The suspensory clause has since been lifted for Italy. 36 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) programming documents. At the end of 1995 the situation was varied: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy and the Netherlands had supplied no figures; Spain, Greece, Portugal and the United Kingdom had supplied incomplete figures (to varying degrees), while Ireland had supplied satisfactory figures which allowed verification of the fact that in 1995 additionality was respected. Objectives 3 and 4: Figures for the on-going assessment of additionality were requested from all Member States in 1995. Nevertheless, since the Objective 3 programmes were adopted at the end of 1994 and given the new character of Objective 4, the majority of the replies were expected in 1996. Figures received by the end of 1995 (from France and Luxembourg) suggest that additionality has been respected there. In general terms, despite the relatively slow progress in submitting data, the Commission and the Member States have worked closely and intensively to clarify the methodology for the collection of data and to increase their transparency. Once these bases are in position, future work on verification will be made much easier. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 37 2. Objective 1 2. 1. Implementation of Objective 1 in 1995 The second programming period (1994-99) was for the most part launched in 1994; the process continued in 1995. 24 operations were adopted in 1995: one SPD (Austria9), 16 OPs, 5 global grants and two major projects, as compared with a total of 141 in 1994 (127 OPs, 11 SPDs and three global grants). Thus, in 1994 and 1995 all the Objective 1 CSFs (6) and SPDs (12) were adopted, together with 143 OPs, 8 global grants and two major projects (i. e. a total of 165 operations not including the CSFs). With regard to integration between the Funds, 88 of the 165 operations adopted in 1994-95 (53%) concern only one Fund (49 the ERDF, 20 the ESF, 16 the EAGGF and three the FIFG). Of the 34 (21%) financed by two Funds, the vast majority (31) are joint operations by the ERDF and the ESF, with one by the ERDF and the EAGGF, one by the ERDF and the FIFG and one by the ESF and the EAGGF. No operations were adopted involving the EAGGF and the FIFG or the ESF and the FIFG. 31 (19%) operations are financed by three Funds. These all concern the ERDF, the ESF and the EAGGF (not the FIFG), except for one, which involves the FIFG but not the EAGGF. Lastly, 12 (7%) operations were adopted which include financing from all four Funds. Table 8: Objective 1 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) B 730,0 * 730,0 100% 107,0 15% 79,8 11% D 13. 640,0 ** 13. 621,9 100% 3. 892,1 29% 2. 470,1 18% EL 13. 980,0 *• 13. 661,1 98% 4. 544,9 33% 2. 760,7 20% E 26. 300,0 •• 24. 668,3 94% 8. 372,4 34% 5. 570,0 23% F 2. 189,2* 2. 189,2 100% 497,6 23% 286,7 13% IRL 5. 620,0 •* 5. 622,5 100% 1. 680,1 30% 1. 369,6 24% I 14. 860,0 ** 13. 491,6 91% 3. 024,7 22% 1. 555,4 12% N 150,0 * 150,0 100% 37,2 25% 19,6 13% AT 165,6 • 165,6 100% 28,8 17% 14,4 9% P 13. 980,0 ** 13. 905,8 99% 4. 548,8 33% 3. 263,4 23% UK 2. 359,8 • 2. 359,8 100% 532,3 23% 331,4 14% Total 93. 974,6 90. 565,7 96% 27. 265,9 30% 17. 721,1 20% Progiammed Adopted % adopted Commitments 1994-95 % of assistance Payments 1995-95 % of assistance * Programmed by SPD ** Programmed by CSF Progress on the implementation of Objective 1 at the end of the first two years of the 1994-99 programming period is fairly satisfactory. Almost all (96%) the assistance programmed has been adopted, as SPDs and as OPs, global grants and major projects. Actual implementation, which commenced for some operations in 1994, is now underway. Almost one third of total assistance has now been committed to the adopted operations, with most progress in this respect by the four Member States which are beneficiaries of the Cohesion Fund and Belgium in the rear with the lowest level of commitments. Naturally, there has been less progress in terms of payments since, apart from advances paid out when assistance is adopted, Community payments are made only at the request of national authorities as actual implementation progresses. The fact that the rate of payment of assistance is only 20% is therefore mainly due to the adoption of programmes in late 1994. However, this has been remedied in some cases in 1995. The situation varies from one Member State to another, again with the four Member States which are beneficiaries of the Cohesion Fund in the lead, with payments approaching one quarter of available aid, and Belgium and Austria bringing up the rear. 9 See Chapter I. A. 7, Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 38 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) to bring environmental investments, most of which concerns measures the regions they serve from ecological damage and important for Consideration of the environment in Objective 1 measures: Environmental assistance by the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions and Member States mainly involves direct investment in environmental projects, often on a very large scale. For the period 1994- earmarked 99, ECU 8 327 million, or 9% of total funding programmed for Objective 1, is explicitly for environmental infrastructures up to standard. The Fifth Periodic Report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions in the Community revealed that these infrastructures are particularly they are both vital for lacking in the most backward regions, despite recent progress. Moreover, protecting to their contribution economic activity in the regions and localities concerned. The main ecological problems facing Objective 1 regions concern the protection and management of water resources, be they coastal or inland, urban or natural, and the disposal of domestic, industrial and toxic waste; 86% of the appropriations granted directly for the environment under Objective 1 are allocated to these two areas. The projects and measures financed concern the treatment of waste water, water capture and supply, the collection, treatment and recycling of waste and the-elean-up of coastal areas and river basins. In these regions, much of the support for productive investments also has an indirect beneficial effect on of transport, tourism or energy-saving measures (particularly in SMEs). environment-friendly A number of agricultural programmes provide for measures to protect the environment, for example by controlling farm pollution and protecting supplement the environmental measures adopted in the wake of the CAP reform. Despite infrastructure projects financed under Objective 1 are subject evaluation and environmental the to the same rigorous monitoring, landscapes in rural areas. These measures investments mainly concern public impact studies as all other projects. the countries benefiting their scale, particularly the Cohesion Fund, the environment. the promotion Such from in Table 9: Objective 1 and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the environment in 1994-99 (EUR 12 - ECU million - 1994 prices) Drainage and d i s t r i b u t i on ot water r e s o u r c es (a) Urban and industrial e n v i r o n m e n t, p r o t e c t i on of nature (b) Collection and t r e a t m e nt of w a s te (e) R e s e a r c h, train in g and o t h e rs (d) T o t a| 6. 970 1. 057 225 75 8. 327 ( b )1 3% <C> 3 % ( d ) l% (a) 83% 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 39 2. 2. Country-by-country survey BELGIUM SPD programming for 1994-99 Priorities Total ERDF ESF ECU million EAGGF FIFG Stimulation of economic activity (a) Improving attractiveness (b) Transport infrastructures (c) Equal opportunities (d) Technical assistance (e) 480,1 90,6 30,9 124,6 3,8 388,9 85,9 30,9 7,6 2,6 Total % 730,0 100% 515,9 71% 45,5 3,0 45,3 1,7 0,4 117,0 1,2 166,7 23% 47,0 6% 0,4 0% (C) 4% (b) 12% (d)i7% ( e>1% (a) 66% Implementation in 1995 Hainault is the only Belgian province eligible under Objective 1. Its programming was adopted in the form of an SPD in June 1994. The total contribution from the four Structural Funds amounts to ECU 730 million. The most important priority in the SPD concerns aid to industry. By the end of 1995 investment aid had been granted for the creation or expansion of 250 businesses and this will lead to the creation of some 2 000 jobs during the period from July 1994 to the end of 1996. The SPD provides for the creation over six years of some 4 800 jobs under these two measures and about 15 000 jobs under the entire programme. These two measures have been given priority by the Walloon authorities and are progressing rapidly. The technical and financial committees approved fewer projects under the other priorities in 1994 and 1995, so no significant results have yet been attained for these. Approved measures mainly concern strengthening the research and development poles, cleaning up derelict industrial and urban sites, access to and facilities for industrial zones, water and waste management and transport infrastructure. The environment in the SPD for Hainault: no separate priority is dedicated to the environment, but it forms part of two different priorities. Firstly, the priority concerning economic revival includes a special measure for the industrial environment, aiming at reclaiming derelict industrial and urban sites and so on (with ECU 42 million from the ERDF). Secondly, the priority to enhance the attractiveness of the area includes environmental measures for the management of water resources and waste (with ECU 47 million from the ERDF) and for training in environmental protection (ECU 3 million from the ESF). In all, the Community's contribution to these environmental measures amounts to ECU 92 million, i. e. 13% of the entire allocation to Hainault. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period Overall, not enough appropriations have been taken up yet for the 1995 ERDF instalment to be committed (but this is now planned for 1996). By contrast, utilization of the EAGGF, ESF and FIFG appropriations is proceeding normally and the 1995 instalments have been committed. In addition. ;it its second meeting in 1995 the Monitoring Committee decided to transfer some EAGGF appropriations from measures for the food industry to aquaculture projects financed by the FIFG. Table 10: Objective 1 - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) Programme and year ol adoption T9W Sl'DHainaut Total cost S K assistance Commitment 1995 (1) Commitment 1994-95 (2) (2yo) Payments 1995 Payments 1994-95 (3) (3y(2> 2. 411,7) "W5T yjn 15% "TÏÏ7 ï ~?m 79,}J| 75%' 40 GERMANY CSF pmgrumnùngfor 1994-99 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ECU million Productive investirent (a) AidforSMEs(b) R&D, innovation (c) Environment (d) Human resources, training (e) Agriculture, rural areas, fisheries (0 Technical assistance (g) 2. 430,6 2. 317,9 613,1 1. 105,7 3. 648,2 3. 224,3 300,2 2. 375,2 2. 064,7 485,0 805,7 584,1 425,3 80,0 55,4 253,2 128,1 300,0 3. 064,1 107,3 183,9 2. 608,2 36,3 Total % 13. 640,0 100% 6. 820,0 50% 4. 092,0 30% 2. 644,5 19% 83,5 83,5 1% (9) 2% (a) 18% (f) 24% (b) 17% (e) 27% (d) 8% A CSF was adopted for the new German Lander in 1994. It is being implemented by means of 18 operational programmes entailing Community assistance totalling ECU 13 622 million. The CSF takes an integrated approach with three OPs for each of the new Lander relating to economic development (mainly funded by the ERDF, with additional measures by the ESF and the EAGGF), development of the labour market (mainly funded by the ESF, with additional measures by the ERDF and the ESF) and development of rural areas (mainly funded by the EAGGF, with additional measures by the ERDF and the ESF). In Eastern Berlin, measures by all three Funds are integrated into a single OP. Two other programmes, one funded by the ESF and the other by the FIFG, are being implemented horizontally in all the Lander. Implementation in 1995 Implementation of the priorities in the CSF is progressing well. At 31 December 1995, about 9 300 projects had received aid from the ERDF. 64 600 new jobs had been created, and about 117 000 maintained, thanks to productive investments and aid to SMEs. The rural development programmes opened the way for 20 300 jobs to be created or maintained in 1994-95. Measures to improve the environment in the new Lander have a priority to themselves in the CSF. They are mostly financed by the ERDF (ECU 806 million, or 12% of all ERDF appropriations for the CSF), with a substantial contribution from the ESF (ECU 300 million). In all, this represents ECU 1 106 million from the Structural Funds, accounting for 8% of aid under the CSF. The environmental priority in the CSF is implemented by means of measures included in each of the regional OPs. The ERDF measures concentrate on industiy and commerce, businesses supplying environmental products and services and the development of environmental protection infrastructure (rehabilitation of derelict industrial and commercial sites, creation of water treatment facilities, environmental technology activity centres, sei"vice enterprises and environmental agencies whose task is to advise and inform SMEs). ESF funding goes to skilling in the context of employment projects and the promotion of ecological occupations, for example by providing training for employees in SMEs. At the end of 1995, 461 projects had already received aid under this priority. Under the CSF priority relating to aid for productive investments and economic support infrastructures, most aid for productive investment has gone towards setting up subsidiaries and independent activities, in support rationalizing and converting existing firms, and commercial infrastructure concern the development of commercial and industrial sites, technology centres, industrial and business parks, supply and waste disposal facilities and public tourism services. About 35% of the ERDF appropriations available for the programming period have been allocated to this priority, under which 2 480 projects had received ERDF aid by the end of 1995 (including 1 308 in Saxony) and about 24 400 jobs had been created and some 57 700 maintained (including 32 800 in Saxony). Although the ESF's contribution to this priority is relatively meagre (1. 4% of appropriations), it is important because it goes towards placing job-seekers, particularly young people, and creating in-house training places. tourism. Investments 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 41 Under the CSF priority relating to aid to SMEs, an initial set of measures concerns productive investment (creation of SMEs and expansion, rationalization and conversion of existing SMEs). A second set of measures concerns support services for SMEs (creation and utilization of infrastructures such as industrial and business parks, supply and waste disposal services; shared premises and services such as technology and innovation centres and business incubators; creation of shared business facilities for vocational training; mobilization of local development potential; market access and business management assistance). About 30% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-99 have been allocated to this priority. The ESF contribution (about 6% of appropriations) goes towards continuing training and job stabilization. Particular effort is being focused on improving management in SMEs in the following areas: organization of work and staff, management, marketing, product creation and quality. With regard to the Eastern Berlin OP, at the end of 1995 the Commission authorized the transfer of about ECU 48 million from the priority concerning aid for productive investments to the development of industrial and commercial sites, to make available a greater number of sites for leasing to regional SMEs. By the end of 1995, 5 536 projects had received aid under this priority, and about 35 000 jobs were created and some 53 500 maintained. Another of the CSF's priorities concerns research, technological development and innovation. Measures include, for example, investments in research services and laboratories, aid to technology centres and product creation and advice on technology and marketing. ESF assistance under this priority concerns mainly investments in vocational training and the placement of young researchers (as innovation assistants, for example). It has not been possible to utilize all of the available funds (3% of all ESF appropriations). Given the importance of this priority for the economic development of the Lander, a special effort will be made to catch up. By the end of 1995 307 projects had received aid under this priority, 40% of which are in Eastern Berlin. The operational programmes to stimulate employment cover a wide range of measures to assist the labour market and restructure education and training systems. About 80% of ESF appropriations for 1995 were concentrated on these OPs (ECU 489 million). The lion's share of ESF assistance is channelled towards young people (Youthstart type measures) to guarantee apprenticeship training places and specific packages to help young people from deprived backgrounds. Specific modular training courses are planned for the unemployed to provide vocational and social skills, language training and training abroad. Special attention is given to vocational training for women and their (re)integration into working life; in addition to specific measures, provision is made to maintain the high rate of female employment (above 50%). Substantial assistance is provided for the creation of independent activities and management for SMEs. ESF assistance makes a substantial contribution to the employment programmes in the new Lander, accounting for 20-35% of their expenditure. An estimated 100 000 people have taken part in measures part-financed by the ESF. The ERDF will also contribute under this CSF priority, to the tune of ECU 584. 1 million (9% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-99), for measures to create and develop training places and training workshops for industry and business, vocational schools and specialized colleges as well as vocational training centres. The operational programmes relating to rural development aim at improving the economic situation in agriculture. The ERDF will contribute ECU 425. 3 million (about 6% of ERDF appropriations for 1994- 96) for the development of infrastructure in rural areas (equipping of industrial and business sites, infrastructure to support economic activities). By the end of 1995 439 projects had received ERDF aid under these OPs. In the food industry there has been a transfer of activities away from milk and meat (the drastic reduction in livestock production has resulted in overcapacity in slaughterhouses) towards flowers and plants and fruit and vegetables. As a rule, investment is concentrated on new products which require more sophisticated processing. Lastly, village renewal is without doubt a motor for rural development. It mobilizes a great deal of private capital in a multitude of small investments which have a remarkable impact on local craft activities and the creation of jobs outside agriculture in rural areas. The ESF is contributing ECU 107. 3 million (3% of ESF appropriations for 1994-99) to these OPs for measures to strengthen and maintain jobs (SMEs) in areas such as tourism, commerce and environmental improvement. Priority is given to the skilling and (re)integration of the unemployed (more than 50% women), where measures often include contributions from other Funds. 42 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) It was necessary to reprogramme FIFG measures to assist fisheries to cope with an accelerated rate of investment in certain areas of assistance. Lastly, the 1994-99 CSF contains ECU 300. 2 million for technical assistance. At the end of 1995, 269 ERDF measures had been approved and set up, mostly for the implementation and monitoring of the OPs. With regard to the mid-term review of the programmes, ad hoc committees set up in the second half of 1995 have drawn up a detailed timetable for the presentation of assessment reports at Lander level (the final reports are scheduled for April 1997) and the summary report at CSF level (final report scheduled for July 1997) and have fixed the terms of reference for the evaluation, which have been adopted by the Monitoring Committee. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period With regard to the financial implementation of the CSF, commitments are quite satisfactory at 29% of Structural Fund assistance. At the end of 1995, payments for 1994 and 1995 amounted to ECU 2 470 million, ERDF payments were ECU 1 027, i. e. 15% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-99 and 95% of the instalments for 1994 and 1995. Good progress is also being made in EAGGF operations in the new Lander. Investments and projects have been launched on a large scale and the take-up of appropriations is satisfactory. Table 11: Objective 1 - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance (1) 743,1 964,8 729,9 471,9 785,1 676,6 362,2 2. 081,2 621,5 659,8 1. 190,8 583,5 590,6 1. 021,8 521,0 457,9 2. 442,9 6. 141,4 2. 417,8 889,1 5 819,0 1. 880,7 808,6 8. 908,0 1. 679,4 948,3 9. 488,8 2. 059,0 974,2 8. 240,4 2. 432,9 778,6 Commitments 1995 Commitments 1994-95 (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (2) Payments 1994-95 (3) % (3)/(2) 110,0 95,4 107,3 70,2 117,7 197,8 54,9 267,4 86,9 107,3 177,1 81,3 80,2 152,6 77,2 68,1 211,4 226. 3 207. 2 134,8 224,2 296,6 104,6 590,1 179,8 146,2 338,6 173,9 161,1 291,3 149,4 130,8 28% 23% 28% 29% 29% 44% 29% 28% 29% 22% 28% 30% 27% 29% 29% 29% 47,2 87,2 85,3 55,8 123,8 79,0 44,7 156,3 76,9 65,3 48,1 77,5 40,1 10,6 52,1 66,5 107,0 155,8 162,1 104,5 177,1 156,4 69,5 391,9 142,3 84,8 128,8 124,2 102,8 118,8 89,4 97,9 51% 69% 78% 77% 79% 53% 66% 66% 79% 58% 38% 71% 64% 4 1% 60% 75% 197,2 2. 360,5 58. 466,9 83,5 1. 076,7 13. 621,9 12,0 159,5 2. 022,6 19,0 306,7 3. 892. 1 23% 28% 29% 8,1 127,6 1. 252,0 11,6 245,4 2. 470,1 6 1% 80% 6 3% 1994 Regional OPs OP Eastern Berlin OP Brandenburg (1) OP Brandenburg (2) OP Brandenburg (3) OP Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (1) OP Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (2) OP Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (3) OP Saxony (1) OP Saxony (2) OP Saxony (3) OP Saxony-Anhalt (1) OP Saxony-Anhalt (2) OP Saxony-Anhalt (3) OPThunngia(l) OPThuringia(2) OPThuringia(3) UP Multircgionul OP Fisheries OP Training of labour force TOTAL (\) Economic development (2) Rural development (3) Labour market In 1995 the CSF for 1991-93 was still being completed. By the end of the year 100% of Structural Fund appropriations had been committed. ECU 1 437 million, or 92% of the total ERDF appropriations available under the 1991-93 CSF (ECU 1 567 million), had been paid by the end of 1995 without any payments actually having been made during 1995 itself, because the final reports and final payment requests for the completed OPs were not yet available at the end of the year. The deadline for presentation of these reports is 30 June 1996 for Mecklenburg-East Pomerania, Saxony and Saxony- Anhalt. The deadline for Eastern Berlin, Thuringia and Brandenburg was postponed to 30 June 1997 because the payment deadline had to be extended as a result of organizational difficulties arising from an unclear legal position concerning property and delays in the call for funds by private investors. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 43 GREECE CSF programming for 1994-99 Axes prioritaires Total FEDER FSE FEOGA 1FOP Major infrastructure (a) Improvements in living s t a n d a r ds (b) Economic competitiveness (c) Human resources and employment (d) Reduction of regional disparities (e) Technical assistance (f) 2. 737,1 I 456,8 2684,3 2. 556,3 4. 474,4 71,1 2. 699,5 1. 436,8 1 210,2 377,0 3. 707,4 58,6 37,6 20,0 75,1 2. 179,3 236,0 12,5 1. 269,0 130,0 531,0 ECU million (e) 32% (01% (a) 20% (b) 10% Total % 13. 980,0 100% 9. 489,5 68% 2. 560,5 18% 1. 800,0 13% 130,0 1% (d) 1 (C) 19% New programmes adopted in 1995 Most of the OPs and major projects in the Greek CSF for 1994-99 were adopted in 1994. The remaining OPs, concerning tourism and culture, telecommunications and postal services, were negotiated and adopted in 1995. The only OP remaining to be adopted in 1996 concerns technical assistance and includes the accompanying measures needed to adapt Greece's public administration to the second CSF. The OP relating to tourism and culture was adopted in November 1995. It consists of two sub- programmes, one for tourism and one for culture. The total cost to the public sector is ECU 479. 3 million, of which the Structural Funds will contribute ECU 229. 1 million (ECU 219. 1 million from the ERDF and ECU 10 million from the ESF). The private sector is to contribute ECU 316. 3 million to the subprogramme for tourism. The aim of this subprogramme is to alleviate the problems besetting the Greek tourist industry by extending the tourist season, achieving a more balanced geographical distribution of (particularly accommodation and human resources). The cultural infrastructure receiving funding is directly linked to the development of tourism (museums, restoration of monuments, conference centres). tourist activities and tourism products the quality of improving The telecommunications OP has been allocated ECU 172. 7 million from the Structural Funds (ECU 142. 2 million from the ERDF and ECU 30. 5 million from the ESF). Its objective is to bring the Greek regulations into line with European legislation, bring the network up to standard in the outlying improve the quality of telecommunications services by digitizing the network and regions and developing new advanced services. The OP for the postal services will receive Community assistance worth ECU 78 million (ECU 70. 9 million from the ERDF and 7. 1 million from the ESF). The total cost of the programme is ECU 117. 1 million. Its objective is to improve the quality of the service, to reorganize and upgrade operations and to review the legislation in this area. Implementation in 1995 is the subject of a subpriority in the improvements in living standards priority of the The environment the various sources Greek CSF. The main objectives concern several types of operation: monitoring of pollution (water, noise, air); management of water resources and waste Matter; management of household and toxic waste; prevention of major environmental risks; improvement of air quality, including the creation of a register giving priority cover to particularly biotopes. This subpriority will absorb 35% of the ERDF contribution. It is the subject of a national OP with ECU 376. 7 million from the ERDF. In addition, environmental measures are included in the different regional programmes. In total, the Community will contribute ECU 624 million to the Greek environment (4% of the CSF). in Attica; regional planning, Among the programmes adopted in 1994, the agriculture OP stands out. This single-fund OP financed by the EAGGF is part of the national section of the CSF and consumed almost all its appropriations for 1995. This was due to the excellent progress made by certain measures, such as those under Objective 5(a), the completion of projects commenced earlier and forestry measures. In 1995 the 44 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) programme was allocated a further ECU 13. 3 million following the indexing of the CSF, so that new measures could be launched. The situation with regard to the regional section of the CSF is more complex because of the great variety of assistance and the plethora of aid schemes, the innovative nature of many of the rural development measures and the introduction of new management arrangements for the regional OPs. Progress was therefore slower than expected. However, all the initial teething troubles were resolved in 1995 and most of the delays should be made up in 1996. In general, the regional OPs are progressing faster than the national OPs. This is because they involve smaller-scale projects and could therefore be launched more quickly, while major projects require new implementing structures to be set up first. Agricultural structures and rural development: some important achievements • 170 000 holdings received compensatory allowances; • 1 327 new investment plans were approved; • 900 ha were reafforested, 630 ha of national forests and parks improved, 1 160 ha of ravines improved, 2 030 ha of forest protected; • 58 water management projects were completed and 8 important new projects started; • 420 ha of vine (affected by phylloxera) were included in the new programme. The institutional framework and the arrangements for coordination of the network were set up for the human resources priority. A central agency is responsible for planning and general programming. It also coordinates "observatories" of trends in industry, the labour market and skills and qualifications. Another of its tasks is to develop training specifications and study programmes, as well as generally monitoring the implementation of continuing training activities. In addition, arrangements for the certification of continuing training have been introduced. Under these arrangements approval was given first to training centres and then to instructuors and continuing training courses. The objective of certifying thos responsible for training and instructors is to ensure that continuing training is compatible with the initial training system run by the Ministry for National Education. The fisheries OP was implemented in two phases in 1995. In the first phase the national authorities adopted the legal framework for the application of the OP; in the second phase the first ministerial decisions were taken concerning potential beneficiaries and measures were implemented. The Monitoring Committee held two meetings, which helped to speed up the launching of the first measures under the programme, particularly those concerning sea fisheries. 80% of FIFG appropriations for 1994 have been paid to Greece and implementation of measures progressed well enough for the 1995 appropriations to be committed. Two other programmes were amended in 1995: the industry and services OP and the environment OP. The amendments were decided by financial reprogramming to take account of delays in launching the programmes. This late start was caused by the major legislative and preparatory work needed because of the innovative nature of some of the measures. the Monitoring Committee and concern only 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 45 New structures: Success of the Greek CSF depends on the creation of effective implementing structures, such as agencies for the construction of motorways and railways, realization of the cadastral survey, etc. (Egnatia S. A. , Ergose, Cadastre). These agencies were set up in 1995 and have already started to function. Another major innovation is the two structures provided for in the CSF, never before seen in Greece, the "one-stop-sliop" for productive investments and the "management organization unit" to improve the management and monitoring of the quality of implementation of structural operations in Greece. Considerable effort has also been made to improve the public works system. Great progress has been made on the public works programme and many of the points have already been implemented and become law (e. g. the amendment to the basic law on public works and the adoption of presidential decrees, circulars and ministerial decisions). innovations will help the CSF. These improve to 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period The CSF has taken up 70% of total appropriations for 1995 and an aggregate of 55% for 1994 and 1995. Progress made in 1995 on the implementation of OPs and major projects made it possible to commit and pay large amounts (ECU 2 653 million committed and ECU Î 706 million paid). ERDF commitments have already exceeded forecasts and the ERDF allocation for Greece for 1995 (ECU 1 813 million committed instead of ECU 1 405 million). Table 12: Objective 1 - Greece - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce C o m m i t m e nt C o m m i t m e nt ( I) 1995 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / (D Payments 1995 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3V(2) 1995 Muttircgional OPs OP Culture, tourism OP Postal services OP Telecommunications 1994 Regional (IPs OP Attica OP Crete OP Northern A e g e an OP Southern Aegean OP Epirus OP Continental Gieece OP Western Gieece OP Ionian Islands OP Central M a c e d o n ia OP Western M a c e d o n ia OP Macedonia-Thrace OP P é l o p o n n è se OP T h e s s a ly Muttircgional OPs OP Agriculture OP Railways OP Urban d e v e l o p m e nt ( u n d e r g r o u nd railway] OP Education and basic training OP Energy OP Environment OP Social exclusion OP Continuing training OP Natural gas OP Industry and services OP Modernization of the civil service OP Fisheries, A q u a c t u l t u re OP Research and t e c h n o l o gy OP Roads-Ports-Airports OP Health and prevention 795,6 117,1 321,8 938,6 435,3 327,9 380,0 346,9 623. 0 501,6 228,2 816,9 308,1 689,0 440,2 560,9 2. 795,3 490,1 1. 566,0 1. 847,6 946,3 515,0 328,0 1. 283,0 825,4 2. 808,9 305,4 311,7 579,3 3. 182,4 339,0 229,1 78,0 172,7 685. 7 312,3 210,2 224,1 236,5 371,8 301,5 170,7 588,5 219,4 494,3 286,0 375,8 1. 247,7 294,1 783,0 1. 385,7 352,1 376,7 246,0 756. 0 354,6 720,0 168,6 150,0 316,2 1. 327,4 226,4 19,5 10,8 45. 9 19,5 10,8 45,9 8% 14% 27% 195,9 298,7 84,2 58,3 32,9 57,8 54,1 44,3 24,7 86,5 31,9 72,7 42,0 55,2 354,0 85,9 294,5 205,6 108,3 57,6 35,0 105,0 75,8 110,2 25,0 22,3 48,4 205,6 3,1 131,0 89,8 66,6 93,2 109,9 89,5 50,3 174,8 64,4 146,8 84,9 111,6 535,4 138,1 411,0 395,8 152. 7 95,3 68,8 208,8 116,5 182,2 48,2 42,8 80,0 455,9 25,7 44% 42% 4 3% 30% 39% 30% 3 0% 29% 30% 29% 30% 30% 30% 4 3% 47% 52% 29% 4 3% 2 5% 2 8% 2 8% 3 3% 2 5% 29% 29% 25% 34% 11% TOTAL 25. 954,6 13. 661,1 2. 6 5 3 , 0| 4. 544,9 3 3% 9,7 0,5 1,7 106,5 49,7 32,7 26. 7 24. 0 56,8 45. 2 26,4 90,1 34,5 74,4 17,6 59,6 253,3 84,4 119. 7 157,2 55. 0 30,3 23,3 79,6 62,3 56,3 13,5 5,3 32,8 75,1 1,6 1. 705,8 9. 7 0,5 1. 7 50% 4% 4% 158,0 73,1 48,5 43. 5 41,7 84. 7 67,9 39,2 134,2 50. 7 111,5 39,1 87,7 405,8 110,5 212,9 252. 2 77. 2 49,1 40,2 131,5 94,9 92,3 25,1 15,6 48,6 200,3 12,9 5 3% 56% 5 4% 6 5% 4 5% 77% 7 6% 7 8% 77% 7 9% 76% 4 6% 79% 76% 80% 52% 64% 5 1% 52% 5 8% 6 3% 8 1% 5 1% 52% 3 6% 6 1% 4 4% 50% 2. 760,7 6 1% 46 7th Annual Report on the. Structural Funds (1995) It should be remembered that for practical purposes 1995 was the year in which the OPs under the CSF for 1989-93 were finally terminated. National payments were extended into 1995 (up to 30 September 1995 for most OPs) and the amounts still not spent on the OPs and Community Initiatives could therefore be fully utilized. SPAIN CSF programming for 1994-99 Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG (a) 35% ECU million (d) 7% Adjustments to the system of production (a) Human resources (b) Access to isolated areas (c) Basic infrastructure (d) 9075,4 8779,8 6. 517,6 1. 927,2 4. 340,4 3. 159,0 6. 517,6 1 927,2 426,2 5. 620,8 3. 313,8 995,0 (C) 25% Total % 26. 300,0 100% 15. 944,2 6 1% 6. 047,0 23% 3. 313,8 13% 995,0 4% (b) 33% Since 1 February 1994, 33 regional OPs, 13 multi-regional OPs and seven global grants have been approved for Spain. Of the ECU 26 300 million allocated to Spanish Objective 1 regions in the CSF, 94% (ECU 24 668 million) have therefore been programmed for the different forms of assistance. New programmes adopted in 1995 Seven new operations were adopted in 1995, with Community assistance totalling ECU 627. 2 million. These operations include four global grants, all under the main priority of the CSF, namely adjustment and development of the production structure. These global grants are for the regions of Salamanca, Castile-Leôn and Andalusia and for SMEs. The global grant for Salamanca will be implemented by "Consorcio Salamanca Emprende", a public body set up by agreement between the province, the municipality of Salamanca and partners such as the chamber of commerce, the unions and the university. Its main objective is economic development (investments in industry, crafts and services, RDT measures, promotion of local products and the region's tourist image, creation of a service centre for businesses) and the provision of technical assistance to change the mentality of local operators and encourage them to invest in their businesses. The global grant for Castile-Leôn is to be implemented by a public company the "Sociedad para el Desarrollo Industrial de Castillo y Leôn SA" intended to stimulate the development and consolidation of entrepreneurial projects seeking to modernize and diversify the region's industry. It will achieve this by offering venture capital formulas or technical assistance to entrepreneurs. The global grant for Andalusia, which is the largest global grant adopted in financial terms (ECU 223. 9 million), will be implemented by the regional authorities and has three objectives: modernization of productive structures by supporting investments in businesses (industry and services, mainly tourism), technological modernization of businesses and upgrading of human resources. Lastly, the non-regional global grant, to be implemented by the Council of Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Navigation, focuses on internationalizing SMEs by means of measures to prepare for external promotion and support, information and promotion measures. The three other operations approved in 1995 are single-fund OPs. The first provides for ESF assistance in Cantabria (ECU 8. 96 million) and the other two are EAGGF programmes worth ECU 355. 8 million for Andalusia and technical assistance. Adoption of the multi-regional programme for economic diversification in rural areas would mean that all the CSF appropriations for the EAGGF had been programmed. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 47 Implementation in 1995 Environmental concerns have, for the first time, been integrated into all the operations provided for under the Spanish CSF, through the national strategic plan for the environment. This concern can be seen in the objectives and the priorities for assistance. The objectives concern persistant problems in Spain: the fight against desertification (reafforestation, forest hydrology, combating erosion and forest fires) ; improvement of water quality and water management (with the objective of reducing demand, particularly in farming); management of human and industrial waste; promotion of renewable sources of energy; upgrading the urban environment by means of mechanisms to coordinate the different authorities (urban planning, traffic in and around cities, noise, atmospheric pollution). The CSF priority relating to human resources includes a subpriority containing training measures in sectors concerned with the environment, with an ERDF allocation of ECU 1 730 million. However, most of the environmental measures can be found under the priority relating to the development of infrastructure and concern either energy or water. This priority has an ERDF allocation of ECU 1 927 million and accounts for 7. 3% of total Community funding to the CSF. Water infrastructure alone will receive ECU 1 304 million (43% of the environment budget). In all, the direct investment for the environment in Spain (training and water infrastructure) represents ECU 3 034 million, or 11. 5% of CSF appropriations. Most of the decisions approving investments in 1995 had to contain suspensory clauses because, on the one hand, of the time lag between the official date when the programming was launched and the commencement of implementation and, on the other hand, the very large number of aid schemes part- financed by the Structural Funds which need to be scrutinized for compliance with Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty. EAGGF assistance progressed satisfactorily on the whole, with all the programmed appropriations committed except for the OP for Cantabria, which was delayed. By contrast, part of the 1996 instalment for the OP for Objective 5(a) measures was already committed in 1995. It is also worth noting that most operations were reprogrammed at the request of the Spanish authorities. It should be stressed that commitment appropriations were fully utilized. With regard to operations in the fisheries sector, implementation of the fisheries OP did not commence until 1995 because it was not adopted until December 1994. 60% of the 1994 instalment was implemented, so that the second advance for the financial year could be paid to the Member State and the 1995 instalment could be committed. Nevertheless, the annual timetable had to be reprogrammed, with ECU 56 million being transferred from the 1994 instalment to the 1995 instalment and ECU 20 million from the 1999 instalment to the 1995 instalment10. 10 For aid granted to crews and shipowners affected by the expiry of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, see also Chapter I. A. 5. 2 (Objective 5(a) fisheries). 48 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period Table 13: Objective 1 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance (1) Commitment 1995 Commitment 1994-95 (2) (2)/(l) Payments 1995 Payments 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2)| 1995 Regional OPs OP A n d a l u s ia (3) GG A n d a l u s ia OP Cantabria (2) GG Salamanca GG Sodical (Castile-Leôn) Multiregionul OPs GG Chambers of commerce OP Technical a s s i s t a n ce (3) 1994 Regional OPs OP A n d a l u s ia (2) OP A n d a l u s ia (1) OP A s t u r i as (3) OP A s t u r i as (I) OP Asturias (2) OP Canary Islands (1) OP Canary Islands (2) OP Canary Islands (3) OP Castile-Leon (3) OP Castile-Leon (2) OP Castile-Leon (1) OP Castile-La-Mancha (1) OP Castile-La-Mancha (3) OP Castile-La-Mancha (2) OP Ceuta (1) OP Extremadura (3) OP Extremadura (1) OP Extremadura (2) OP Galicia (3) OP Galicia (1) OP Galicia (2) OP Melilla OP Murcia (2) OP Murcia (3) OP M u r c i a ( l) GG M urcia OP Cantabria multiregional (3) OP Cantabria multiregional (1) OP Cantabria regional (1) OP Valencia (1) OP Valencia (2) OP Valencia (3) M u I tir eg io nul OPs OP Regional a s s i s t a n ce GG Competitiveness o f S M Es OP Donana Phase 2 ( 4) OP Local environment OP FORCEM OP Food industry OP 1NEM OP Scientific OP Local OP M inistries OP Ministry of Education OP A u t o n o m o us bodies OP Fisheries GG Industrial t e c h n o l o gy infrastructure 575,3 1. 894,5 12,0 39,1 43,1 37,0 18. 4 434,0 5. 559,0 116,5 1. 398,5 41,6 1. 179,4 215,2 154,4 746,3 172,6 2. 752,3 1. 779,5 628,5 47,5 70,9 307,1 1. 577,5 209,9 464,1 2. 493,4 242,0 82,4 59,4 127,3 767,3 562,3 110,8 536,6 158,6 3. 691,7 413,2 274,2 3 125,9 300,9 213,9 828,6 447,6 3. 028,6 3 426,3 479,4 812,5 52,9 1. 935,8 416,6 2 158,0 482,5 342,0 223,9 9,0 12,9 6,5 19,2 13,8 325,5 2. 938,9 81,1 809,2 31,2 694,7 182,9 80,7 381,1 129,4 1. 612,6 936,6 288,4 35,6 47,4 174,8 1. 011,9 167,9 303,5 1. 544,5 181,5 42,1 44,6 55. 6 487,3 79,2 54,3 343,0 105,0 1. 207,9 309,9 103,5 103,7 67,9 1. 4 6,3 3,6 1,1 2,0 50,3 478,4 12,8 206,8 5,1 266,8 29,7 11,1 58,1 0,0 228,1 187,5 46,7 5,9 13,3 30,7 124,5 0,0 44,5 519,8 25,5 12,1 0,0 9,3 160,1 0,0 0,0 105,0 0,2 507,9 64,2 17,5 387,0 210,6 146,6 580,6 262,5 1. 220,0 2. 569,8 342,2 580,6 39,7 1. 451,9 312,4 995,0 150,2 24. 668,3 85,7 36,0 0,0 0,0 41,3 234,7 411,2 72,7 96,8 0,0 146,5 56,8 167,9 21,5 4. 778,9 103,7 67,9 1,4 6,3 3,6 30% 30% 15% 49% 55% 1,1 2,0 6% 14% 74,0 1 033,9 25,2 303,0 10,5 368,4 54,8 29,8 105,3 19,7 403,0 310,1 85,2 11,7 28,3 47,4 216,2 21,4 82,5 806,6 48,8 15,9 5,6 17,4 228,7 12,3 5,3 134,7 14,6 726,3 127,3 32,4 164,5 66,7 57,8 96,8 97,5 443,5 776,2 135,6 193,5 5,6 319,0 92,7 304,5 26,5 23% 35% 3 1% 37% 34% 53% 30% 37% 28% 15% 25% 33% 30% 33% 60% 27% 2 1% 13% 27% 52% 27% 38% 13% 3 1% 47% 16% 10% 39% 14% 60% 4 1% 3 1% 43% 32% 39% 1 7% 37% 36% 30% 40% 33% 14% 22% 30% 3 1% 18% 8. 372,4 3 4% 51,8 0,0 0,7 3,1 1,8 0,0 1. 0 37,0 549,4 13,9 111,7 6,8 225,0 14,8 14,5 60,7 0,0 235,0 211,3 34,9 6,6 15,1 20,4 127,1 0,0 47,0 315,1 28,7 7,2 0,0 7,1 94,5 0,0 1,6 39,7 0,1 340,4 70,8 18,5 108. 0 53,4 0,0 0,0 20,6 183,4 388,1 21,2 29,0 0,0 159,5 32 2 41,0 22,5 3. 772,2 51,8 0,0 0,7 3,1 48,9 827,1 20,1 159,8 8,3 275,9 27,4 23,8 84,2 9,8 322,4 272,6 54,2 8,5 22,6 28,7 172,9 10,7 66,0 458,5 37,4 9,1 2,1 11,1 128,8 6,1 4,2 54,5 7,3 449,6 95,2 25. 9 147,4 53,4 28,9 48,4 48,8 319,9 570,5 52,7 77,4 2,8 245,7 50 109,2 22,5 50% 0% 50% 50% 50% 0% 50% 66% 80% 80% 53% 78% 75% 50% 80% 80% 50% 80% 88% 64% 73% 80% 6 1% 80% 50% 80% 57% 77% 57% 37% 64% 56% 50% 80% 40% 50% 62% 75% 80% 90% 80% 50% 50% 50% 72% 74% 39% 40% 50% 77% 54% 36% 85% 5 3 7 0 ,0 6 7% TOTAL (1) Single-fund OP - ERDF (2) Single-fund OP - ESF (3) Single-fund OP - E A G GF (4) Including appropriations implemented under b u d g et heading B2-1820 (transitional ar. d innovative measures) 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 49 FRANCE SPD programming for 1994-99 A vcsncs-Douai-Valencicnncs Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF ECU million Stimulation of economic activity (a) Research and development (b) Human resources (c) Regional regeneration (d) Technical assistance (e) 141,8 38,6 92,5 165,1 2,0 Total % 440,0 100% 100,8 34,1 43,9 128,4 0. 9 308,1 70% 22,3 4,5 48,6 6,1 0,9 82,4 19% 18,7 30,6 0,2 49,5 11% (e) 0,01% (a 32% (d) 38% (c) 21% (b) 9% SPD programming for 1994-99 Corsica Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ECU million Reducing isolation (a) Agricultural and marine production (b) Universities, research (c) Tourist and cultural heritage (d) Environment (e) Economic development (0 Human resources (g) Technical assistance (h) 67,9 72,4 12,5 15,0 30,7 18,3 31,0 2,1 67,9 1,5 12,5 15,0 30,7 18,3 0,6 0,9 Total % 249,9 100% 147,4 59% SPD programming for 1994-99 Overseas departments 63,4 7,5 (f) 7% (g)12% <h)1% (a) 27% 30,4 0,6 31,0 12% 0,6 64,0 26% 7,5 3% (e) 12% (d) 6% (C) 5% (b) 30% ECU million (g) 1% Priorities Total ERDF ESF EA GGF FIFG A c c e s s, spatial balance (a) Environment and infrastructures (b) Production, competitiveness, industry, crafts (c) Human resources, social balance (d) Agriculture, rural development (e) Fisheries and aquaculture (f) Tourism (g) Technical assistance (h) 214,6 305,9 279,7 394,3 242,7 24,5 21,1 16,4 Total % 1. 499,2 100% 202,7 291,1 178,6 1,8 46,3 35,1 359,2 10,1 14,8 48,7 242,7 21,1 9,8 738,4 49% 4,8 412,1 27% 1,7 318,0 21% 6,1 24,5 0,1 30,7 2% ( e ) i6% ( f) 1% i <h>1% (a) 14% (d)27% (b) 20% (c) 19% Implementation in 1995 Environmental concerns in the French SPDs are very varied because of the diversity of the regions themselves. In all, they represent a Community contribution of almost ECU 323 million (15% of Objective 1 appropriations in France). In the overseas departments, the main concern is water: in Guadeloupe (environmental priority: ECU 39. 6 million from the ERDF and the EAGGF), the main investment is a major irrigation project financed by the EAGGF; in Martinique (environmental priority: ECU 50. 5 million from the ERDF) the chief concern is protection against water and floods; in Réunion (environmental priority: ECU 178. 5 million from the ERDF), appropriations are concentrated on water management for irrigation purposes; in French Guiana (environmental priority: ECU 18. 9 million from the ERDF), about half of the measures concern upgrading the M>ater system, to which should be added a further ECU 2 million from the EAGGF for exploration and protection of biodiversity in the tropical forest. In Corsica, environmental protection (ECU 30. 7 million from the ERDF) concerns measures to clean up the coastline and treat household waste (84% of the environment priority), and to upgrade the heritage, i. e. restoration of buildings using traditional materials. Lastly, in Nord Pas-de-Calais, the lion's share of the Community's contribution to the environment will go towards the rehabilitation of derelict industrial and urban sites and industrial pollution management (ECU29. 1 million from the ERDF), as well as to research and environmental technologies (ECU 11. 3 million from in this field (ECU 9 000 000 from the ESF). the ERDF) and training 50 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) The six French SPDs (Corsica, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion and Avesnes-Douai- Valenciennes in Nord Pas-de-Calais) were approved by the Commission in July 1994 and represent total assistance from the Structural Funds worth ECU 2 189 million. These SPDs have been rather slow to get underway. There are still problems with the monitoring of Community programmes in French Guiana, since the planned "Cellule Europe" has not yet been set up. However, the national and regional authorities have made a real effort to develop more specific methods for gathering information on projects at local level and to pass the information on selection criteria for projects and lists of projects on to the Monitoring Committees. In three of the six regions, the assessment structure is already in place or being set up. In the context of partnership, a workshop was organized in Réunion with regional officials on 21- 23 November 1995 to discuss matters relating to the implementation of Community programmes such as management of the Structural Funds and development engineering. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period With the exception of Corsica and Martinique, where there is considerable delay and where no ERDF financial operation took place in 1995, all the other regions (Guadeloupe, Réunion, Nord Pas-de-Calais and French Guiana) declared sufficient expenditure to enable the Commission to commit the 1995 instalment of the programmes and to pay the second advance on the 1994 instalment. However, only Guadeloupe and French Guiana declared enough expenditure (60% of the 1994 instalment) to trigger payments from the first advance on the 1995 instalment. With regard to fisheries, fewer than ten projects were adopted for each of the regions, with the exception of Corsica, where the programme is progressing at a satisfactory rate. Table 14: Objective 1 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost SF a s s i s t a n ce 1994 SPD Hainaut SPD Corsica SPD Guadeloupe SPD French Guiana SPD M art inique SPD Réunion (1) 440,0 249,9 344,8 164,9 329,8 659,7 2. 189,2 1. 339,6 679,4 794,2 304,4 620,7 1. 267,2 5. 005,4 T O T AL C o m m i t m e nt 1995 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 % ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments 1995 (2) Payments 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) 9,4 14,2 54,0 8,1 24,4 112,2 222,4 69,9 48,5 100,6 26,9 57,6 194,2 497,6 16% 19% 29% 1 6% 1 7% 29% 2 3% 8,9 10,5 32,4 7,6 21,9 66,2 14 7,4 40,0 27,4 56,0 17,0 38,5 107,9 286,7 57% 56% 56% 63% 67% 56% 5 8% Lastly, at the request of the French authorities the deadlines for payment by the national authorities to final beneficiaries were extended for several programmes from the previous programming period (1989- 93). IRELAND CSF programming for 1994-99 Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Productive sector (a) Economic infrastructure (b) Human resources (c) Local development (d) Technical assistance (e) 2 508,0 1 1 13,0 1. 732,0 257,0 10,0 1. 099,0 1. 113,0 160,0 180,0 10,0 324,0 1. 038,0 47,0 (c) 31% 1. 572,0 57,0 20,0 (d) 5% (e) o,2% (a) 44% Total % 5. 620,0 100% 2. 562,0 46% 1. 953,0 35% 1. 058,0 19% 47,0 1% (b) 20% New operations adopted in 1995 The only new operation adopted in 1995 for Ireland concerned ERDF assistance to a major project within the meaning of Article 16(2) of the Coordination Regulation, the Tallaght Hospital. ERDF 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 51 assistance amounts to ECU 39. 4 million, a 30% contribution to the total cost of ECU 131. 2 million11 This is the first time that the ERDF has been involved in an operation in the health field in Ireland. The project concerns the construction and fitting out of the Tallaght university hospital in Dublin, which will have 513 beds and should create some 1 500 jobs directly and a further 1 100 indirectly. Implementation in 1995 Environmental concerns are the subject of a subpriority included in the priority relating to economic infrastructure in the CSF which is being implemented in the form of an OP with ECU 78 million from the ERDF (1. 4%> of Community appropriations). The programme focuses on water supplies, treatment of waste water, water supply systems, management of urban and dangerous waste, management and protection of coastlines and environmental monitoring and research. Implementation of the Irish OPs proceeded normally in 1995. Only the OP for industry, which also includes measures for the food industry, ran behind schedule because of delays in starting up. The slight overall delay will probably be made good thanks to an increase in payment rates in 1996VProgress in attaining the quantified objectives (macro- and micro-economic indicators) fixed in the CSF is satisfactory. Only the technical assistance programme (with ECU 10 million of Structural Fund assistance), has yet to be adopted. This should happen early in 1996. Implementation of the agriculture and rural development OP is in full swing, with the exception of a few measures. Expenditure is in line with the financing plan. Certain measures are very popular, particularly that concerning the control of farm pollution. Other measures have been suspended due to lack of appropriations. During 1995 an independent consultant studied the compensatory allowance system and the balance between income support and development measures. In the fisheries sector, a total of 155 projects funded by the FIFG were approved, relating to modernization of the fleet, aquaculture and marketing/promotion of products. The total investment in these projects amounts to ECU 31 million. Monitoring of operations is being carried out at three levels: the Monitoring Committee for the CSF, the Monitoring Committees for each of the OPs and the committees of the eight regional authorities. The Monitoring Committee for the CSF is made up of representatives of the ministries involved, the Commission and the EIB. The Monitoring Committees for the OPs consist of representatives of the social partners as well as the officials concerned. By way of example, the Committee coordinating human resource measures, responsible for monitoring horizontal matters affecting the quality and effectiveness of the training system, met for the first time in 1995. It examined the progress made by measures part-financed by the ESF throughout the CSF, as well as the measures concerning the training of instructors, equal opportunities and certification. At regional level, the representatives of voluntary organizations and local authorities are involved in the committees alongside representatives of public authorities and agencies and the social partners. The Monitoring Committees of the chief OPs are assisted by permanent, independent external assessors. In addition, three full-time evaluation units have been set up and a fourth will be created at the beginning of 1996. These units will evaluate specific aspects of the CSFs and OPs and will help the external assessors. They will also help to prepare the mid term review for all the programmes. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period Although payments for 1994 were lower than expected (ECU 513 million, as against an initial forecast of ECU 771 million), most of the lag was made good by the end of 1995. Payments by the Structural Funds in 1995 amounted to ECU 856 million out of an initial budget of ECU 834 million. 85% of the appropriations planned for the first two years have thus been paid. See also Annex 6 Major projects adopted in 1995. 52 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 15: Objective J - Ireland - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 0) Commitment 1995 Commitment 1994-95 % ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments 1995 (2) Payments 1994-95 (3) % (3)/(2) 1995 MP Tallaght hospital | 131,2| 39,41 39,41 39,4| 100% | 3 l , 5| "' 31,5 j 80% 1994 OP Agriculture, rural development OP Local development OP Industry OP Economic infrastructure OP Fisheries OP Human resources OP Environmental services OP Tourism OP Transport 1. 791,4 420,1 2. 843,7 319,6 177,0 2362,3 125,6 805,9 1. 406,2 10. 383,1 956,7 257,0 1. 029,0 108,0 78,0 1. 732,1 78,0 456,3 888,0 5. 622,5 160,1 33,6 127,1 10,3 12,3 266,1 6,2 51,5 247,6 954,2 299,4 54,8 261,1 11,9 20,5 541,9 24,0 94,0 333,2 1. 680,1 3 1% 2 1% 25% 11% 26% 3 1% 31% 21% 38% 3 0% 178,6 22,1 102,9 8,7 10,6 264,9 10,3 51,0 175,8 856,5 263,0 32,7 196,0 9,5 14,7 481,6 19,2 77,2 244,2 1. 369,6 88% 60% 75% 80% 72% 89% 80% 82% 73% 8 2% T O T AL ITALY CSFprogrammin g for 1994-99 Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ECU million Communications (a) Industry, crafts (b) Tourism (c) Rural development (d) Fisheries (e) Economic infrastructure (f) Human resources (g) Technical assistance (h) 2. 159,6 3. 707,5 862,1 2. 340,7 257,4 3. 235,9 2 209,1 87,7 2 159,6 3. 557,2 774,6 55,0 2. 992,5 61,4 59,7 150,3 87. 5 57,7 24,4 243,4 2. 147,7 28,0 2. 228,0 233,0 (f) 21% Total 14. 860,0 100% 9. 660,0 65% 2. 739,0 18% 2. 228,0 15% 233,0 2% (9) 15 % (h) 1% (a) i< (b) 24% (d)16% (°) The CSF for the Italian Objective 1 regions (Mezzogiorno) provides for total expenditure of ECU 32 440 million, of which ECU 14 860 million will come from the Community. The CSF is being implemented by 13 multiregional OPs, 10 regional OPs and one major project, adopted in 1994 and 1995. New programmes adopted in 1995 During 1995 a total of 11 operations were adopted, with total assistance from the Structural Funds amounting to ECU 8 085 million. Six of these operations are regional OPs, representing ECU 4 289 million of Community assistance, and four are multiregional programmes. One of these alone, the OP for industry, accounts for 26% of total ERDF assistance allocated to the Mezzogiorno and includes part- financing of the general Italian aid scheme for productive investment. Lastly, a major project was adopted for Calabria, at Gioia Tauro (ECU 40 million towards a planned total cost of ECU 120 million)12. This major project within the meaning of Article 16(2) of the Coordination Regulation concerns the conversion of the Gioia Tauro port into a large container port specializing in transhipment in order to adapt its basic infrastructure to trends in world sea transport. The project should create 1 500 jobs directly and indirectly. A little less than 10% of the total resources from the ERDF has yet to be programmed at national level, particularly for the multiregional OPs for energy, environment and technical assistance, regional and multiregional operations to be implemented by means of global grants (to be managed at national level) and certain major projects (the Messina-Palermo motorway). Commitments relating to the coming years will depend on these programmes being adopted and on the progress (in terms of national expenditure) of the programmes which have already been approved. 12 See also Annex 6 Major projects adopted in 1995. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 53 Implementation in 1995 Some of the delay in implementation of the CSF in 1994 was retrieved in 1995. Italy's difficulties in utilizing Community funds, which were also very visible in the previous programming period, can be put down to weaknesses in the national political and administrative context. In order to improve the general implementing conditions for Community assistance in Italy, the Commission and the Italian Government concluded an agreement on 26 July 1995. At the conference for the State and the regions held on 29 September 1995, this was extended to include the regions and autonomous provinces. Under this agreement, the Italian Government will strengthen central and regional administrative structures, improve the implementing procedures for part-financed measures, strengthen technical assistance, particularly the arrangements for the monitoring, evaluation and control of the programmes, and if guarantee financial cover for national matching funds. This agreement must be implemented Community appropriations are to be better utilized during this programming period. At the end of 1995 the Italian Government showed that it had taken a series of initiatives, particularly during the second half of the year, relating to administrative structures, the setting up of new integrated arrangements for monitoring and for procedures to select external experts and the making available of counterpart funds. These initiatives are a concrete manifestation of the spirit of the agreement and augur well for improvements in the conditions in which programmes are managed. from the ERDF), with as well as reducing the objective of increasing available resources and losses during supply and rationalizing management is the subject of two subpriorities in the Italian CSF, both of which are included in The environment the priority relating to infrastructures. The first subpriority deals with water resources (ECU 1 119 improving million and distribution, (ECU 748 million from the maintenance. The second subpriority relates to environmental protection rundown and polluted areas, ERDF and the ESF), with the objective of cleaning up particularly eliminating situations presenting a serious danger to the environment, safeguarding the natural heritage and promoting public environmental services (water and urban waste). Together, the two subpriorities the appropriations implemented at multiregional level, the other half at regional level, in each of the regional OPs. At multiregional level, the OP for water resources was adopted in 1995 with an ERDF contribution of ECU871 million, and the environment OP should be adopted in 1996 (with ECU 48 million from the ERDF). represent a Community contribution worth ECU 1 867 million, or 12. 6%> of to the CSF. Half of these appropriations are being allocated With regard to EAGGF assistance, the measures in most of the programmes are organized by product sector with a view to helping modernize production and marketing in line with market demand. There are also measures to assist alternatives to traditional farming, such as farm tourism, rural tourism, small- scale processing and direct sales of typical traditional farm products. The programmes also include research measures and technology transfer and agricultural advisory services. Agriculture and rural development - some significant achievements: In Sardinia (OP adopted in 1994): • 1 300 sheep and goat rearing holdings (417 000 head) received Community assistance to improve the health and hygiene conditions for milk production; • 32 modernization projects for cheese producing cooperatives; • 34 rural tourism projects to breed and train 'Anglo-Arab-Sardinian' horses. In Abruzzi (OP adopted in 1995): • 160 rural development projects financed, including 110 for rural tourism. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period With regard to financial implementation, the Commission's commitment of appropriations in 1995 was satisfactory in relation to the amounts provided for in the CSF, except for ESF commitments, which fell well short of forecasts. However, insufficient funds were committed to fully make up for the delay in 1994, so that at the end of 1995 there was a shortfall in commitments of ECU 1. 2 billion. In terms of implementation in the field (i. e. expenditure by the implementing authorities), the situation of the 54 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) programmes remained critical in 1995. In all, at the end of the second year of the programming period, only 2% of total appropriations for the six years had been spent. Table 16: Objective 1 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance (1) Commitment 1995 Commitment 1994-95 % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 Payn-ents 1 9 9 4 - 95 % (3)/(2) (2) (3) • • • l y y 3 OP Abruzzi OP Abruzzi (1) OP Calabria (1) MP Gioia Tauro Port OP Campania OP Apulia OP Sicily M ultiregional OPs OP Industry and services OP Agricultural advisory services (1) OP W ater resources OP Tourism 1994 Regional OPs OP Basilicata OP Calabria OP Molise OP Sardinia Multiregional OPs OP "Emergency" Employment OP Training for instructors OP Training for migrant workers OP Ministry of Education OP Fisheries OP Research and development OP Telecommunications OP Rail transport OP Technical assistance (2) (1) Single-fund OP -EAGGF (2) Single-fund ESF T O T AL 333,4 167,1 482,0 120,0 2 890,8 2. 406,4 2. 603,1 4. 962,4 231,4 2. 008,3 302,8 1. 129,5 1 308,0 522,7 2. 103,4 524,0 271,4 29,5 395,0 560,0 1. 341,3 1 076,1 1. 756. 6 112,1 27. 637,4 150,5 83,9 241,0 40,0 1. 327,9 1 148,4 1. 337,2 2,592,7 162,0 871,0 130,0 583,2 580,3 292,0 967,1 355,7 184,0 20,0 254,0 233,0 784,0 376,7 701,0 76,0 13. 491,6 75,0 59,4 76,2 40,0 124,0 203,7 189,4 746,9 34,4 140,7 22,2 51,7 1,0 26,8 50,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 48,9 34,6 8,2 102,3 192,6 0,0 2. 228,6 91,5 59,4 76,2 40,0 177,2 203,7 189,4 750,3 34,4 140,7 22,2 98,1 72,9 37,7 170,6 32,7 16,9 1,8 68,5 66,5 65,9 215,9 385,2 7,0 3. 024,7 61% 71% 32% 100% 13% 1 8% 14% 29% 21% 16% 17% 17% 13% 13% 18% 9% 9% 9% 27% 29% 8% 57% 55% 9% 2 2% 37,5 30,7 41,8 0,0 63,2 92,9 74,1 373,5 17,2 70,3 11,1 29,2 19,1 15,5 25,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 24,4 0,0 4,1 34,1 211,9 0,0 1. 176,1 45,8 30,7 41,8 0,0 89,8 92,9 74,1 375,2 17,2 70,3 11,1 52,4 36,5 19,3 86,9 50% 52% 55% 0% 5 1% 46% 39% 50% 50% 50% 50% 53% 50% 51% 5 1% 16,3 8,5 0,9 34,3 16,0 32,9 90,9 308,2 3,5 1. 555,4 50% 50% 50% 50% 24% 50% 42% 80% 50% 5 1 % Furthermore, the unsatisfactory utilization of Community funds under the CSF for the first programming period (1989-93) led the Commission to negotiate with the Italian Government, in the context of the agreement of 26 July 1995, a final extension of the national payment deadlines until 31 December 1995. At the end of 1995, since the Italian Government had undertaken some steps to implement the agreement, the extension of the Community payment deadlines was confirmed. This means that the Italian authorities now have two years after the deadline for committing national funds to finish paying the amounts in question. These extensions have enabled them almost fully to complete the national and regional commitments for 1989-93 (100% for the centrally managed OPs and 98. 7% for the regionally managed OPs), although progress is still required as far as payments are concerned, particularly with regard to the regionally managed OPs which, at the end of 1995, had an average implementation rate of 65% (ranging from 44% for Apulia to 75% for Basilicata). NETHERLANDS SPD programming for 1994-99 Priorities Total ERDF ESF EA GGF FIFG I n d u s t r i al p r o m o t i on (a) T o u r i sm (b) A g r i c u l t u r e, rural d e v e l o p m e nt ( c) Fisheries (d) H u m an r e s o u r c es (c) B u s i n e ss i n f r a s t r u c t u re (0 T r a n s p o rt i n f r a s t r u c t u re ( g) Research and d e v e l o p m e nt ( h) T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce ( i) 22,0 5,2 21,2 8,2 28,0 17,0 31,4 14,4 2,6 T o t al % 1 5 0 ,0 100% 11,9 4,3 10,1 0,9 0,9 16,5 31,0 14,4 1,0 8 0 ,0 53% 27,1 0,5 0,4 1,0 4 0 ,0 27% (h) 10% (02% ( a )1 5* 21,2 8,2 (g) 21% 0,3 2 1 ,5 14% 0,3 8,5 6% (On (e) 19% (d) 5% 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 55 Implementation in 1995 The SPD adopted for the Netherlands on 21 June 1994 concerns Flevoland. The total contribution from the Structural Funds amounts to ECU 150 million. Implementation of the main project in the programme, which concerns the conversion of the highway N27 into a motorway (A27) to improve the link between Flevoland and the centre and south of the country, is running according to schedule. Another part of the programme concerns employment, providing for aid to firms which create jobs, whether they are established in Flevoland or have just established themselves there. The total number of participants in measures receiving funding from the ESF in 1995 exceeded expectations (1 788 as against 985). The regional employment office has launched some of the more important activities provided for in the SPD. This required intensive preparation and the inclusion of new partners, and consolidates the basis for activities part-financed by the ESF. Environmental protection has no separate priority in the SPD for Flevoland. Instead, environmental measures are included in several different priorities: agriculture, tourism and industry. An estimated ECU 5 million (3% of the Community's total contribution) will go towards environmental-protection, chiefly for measures such as assistance to SMEs to adopt less polluting and more energy-saving procedures, measures to control atmospheric and water pollution; reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides, conservation of biodiversity, management of water sheets from the polder, decontamination of the Ketelmeer. With regard to monitoring and studying the impact of the SPD, the regional authorities of Flevoland have developed the DIN network {targets-efforts network) to ensure proper monitoring of the SPE) by measuring its impact on the Flevoland economy. The programme was developed in 1995 and will become operational in 1996. It is expected, for example, that the projects approved before the end of 1995 will make it possible to create 1 600 permanent jobs directly, more than 3 000 permanent jobs indirectly and almost 2 800 temporary jobs. The objective is to create 15 000 net jobs between 1994 and 1996. In addition, the University of Wageningen has drawn up a working document for Flevoland concerning extremely strict criteria for the selection of agricultural projects and criteria for the appraisal of innovative projects as well as their impact on employment in agriculture. Lastly, a seminar was organized in 1995 bringing together other Objective 1 regions (Burgenland, Highlands and Islands, Northern Ireland, Merseyside, Ireland) to exchange experiences of the implementation of programmes. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period The financial implementation of the SPD has been satisfactory in terms of commitments at national level. However, there is a serious delay in payments of EAGGF funds because of the slow start in getting measures underway. Thus, at the end of 1995 public expenditure for agriculture amounted to ECU 1. 3 million, compared with total planned expenditure of ECU 24. 8 million for the 1994 and 1995 instalments. However, in December 1995 the province of Flevoland applied for commitment of the 1995 instalment of ERDF funding, illustrating that all of the planned projects are progressing normally. Similar progress is being made by the fisheries measures financed by the FIFG. Table 17: Objective 1 - the Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) P r o g r a m me and year of adoption Total cost SF a s s i s t a n ce (!) C o m m i t m e nt 1995 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1995 Payments 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) 1994 SPD Flevoland 95877Î 150. 01 TTJ] ~TH]—T&Ï] Wl—5T%" 56 PORTUGAL 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) CSF programming for 1994-99 Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Human resources and employment (a) Economic competitiveness (b) Living standards (c) Regional economic b a se (d) Technical assistance (e) 3059,6 6. 306,2 1. 264,0 3. 144,3 205,9 918,0 4. 073,2 936,0 2661,8 134,9 2. 141,6 414,0 328,0 194,1 71,0 1. 637. 0 182,0 257,2 31,2 ECU million Total % 13. 980,0 100% 8. 723,9 62% 3. 148,7 23% 1. 894,2 14% 213,2 2% (d) 22% (») 1% (a) 22% (c) 9% (b) 46% Assistance adopted in 1995 In 1995 the only Commission approval was of a global grant for municipal investment. The contract between the intermediary body and the Commission was signed on 15 November 1995. The Portuguese CSF is thus being implemented by means of nine multiregional OPs and seven regional OPs, all adopted in 1994, and a global grant adopted in 1995. These operations account for all of the assistance programmed in the CSF. Implementation in 1995 On the whole, progress in 1995 was satisfactory. Most of the programmes attained the objectives fixed for the year. However, progress was less satisfactory in certain cases, although the delays in the programmes in question should be made up thanks to the sustained management effort and monitoring undertaken by the Portuguese authorities. The environmental measures in the Portuguese CSF come under the priority relating to living standards and can also be found in the regional programmes as regional development measures. Very substantial funding is provided for in the regional OPs (ECU 1 056 million, or 7. 6%> of CSF assistance) and concentrates mainly on the supply and distribution of water, collection and treatment of urban waste and waste water, reduction of river pollution, protection of the coastline and biotopes and public information. Under the living standards priority, the environment and urban renewal are the subject of an OP with ECU 559 million from the ERDF for two subprogrammes. The environment section (ECU260 million) provides for conservation and upgrading of the natural heritage, improvement of the environmental impact of productive activities, information and training measures and technical assistance. The urban renewal section (ECU 299 million) provides for the renovation of slums and degraded areas, EXPO '98 and technical assistance. With regard to programmes which had already been adopted, two additional allocations from the 1995 indexing operation were granted: one, amounting to ECU 39. 1 million, was allocated by the EAGGF Guidance Section to the agriculture subprogramme to alleviate the effects of the persistent drought in 1995, the other, amounting to ECU 14. 5 million, by the ESF to the knowledge and innovation OP in order to strengthen the vocational aspect of the education subprogramme. With regard to the rate of implementation, there is a delay in implementing the OP for the development of regional potential. This is mainly due to the innovative nature of the programme and the need for many legal instruments in order to decentralize its management (protocols with local development associations, banks, etc. ). Nevertheless, it is expected that several subprogrammes and measures under this OP (rural centres, historic villages, aid schemes) will started in practice at the beginning of 1996. The rate of implementation of the urban renewal subprogramme of the environment and urban renewal OP is very slow, at 16%). This is partly due to the difficulties encountered in the compulsory purchase of land. The commerce subprogramme in the economic modernization OP is to be reprogrammed. Its low rate of implementation (20% for 1994 and 1995) is due above all to the fact that it finances measures which 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 57 require a long implementation period. Also in the economic modernization OP, the first six months of implementation of the fisheries subprogramme was mainly spent selecting projects and adopting the first ministerial decisions on potential beneficiaries, as well as implementing the programmed measures. The rate of implementation picked up in the second half of the year and preparations for the evaluation of the OPs began. Invitations to tender for the appointment of independent experts are due to be issued at the beginning of 1996. The Monitoring Committee held six meetings during 1995, which helped to speed up implementation of the first measures. However, in order to compensate for the low rate of implementation in 1994, the Monitoring Committee reprogrammed the financial deadlines at its last meetings. It also adopted a specific FIFG measure to assist Portuguese crews affected by the expiry of the fisheries agreement with Morocco13 The purpose of this measure is to compensate for the temporary suspension of activity (from May to November 1995) caused by the absence of a new agreement. The funding for the measure is restricted to ECU 4. 8 million. In addition, some of the FIFG appropriations already granted to Portugal under the CSF have been reallocated in order to indemnify shipowners for the temporary laying-up of their vessels, on the basis of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93. ECU 4 million has been mobilized for the entire laying-up period, to which the Community will contribute ECU 3 million. The delay in the financial implementation of the energy subprogramme in the infrastructure OP arose because certain projects initially included in this sub-programme, for which a heavy take-up of funds was expected in 1994 and 1995, were transferred to the Regen section of the Interreg Community Initiative14. The subprogramme was reprogrammed during 1995 in order to adjust the 1994 and 1995 forecasts to take account of these transfers. The Commission did not adopt the technical assistance OP until 20 December 1994, which is why the implementation rate is so low. It is planned to use the ERDF's appropriations for 1994 in 1996, while the Portuguese authorities have requested reprogramming of the ESF section to transfer the appropriations not used in 1994 (ECU 8. 2 million) to 1996(ECU4. 1 million) and 1997(ECU4. 1 million). The OP on the development of regional potential was the only programme to be amended in 1995, by decision of the Monitoring Committee on 13 November. The Community's part-financing of the programme remains the same (ECU 595 million, of which ECU 405 million is from the ERDF, ECU 81 million from the ESF and ECU 109 million from the EAGGF Guidance Section). The main change lies in the introduction of an aid scheme for the smallest firms with the chief objective of encouraging the creation of new jobs (estimated at 20 000). This scheme is of the utmost importance to local and rural economies affected by depopulation and other development problems. The undertakings made in the initial version of the programme, particularly the creation of regional development agencies (with a view to gradually increasing the degree of decentralization and partnership between public and private economic operators) and the strengthening of policy for medium-sized towns (as a factor in the development of towns with the potential to play a role in regional development) are taken up in the revised version. 1995 in the content of the 1994-99 programming period In all, financial implementation of the Portuguese CSF is making good progress. The average implementation rate on the ground in 1995 for all programmes was 85% for all Funds taken together (93% for the ERDF, 98% for the ESF). Community commitments represent one third of the funding available for the entire period. 13 See Chapter I. A. 5. 2 on Objective 5(a) fisheries. 14 See Chapter I. B. I on Community Initiatives. 58 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 18: Objective 1 - Portugal - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and y e ar of adopt. on Total c o st SF a s s i s t a n ce 0) C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) V. (2)10) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) 199 S Multiregional OP GG S u p p o rt for local i n v e s t m e nt J994 Regional OPs OP A zoers OP A lentejo OP A l g a r ve OP Centre OP L i s b o n - T a g us Valley OP M a d e i ra OP North PO pluri-rcgionaux OP Environment and urban r e n e w al OP Technical a s s i s t a n ce OP Bases for k n o w l e d ge and OP Training and e m p l o y m e nt OP Infrastructure innovation OP M odern ization of the e c o n o m ic fabric OP PRINEST (1) OP D e v e l o p m e nt of regional potential OP Health and social integration 33,3 25,0 25,0 25,0 100% 0,0 0,0 0% 857,6 250,6 101,9 490,5 517,2 665,2 721,1 973,7 135,6 2. 257,0 1. 903,3 3. 915,8 1) 678,8 40,0 1. 231,8 940,0 616,0 182,0 76,0 362,0 382,0 369,3 537,0 559,0 101,7 1 675,0 1. 384,6 1. 987,0 4. 3)9,2 30,0 595,0 705,0 84,7 57,7 24,9 60,0 94,0 82,4 97,8 0,0 11,0 210,7 219,3 0,0 284,3 7,3 14,0 106,6 216,2 78,6 28,5 126,0 124,5 148,6 210,0 55,1 28,6 587,6 409,3 618,5 1. 526,2 22,3 67,2 276,5 35% 4 3% 3 7% 35% 3 3% 40% 39% 10% 28% 3 5% 30% 3 1% 3 5% 74% 11% 39% 96,9 27,0 15,9 47,0 65,1 74,8 77,8 16,5 8,2 232,5 251,8 259,0 403,8 7,4 1 1,1 72,3 181,2 43,8 18,8 88,3 89,5 123,8 148,3 44,1 17,0 412,7 346,7 517,9 998,4 17,2 37,7 178,1 84% 56% 66% 70% 72% 8 3% 7 1% 80% 59% 70% 85% 84% 65% 77% 56% 64% T O T AL 2 6. 713,3 13. 905,8 1. 379,7 4. 5 4 8 ,8 3 3% 1. 667,0 3. 2 6 3 ,4 7 2% ( 1 ) Statistical infrastructure UNITED KINGDOM The environmental measures provided for in the SPDs for the United Kingdom are varied because of the diversity of the regions concerned. In Northern Ireland action is chiefly focused on protecting the natural environment (ECU 64. 1 million, 5. 2% of the appropriations in the SPD) but also covers the development of activities related to the environment such as services to businesses, product quality or research and development (ECU 19 million), conservation of the heritage (ECU 8. 1 million), urban renewal (ECU 25. 5 million) or energy-saving measures in businesses (ECU 5 million). Environmental action for Merseyside (ECU 45 million, or 5. 5% of the appropriations in the SPD) concerns the treatment of industrial waste, the development of clean technologies and environmental skills in firms (ECU 13 million from the ERDF and the ESF), the restoration of run-down urban areas and protection of the natural environment and architectural heritage (ECU 29 million from the ERDF). Lastly, environmental measures in the Highlands and Islands (ECU 16. 3 million, or 5. 2% of the appropriations in the SPD) are financed by the three Funds, each according to its specific vocation: recycling of waste and environmental research are funded by the ERDF (ECU 7. 6 million), a scheme for the protection of the natural environment is financed by the EAGGF (ECU 7. 1 million) and training is funded by the ESF 1. 6 million) In total, the Community's direct contribution to the environment in the United Kingdom amounts to about ECU 146 million, or 6%> of the overall allocation. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 59 Implementation in 1995 Implementation of the SPDs for the United Kingdom's Objective 1 regions (Northern Ireland, Highlands and Islands, Merseyside) has progressed in line with the programming forecasts. SPD programming for 1994-99 Ireland Northern Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ECU million Economic development (a) Local communities (b) Measures to reduce remoteness (c) Agriculture and fisheries (d) Environment (e) Technical assistance (f) 315,1 315,8 321,2 215,0 64,1 1,6 Total % 1. 232,8 100% 199,3 90,6 321,2 64,1 1,6 676,8 55% 115,8 225,2 13,0 186,9 15,1 354,0 29% 186,9 15% 15,1 1% (C) 26% (e) 5% (f) 0. 13% (d) 17% (a) 26% Northern Ireland: The rate of expenditure in 1995 made up for the slow start and the initial objective should be attained during 1996. The main delays concerned the energy measures (undenthe priority "measures to reduce peripherality"), with public enquiries slowing down expenditure on an important project to connect the electricity grids of Scotland and Northern Ireland. By contrast, the priority relating to environmental services had made good progress at the end of 1995. In addition, after the CAP reform the climate for investments in agriculture was good and several measures had to be suspended for lack of appropriations because the funds allocated to agricultural measure had been exhausted. The cessation of violence early in autumn 1994 led to an increased demand for investment in tourism and in projects under the measure for the physical and social environment, the objectives of which are reconciliation of local communities and urban renewal (the local communities priority). These activities were allocated additional funds by the Monitoring Committee in November 1995. A first step was also taken in considering whether the SPD should be adjusted to take account of these developments, as proposed by the British Government when preparing the Peace initiative approved in July 199515. With regard to the evaluation of the SPD, the Monitoring Committee agreed to appoint an external assessor at its meeting in November. External assessors will also be appointed for the different priorities, with the exception of the environmental services priority. SPD programming for 1994-99 Highlnnils anil hi a nil s Priorities Total ERDF ESF EA GGF FIFG ECU million B u s i n e ss d e v e l o p m e nt (a) T o u r i s m, c u l t u re (b) E n v i r o n m e nt ( c) Primary s e c t or (d) L o c al c o m m u n i ty d e v e l o p m e nt (e) C o m m u n i c a t i o ns a nd s e r v i c es ( f) T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce ( g) 72,1 24,2 16,3 68,7 46,9 79,7 3,1 54,3 22,0 7,6 13,9 79,7 2,5 T o t al % 3 1 1 ,0 100% 1 8 0 ,0 5 8% 17,8 2,2 ï,6 33,0 0,6 5 5 ,2 18% (f) 26% (9) 1% (a) 23% 7,1 48,9 19,8 5 6 ,0 18% 19,8 6% (e) 1 (d) 22% Highlands and Islands: Since the approval of the SPD in 1994, 1 500 projects have been presented, of which 604 have been selected. There has been a significant success, to judge from the increase in the number of participants in the programme: on the basis of the projects selected, more than 130 organizations will receive assistance from the ERDF and the ESF. One third of the resources available from these two Funds has gone to the "Highlands and Islands Enterprise" network. A substantial amount of ERDF assistance is being pumped into the Western Isles, Caithness, Sutherland and Argyll through a set of projects relating to the development of communications, tourism and businesses. To judge by the commitments, the programme is making excellent progress with regard to tourism and cultural heritage measures, but progressing more slowly in other fields (research and development, access to information by firms, advisory assistance). The agricultural measures are being implemented at a satisfactory rate, with the exception of the environmental and forestry measures. Delays in payments have arisen between the phase of approval of the projects and the declaration of expenditure. The 15 See Chapter I. B. I Community Initiatives. 60 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) authorities responsible have promised to take the necessary steps in 1996 to ensure that these delays are not exacerbated. All the measures to be financed by the FIFG have been launched and are progressing at a satisfactory pace. The Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995, and the management committee four times, to assess the projects to be approved. In November 1995 the Monitoring Committee decided to review the programmes implementing procedures in order to encourage greater participation by local operators in line with the bottom-up approach. A number of local groups will be set up and invited to study the projects in their respective areas and the local strategies contributing to the overall attainment of the SPD's objectives. The Monitoring Committee also launched several thematic studies concerning the assessment of environmental impact, regional GDP and the labour market. SPD programming for 1994-99 Merseyside Priorities Total ERDF ESF EAGGF ECU million Large firms (a) Local b u s i n e s s es (b) Technological development (c) Culture (d) Measures benefiting the local population (e) Technical assistance (0 186,0 149,0 62,0 54,0 361,0 4,0 178,0 106,0 42,0 38,0 109,0 2,0 8,0 40,0 20,0 16,0 252,0 2,0 3,0 (e) 44% (f) 0,50% (a) 23% Total % 816,0 100% 475,0 58% 338,0 41% 3,0 0% (b) 18% (d) 7% (C) 8% Merseyside: The Monitoring Committee met five times during the year and there were ten meetings of the technical committees chiefly responsible for project selection. A points scoring system was introduced for the selection of measures to receive ESF assistance and 688 measures were selected to receive a total of ECU 45 million. In the context of local economic development, 38 seriously disadvantaged areas were defined as target areas. Local partnership was set up in these areas, made up of the local authorities and the main bodies involved in the programme, and a specific development strategy was drawn up. More than 500 projects relating to industry eligible for ERDF assistance were presented. A two-tier selection procedure and scoring system were applied and 181 of the projects were selected. An important innovative project was approved for the development of SMEs, for which the Merseyside special investment fund will receive ECU 18. 9 million to improve the functioning of the capital market by creating three investment funds with a total allocation of ECU 29. 4 million. The Commission's approval was sought and the fund should begin to operate in 1996. Another important project which was approved concerns the Chevasse Park media factory, which aims to manage work places and to offer training to facilitate the growth of SMEs in the communications sector. This measure should help to create a cultural and communications activity pole close to the centre of Liverpool comprising, in particular, the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts financed under the previous programme. The rules governing applications for ERDF financing and their evaluation were reviewed in partnership: calls for projects will be issued continuously throughout the year and projects will be assessed using more rigorous criteria, particularly with regard to environmental requirements. Lastly, in addition to the Monitoring Committee's normal meetings, two "strategy days" were organized by the local partners, with more than 100 participants. During these days the implementation of the programme was examined in greater detail and technical working parties were set up to assist the local partners in making the best strategic choices. With regard to evaluation, a study on the Merseyside economy was launched to produce recommendations on implementation of the programme. This brought to light the Merseyside economy's potential for growth and stressed the need to help inhabitants in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods to find jobs. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period Financial implementation for Merseyside (commitments and payments) is progressing normally for the ESF, and more slowly for the ERDF and the EAGGF. Although 65% of all the available ERDF funds had in principle been approved by the end of 1995, there were few requests for payment. The same is true in the case of the Highlands and Islands: financial implementation (commitments and payments) is progressing normally for the ESF and the FIFG and more slowly for the ERDF and the EAGGF. In this 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 61 case, the rate of commitment of ERDF funds at 31 December 1995 amounted to around 30% of available funds while payment requests were much lower. In December 1995 the financing schedule was amended so that the 1995 instalment for the ERDF could be committed. Table 19: Objective 1 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a n d y e ar of adoption Total cost SF a s s i s t a n ce (1) C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 % ( 2 ) / (D P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 (2) P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) 1994 SPD Highlands and Islands SPD Northern Ireland SPD M e r s e y s i de 1. 012,4 2. 658,3 2. 000,0 5. 670,7 311,0 1 232,8 816,0 2. 359,8 39,1 129,3 50,2 218,6 81,9 288,3 162,1 532,3 26% 23% 20% 2 3% 16,6 102,8 44,5 163,8 40,7 190,2 100,5 3 3 1 ,4 50% 66% 62% 6 2% TOTAL 62 3. Objective 2 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 20: Summary of Objective 2 OPs/SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 (ECU million) SPDs ADOPTED IN 1994 OPs ADOPTED IN 1995 Member State/Region TOTAL ERDF Member State/Region Belgium Aubange Liège Limburg Turnhotit Lolland North Jutland Germany Bavaria Berlin Bremen Hesse Lower Saxony North Rhine Westphalia Rhineland-Palalinate Sanland Schleswig-Holstein Alsace Aquitaine Auvergne Lower Normandy Burgundy Brittany Centre Champagne-Ardcnne Franche-Comté Upper Normandy Langtiedoc-Roussillon Lorraine Midi-Pyrénées Nord/Pas-de-Calais Loire Region Picardy Poilon-( 'hare nies Provencc-Alpes-Côle d'Azur Rhône-Alpes Italy Emilia-Romagna Friuli-Veneiia Gitilia Lazio Liguria Lomhardy Marche Piedmont Toscany l Imbria l'aile d'Aosta l'eneto Luxembourg Netherlands Arhnem-Nijmegen Groningen-Drenlhe Twente-Overijsel Zuid-Limburg Zuidoost Brabant United Kingdom East London and the Lee I alley Eiist Midlands Eastern Scotland Gibraltar Greater Manchester, Ixincashire, Cheshire Industrial South Wales North Fast England Plymouth Thanet West ( 'umbria and Fiirness West Midlands Western Scotland Yorkshire and Humberside TOTAL 1994 160,0 1,3 88,5 46,8 23,4 56,0 9,5 46,5 733,0 14,7 158,3 46,9 21,3 42,5 361,4 23,5 49,1 15,4 1. 763,2 19,6 107,1 61,1 57,8 49,4 89,7 24,2 77,5 47,8 146,0 70,5 127,4 42,6 318,1 135,9 122,4 53,3 113,1 99,7 684,0 12,0 24,0 64,0 96,0 23,0 21,0 205,0 127,0 35,0 6,0 71,0 7,0 300,0 56,0 76,0 58,0 43,0 67,0 2. 142,0 74,0 79,0 121,0 5,0 329,0 188,0 308,0 29,0 14,0 25,0 371,0 286,0 313,0 5. 845,2 100% 259,9 14,8 1. 6 107,9 1,4 31,3 5,1 58,1 39,7 259,9 23% 130,0 30,0 Spain 1. 130,0 «70,1 Aragon Balearic Islands Catalonia Riqja Madrid Navarre Basque Country Multi-regional 64,2 10,4 510,1 11,9 145,0 22,8 325,9 39,7 TOTAL 1995 % 1. 130,0 100% 402,2 10,5 113,7 17,7 267,8 0,0 870,1 0,9 75,3 35,1 18,7 44,2 7,0! 37,2; 513,7 9,5 102,1 30,5 18,3 29,8 263,8 15,2 34,4 10,0 1. 452,6 16,1 91,5 50,6 46,6 42,0 77,6 20,5 62,1 41,2 112,1 59,9 102,9 34,6 265,5 109,6 98,8 43,6 95,7 81,8 542,3 9,6 18,4 52,2 67,5 1 17,9 164,0 103,0 27,5 5,8 57,6 6,0 206,0 39,4 48,6J 39,4 31,7 47,0 1. 606,9 55,5 59,3 96,8 4,1 230,3 141,0 231,0 23,3 11,9 1 278,0 222,9 234,0 0. 4 13,2 11,7 4,7 11,8 2193 5,1 56,2 16,4 3,0 12,7 97,6 8,2 14,7 5,4 310,6 3,5 15,6 10,5 11,3 7,4 12,1 3,7 15,4 6,6 33,9 10,6 24,5 8,0 52,6 26,3 23,6 9,7 17,4 17,9 141,7 2,4 5,6 11,8 28,5 4,2 3,1 41,0 24,0 7,5 0,2 13,4 1,0 94,0 16,6 27,5 18,6 11,3 20,0 535,1 18,5 19,8 24,2 0,9 98,7 47,0 77,0 5,7 2,1 6,2 93,0 63,1 79,0 4. 501,7 "% 1. 343,4 21% TOTAL 1994-1995 6. 975,2 100% 5. 371,8 1. 603,3 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 63 3. 1. Implementation of Objective 2 in 1995 As far as Objective 2 is concerned, during 1995 work began on the programmes, which will run for an initial three-year period from 1994 to 1996, in all the twelve Member States. All the Objective 2 programmes (SPDs) had been adopted at the end of 1994, as had the CSF for Spain, leaving only the eight OPs to implement that CSF and the SPDs for the three new Member States16 to be adopted in 1995. This means that in the 15 Member States there are 82 operations under Objective 2: eight OPs within a single CSF in Spain and 74 SPDs in the other Member States. Of the SPDs, 64 had been adopted in 1994 while 18 operations (of which ten concerned the new Member States) were approved in 1995. As far as the integration of the two Funds (ERDF and ESF) which finance Objective 2 is concerned, it should be noted that all but one programme (the multi-regional OP in Spain) provide for joint financing by the ERDF and the ESF. Table 21: Objective 2 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) B 160,0 * 160,0 100% 62,2 39% 29,3 18% DK 56,0 * 56,0 100% 30,3 54% 20,0 36% D 733,0 * 733,0 100% 286,9 39% 156,9 2 1% E 1. 130,0 *• 1. 130,0 100% 659,2 58% 448,0 40% F 1. 763,2 * 1. 763,2 100% 904,4 5 1% 423,3 24% 1 684,0 * 684,0 100% 299,9 44% 150,0 22% L 7,0 * 7,0 100% 8,0 114% 4,0 57% N 300,0 • 300,0 100% 105,0 35% 52,5 18% AT 101,0 * 101,0 100% 54,1 54% 21,4 2 1% Fl 69,2 • 69,2 100% 31,1 45% 15,6 22% SE 160,0 * 160,0 100% 105,8 66% 38,1 24% UK "2. 142,0 * 2. 142,0 100% 1. 250,0 58% 518,9 24% Total 7. 305,4 7. 305,4 100% 3. 796,9 52% 1. 877,8 26% Programmed Adopted % Commitments 1994-95 % of assistance Payments 1994-95 % of assistance * Programmed by SPD ** Programmed by CSF The extent of implementation of Objective 2 at the end of the period 1994-95 can be looked at from a number of points of view. All the programming documents (mainly SPDs) were adopted and 52% of the commitments for them have been made. Payments at the end of two years stand at one quarter of total assistance. At first sight, these rates may appear low but it should be recalled that the vast majority of SPDs and OPs were not adopted until the last quarter of 1994 or the beginning of 1995. A substantial increase in absorption is therefore expected for 1996. However, the situation varies considerably from one Member State to another, with commitments as a percentage of assistance ranging from 35% in the Netherlands to almost 60% in the United Kingdom and 66% in Sweden while payments range from less than 20% of assistance in Belgium to 57% in Luxembourg. 16 See Chapter I. A. 7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 64 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Consideration of the environment in Objective 2 measures: Finance for sustainable development in the Objective 2 areas takes many forms since special attention was paid to this sector when the programmes were prepared. Environmental measures in the strict sense of the term account for ECU 597 million of the appropriations programmed for 1994- 96, or 5. 7% of the total for the Objective. In addition, investment in the renovation of industrial and urban sites amounts to ECU 956 million, 14% of total funding for Objective 2 for 1994-96. To these amounts should be added the appropriations for 1997-99. The main problems experienced by the Objective 2 areas stem from industrial activities either past or present which have resulted in the contamination of land or groundwater by industrial pollution or the failure to remove waste and the abandonment of industrial or urban sites. As a result, environmental measures are concerned mainly with cleaning up pollution and encouraging new productive investment to use environmentally-friendly processes and plant. These account for over half (53%) of the finance allocated directly to the environment under Objective 2. A further substantial proportion (41%) goes to the treatment and cleaning up of sites. Because of its long-term benefits, support for productive investment including preventive measures is also of considerable importance under Objective 2. This includes incentives, primarily for small businesses, for the use of environmentally-friendly products, technologies and sources of energy, for the adoption of "green technologies" and for environmental research and development and for increasing awareness through vocational training to help the labour force adapt to changes in the structures of production. Table 22: Objective 2 and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the environment in 1994-96 (EUR 9 - ECU million -1994 prices) (C) 6% Removal ot'pollution, treatment of waste and clean technologies (a) Restoration of industrial sites and urban areas (b) Training and other (c) Total 210,8 162,0 24. 2 397,0 *m_^ % (a) 53% 3. 2. Country-by-country survey BELGIUM Programming for 1 994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Technical assistance (c) Breakdown by Fund : (d)5% (e)3% (C) 12% ( a) 47% 76,0 52,8 18,8 8,1 4,1 ERDF ESF Total 130,0 30,0 160,0 81% 19% 100% (b) 33% TSTDT Average per SPD"]" 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Implementation in 1995 65 Each SPD except the one for Aubange contains a priority or subpriority dealing with measures for the environment. The general contribution of the Structural Funds is ECU 22 million (14% of total assistance), of which ECU 8 million will go to measures directly concerned with the protection of the environment. The bulk of the appropriations will be used for the treatment of industrial waste with others being used to clean up disused sites. Limburg and Turnhout are allocating 5% of the appropriations for the environment (using funding provided by the ESF) to environmental research and training and employment in this area. The total contribution of the Structural Funds to the areas of Belgium eligible under Objective 217 amounts to ECU 160 million programmed in the four SPDs adopted in December 1994. The progress of the SPDs varies, with the programmes in Turnhout and Limburg already operational. The priorities in Turnhout are industry, services and the environment and the main project selected is a centre for promotion, demonstration, research and advice to help small firms develop and use environmentally- friendly production and management techniques. Limburg has the same priorities, with the main project concerning technology to promote research into new materials for use in industry. In botTTcases, the Monitoring Committee and the Management Committee have operated satisfactorily. Implementation of the programme for Liège, by contrast, whose priorities are economic diversification, technological innovation, improving the attractiveness of the area and employment, has suffered some delay (the 1995 ERDF instalment could not be committed in that year). This is greatest in the areas of technological innovation, the development of tourist potential and the cleaning up of abandoned sites. Measures to develop locally generated potential (information for small firms, assistance, help with the establishment of firms) are, however, progressing satisfactorily. Approval at the end of the year of the scheme of aid for productive investment (ECU 13. 7 million from the ERDF, or 18% of its total contribution) will enable this measure to get under way. Since the decision was taken in 1994, only one commitment (ECU 1. 3 million) has been made for the Aubange programme. It was amended in autumn 1995 by the first Monitoring Committee, which decided to abandon the measure concerning business premises in favour of four measures relating to reception infrastructure for firms, one of which is a joint services centre, on the site of the European development pole. 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Table 23: Objective 2 - Belgium - Financial implementationof the SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on T o t al c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce 1994 S PD A u b a n ge S PD Liège S PD Limburg S PD T u r n l i o ut T O T AL (1) 1,3 88,5 46,8 23,4 160,0 3,2 314,2 121,8 58,1 4 9 7 ,2 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % (2)1(1) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % ( 3 ) / ( 2) 0,4 4,2 0,0 0. 0 4,6 1. 3 22,5 14. 9 23. 4 100% 2 5% 3 2% 100% 62,2 3 9% 0. 5 1 1. 3 o. o 0. 0 11,7 0. 5 1 1. 3 7,5 10. 1 3 7% 5 0% •50% 4 3% 2 9 ,3 4 7 % 17 Aubange, Liège, Limburg and Turnhout. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) ( a ) 4 2% 66 DENMARK Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Technical assistance (c) Breakdown by Fund : 23,4 31,6 1,0 ERDF I ESF Total 44,21 11,8 56,0 79%" 21% 100% ( b) 56% TsTiTs Average perSPD) T$J) Implementation in 1995 The environment is not regarded as a separate priority in the Danish SPDs but is an integral part of most of the other priorities, such as aid to businesses, through, for example, support for the adoption of clean technologies. The two SPDs decided on in December 1994 for the eligible areas of Denmark18 provide for the Structural Funds to contribute a total of ECU 56 million in 1994-96. During 1995 implementation of these two programmes was satisfactory. When the Monitoring Committees met, it proved necessary, because of economic conditions in these areas, to increase the ERDF allocation for support for investment in existing small firms and the establishment of new firms, particularly in North Jutland. The financial progress of the programmes meant that the 1995 ERDF instalment for North Jutland could be committed and 80% of it paid. In the case of the SPD for Lolland, 50% of the single ERDF instalment has now been paid. Table 24: Objective 2 - Denmark - Financial implementation oftheSPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on Total c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce (1) C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 3) ( 3 ) / ( 2) 1994 S PD Lolland S PD N o r th J u t l a nd TOTAL 36,1 185,3 2 2 1 ,4 9,5 46,5 56\0 0,0 6. 0 6,0 9,5 20,8 36,3 100% 4 5% 5 4% 0. 0 8. 3 8,3 4,3 15,7 4 5% 7 6% 2 0 ,0 6 6 "/. 18 North Jutland and Lolland. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 67 GERMANY Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Technical assistance (e) Breakdown by Fund : (d) 7% ( e) 2% ( a) 3 3% 245,0 293,0 132,0 52,0 11,0 (C) 18% ERDF I ESF Total 513,71 219,3 733,0 70% 30% 100% (b) 40% 9 SPDs Average perSPD| SIT Implementation in 1995 Environmental protection varies in the nine Lander eligible under Objective 2. The Community contribution amounts to a total of ECU 198 million, including measures directly relating to the environment (ECU 52 million) and others. Together with Luxembourg, Germany is the Member State which devotes the largest proportion of Objective 2 funding to environmental protection. Two of the Lander eligible under this Objective (Rhineland-Palatinate and Schleswig-Holstein) make no provision for the Structural Funds to finance environmental protection but they receive only a very small amount of Community aid. However, the Lander of Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse, which have more substantial environmental problems than the other two, have allocated an appropriate share of finance to them. Interesting experiments include North Rhine-Westphalia, which is concentrating on the restoration of industrial wasteland for an international exhibition on urban planning (Internationale Bauaustellung Emscherpark). This includes the renovation of industrial areas and old buildings converted into technology centres with aid also being provided for firms specializing in the environment. Berlin is also preparing programmes of a new type (Environmental improvement programmes and Initiatives to encourage economic activities relating to the environment) which include the environment in a social or economic programme. In this Land, the ESF will contribute ECU 14 million to employment and training relating to the environment. Nine SPDs for the German Objective 2 areas19 were approved in December 1994 for the 1994-96 programming period. These programmes are intended to improve the competitiveness of these areas, consolidate and expand employment, restore certain areas of land and encourage research and development and measures to protect the environment. Total assistance from the Structural Funds amounts to ECU 733 million. Each Land has its own development strategy and so defines for itself the main aspects of its structural policy. 19 Bavaria, western Berlin, Bremen, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland Palatinate, Saarland and Sch leswi"-Hoi stein. 68 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Examples of past and present achievements in Germany: Saarland: One of the priorities, receiving ERDF assistance of ECU 3. 5 million towards a total cost of ECU 14. 8 million, is the transfer of knowledge and technology through the promotion of institutional cooperation between the Zentrale fur Produktivitàt und Technologie (ZPT - Centre for productivity and technology), the Kontaktstelle fur Wissens- und Technologietramfer (KWT - Contact point for the transfer of science and technology) in the University of the Saarland and the Institut des Technologietransfers (FITT - Institute for the transfer of technology) in the Hochschulefur Technik und Wirtschaft (Technical and economic institute). The ZPT offers advice and services to small firms and has established departments to provide information on Community activities and to deal with patents. One of the main tasks of the FITT and the KWT is to promote cooperation between various educational establishments and small firms (on the training available in higher education, the organization of cooperation measures, conferences and seminars and the supply of services where use is made of public aid programmes). North Rhine-Westphalia: The emphasis is on the restoration of industrial areas and the refurbishment of factories for economic purposes. For example, the former boiler room in the Zollverein XII pithead in Essen has been converted into a design centre for North Rhine-Westphalia. The ERDF contributed ECU 9. 8 million towards a total cost of ECU 19. 9 million. Work on the mine has enabled almost 300 unemployed people to obtain vocational skills in a variety of construction trades (ESF contribution of ECU 2. 1 million towards a total cost of ECU 6. 4 million). Lower Saxony: Two business parks costing a total of ECU 16. 6 million have been built at Peine near the Hannover-Berlin A2 motorway with assistance amounting to ECU 750 000 from the ERDF under Objectives 2 and 3 and ECU the Résider I Community Initiative. 20 They provide 3. 1 million from administrative and social buildings and workshops and one of them, Peine II, received the Deutscher Stcidtebaupreis 1995. A total of 23 firms have acquired premises creating a total of 500 jobs. On one such site, a municipal promoter is offering training and job placement, mainly in connection with the environment. In 1994 160 people took part and the ESF contributed about ECU 550 000. 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Programmes show a low rate of payments in 1995 (55% of commitments but 2 1% of the aid) because of the comparatively late approval of the SPDs, in December 1994, and the delay in getting the assistance programmed under way in 1995. Table 25: Objective 2 - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on Total c o st S F a s s is t a n ce 1994 SPD Bavaria SPD Berlin SPD Bremen SPD H e s se SPD L o w er S a x o ny SPD N o r th R h i ne W e s t p h a l ia SPD R h i n e l a n d - P a l a t i n a te S PD Sa nia nd SPD S c h l c s w i g - l l o l s t e in T O T AL • 33,5 390,7 172. 5 61. 3 126. 4 1. 298. 8 49. 0 212,6 32,0 2. 3 7 6 ,9 (1) 14,7 158,3 46,9 21,3 42. 5 361. 4 23. 5 49. 1 15. 4 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 19 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 "A, ( 3 ) / ( 2) (2) (3) 0. 0 13,1 2. 6 1,2 6. 5 5. 4 3. 1 6. 1 0. 0 13,6 49,2 14,9 21,3 13,5 115,0 23,5 20,5 15. 4 9 3% 31 % 3 2% 100% 3 2% 100% 4 2% 100% 2. 6 1 1. 9 4. 2 0. 6 1. 5 5. 8 0. 0 29,9 10. 4 10. 6 6. 8 57. 5 1 1,7 12. 9 7. 7 6 9% 6 1% 6 9% 5 0% 50'!'. 50" o 5 0 ". 6 3% 5 0% 7 3 3 ,0 3 8 ,0 1 U ,9 3 9 % 3 2,5 1 5 6,9 5 5% Programmes under the preceding phase (1992-93) also continued and most of them were completed in 1995. These were seven programmes for the six western Lander, which received a total of ECU 303. 2 20 See Chapter I. B. I. Community Initiatives. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 69 million (ECU 266. 4 million from the ERDF and ECU 76. 9 million from the ESF). Commitments for all these programmes had been made by the end of 1993. During 1995 the Commission made payments amounting to ECU 60. 6 million for four programmes (Berlin, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland) so that the western Lander had received ECU 185. 6 million (82% of commitments) in Community aid for 1992-93 by the end of 1995. In the case of the Peine-Salzgitter (Lower Saxony) OP, the applications for payment of the balance have already been made, while an extension of the time for payment to 31 December 1996 has been granted to two programmes, North Rhine-Westphalia, because of delays in implementing certain projects, and Berlin, because of problems in implementing infrastructure projects and late applications for Community funds by certain private investors. SPAIN Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Technical assistance (c) Breakdown by Fund : ERDFl ESF Total 870,11 259,9 1. 130,0 / CSF/ê ÔPs Average per OPI Implementation in 1995 592,0 317,0 174,0 40,0 8,0 77% 23% 100% 141. 3 (c) 15% ( d ) 4% ( e ) i% (b) 28% ( a) 52% Protection of the environment, a priority under the CSF, is programmed through an OP receiving ECU 40 million from the ERDF (3. 5% of total assistance) and adopted in 1995. Eligible measures under this OP include equipment to prevent and treat industrial pollution, the restoration of run-down industrial sites, monitoring the quality of the environment and infrastructure to prevent and reduce the negative impact on the environment of productive activity. Spain is the only Member State whose national authorities chose to programme assistance under Objective 2 through a CSF and operational programmes. The CSF was adopted at the end of 1994 and implementation began with the approval of eight OPs in the first half of 1995. These comprised seven the ERDF and the ESF to each of the beneficiary Autonomous containing assistance from Communities21 and the multi-regional ESF programme, which contains the vocational training measures under the CSF and for which the national authorities are responsible. The Structural Funds are contributing ECU 1 130 million to these eight OPs as a whole. Each of them forms part of the CSF's priorities, support for employment and the competitiveness of firms, environmental protection, aid for technological research and innovation, the development of transport related to economic activity, local and urban development and technical assistance. 21 Rioja, Aragon, the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Navarre, Madrid and the Basque Country. 70 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 26: Objective 2 - Spain - Programme priorities adopted in 1995 (ECU million) Employment and Environment the competitiveness of firms Research, innovation Transport Local development Technical assistance Structural Funds assistance National public contribution 28,3 16. 6 11" 8,8 ". 6 1. 2 167,0 I2S. 1 38. 9 62,5 3-1. 1 28. 4 9,0 1. 3 5,4 4. 4 1. 0 123,6 9 1. 2 32. 3 20,9 425,5 2S9, " 135. S 1. 858. 1 0,6 0. 6 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 7,3 7. 3 0. 0 0,6 0. 6 0. 0 1,8 If 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 29,2 29. 2 0. 0 0,0 39,5 39. 5 0. 0 79,0 8,5 5. 5 3. 0 0,3 0. 0 0. 3 20,5 16. 2 4. 4 26,6 25. 6 1. 0 4,5 2. 9 1. 6 1,0 0. " 0. 3 31,0 ~. H 23. 2 18,8 111,3 58. 8 52. 5 234. 2 17,0 17,0 0. 0 o. o 0. 0 0. 0 162,9 162,9 0. 0 30,6 30,6 0. 0 5. 1 5. 1 0. 0 3,6 3. 6 0. 0 83,1 83. 1 0. 0 0,0 302,2 302. 2 0. 0 774,9 9,3 9. 3 0. 0 0,9 0. 9 0. 0 150,9 8Z4 63. 5 23,1 21. 2 IS 2,2 0. 0 2 2 1. 7 1~ 0. 1 55,9 53. 6 2. 3 0,0 243,9 1-4,0 69. 9 525,0 0,6 0. 5 0. 1 0,4 0. 3 0. 1 1,5 0. 4 1. 1 1,6 1. 6 0. 0 0,3 0. 2 0,1 0,1 0. 1 0. 0 3,1 2. 9 0. 2 0,0 7,6 5. 9 1. - 9,3 64,2 49. 4 14. 8 10,4 *,« 1. 6 510,1 402,2 107,9 145,0 113. 7 31. 3 223 5,1 11,9 10. 5 1. 4 32S? 26~,8 58,1 39,7 1. 130,0 H~0. 1 259. 9 3. 911,7 73,8 59. 0 14. 9 10,1 S. 8 1. 3 606,5 515. 7 90. 8 162,8 130. 9 31. 9 26,4 20. 6 5. 8 14,1 12. 6 1. 5 368,0 iu- 53. 4 48,2 1. 310,1 1062. 3 2478 Aragon ERDF ESF Balearic Islands ERDF IUSF Catalonia ERDF ESF Madrid ERDF ESF Navarre ERDF ESF Rioja EJUiF ESF Basque Country ERDF ESF Multiregional ESF T O T AL ERDF ESF Total cost During November and December the Monitoring Committees for each programme held their first meetings in the appropriate regional capital and the Monitoring Committee for the CSF met in Madrid at the end of October. In the cases of Catalonia (one programme) and the Basque Country (two programmes), assistance is subject to a suspensory clause. 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Financial progress in the OPs may be regarded as remarkable in view of the late adoption of this assistance and the fact that, while there remains in principle one year of programming, there are three years to finalize national commitments and payments. An exception is Aragon, where, as a result of delays in implementation, in December 1995 the Spanish authorities asked for reprogramming to shift the bulk of the programme to 1996. The OPs for the Balearic Islands, Navarre and Rioja were approved through a single commitment of the total amount of Community assistance. Table 27: Objective 2 - Spain - Financial implementation of programmes (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 1995 Regional OPs OP Aragon OP Balearic Islands OP Catalonia OP Rioja OP Madrid OP Navarre OP Basque Country' Multi-regional OP OP Multi-regional T O T AL (1) 64,2 10,4 510,1 11,9 145,0 22. 8 325,9 39,7 1. 130,0 199,3 61,1 1. 994,0 74,1 398,8 62,5 1. 033,4 88,3 3. 911,7 Commitments 1995 Commitments 1994-95 % (2)/(I) Payments 1995 (2) P a y m e n ts 1994-95 (3) % (3)/(2) 13,9 10,4 289,0 11,9 79,1 22,8 192,4 39,7 659,2 13,9 10,4 289,0 11,9 79,1 22,8 192,4 22% 100% 57% 100% 5 5% 100% 59% 39,7 100'% 659,2 58"/. ] 6,9 5,2 220,4 5. 9 29,5 16,7 148,4 14,9 448,0 6,9 5,2 220,4 5,9 29,5 16,7 148,4 50% 50% 76% 50% 3 7% 7 3% 77% 14,9 448,0 3 8% 6 8% It should also be noted that assistance under the CSF for 1992-93 continued in 1995. That CSF, approved on 18 December 1992, contains ECU 724 million (at 1992 prices) of Community assistance for seven ERDF OPs (ECU 520 million), seven ESF OPs (ECU 166. 6 million), the Renaval and Résider Community programmes in the Basque Country (ECU 34. 2 million) and one Renaval Community programme in Cantabria (ECU 3 million). This, in the end, was not implemented and the amount was subsequently included in the corresponding regional OP. The 14 national initiative OPs (seven for the 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 71 ERDF and seven for the ESF) were implemented in accordance with the contents of the five priorities in the CSF, establishment and development of productive activities, protection and improvement of the environment, support for research and development and training facilities, to the communications network and technical assistance. In the case of the nine programmes part-financed by the ERDF, all the commitments had been finalized by 31 December 1993, with the exception of the programmes for Aragon, Cantabria and Madrid where an extension to 31 March 1994 was granted. The final date for payments for each of these OPs was 31 December 1995. At the end of November 1995, the Spanish authorities sent the Commission requests for this date to be put back to 31 March 1996 in the case of the programmes for Aragon and Madrid and to 30 June 1996 for that for Cantabria. The Commission agreed to these requests. improvements FRANCE Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Technical assistance (e) Breakdown by Fund : 710,0 614,0 313,0 103,0 25,0 (c) 18% (a) 4 0% ERDFl ESF Total 1. 452,61 310,6 1. 763,2 82%" 18% 100% (b) 35% 19 SPDs Average perSPDJ 9ÏJ Implementation in 1995 in France from one region total Environmental measures differ considerably contribution of the Structural Funds amounts to ECU 234 million (only ECU 103 million if measures concerned with direct protection are excluded), 13% of total assistance. However, this figure may rise to 28% in Alsace and not exceed 3. 5% in the Loire region. In Lower Normandy it is zero. Most of the measures are for urban restoration and the cleaning up of industrial sites, mainly by removing is fairly representative: a large part (18%) of the industrial pollution. The example of Picardy the use of clean technologies and advisory Community contribution goes to environmental projects, service the environment and energy, and employment. ,. •/. , training related to the environment will be encouraged. through the regional fund for fn,A ^""<- /> encouraged to another. The The 19 SPDs for the Objective 2 regions of France22 were approved in December 1994 and all the " ^ these programmes had been established by the end of March 1995. Most of Monitoring Committer the programmes got under wa^ fairly slowly and their implementation gives grounds for a certain degree of concern. The evaluation structure to monitor assistance has been established or is being set up in seven of the 19 regions and in most regions the system suggests that monitoring will be more rigorous thanks to stronger teams and have a higher profile as the result of the quality of information sent to the Monitoring Committees, particularly as far as the selection of projects to receive Community funding is concerned. 22 Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Brittany, Burgundy, Centre, Champagne-Ardennes, Franche-Comté, Languedoc- Roussillon, Loire Region, Lorraine, Lower Normandy, Midi-Pyrénées, Mord/Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Poitou- Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Rhône-Alpes and Upper Normandy. 72 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Through partnership a meeting with the regional partners organized by the DATAR23 was held in May 1995 and provided an opportunity to exchange experience on a number of topics, including assessment. 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Statements of expenditure for the 1994 instalment sent to the Commission at the end of 1995 for 11 of the 17 regions24 show that it had proved possible to commit the 1995 instalment but the first advance for that year had been paid in only three regions. This means that the level of public expenditure of the 1994 instalment of the programme had not reached 40% in six regions and was below 60% in 14. It should be noted that Rhône-Alpes, Nord/Pas-de-Calais, Aquitaine, Brittany, Champagne-Ardennes and Franche- Comté had not declared sufficient expenditure to justify a call for funds or a request for commitment of the Community instalment for 1995. The result is that at the end of 1995 France will have received payments totalling ECU 348. 3 million in respect of the first advance for 1995 and the second advance for 1994. This situation is particularly worrying because programming should be completed and fully committed at national level before the end of 1996. Table 28: Objective 2 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on T o t al c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce 0) C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 (2) P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 3) % ( 3 ) / ( 2) 1994 S PD A l s a ce S PD A q u i t a i ne S PD A u v e r g ne S PD L o w er N o r m a n dy S PD B u r g u n dy S PD Brittany S PD C e n t re S PD C h a m p a g n e - A r d e n ne S PD F r a n c h e - C o m té S PD U p p er N o r m a n dy S PD L a n g u e d o c - R o u s s i l l on S PD L o r r a i ne S PD M i d i - P y r e n e es S PD N o r d / P a s - d e - C a l a is S PD Loire R e g i on S PD P i c a r dy S PD P o i t o u - C h a r e n t es S PD P. A. C. A. (1) S PD R h ô n e - A l p es 46,0 379,2 126,0 169,5 130,4 262. 3 108,4 211. 3 1 11,7 396,9 219,5 282,7 1 5 1,3 923. 1 321,7 429. 2 130. 7 295,7 316,7 T O T AL (1 ) P r o\ en ce-A Ip e s - Cô te d ' A z ur s. ôli. O 19,6 107,1 61,1 57,8 49. 4 89,7 24,2 77,5 47,8 146,0 70,5 127. 4 42. 6 318,1 135. 9 122,4 53,3 113,1 99,7 1. 763,1 07) 3,8 19,3 17,1 13. 9 0,0 0,0 0. 0 2,1 45,2 19,9 40,0 13,6 12,0 41. 9 37,6 17,1 29. 6 0. 0 313,1 19,6 37,9 38,7 35,5 29,6 28,5 24,2 24,6 17,3 91,6 42,3 80,4 27. 2 114,1 85,1 76,5 34,0 65. 6 31. 7 100% 3 5% 6 3% 6 1% 6 0% 3 2% 100% 3 2% 3 6% 6 3% 6 0% 6 3% 6 4% 3 6% 6 3% 6 2% 6 4% 5 8% 3 2% 904,4 5 1 % o. o 2. 6 15. 6 12,2 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 1,1 18. 5 5. 7 15. 5 2,1 1 1. 7 22,9 30. 5 6. 7 0. 0 0. 0 145,1 9,8 19,6 25,3 21. 3 7. 9 14. 3 12,1 12,3 8,7, 41,7 16. 9 35,7 8. 9 62. 8 27. 0 49,9 15,2 18,0 15. 8 4 2 3. 3 5 0% 5 2% 6 5% 6 0% 2 7% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 4 6% 4 0% 4 4% 3 3% 5 5% 3 2% 6 5% 4 5% 2 7% 5 0% 4 7 % At the request of the French authorities, the Commission took a decision to extend the period for national payments for final beneficiaries in respect of a number of programmes under previous phases of programming (1989-91 and 1992-93). 23 Délégation à l'aménagement du territoire et à l'action régionale (department lor spatial planning and regional activities). 24 Seventeen rather than 19 because a single commitment was made when the SPDs for Alsace and Centre were adopted. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 73 ITALY Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Technical assistance (e) Breakdown by Fund : 334,7 204,3 86,0 48,4 10,6 (d) 7% (e) 2% (C) 13% a) 48% ERDF I ESF Total 542,31 141,7 684,0 79%" 2 1% 100% ( b) 30% TTSTm Average per SPDI 62,2 The new programming period 1994-96 provides for Community assistance totalling ECU 684 million to 11 regions in northern and central Italy25 All the SPDs had been approved by the end of 1994 with Community assistance ranging from ECU 6 million for the Valle d'Aosta to ECU 205 million for Piedmont. As regards content, the programmes lay greater stress than in the past on activities relating to new sources of employment. This includes aid to small firms for the adoption of new technologies through support for R&D and the transfer of technology (science and technology parks, innovative services for small firms, specific training measures, the creation of consortia of producers and potential users of the results of work on research and innovation). Particular attention is also paid to the development of human resources, which is a specific priority in all the programmes other than those for Valle d'Aosta and Lombardy. This priority includes horizontal and/or innovative measures concerning skills and support for the economic system and experiments with new forms of assistance. It is structured in three parts: the development of human resources for workers in large firms threatened with or suffering from unemployment, innovative projects relating to training linked to the opportunities offered by new sources of employment (accompanying measures and local development initiatives) and improvements to the training system. Environmental protection has received particular attention. The total contribution of the Structural Funds is ECU 105 million (ECU 48 million if only measures directly concerned with the environment are included), 15% of total assistance. However, the figure varies sharply from one region to another, is concentrated ranging from zero in Emilia-Romagna mainly on industry, particularly control systems, environmental the restoration of abandoned areas, programmes of subsidies for investment in clean technologies and some specific training measures. For example, firms modernize their facilities for treating waste water and other waste. In Piedmont a large part of the finance will go to clean technologies, the storage or recycling of industrial waste and the reclamation of abandoned industrial land. in Lombardy substantial aid will be given to help small to 20% in Piedmont. In general, attention infrastructure, The programmes also give greater assistance to local development through a series of measures including grants for new investment, services, a fresh boost to the economy and new financial instruments with innovative aspects. Implementation in 1995 In most regions, implementation of the SPDs began immediately the programmes had been approved. The outturn has, however, varied widely from one measure to another. In general, programmes providing grants to small firms (craft firms, tourism and services) have been very successful with 25 Emilia-Romagna, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Lombardy, Marche, Piedmont, Tuscany, IJmbria. Valle d'Aosta and Veneto. 74 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) commitments approaching 100% in many regions. However, although new infrastructure measures have attracted a large number of applications, they require more time because of the cumbersome Italian legislation on invitations to tender. It should be noted that the process of selecting projects eligible for financing has encouraged transparency and compliance with the principle that assistance from the Structural Funds should add value and, in accordance with the selection criteria, only the most promising projects have been selected. The Monitoring Committees for all the SPDs met in 1995 and took the steps required for measures which had remained in suspense when the SPDs were adopted to make progress. The Committees approved the various selection criteria for the projects and issued calls for proposals. Where necessary, some (Liguria and Tuscany) adopted various corrective measures to adjust the programmes in the light of developments in the region. 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Table 29: Objective 2 - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) — P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on T o t al c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce C o m m i t m e nt C o m m i t m e nt (1) 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % ( 3 ) / ( 2) 1994 SPD Emilia-Romagna SPD Friuli-Venczia Giulia S PD Lazio SPD Liguria SPD L o m b a r dy SPD M a r c he SIM) P i e d m o nt SPD T u s c a ny SPD L m b r ia SPD Valle d ' A o s la SPD V e n e to 39,4 104. 8 193,4 274,7 76,1 57,0 695,9 485,1 80,1 15. 4 223. 7 12,0 24,0 64,0 96,0 23,0 21,0 205. 0 127. 0 35. 0 6,0 71,0 T O T AL 2. 2 4 5 ,7 6 8 4,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 12,0 24,0 20,3 30,5 23,0 21,0 65,1 40,4 35,0 6,0 22. 6 100% 100% 3 2% 3 2% 100% 100% 3 2 % 3 2% 100% 100% 3 2% 2 9 9 ,9 4 4% 0,0 0. 0 o. o 0. 0 o. o 0. (1 0. 0 0. 0 O. d O. d o. o 0. (1 6,0 12,0 10,2 15,3 11,5 10,5 32,6 20. 2 17,5 3. 0 11. 3 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 5 0% 1 5 0 ,0 5 0% In terms of financial implementation at national level, payments by the national authorities responsible for the implementation of the programmes give rise to considerable concern because of the low level of implementation at the end of 1995 (between 0% and 8% of the total planned for 1994-96). It should also be noted that implementation of the first phase (1989-91) of the previous programming is now complete. While total payments amounted to 80% to 90% of the total available period appropriations (ECU 158 million), this under-utilization is partly the result of difficulties encountered during implementation (long and obscure administrative procedures, the abandonment of projects to which appropriations had already been committed) and partly to the devaluation of the lira. As a result of this devaluation, full utilization of ERDF assistance would have required the national authorities to make additional resources available, which was not considered compatible with efforts to achieve budgetary discipline at national level. Each region has made an initial assessment of the impact on the economy and employment in its final report. However, a more complete ex post evaluation study will be carried out by an outside assessor selected by the Commission. In addition, information and publicity measures have been undertaken to raise the profile of the ESF measures. In the second phase (1992-93), the Community contribution to the nine programmes amounted to ECU 183 million (ERDF: ECU 127 million; ESF: 56 million). Total investment under these programmes, including national public and private resources, amounts to ECU 1 billion and the average multiplier effect is about 5. 7. Although commitments at regional level have reached 100% in almost all cases, implementation has been delayed because of the adoption of the programmes at the end of 1992 and the impact this had on payments on the ground. As a result, the final date for payment has been put back by six months in seven regions. By the end of 1995 the overall rate of payments was around 50%. However, since the rate of expenditure normally rises sharply during the last few months before the final dates for payment, there is every reason to expect the situation to improve in 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 75 LUXEMBOURG Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Breakdown by Fund : ERDFl ESF Total 6fi\ 1,0 7,0 TJFD Average per SPDI Implementation in 1995 1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 86%" 14% 100% 770" ( d) 29% ( a) 14% ( C ) 2 9% ( b) 28% Protection of the environment receives the largest share of appropriations under Objective 2 in the SPD for Luxembourg: 30% of the appropriations from the Structural Funds (ECU 2. 2 million). This priority is concerned with cleaning up industrial -waste land and the treatment of waste. Progress in implementing the SPD for Luxembourg, which was adopted in 1994, is rather variable. Some measures (the equipping of reception areas and the construction of tourist infrastructure) are proceeding as planned while others had not really begun in 1995 because of start-up problems. Some adjustments will be made during 1996 (particularly the project to cover over the waste tip at Ronnebierg). Table 30: Objective 2 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) Programme and year of adoption I Total cost S F assistance (1) Commitment 1995 Commitment 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 199 5 Payments 1994-95 (3) % (3 1/(2) T99~4 SPD Luxembourii NETHERLANDS TrJTl (LOT 8TJ1 i l 4 %| Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : P r o d u c t i ve e n v i r o n m e nt (a) H u m an r e s o u r c es (b) Land i m p r o v e m e nt a nd r e s t o r a t i on (c) E n v i r o n m e n t al p r o t e c t i on (d) T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce (e) by Fund : Breakdown ERDFl ESF Total 206. 01 94,0 300,0 5 SPDs A v e r a ge p er SPD | 141,4 112,8 41,5 5,0 9. 2 69%" 31% 100% 60,0 (c) 13% ( d ) 2% ( e )3% ( a) 46% ( b) 36% 76 Implementation in 1995 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) (Groningen, Environmental measures appropriations Zuidoost Brabant and Zuid-Limburg) make specific provision amounting to ECU 13 million (ECU 5 million for direct measures), or 4. 5% of total assistance. These measures concentrate on improvements in the Netherlands are very varied. Three of the SPDs to make urban and industrial areas more attractive. for Community The areas of the Netherlands eligible under Objective 226 receive a total of ECU 300 million from the Structural Funds in the form of five SPDs adopted in 1994. In general, the launch of these programmes in 1995 was satisfactory, as shown by the level of Community commitments, but actual implementation on the ground varied from one programme to another. The SPD for Zuidoost Brabant got off to a slow start because of its late approval but progress speeded up at the end of 1995 so that, by the beginning of 1996, 54% of the total appropriations had been committed for approved projects (ERDF: 48%; ESF: 66%). These included a number of major projects, which gave an important stimulus to private investors (some 250 companies). In the case of the Arnhem-Nijmegen programme, actual expenditure committed by the final beneficiaries now amounts to 40% of the total costs for 1994. In the case~of the ESF, however, some ECU 2 million out of a total of ECU 16. 6 million had been committed so that a special working party was set up to encourage a larger number of projects part-financed by the ESF. This has made encouraging progress. industrial grouping) Good progress in implementation: In Zuidoost Brabant, the measure for the restoration of areas for the establishment of economic activities will be completed early in 1996 and there are high expectations of the K1C (Kennisintensieve Industrie Clustering - Knowledge-intensive involving technical cooperation between firms not only in Zuidoost Brabant but also in Zuid-Limburg, another Objective 2 area, and in northern and centra! Limburg, which are eligible under Objective 5(b). //; Arnhem-Nijmegen, the aim of the programme is to create 3 000 jobs and it appears that the total number of jobs created by the projects approved has already reached that figure. /// Twente, the main project approved in 1995 was the general programme of assistance to small firms (total cost: ECU 11. 4 million, ERDF aid: ECU 8. 5 million) which has three strands: assistance and advice, invesnnent grants and loans for innovative projects. The Commission approved the first two parts in spring 1995. In the case of the Twente SPD, about 43% of the ERDF assistance (ECU 39. 4 million) was used for individual projects. This means that the ERDF provided about ECU 24 million in part-finance. While the schedule of commitments was complied with, there are delays in payments since the 1995 instalment has not been paid. The situation with regard to the Groningen-Drenthe programme is similar. While almost 40% of ERDF assistance (ECU 48. 6 million) has been committed, there is a delay in payments and the 1995 instalment will have to be committed in 1996. The Zuid-Limburg programme became operational in a few months, mainly because it was the continuation of earlier programmes. By the end of 1995, 32% of the assistance had been committed. Because a number of the projects decided on are on a large scale (the development of sites and facilities for economic activities), actual payments will be made later. 26 Zuidoost Brabant, Arnhem-Nijmegen, Groningen-Drenthe, Twente and Zuid-Limburg. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 77 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Table 31: Objective 2 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 0) Commitment 1995 Commitment 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 Payments 1994-95 (3) % (3)/(2) 1994 SPD Arhnem-Nijmegen SPD Groningen-Drenthe SPD Twente-Overijsel SPD Zuid-Limburg SPD Zuidoost Brabant TOTAL 171,6 252,7 197,5 130,3 172,0 924,1 56,0 76,0 58,0 43,0 67,0 300,0 0,0 9,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,1 17,9 33,4 18,6 13,8 21,4 105,0 32% 44% 32% 32% 32% 3 5% 0. 0 12,3 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 12,3 9,0 16,7 9,3 6,9 10,7 $2,5 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 5 0% UNITED KINGDOM Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Breakdown by sector : Productive environment (a) Human resources (b) Land improvement and restoration (c) Environmental protection (d) Technical assistance (e) Breakdown by Fund : 1. 038,0 755,0 189,0 138,0 22,0 ERDFl ESF Total 1. 606,91 535. 1 2. 142,0 75%" 25% 100% (b) 35% 13 SPDs A v e r a ge p er S P D| 164~8~ Implementation in 1995 ( d) 6% ( e) 1% ( a) 49% Measures to protect the environment are included in virtually all the SPDs for the United Kingdom. They total ECU 138 million, or 6. 5% of Community assistance. Despite their variety, they form two distinct group. Many areas are trying to improve their image and so are targeting measures on the renovation of urban centres while other have concentrated measures on (he development of clean technologies in firms in order to reduce industrial pollution. In the early part of the year, the bulk of the work involved establishing the Monitoring Committees for the 13 SPDs27 approved at the end of 1994 and defining the procedures and criteria for the selection of projects. In each region the Monitoring Committees set up a number of sub-committees (working parties, advisory groups, etc. ) to assist in programme implementation, and particularly the assessment and selection of projects. The groups are organized on a regional or sub-regional basis (e. g. for Yorkshire and Humberside there is a separate advisory group responsible for selecting projects in the three areas eligible, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Humberside) or on a sectoral basis (e. g. a sectoral group for each of the programme priorities: small firms, R&D, local development, etc. ). The Commission is represented on all these committees. 27 Eastern Scotland, Western Scotland, East Midlands, Gibraltar, East London and the Lee Valley, Industrial South Wales, North East England, Greater Manchester Lancashire Cheshire, Plymouth, Thanet, West Cumbria and Furness, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside. 78 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Original methods of operating: The Monitoring Committees and working parties are assisted by secretariats. The Commission has attached great importance to the establishment of independent secretariats responsible to the Monitoring Committees but only in Scotland have such secretariats (with externally recruited staff and their establishment financed partly by technical assistance) been set up with the support of local partners. They have given very good results. In England and Wales the secretariats have been set up with staff from the regional government offices or the Welsh Office and in some cases staff seconded from the partnership paid partly through technical assistance. In all the regions, the Monitoring Committees have adopted transparent criteria for the selection of projects. All the projects are assessed using a system of points based on criteria agreed jointly by the respective Monitoring Committees. The criteria used include the capacity of the project to create permanent jobs. Other criteria include the cost/benefit ratio, the life of the project and its complementarity with other projects. Projects costing less than ECU 5 million are normally considered and selected by working parties reporting back to the appropriate Monitoring Committee. Projects costing more than that amount are normally approved by the Monitoring Committee. Operational mechanisms were introduced in all the regions in February-March 1995. The main task in the following months was to issue calls for projects, which was done at regular intervals throughout the year, and to select projects. Measures under the ESF were selected on the basis of a single call in each region, as were those under the ERDF in the case of the smallest programmes. In the case of larger programmes, a number of calls for projects were issued with varying results. For example, under the West Midlands SPD, over 800 proposals were received in response to the first call. Replies varied depending on the measure. Traditional measures such as "industrial sites and premises" and "development of tourism" sometimes reached the allocations fixed rapidly. More innovative measures such as the development of clean technologies and local economic development made slower progress. Some applicants, particularly associative bodies, often had problems in finding the part-finance required to implement their projects. The Monitoring Committees also resolved certain basic questions on the implementation of the SPDs. including the implementation of priorities for local development, where programmes sought to stimulate a bottom up approach, and combatting the social exclusion of the least favoured social groups concentrated in certain areas of each region. Where these areas had not been defined in the SPDs this was done by the Monitoring Committees during 1995. Plymouth is the area where the target population is most concentrated with 14% of the population of the Objective 2 areas. A certain amount of aid was provided under technical assistance, for example for the preparation of work programmes or to bolster secretariats through staff seconded from the enlarged partnership. As far as monitoring and evaluation are concerned, the local partners undertook to complete the basic indicators, some of which were not yet available when the SPDs were approved at the end of 1994. By the end of 1995 some major indicators still remained to be established in some beneficiary areas. Evaluations of earlier programmes (such as that for Eastern Scotland) or studies on specific subjects were launched and the results will be considered by the Monitoring Committees. In addition, in 1995 the Commission launched a study on local economic development in Great Britain. In some regions, such as North-East England, special seminars were organized to make the opportunities in this field better known. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 79 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 Table 32: Objective 2 - United Kingdom - Financial implementationof the SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on Total c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce 0) C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e nt 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / { l) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 "A, (3)/(2) (3) 1994 S PD East L o n d on & t he Lee valley S PD E a st M i d l a n ds S PD E a s t e rn S c o t l a nd SPD Gibraltar SPD G r e a t er M a n c h e s t er SPD I n d u s t r i al S o u th W a l es S PD N o r th E a st E n g l a nd SPD P l y m o u th SPD T h a n et SPD W e st C u m b r ia & F u r n e ss SPD W e st M i d l a n ds SPD W e s t e rn S c o t l a nd S PD Yorkshire & H u m b e r s i de 191,3 218. 2 293,0 11,5 814,5 526,4 723,7 69,2 69,1 65,3 938,4 665,8 813,7 74,0 79,0 121,0 5,0 329,0 188,0 308,0 29,0 14,0 25,0 371,0 286. 0 313. 0 6,1 6,5 40,1 0,0 32,7 15,6 95,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 123. 0 94,8 103,8 29,7 31,7 78,6 5. 0 137,3 75,3 193,6 29,0 14,0 25. 0 240,9 185,7 204,4 4 0% 4 0% 6 5% 100% 4 2% 4 0% 6 3% 100% 100% 100% 6 5% 6 5% 65%. 4. 4 5,8 6. 6 0. 0 27,5 14. 3 37,4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 19. 1 18,5 19,3 16. 1 18. 4 25,9 2. 5 79. 8 44,2 86. 3 14,5 7. 0 12,5 78. 1 63. 9 69,6 5 4% 5 8% 50% 5 8% 5 9% 4 5% 50% 5 0% 5 0% 3 4% 3 4% T O T AL 5. 400,1 2. 1 4 2 ,0 5 1 8 ,3 1. 250,0 5 8% 15 3,0 5 1 8 ,9 4 2% In general, measures under the programmes have given impressive results in terms of the level of commitment of the Structural Funds. By the end of the year, the programmes which had been approved in principle represented about half the total assistance for that purpose. However, progress in terms of actual expenditure was rather slower. In December 1995 adjustments were made to four SPDs (Eastern Scotland, Western Scotland, Yorkshire and Humberside and West Midlands), mainly to define better the contribution of the private sector and to transfer to 1995 instalments of ERDF and ESF appropriations not used in 1994. 80 4. Objectives 3 and 4 4. 1. Implementation of Objectives 3 and 4 in 1995 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) All the programmes under Objective 3 have now been approved for the new period, as all the CSFs, OPs and SPDs for the nine existing Member States were adopted in 1994 and the three SPDs for the new Member States were adopted in 199528. In all, therefore, Objective 3 is being implemented by four CSFs, 46 OPs and seven SPDs (including three for the new Member States). All the Objective 4 programmes for the Nine were also adopted in 1994, and in the new Member States, only the SPD for Sweden remained to be approved in 1995. Thus, Objective 4 is being implemented by nine SPDs (including two in the new Member States), one CSF and five OPs. Implementation of Objective 3 in the Member States in 1995 was satisfactory. Emphasis was placed on the new guidelines for the 1994-99 programming period, which introduced new possibilities for assistance as regards both the targeted recipients (all those threatened with exclusion from the labour market) and measures (integration pathways, basic and continuing training and apprenticeship schemes). Since the CSFs and SPDs for Objective 4 were approved in December 1994, measures were prepared in 1995 at differing speeds in the different Member States. Priority was given to the dissemination of information (mainly through seminars and information campaigns), setting up the partnership and selecting projects. In some Member States measures were launched in 1995, in others this will happen in 1996. The innovations in Objective 4, particularly with regard to pre-emptive measures, the extended partnership and the need to comply with competition rules have resulted in delays in implementation in relation to initial forecasts. Table 33: Objectives 3 and 4 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-95 and 1996-99 (ECU million) D | F | F | 1 | L | N | AT | FI | SE | UK | Total | | Objective 3 (1994/95-99 except for UK: 1994-96) Programmed A d o p t ed DK B | 396,2 ** 400,9 101% 97. 8 24% 74. 5 19% 263,0 * 263,0. 100% 85,0 32% 74,2 28% 1. 682,1 ** 1 682,1 100% 307,8 18% 234,3 14% Commitments 1994-1995 % of assistance Payments 199*4-1995 % of a s s i s t a n ce Objective 4 (1994/95-96 except for E, I , N , U K: 1994-99) 104,5 * Programmed 104,5 A d o p t ed % 100% 29,6 Commitments 1994-1995 28% % of assistance 14,8 Payments 1994-1995 14% % of assistance 13,0* 13,0 100% 6,0 46% 3,0 23% 25,4 ** 25,7 101% 4. 6 18%. 9% 1. 474,4 ** 1. 480,3 100% 426,6 29% 244,5 17% 2362,4 * 2. 562,4 100% 778,4 30% 503,7 20% 1. 316,3 ** 1. 300,1 99% 200,5 15% 100,2 8% 20,7 * • 20,7 100% 6,5 31% 5,6 27% 368,6 * 368,6 100% 118,1 32% 65,8 18% 299,6 * 299,6 100% 95,4 32% 47,7 16% 398,8 * 398,8 100% 60,6 15% 30,3 8% • 0,9 0,9 99% 0,5 59% 0,3 38% 922,8 * 922,8 100% 282,3 31% 253,3 27% 156,2 * 156,2 100% 22,2 14% 11,1 7% 334,0 * 334,0 100% 64. 1 19% 32,0 10% 61,0 * 61. 0 100% 11,7 19% 5,9 10% 258,4 * 258. 4 100% 60,3 23% 30,2 12% 84. 6 * 84,6 100% 14,8 18% "<A 9% 347,0 * 347,0 100% 73,0 21% 36,5 11% 1. 501,0 * 1. 501,0 100% 975. 0 65% 818. 6 55% 11. 078,3 11. 072,7 100% 3. 357,1 30% 2. 407,6 22% 173,0* 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 329,7 * 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0. 0 0% 2. 015,3 1. 512,9 75% 363. 6 24% 188,7 12% Programmed by SPD ** Programmed by CSF The under-utilization of ESF appropriations for 199529 was noted by the various parties involved in the Community institutions and the Member States. The main reasons for this situation have been weeknesses and delays in implementation in certain Member States and delays in the adoption of many decisions. The situation varies according to the Objective and the Member State concerned, but a plan of action comprising steps to be taken by the Member States and the Commission has been adopted in order to improve implementation and achieve better control from 1996 on. 28 See Chapter l. A. 7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 29 See also Chapter II. A Budgetary implementation. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 81 The environment in Objectives 3 and 4: Since Objectives 3 and 4 concern human resource measures to combat long-term unemployment and facilitate vocational integration (Objective 3) and to facilitate the adaptation of workers to industrial changes (Objective 4) environmental considerations are necessarily indirect and concern work experience and vocational training. However, in the long term they contribute to adapting employees to new jobs and increasing public awareness of environmental issues. Thus, under Objective 3 the ESF is supporting environmental action by part-financing employment aid for environmental improvement operations like the restoration of industrial sites, cleaning of rivers or beaches and the conservation of natural sites. Objective 4 includes vocational training and advisory measures in the context of re-skilling workers in the face of industrial changes. In the main, these measures aim to raise skill levels to enable workers to adapt to new, environmentally friendly procedures which often require advanced technical skills. 4. 2. Country-by-country survey BELGIUM Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Integration o f t he long-term unemployed (a) Vocational integration of y o u ng people seeking employment (b) Integration o f t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) Equal opportunities for men and women (d) Aid for training and integration facilities (e) FSE ( d ) 7% ( e) 7% ( a) 34% 133,0 84,8 124,6 26,4 27,4 396,2 Total (C) 31% ( b) 2 1% Objective 3: Objective 3 in Belgium is programmed in a CSF and five OPs, all adopted in 1994 and representing ESF assistance worth ECU 396. 2 million. Measures programmed for 1995 progressed well. The Monitoring Committees for the OPs studied the ways and means of achieving optimal management of the integration pathway, which will become an eligibility criterion from 1997. Underlying this discussion has been the setting up of a forum to take place in 1996 in which trainees under measures supported by the ESF will play a key role. The Monitoring Committees also focused on defining specifications for assessment as well as appointing independent assessors. Local branch offices in Brussels: The idea of setting up local branch offices came from the municipalities which make up the city of Brussels, the public social assistance centres (CPAS) and their partner associations as a shared means of assisting local inhabitants in difficulty. There is no single model. These local branches seek to render the various measures and legal provisions taken by the municipal, regional and federal authorities more accessible and applicable to the everyday reality ofthe local population they serve. They play an important coordinating role at local level in facilitating access by the population to vocational integration measures and encouraging the development of integration pathways. The local branch offices in Brussels have set up reception and guidance facilities. Each year 300 to 600 people receive initial socio-vocational guidance in each of the local branches. There are now nine of them in the city's main municipalities. 82 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Priorities A n t i c i p a t i on of l a b o ur market t r e n ds (a) I m p r o v e m e n ts in t r a i n i ng and g u i d a n ce s c h e m es (b) D e v e l o p m e nt of t r a i n i ng a nd g u i d a n ce (c) Horizontal m e a s u r es (d) I TTE (d) 8% ( a) 33% S\T 6,4 8,7 2,0 25,4 Total J (C) 34 (b) 25% Objective 4: Like Objective 3, Objective 4 is programmed through a CSF and five OPs adopted in 1994 with an ESF contribution of ECU 25. 4 million until 1996. However, in contrast to initial plans, few measures were organized in 1995 because the Monitoring Committees for the OPs, in their concern to do justice to the specific goals of Objective 4, decided to determine as exactly as possible the criteria and procedures for selecting projects. Their discussions should be translated into administrative procedures during 1996. Table 34: Objectives 3 and 4 - Belgium - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and y e ar of adoption Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce Objective 3 1994 OP Flemish Community OP French Community OP G e r m a n - s p e a k i ng c o m m u n i ty OP B r u s s e ls OP M in is try of employ ment 632,0 361,7 12,4 32,7 94,3 total 1. 133,0 Objective 4 1994 OP Flemish c o m m u n i ty OP French Community OP G e r m a n - s p e a k i ng c o m m u n i ty OP B r u s s e ls OP M in is try of e m p l o y m e nt Total T O T AL 45,1 11,1 0,6 3,1 6,9 66,« 1. 199,8 (1) 188,3 158,7 5,5 12,4 3 6,0 41111,9 18,3 3. 7 0,3 1,0 2,6 25,7 4 2 6,6 C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 % P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 (2) P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) (3)/(2) 0,0 25,9 0,0 1,9 5,6 33,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 33,4 30,4 51,9 0,8 3,7 10,9 97,8 16% 33% 15% 30% 3 0% 24% 3,5 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,6 19% 5% 25% 30% 24% 4,6 1 fi % 102,4 2 4% 9,4 25. 9 0,1 1. 5 5,5 4 2,3 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0,0 4 2. 3 24,6 38,9 0,5 2. 4 8,1 74,5 81 % 75% 56% 64% 7 5% 76% 1. 7 0,1 0,0 0,1 0. 3 2,3 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 7 6,8 7 5 % The measures receiving assistance under Objective 3 in 1995 comprise active steps to combat unemployment, with special priority to integration mechanisms which, with appropriate supervision, can effectively help the unemployed into permanent jobs. Implementation of this exacting concept (the integration pathway) has been highly successful. The delays in starting up in 1994 have almost all been retrieved and the financial implementation rate is expected to be around 100% when the balances are calculated. The success rate of Objective 4, being much more recent in terms of both approach and direction, has been more varied in the different regions ofthe country. Only the federal OP kept up with initial programming in 1995. DENMARK Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Vocational integration of y o u ng people (R) Integration o f t he long-term unemployed (b) Integration of t h o se t h r e a t e n ed with exclusion (c) Technical a s s i s t a n ce (d) FSE (C) 22% (d) 2% (a) 21% 55,0 144. 0 58,5 5,5 263,0 Total (b) 55% Objective 3: Objective 3 is being implemented in Denmark through a single SPD adopted in 1994, which saw ECU 41 million in commitment appropriations for 1995. The SPD supports and supplements Denmark's dynamic employment policy by concentrating assistance on a number of beneficiaries much smaller than the number of unemployed people receiving national assistance and on projects of a longer 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 83 duration than in the previous programming period. Results in 1995 show that application of this principle is bearing fruit. Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Priorities A n t i c i p a t i on ot l a b o ur market t r e n ds a na v o c a t i o n al training r e q u i r e m e n ts (a) V o c a t i o n al t r a i n i n g, g u i d a n c e, a d v i ce (b) I m p r o v e m e n ts in v o c a t i o n al training s c h e m es (c) T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce (d) Total T SF (C) 3 0% (d)4% (a ) 1 5% 1,9 6,7 3,9 0,5 TTC ( b) 5 1% Objective 4: 1995 was the first full year of implementation ofthe SPD for 1994-96 in Denmark. Late approval ofthe SPD prevented any action in 1994 and resulted in ECU 1 million being carried forward from 1994. ECU 5 million was committed in 1995. The measures provided for in the SPD aim, in particular, at improving the current arrangements for monitoring the labour market and assisting firms to make better use of them. The ESF is also assisting measures with two other strategic aims: on the one hand, to develop vocational training in addition to that offered by the Danish system, matching market requirements and targeting those in greatest need and, on the other hand, to set up advisory services for businesses, especially SMEs. With regard to monitoring, the standing assessment committee provided for in the SPD has been set up. It is collaborating in the creation, application and development of new methods for anticipating and monitoring labour market requirements. Study on the impact of electronic data exchange (EDE): The purpose of this project is to study the extent to which EDE will change the skills required of staff and how surplus human resources can be reallocated elsewhere. The main target group is staff directly affected by the introduction of EDE, with management in second place. The first phase ofthe project, launched in 1995, consists in gathering information and pinpointing current and future uses of EDE by businesses by means of internal interviews and using experience gained in other countries. The project is being part-financed by the ESF (39%), the national public sector (33%) and the private sector (28%) Table 35: Objectives 3 and 4 - Denmark - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce (1) Com m i t m e n ts 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 (2) P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) Objective 3 1994 SPD Denmark Objective 4 1994 SPD Denmark G E R M A NY | 552,9| 263,0| 41,0| 85,01 32% | 39,0| 74,21 S7% T O T AL 28,9 5 8 1 ,8 13,0 2 7 6,0 5,0 4 6,0 6. 0 9 1,0 46% 3 3% 2,5 4 1. 5 3. 0 7 7. 2 50% 8 5 "/. , Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Vocational integration of t h o se threatened with long-term unemployment (a) Vocational integration of y o u ng people seeking employment (b) Integration of t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) Equal opportunities for men and women (d) Technical a s s i s t a n ce and pilot projects (c) FSE 951,4 441,7 78,1 160,1 50. 7 1. 682,0 Total ( d ) i o% <e> 3% (C) 5% ( b) 26% ( a) 56% 84 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 3: Objective 3 in Germany is programmed in one CSF and 12 OPs (one per Land and one federal) adopted in 1994 with total ESF financing worth ECU 1 682 million. 1995 was the first full year of implementation o f t he OPs, which is why only 18% (ECU 48. 2 million) o f t he total allocation of ECU 268. 7 million provided for 1995 in the financing plan was committed and why commitments for 1994-95 represented 58% ofthe amounts programmed. Most ofthe programmes only reached cruising speed during the second half of 1995. ESF assistance under Objective 3 at federal level is being used to supplement standard aid proposed under national employment measures, i. e. the "AFG-plus" programme run by the federal employment service (Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit), which supplements the training and employment aid provided for in the "AFG" (Arbeitsforderungsgesetz) employment promotion law. The most important aspect of the "AFG-plus" is the grant of aid to participants in vocational training measures who are not entitled to benefit under the AFG. Since the main beneficiaries of this assistance are women, implementation ofthe "AFG-plus" programme also helps contribute to equality of opportunities for men and women. At Lander level, the most noteworthy aspect of the new set of programmes is the creation or development of "soziale Betriebe", or social enterprises. Their mission is to integrate disadvantaged unemployed people by setting up businesses which, in time, will be viable without financial assistance from public funds. These social enterprises have mainly been developed in Lower Saxony and are currently being introduced in other parts ofthe country, often in slightly different forms. They will carry considerable weight when the OPs are assessed. Training women to drive buses in Munster: The aim of this project is to provide appropriate training for women who, after a period away from work, wish to re-enter the labour market as bus drivers. Part- time training should enable them to get part-time work doing a job in which women are under-represented. The shift of emphasis away from physical strength towards customer service makes this work more attractive to women. Lasting 21 months, the training involves both general aspects (driving techniques, road safety and the highway code, labour law, passenger and goods transport, selling methods, office organization and using a PC) and long practical training courses, partly organized on a rotating basis, which bring women into contact with their future employers. With regard to implementation ofthe OPs, the closer cooperation between the regional branches ofthe federal labour services and the. social affairs services ofthe Lander provided for in the CSF has already begun to bear fruit. The implementing arrangements for several of the specific programmes for the Lander have been amended to make them compatible with the federal "AFG-plus" programme. Most of the bodies managing the programmes have found that the overall level of the programmes has been improved by applying the quality criteria ofthe CSF, which stipulate that projects must meet local and regional skilling requirements and be linked as closely as possible with businesses providing jobs. However, although progress is tangible, it is also slow and monitoring is needed to ensure that implementation continues. In addition, participation ofthe social partners and independent experts on the labour market in the work ofthe Monitoring Committee has permitted more intensive debate on the policy options. The economic and social partners in several Lander are collaborating in the selection of projects or the adjustment of regional programmes. Lastly, mid-term reviews of Objectives 3 and 4 have been prepared, with Monitoring Committee sub groups on assessment drawing up specifications and publishing an invitation to tender. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Priorities Anticipation oi labour market trends and vocational training requirements (a) Training and retraining, guidance and advice (b) Improvement and development of appropriate training schemes (c) Technical assistance (d) 85 I FSE (C) 13% ( d ) 5% ( a) 11% 11,4 73,7 13,7 5,7 nn^5~ (b) 7 1% TôTâT Objective 4: Objective 4 is being implemented in Germany by an SPD with ECU 104. 5 million for 1994-96. Implementation of assistance began late, so that the German authorities were able to spend only ECU 3 million in 1994 and 1995. The unspent funds from the 1994 and 1995 instalments will be carried forward to 1997-99. One ofthe main reasons for the delay was the temporary imposition ofthe "de minimis" rule on state aids, since the German authorities had to show that the planned assistance complied with Community competition rules. Consequently, none of assistance provided for in the SPD was implemented until May-June 1995. Another reason for the delay is the novelty of the approach under Objective 4, which required suitable structures to be set up to ensure that the right projects were selected. On 6 and 7 July 1995 the Germany authorities organized a seminar in Berlin to discuss planning for structural change and the forecasting of vocational training requirements. This was the first thematic seminar at European level since the Objective 4 programmes were launched. Table 36: Objectives 3 and 4 - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on T o t al c os t S F as s is t a n ce C om m i t m e n ts C o m m i t m e n ts ( 1) 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 2) % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n t s 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 3) % ( 3 ) / ( 2) O b j e c t i ve 3 1994 Regional OPs OP B ad en -W ù r t t e n i b e rg OP B a v a r ia OP B e r l in OP B r e m en OP H a m b u rg OP H e s se OP L o w er S a xo n y OP R l u n e l a n d - N o r lh VV es tp h alia OP Rh i n e l a n d - P a l a t i n a te OP S a ar OP S e ll les w i g - H o ls t e in M ultiregional OPs OP F e d e r al 0 bj e c t i ve 4 1994 S PD G e r m an y 1 15,8 1 2 5 ,3 1 13,0 9 3 ,5 8 6 ,1 1 3 5 ,4 2 7 6. S 6 7 4. 8 6 5 ,8 9 0 ,9 9 0 ,4 5 2 ,4 5 6. 5 5 0. 8 3 9,5 3 9 ,1 4 9 ,6 121,2 2 8 0 ,6 2 9 ,5 4 0 ,9 3 4 ,4 Total 2. 5 8 9 ,7 4. 457,4 8 8 7 ,6 1. 6X2,1 Total T O T AL 2 5 5 ,3 255,3 4. 7 1 2 ,7 1 0 4 ,5 104,5 1. 7 8 6 ,6 8,3 0,0 8,1 6,3 0. 0 7,9 0,0 0,0 5. 0 6,4 6. 1 0,0 4H,2 0,0 0,0 4 8 ,2 16,4 8,7 15. 9 12,3 6,0 15,5 18,6 4 3 ,0 10,2 13,0 12. 2 3 1 % 1 5% 3 1 % 3 1 % 1 5% 3 1 % 1 5% 1 5% 3 4% 3 2% 3 5 % 6. 6 2. 6 S. S 6. S l. S 6. 2 0,0 1 2. 9 4,1 7. 1 6. 7 10,6 6 ,9 12,7 9. 9 4. 8 1 0 ,0 9. 3 3 4,4 6,6 10,4 9,8 6 5% 8 0% 8 0% 8 0% 8 0% 6 5% 5 0% 8 0% 6 5% 8 0% 8 0% 136,1 3 (17,H 1 5% / X % 4 0. 8 1 114. 5 1 0 8 ,8 234. 3 8 0% 7 6% 2 9 ,6 2 8% 29,6 2 S % 3 3 7 ,4 1 9% O. U 0. 0 1 0 4. 5 14,8 14,H 5 0% 5 0 % 2 4 9 ,1 7 4 "/. The rather low rate of budget implementation can be attributed mainly to the fact that the federal programme for Objective 3, which accounts for more than 50% of ESF assistance, is financing new measures which cannot be implemented in practice until a decision approving them has been taken. For this reason, the programme reached cruising speed only in the second half of the year. In addition, implementation of the programmes for the previous programming period continued until the end of 1995. 86 SPAIN 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Vocational integration o f t he long-term unemployed (a) Vocational integration of y o u ng people seeking employment (b) Integration o f t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) Equal opportunities for men and women (d) FSE 499,3 725,8 187,6 61,7 (C) 13% (d) 4% (a) 34% Total 1. 474,4 (b) 49% Objective 3: Objective 3 assistance in the Spanish regions outside Objective 1 is programmed in a CSF with Community assistance worth ECU 1 474 million. There are 11 OPs in all, of which four (representing 72% of total assistance) are managed by national bodies and the remaining seven (28%> of assistance) by the Autonomous Communities. Around ECU 233. 8 million was available for 1995, about 90%» of which was committed. The average rate of implementation of programmes is satisfactory. At its two meetings in 1995 the Monitoring Committee emphasized its strategic role in implementing the CSF priorities and in organizing the mid-term review as well as drawing up specifications for intermediate assessment by independent assessors. Stimulating the spirit of enterprise in Spain: The "Escuela de Organizaciôn Industrial" project was set up to help design a project to create new businesses to capitalize on local potential and to stimulate the spirit of enterprise and innovation through theoretical and practical training. To achieve this, the school provides training in how to manage a business in three integrated modules (theory, practical experience and supervision). During the practical phase, students develop a project to set up a business under the individual guidance of a project director (product/market definition, analysis of local potential, determining the strategy, etc) and during the final phase the finished project, including the data necessary to assess its viability, is formally presented. Objective 4 - prog rum min g for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities P r e - e m p t i ve m e a s u r e s, g u i d a n ce and a d v i ce (a) C o n t i n u i ng training of w o r k e rs (b) T e c h n i c al as s is t a n ce (c) FSE 36,9 308,4 23,3 3 6 8 ,6 TôîâT (C)6% (a) 10% lb) 84% Objective 4: Objective 4 outside the Objective 1 areas of Spain is programmed in an SPD for 1994-99 adopted at the end of 1994 with ESF assistance worth ECU 368. 6 million. Implementation of this SPD has been seriously delayed, since only 25% of the 1994 instalment has been spent, leading the Commission to approve an amendment to the financing tables in the SPD in November 1995 to transfer unused amounts from 1994 to 1995. The delay is due both to the late approval ofthe SPD and the internal decision-making process of FORCEM, the joint body responsible for managing and part- financing Objective 4. With regard to the measures implemented by FORCEM in 1994 and part- financed by the ESF under Objective 4 (i. e. outside Objective 1 regions), it has become clear that the emphasis must be placed on training in SMEs (less than 250 employees), the least qualified workers and equality of opportunities for men and women. The Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 87 Table 3 7: Objectives 3 and 4 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd year of adoption T o t al c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce C om m l t m e n ts C om m i t m e n ts ( 1) 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts P n y in en ts 19 9 5 19 9 4 - 95 ( 3 ) / ( 2) ( 2) ( 3) O b j e c t i ve 3 1994 Regional OPs OP A r a g on OP B a l e a r ic Is l a n ds OP C a t a l o n ia OP R i o ja OP M a d r id OP N a v a r re OP B a s q ue C o u n t ry OPs M ultiregional OP I N EM ( 1) OP M u I t i r e g i o n al OP Un i v e r s i t i es OP V a r i o us b od ies O b j e c t i ve 4 1994 S PD S p am 4 5 ,1 2 8 ,8 2 1 0 ,3 9 ,6 2 5 0 ,2 9 4 ,6 2 7 9 ,2 1. 364,4 7 3 0 ,6 2 0 1 ,2 7 5 ,6 2 0 ,3 12,9 9 4 ,6 4,3 1 12,6 4 2 ,6 125,7 6 1 4 ,0 3 2 8 ,8 9 0 ,5 3 4 ,0 0,0 0,0 15. 6 0. 0 18,4 6,8 20,7 1 10,0 3 5 ,5 0,0 0,0 2 0 ,0 12,9 3 1. 1 4. 3 3 6 ,8 13,4 4 1,3 9 9% 1 0 0% 3 3% 1 0 0% 3 3% 3 2% 3 3% 107,1 5 8,3 7,3 2 7% 1 8% 8% 3 3,9 1 0 0% 2, ! 0. 0 1 S. r 0,( 1 3. - o. 7 1 5. ' S3. ( 0. ' O. i 2. 6 1. 0 2 3. 0 0. 6 10,1 2 5 <• 1 12. 1 4 0. 5 3. 7 2,4 1 3% 8% 7 4% 1 4% 0 2% 7 5 % (>3% 7 0% M;% Tola! 3. 2X9,6 1. 480,3 2 0 7,0 426,6 2 9 "A, lt> 9,7 2 4 4,5 5 " "„ Total T O T AL 1 0 4 5 ,0 1. 045,0 4. 3 3 4. 5 3 6 8 ,6 36X. 6 1. 8 4 8 ,9 6 2 ,7 6 2 ,7 2 6 9 ,7 1 18,1 118,1 3 2% j : % 5 4 4 ,7 2 9 % 3 S. I 38,1 2 (1 ". 8 ( - 5. S •}!. "„ 6 5,8 5 <• ':. , i 1 0. 4 5 ~ " ,i ( 1 ) N a t io n al i n s t i t u te t or e m p l oy m e nt F R A N CE Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Integration of t h o se threatened with long-term unemployment (a) Vocational integration of y o u ng people seeking employment (b) Integration o f t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) Equal opportunities for men and women (d) Technical a s s i s t a n ce and pilot projects (e) (C) 2 8% FSE 705. 8 987. 2 714. 2 17. 9 136,9 Total 2. 562,0 b) 38% (decentralization of appropriations Objective 3: The programming of ESF assistance under Objective 3 in France, implemented by an SPD with an ESF contribution amounting to ECU 2 562 million, contains a new feature in the greater involvement of local authorities, both financially (with 40% of ESF appropriations) and in terms o\~ section). programming and management Implementation in 1994 was much slower than expected because ofthe late adoption ofthe SPD. the reform of French financial channels, the programming of assistance in new domains and the greater involvement than hitherto ofthe local authorities. However, generally speaking the priority concerning the those vocational integration of young people and equal opportunities were slower to get started and encountered difficulties in implementation. The priority concerning the integration ofthose threatened with exclusion faced still greater implementation problems. long-term unemployment progressed well. The priorities concerning threatened with regional the in The rate of financial implementation was higher in 1995 than in 1994 (73%). Nevertheless, since neither of the meetings held by the Monitoring Committee in 1995 reported on the progress made in implementing the programme in 1995, no information regarding qualitative results or forecasts was available for inclusion in this report. In addition, in 1995 a debate began on employment policy in France which will have repercussions on the programming of Objective 3 (abolition of certain mechanisms, mergers, etc. ) The Commission has repeatedly stressed the need to com cue a meeting ol the Monitoring Committee as quickly as possible. With regard to assessment, the specification has been adopted and the assessor selected. The steering committee met twice and should transmit a mid-term report at the end of July 1996. Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Priorities Pre-emptive measures relating to skills and qualifications (a) Increase in the training effort (b) Improvements to training schemes (c) Technical assistance (d) 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) I TS~E ( C ) 5% ( d ) 8% ( a , 1 1% 32,1 227,8 14,6 25,1 2 "W (b) 76% Total Objective 4: The decision approving the SPD for Objective 4, which provides for an ESF contribution worth ECU 299. 6 million, was taken in 1994. Since the call for projects was not issued until early 1995, no measures were approved in 1994 for the 1994 instalment. In view ofthe newness of Objective 4, special efforts went into preparing communications measures (call for projects, dissemination of technical tools, exchange of experience) to train those involved and inform and raise the awareness of the bodies liaising with firms, especially SMEs (local chambers of trade, socio-professional bodies, social partners). Much of 1995 was dedicated to these measures and the presentation of projects therefore began only towards the end ofthe year. 70 projects were approved at national level and 335 at regional level. With regard to assessment, a steering committee was set up at the end of 1995 to determine specifications with a view to selecting an assessor. Measures to accompany changes in the car industry: A car parts company, Valéo Sécurité, in the department of Nièvre, has developed new products and new production systems and work organization arrangements in order to adapt to industrial change and find new markets. To accompany these changes in its development strategy, employees have attended framing programmes (integrated automation of production processes, use of new materials, integrated quality management, international sales and trade) to increase their independence and range of skills. These measures targeted employees with the lowest skill levels in order to increase their skills in line with the development of their jobs. The ESF contributed 8%, as did the French Government, while the firm contributed 84%. Table 38: Objectives 3 and 4 - France - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i o n! T o t al c o st SF assistf (1) Com miIments 1995 Com mitments 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) ( 2 ) / ( lJ Payments 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) ( 3 ) / ( 2) 503,71 65% 6. 277,9 2. 8 6 2 ,0 873,8 3 12,9 55 1,4 1 6 3% O bj e c I i ve 3 1994 SPD France O bj c c t i ve 4 SPD France ITALY Objective 3 - programming jor 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Reintegration o f t he long-term unemployed (a) initial training and integration of y o u ng people (b) Integration o f t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) l:qual opportunities for men and women (d) Improvements in training schemes and employment services (e) FSE 424,2 566,0 131,6 105. 3 92. 1 1. 319,2 Total ( e) 7% ( b) 4 3% Programming of Objective 3 in Italy is being implemented by means of a CSF, adopted in August 1994, and 16 regional and multiregional OPs adopted in December 1994. Objective 4 programming is being implemented by an SPD also adopted in 1994. However, in 1995 the Commission decided to extend the commitments of funds for certain regional and multiregional OPs under Objectives 3 and 4 for the 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 89 period 1990-93, so that the new and the old programming are running side by side and the implementation of the priorities of the Objective 3 CSF and the Objective 4 SPD for the second programming period has been slowed down. Objective 4 - programming for 19°4-99 (ECU million) Priorities rre-emptive measures, aid tor programming and managing a continuing training scheme (a) Training, the adjustment of human resources to structural changes in the productive economy (b) Technical assistance (c) I FSE 58,3 (C) 4% ( a) 15% 323,1 17,4 Total J 1WJ (b) 8 1% The ESF has become an indispensable partner in the development of training in Italy. Most of the regional training systems are closely involved with Community assistance, either for part-financing or for training guidelines. Moreover, one ofthe characteristics ofthe new programming is the net increase in assistance under the responsibility ofthe central authorities. In addition, the new programming in Italv includes a system of tendering procedures for project selection which certainly ensure transparency and efficiency in the management of training systems but which also slow down implementation of the programming. This is why all the regions and autonomous provinces selected projects on the basis of invitations to tender published in the regional official gazettes only towards the end of 1995. The projects presented concern training and measures relating to the creation of new jobs (Objective 3) and prospecting measures to disseminate the results of studies on the anticipation of needs in businesses, as well as training measures (Objective 4). There has been some delay in implementing the measures part-financed under Objectives 3 and 4, and there were no commitments or payments in 1995 as a consequence. The amount provided for 1995 will therefore be reprogrammed over subsequent years. It should be pointed out that the part-financing mechanism, which had suffered from shortcomings in the past, has just been reformed. Improvements can therefore be expected in the years to come. Table 39: Objectives 3 and 4 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes (IXC million) P r o g r a m m es a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on T o t al c o st S F ass is t a n ce C o m m i t m e n ts C o m ni i I me n t s ( 1) 1 9 95 19 9 4 - 95 ( 2 ) / ( l) ( 2) l ' : i\ i n c u ts 19 9 5 \':\\ in e n ts 1 9 9 4 -9 5 ( 3) ( 3 1 ( 2) O bjective 3 1994 Regional OPs OP B o l z a no OP E m i l i a - R o m a g na OP F r i u l i - V e n c z ia G i u l ia OP L a z io OP L i g u r ia OP L o m b a r dy OP M a r c he OP Pied m o nt OP T u s c a ny OP T r c n to OP U m b r ia OP V a l le d ' A o s ta OP V e n e z ia Multiregional OPs OP T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce OP I n n o v a t i ve m e a s u r es OP T r a in in g 54,4 409,8 1 18,6 271,7 94,0 3 89,1 81. 7 271,6 145. 8 62. 7 67. 7 2 7,6 240,7 77,8 1 18. 9 456,8 24,5 184. 4 53,4 122. 3 4 2. 3 175,1 3 6,8 122. 2 65. 6 28. 2 30,5 12,4 108,3 35,0 53,5 205,6 total 2. 889,0 1. 300,1 0 bjective 4 1994 S PD M in is try of e m p l oy m e nt Total T O T AL 886,1 886,1 3. 7 7 5 ,1 398,8 398,8 1. 6 9 8 ,8 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. 0 0,0 0. 0 0,0 0,0 3. 7 27. 6 8. 0 18. 3 6. 3 26. 2 18. 3 ') 8 4. 2 4,d 5,1' 9. 0 3 4. 8 1 5% 15% 15% 1 5" o 1 5% 15% 1 5% 15% 15% 15% 1 5% 1 5% 1 7% 17%. 1 7% 2 0 0,5 1 5 % t'0. 6 15';,, | 6 0,6 I5"„ : (. i , i 1 5% | 0. !i '>. ( 0. '. o o 0,1 0. 0 0. 0 O. i O. d 0. 0 o. o II. II o. i! 0,0 0. 0 1. 8 M i' , 50" c. 13. S 4. 0 1 ''. I 2 S 5 0% % 'V v>% VI 1. 5 I 7. 4 5 0" o 50%. 1 Oil, 2 5 o ••;•. i(i,5 M i" n 3 0,3. i II ",. 1 3 0. 5 M , -. 90 L U X E M B O U RG Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Integration o f t he long-term unemployed (a) Vocational integration of y o u ng people (b) Integration o f t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) Equal opportunities for men and women (d) Horizontal meas ures (e) 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) I FSE ( d ) 6% ( e ) 4% ( a) 27% 5,5 3,1 9,9 1,2 0. 9 T o t al 2 0 ,7 (C) 48% ( b) 15% The Objective 3 SPD for Luxembourg, with ECU 20. 7 million for 1994-99, is based on five priorities comprising a total of 14 training measures which have benefitted a total of 421 people. The Objective 4 SPD, with ECU 900 000, targets low-qualified workers, particularly in sectors where there is little or no access to training. However, Luxembourg increasingly has a hard core of long-term unemployment. With ESF assistance, therefore, active measures to assist the unemployed have been strengthened by taking on social workers and setting up a new service for placement, prospection and support. Rates of financial implementation for both Objectives are very satisfactory. Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Priorities M e a s u r es to a n t i c i p a te t r e n ds in the l a b o ur market and r e q u i r e m e n ts for v o c a t i o n al skills (a) V o c a t i o n al training a nd r e t r a i n i n g, g u i d a n ce and ad vice (b) I m p r o v e m e nt and d e v e l o p m e nt of training s c h e m es (c) M e a s u r es c o v e r i ng t he entire SPD (d) | FSE ( d) 13% ( a) 1 2% (C) 13% 0. 1 0. 5 0. 1 0,1 ÏÏJ ( b) 62% TôtâT Table 40: Objectives 3 and 4 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce (1) 9,7 1 1,0 2 0,7 0. 9 0,9 2 1,6 21. 6 24,4 4 6,0 2. 3 2,3 4X. 3 O bj e c t i \ e 3 1994 OP Pro ate promoters OP Public promoters O bj e c 11 ve 4 1994 SPD Public promoters Total Total T O T AL N E T H E R L A N DS Objective 3 - programming jor 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Training (a) Job placement (h) Integration pathways (c) Technical a s s i s t a n ce (d) Com mitments 1995 Com m i t m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / (U P a y m e n ts 19 95 Paym en ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) 1. 5 l. S 3,3 0. 3 0,3 3. 6 3,0 3,5 6,5 3 1 % 3 2% 3 1 % 0. 5 0. 5 7,0 0,59 5 9 % 3 2 % 1. 7 4,0 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 S 3% 9(1% 8 7 % 3. 1 5. 6 0. 3 0,3 5. 9 0. 65 0 5% 8 5 "/„ FSE (C) 3 0% ( d) 5% 480. 0 120. 0 277,0 46. 0 _ __ 9 2 3. 0 ( b) 13% ( a) 52% Objective 3: Implementation ofthe Objective 3 SPD, adopted in 1994. commenced in 1994 and reached its cruising speed at the beginning of 1995, so that all the ECU 143. 8 million in the financing plan for 1995 was committed. The main measure implemented was the training measure provided for in the SPD in firms or which concerns initial, basic ami vocational training and includes practical training 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 91 local authorities, the employment of people educational establishments, individual follow-up and personal guidance. A special effort was also made in 1995 to implement the new "integration pathways" measure in the new programme, which was specifically designed, using an integrated approach, to help the socially excluded return to the labour market. The Netherlands has also implemented a placement measure. These different measures focus on activities such as training, preparation for vocational integration, integrated initiatives to achieve closer cooperation between the reintegration ofthe partially disabled into the labour market. Other measures concern employment pools and the acquisition of work experience. Young unemployed people have benefitted from training programmes specifically designed for those who left school early, special schemes guaranteeing jobs and an extension of apprenticeship schemes. Lastly, the Monitoring Committee for the SPD gave special attention to improving the selection criteria adopted the previous year, because the lack of transparency had caused difficulties for programme managers. During the year, the Committee refined its quality criteria in order to ensure that better projects were selected, thereby allowing the regions to add certain criteria of their own and to improve the complementarity between projects and regional policy. At the same time, the restructuring ofthe regional employment offices was commenced. in the health sector and A project for the socially excluded in North Brabant: Initially an experimental project of the provincial employment aid agency, an office has been set up to offer advice to individuals excluded from the labour follow-up market because of mental problems. They receive personal throughout the process of training and recruitment, as well as after their reclassification. In this way they can step out of their isolation and some can find a job. Objective 4 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Priorities Encouraging interest in training (a) Matching training to needs (b) Training programmes (c) Technical assistance (d) I FSE ( d ) 5% ( a) 8% ( b ) i 9% 13,0 29,1 106,7 7. 4 ÎTS^T TïïtâT (c) 68% Objective 4: Since the Dutch SPD for Objective 4 could not be launched until the second half of 1995, the appropriations allocated had not yet been committed at the end of 1995. This considerable delay is due to uncertainty as to the programme's implementing procedures and the need to set up a special temporary office in the Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment. In June 1995 a conference was finally organized in order to launch the Objective 4 programme30, during which an information booklet for potential promoters was officially presented. The Monitoring Committee for the SPD was also set up in mid-1995, when it adopted the project selection criteria. However, the Netherlands has had difficulty in finding suitable sources of part-financing and using existing resources to set up new structures. These different reasons explain why the first wave of projects was not presented until the end of 1995. Table 41: Objectives 3 and 4 - Netherlands - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es m i d y e ar of a d o p t i on S F as s is t a n ce C) C o m m 11 m e n t s C o m m i I me n I s P a y m e n ts P ay m en ts 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 2 ) / ( I) I 9 9 5 1 9 9 4 -9 5 ( 3 1 / ( 2) ( 2) ( 3) O bj e c t i ve 3 1994 SP D N e t h e r l a n ds O b j e c t i ve 4 S PD N e t h e r l a n ds 363,0 1. 0 7 9 ,0 3 0 4. 5 2 S% 2 5 3 ,3 1 9 0% 11. 1 5 0% 2 fi 4 ,4 j 8 7% ï() H fogether with the Community Initiatives Emploi and Adapt (see also Chapter I. B. I Community Initiatives). 92 UNITED KINGDOM 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 3 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) Priorities Vocational integration o f t h o se unemployed for six months cr more (a) Vocational integration o f t he under 25s (b) Vocational integration o f t h o se threatened with exclusion (c) Equal opportunities for men and women (d) Technical a s s i s t a n ce (e) I FSE 566,0 475,0 353,0 91,0 16,0 Total 1. 501,0 <d>6% ( G )1% ( a) 37% (C) 24% It should be remembered that only Objective 3 has been programmed in the United Kingdom for 1994- 96, as the authorities did not wish to present a programme for Objective 4 for that period. Objective 3: The SPD for Objective 3 covers the period 1994-96 and has a total allocation of ECU 1 501 million, of which ECU 497 million was committed in 1995. Four priority groups are targeted for integration or reintegration measures: the long-term unemployed, young workers with few or no qualifications, those threatened with exclusion and the main potential beneficiaries of equal opportunities measures. Three types of measure are planned for each target group: guidance and counselling, training and job-hunting. This approach makes it possible to develop integrated projects giving those taking part a structured and signposted pathway to lead them from a situation of inadequate schooling or unemployment to suitable qualifications and a job. The selection of projects is administered by several types of body (national and local government, training and enterprise councils and local in Scotland, higher education establishments, universities and charitable enterprise companies organizations). The annual financial allocation for each type of body, per priority and per measure, was approved by the Monitoring Committee in 1994. The delay in implementation in 1994 resulted in retiospective selection in 1995. However, it became clear once the projects had been selected that, for all the different types of body, tire distribution by target group and measure did not correspond to the one in the financing plan ofthe SPD, which therefore had to be amended. The same procedure had to be repeated in 1995 when the situation recurred, this time because there were not enough measures under the equal opportunities target group or the measure for direct assistance in finding a job for all four target groups. It was decided to concentrate the lion's share of financing (95%) on the training measure for all four groups. Lastly, the Objective 3 Monitoring Committee decided to set up a standing assessment group to prepare, study and supervise the assessment procedure and report back to it. The assessment process is based on the analysis ofthe participants' dossiers, the monitoring of beneficiaries and ad hoc studies. Table 42: Objectives 3 and 4 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) P r o g r a m me and year of adoption I Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce (1) C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e n ts I % 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 19 9 5 (2) P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % (3)/(2) Objective 3 SPD United K i n g d om 898,91 497,01 975,01 WÂ 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 93 5. Objective 5(a) 5. 1. Objective 5(a) for agriculture Programming for 1994-99 Objective 5(a) - a horizontal Objective which concerns farming throughout the Union - is a fundamental part of Community rural development policy31. Closely linked to the common agricultural policy, with the task of modernizing agricultural structures and funding of ECU 5 400 million32, it makes an important contribution to helping the Structural Funds achieve social and economic cohesion. Objective 5(a) measures are taken pursuant to specific Regulations, the most important of which are Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 on production structures, and Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and No 867/90 on marketing and processing structures. These Regulations were revised in 1994 by Regulation (EC) No 2843/9433, which simplified the rules and introduced greater flexibility into the granting of aid. Competitiveness and employment: Measures to make the agricultural sector more competitive and maintain employment levels are supported at every level, from farmers setting up to the modernization of holdings and the marketing of agricultural products: • training aid34 helps to improve technical knowledge among farmers setting up so that they can meet the challenges of a constantly changing economic environment; • setting-up aid for young farmers35 contributes to generational renewal to counteract one of the trends which weighs heaviest on the agricultural sector and most undermines competitiveness: the ageing ofthe active population; • aid for investments in agricultural holdings36 assists with modernizing facilities, rationalizing the production process and making it more profitable, diversification, improving living and working conditions and maintaining employment; • aid for back-up measures to assist agricultural holdings37 (administrative services, mutual aid, accounting) makes a qualitative contribution to improving competitiveness; • aid to producer groups38 for marketing their products in regions with specific marketing problems also contributes to redressing inter-regional imbalances; • aid for investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural and forestry products39 assists with the modernization of industrial and commercial activities which receive inputs from agriculture by guaranteeing better outlets for farmers and ensuring that they receive a share of the profits arising from the value added to their products. When approving specific measures proposed by Member States, the Commission takes care to ensure that they are compatible with other measures covered by the regional Objectives (1, 5(b) and 6), and with other Community policies, in particular environmental policy and the common agricultural policy. To this end, a number of rules are applied (selection criteria, sectoral prohibitions and limits, 31 See also Chapter II. D. 2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 32 Initial financial allocation for 1994-99. 33 See 1994 Annual Report. 34 Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 35 Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 36 Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 37 Articles 13 to 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 38 Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78. 39 Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and No 867/90. 94 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) conditions to be fulfilled, etc. ) to guarantee complementarity with CAP measures40. Preventing surplus production and encouraging production of products which can be disposed of through normal market outlets are also important factors in improving the sector's competitiveness. investments Consideration ofthe environment in Objective 5(a) measures for agriculture: In the context of the adjustment of agricultural structures, assistance granted by the EAGGF Guidance Section under Objective 5(a) has beneficial effects on the environment through support in agricultural holdings which are intended to protect and improve the for environment. Furthermore, as part of the measures for adjusting processing and marketing structures for agricultural products, in 1994 the Commission amended the selection criteria for investment aid so as to encourage investments in processing industries using technological innovations that are environmentally friendly, help prevent pollution and eliminate waste and promote organic farming products. Note should also be taken of the impact on the environment of the measures to accompany the reform of the CAP adopted by the Council in 1992. One of the three measures, financed by the EAGGF Guarantee section, concerns agricultural production methods compatible^ with the requirements of the protection ofthe environment and the maintenance ofthe countryside41. This Regulation provides in particular for limiting agricultural production by reducing the use of fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides, as well as reducing the number of livestock held on farms or the number of head per hectare. In 1995 ECU 484. 5 million was paid out for this purpose in the twelve Member States. Forecast expenditure for 1996 is over ECU 1 300 million for the fifteen Member States. Balanced land use and employment: To achieve balanced land-use development, specific measures are applied in particular to assist mountainous and other less-favoured areas42 They are designed to maintain farming in such areas through compensation for the permanent natural handicaps which exist there and comprise principally compensatory payments per production unit and more generous investment aid than that granted to areas without such handicaps. Their effect is to maintain the social fabric in areas under serious threat of depopulation and so prevent job losses, the flight from the land and desertification. 40 See Chapter II. D. 2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 41 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992. 0. 1 No L 215. 30. 7. 1902. ,: Articles 1 7 to 20 o{ Regulation (EEC) No 2 32S 9. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 95 Table 43: Extent of less-favoured areas (in 1 000 ha) within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (situation at the start of 1996) M EM B ER S TA TES U AA of l e s s - f a v ou r ed a r e a s01 T o t al U AA % of 1 c s s - fa v ou r ed M o u n t a in O t h er l e s s- a r e as ( A r t. fa v ou r ed 3 ( 3 )) a r e as ( A r t. 3 ( 4 )) L e s s - f a v ou r ed a r e as w i th s p e c i f ic h an d i ca ps ( A r t. 3 ( 5 )) L e s s - la vou re d a re as Me m be r S ta te in a r e as t he M em b er S t a te B e l g i um D e n m a rk G e r m a ny G r e e ce S p a in F r an ce France (c. xcl. OD) France 01) I re I an d I t a ly Lu xe m b ou rg N e t h e r l a n ds P o r t u g al U n i t ed K in g do m T o t al E UR 12 A u s t r ia F in I an d S w e d en T o t al E UR 15 2 73 7. 9 87 9 64 1 1. 343 7. 8 09 ~. ~<J4 15 3. 4 56 3. 4 05 1 22 2 , 0 56 8. 3 41 4 5. 7 56 2 08 5 36 1. 01 I 4 7. 51 t 6 1 %, 199 4 02 7 00 8 04 '29 12 2 18 1 1 1 150 1 2. 6 00 164 2 20 3 33 3. 3 17 2 73 0 8 , 5 22 5. 2 80 1 9. 5 46 1 3 , 8 97 13. -2(1 1" 3. 4 6 8 8. 84 1 124 1 1 1 3 , 4 33 8 , 3 42 7 1. 8 37 2. 4 19 2. 1 64 1 , 8 69 7 8. 2 90 10(1% 1. 3 5 7 2. 7 70 1 7. 0 12 6. 4 0 8 2 6. 3 30 3 0. 01 1 29 S34 /" 4. 8 92 1 6. 4 96 127 2. 0 1 1 3. 9 98 1 8 , 6 58 13 0. 0 70 3 , 5 24 2. 5 49 3. 6 3 4 1 3 9. 7 77 ™ 2 0% 0% 5 0% 8 2 % 7 4% 4 6 % 4 6 %, 1(10% 7 1% 5 4 % 9 8% 6 % 8 6% 4 5 % 5 5 % 6 9 % 8 5% 5 1 % 5 6 % 3 36 3. 9 14 7. 5 03 5 , 2 84 5. 1')~ H~ 5. 2 18 1. 227 2 3. 4 82 2 , 0 47 1. 407 5 26 2 7. 4 62 35% ( I ) U A A: Li sa hie a g r i c u l t u r al a r ea i n c l u d i ng " c o m m on land" e s t i m a t ed at: 2 3 00 0 00 ha in G r e e c e; 1 7 70 0 00 lia in S p a m; 1 2 39 0 00 ha in F r a n c e; 4 50 0 00 ha in I r e l a n d; 1 5 50 0 00 ha in I t a l y: 7 00 0 00 ha in P o r t u g a l; ! 2 20 0 00 ha in t he U n i t ed k i n g d o m; 2 50 0 00 ha in A u s t r i a; 100 0 00 ha in Sweden Member State selections of measures for the 1994-99 programmes: Taken as a whole, the Objective 5(a) measures provide a flexible legal framework within which Member States may both select measures and decide what arrangements are most appropriate to the specific needs of each area. Thanks to this flexibility, Member States have been able to select the sectors, categories of farmers and areas which they consider should receive priority. Member States' options for 1994-99 B e l g i um D e n m a rk (f) 42% ( a) 25% a ) 4 5% ( b )5% ( c) ( d ) 4% 3% ( C ) 2 1% ( b ) 2% ( e) 50% r-j I n v e s t m e n ts on h o l d i n gs (a) r-j P r o d u c er group s (b ) P io ces s in g and in at I» cling (c ) r-i T raining and s u p p o rt s e i v i c es (d) cm M o u n t a in and I c s s - f a v o u r ul areas (e) Y o u n i: farine i s ( f) m 96 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) (f) 44% (b) 1% (c) 15% (e 27% (e) 19 (d) 2% (C) 39% (e) 26% (d 2% (C) 3 0% Luxemburg (f) 26% (a) 26% (d) o. 3% Netherlands 4% (e) (f)2% United Kingdom 5% ^ ( a) (f) 0,3% ^ ( b ) 0 ,V (e) 32% (e)44% (b)5% (a) 56% (C)63% Q Investments on holdings (a) r-jTraining and support services (d) (Producer groups (b) i M ountain and less-favoured areas (e) (Processing and marketing (c) i Young farmers (f) Implementation forecasts: After adoption ofthe programming documents and expenditure forecasts for the new Member States43, the indicative financial programming for Objective 5(a) measures outside Objective 1 and 6 regions44 for the period 1994-99 is as follows : Table 44: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Implementation forecasts for 1994-99 (ECU million) B e l g i um Total 170,4 D e n m a rk 127,0 G e r m a ny Spain F r a n ce Italy 1. 060,9 326,0 1. 745,5 ao,o L u x e m b o u rg 39,0 A u s t r ia (1) N e t h e r l a n ds 385,8 118,0 United k i n g d om 361,0 F i n l a n d ( l) 331,0 S w e d e n ( l) 90,1 Total 5. 443,7 Production Processing and marketing Production Marketing and processing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing 140,4 30,0 100,3 26,7 851,7 218,3 207,0 119,0 1. 486,6 258,9 494,4 185,6 37. 3 1,7 323,5 62,3 78. 8 39,2 134. 5 226,5 287,9 43,1 67. 2 22,9 4. 209,6 1. 234,1 % 82% 18% 79% 2 1% 80% 20% 63% 37% 85% 15% 73% 27% 96% 4% 84% 16% 67% 33% 37% 63% 87% 13% 75% 25% 77% 23% U) 1995. 99. see a|so Chapter I. A. 7. Integration o f t he new Member States into the structural policies, 43 For more details on the new Member States, see Chapter I. A. 7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies. 44 In Objective 1 and 6 regions, Objective 5(a) measures are programmed within the CSFs and SPDs. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 97 Implementation of Objective 5(a) for agriculture in 1995 Physical and financial implementation for 1995 outside Objective 1 and 6 regions is shown below. Table 45: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Financial implementation in 1995 (commitments - ECU million) Member State Belgium Denmark Germany Spain France Italy Luxembourg Austria Netherlands Finland Sweden United Kingdom (1) T O T AL (1) Revised SPD Indirect measures " s t r u c t u r es of production" P r o c e s s i ng and marketing (R. 866/90) Total 22,65fj 16,731 138,230 19,920 216,972 5,188 61,498 4,889 54,523 13,721 22,802 577,124 7,583 26,902 1,176 35,111 0,283 6. 897 77,952 30. 233 16. 731 165,132 21,096 252. 083 5,471 61,498 4,889 61. 420 13,721 22,802 655. 076 A large number of the programmes concerning measures for processing and marketing had been approved and the first instalment committed by the end of 1994. However, a number of Member States could not receive the second instalment (1995) before the end of that year because the programmes had not made sufficient progress. The first instalment for Austria was not committed until the beginning of 1996 and Sweden did not programme an amount for 1995. Table 46: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Physical implementation in 1994 M e m b er S t u te ( A r t. 1 0) y o u ng f a r m e rs ( A r t. 1 1 ) S e t t i n g - up of y o u ng f a r m e rs I n v e s t m e nt a id f or I n v e s t m e nt a id ( A r t. 7) C o m pe n s a 1 o r y a l l o w a n c es ( A r t. 1 9) N u m b er of b e n e f i c i a r i es N u m b er of b e n e f i c i a r i es N u m be r o f be n e 11 c i a r i e s N u m be r o f h ol di n g s O b j. 1 N o n - O b j. 1 T o t al O b j. 1 N o n - O b j. 1 T o t al O b j. 1 N o n - O b j. 1 T o t al B e l g i um D e n m a rk G e r m a ny G r e e ce S p a in F r a n ce I r e l a nd I t a ly L u x e m b o u r g* N e t h e r l a n ds P o r t u g al Un i t ed K i n g d om T O T AL 772 438 4. 049 1. 212 7. 086 1. 495 59 Q84 705 3. 501 1 5Q 357 718 1 059 844 438 5. 033 705 4 713 7 245 357 2 213 59 0 1 059 0 26 251 1. 890 21 290 55 4 1. 025 8 342 420 689 753 2. 256 412 101 90 14 368 420 689 251 2 643 2 277 290 467 101 94 1 025 81 2,466 9 762 57 2. 660 273 25 2 353 237 1 006 '1 436 2. 110 3 277 7 400 1 696 ^6 S58 409 1 147 1 436 2 110 2 466 13 03 0 7 457 2 6 60 1 l>69 9o 8S3 2 3 53 646 6 873 140 612 231 275 187 538 187 059 140. 612 105. 619 39 056 2 515 3. 901 89 510 60. 912 7. 5 55 1 5. 11 1 2 2. 6 66 3. 5 70 5. 07 7 8. 6 47 1 7. 9 14 1 8. 3 48 3 6. 2 62 1. 1 9 5. 4 82 1 993, except for c o m p e n s a t o ry a l l o w a n c es : I 994 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 47: Objective 5(a) agriculture - State of financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) P r o g r a m m ed. A d o p t ed C o m m i t m e n ts 1994-95 % of a s s i s t a n ce P a y m e n ts 1994-95 % of a s s i s t a n ce ' r o g r a m m ed by S PD B 170,4 170. 4 1 0 0% mr 16. 5 10% DK 127,0 127,0 100% 30% T9~r D F 1. 069,9 326,0 1. 745,5 680,0 1. 069,9 326. 0 1. 745,5 6S0. 0 100% T 2 ÏX 3 or» 209,8 2 0% 100% RTTT 3 1% ~S(7X~ 7 5°;, 100% 678,6 39% 402,8 100% TT7X 17% Tier 9% 39,0 39,0 100% I TT 31 % 5,4 14% 118,0 118,0 100% 1 xT 1X2 1 0% AT 385. 8 385,8 II 331. 0 331,0 Sfc 90,1 90,1 IK T o t al 361,0 5. 443,7 361,0 5 44. 3,7 100% 100% 100% 100% 100°',, 6 TX 16% 30. 7 8% nrr 6. 9 8% 8X2 2 4% 41. 7 12% T3 7K6 29% 914,9 17% P r o g r a m m ed by C SF for R e g u l a t i on (I'. llC) No 866/90 ///; Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 5. 2. Objective 5(a) for fisheries Programming for 1994-99 The objective ofthe adjustment of fisheries strucmres, the financial instrument for which is the FIFG, is pursued through operations aiming both to ensure a sustainable balance between fisheries resources and fishing activities and to support and strengthen the entire European fisheries sector. As regards the adjustment of fishing effort, the FIFG contributed in 1995 to part-financing the reduction of the European fleet in line with the Multiannual Guidance Programme for 1993-96 through the permanent cessation of fishing vessel activity (in the fonn ofthe scrapping or export of vessels or the formation of joint ventures). At the same time, work was continued on strengthening the European fisheries and aquaculture industry, in particular in the fields of product processing and marketing, aquaculture and port facilities. Consideration ofthe environment in Objective 5(a) measures for fisheries: Several measures part-financed by the FIFG, including the adjustment of fishing^effort, are designed to reduce the disruptive effect of fishing activity on the environment and fisheries resources, which are still being over-exploited. This involves supporting material investment in protecting fisheries in coastal sea areas, protecting certain coastal areas and modernizing facilities and equipment in fishing ports, aquaculture and the processing industry as well as the introduction, under the common fisheries policy, of technical rules to protect fisheries resources and the maritime ecosystem in general, which have a clear preventive impact in terms of the conservation ofthe environment. resources Objective 5(a) and protected maritime areas: The improvement and protection of certain coastal areas is the fourth aspect of FIFG intervention. The creation of protected marine areas can be achieved through the introduction of mobile or stationary units, in the form of artificial reefs, the creation of marine reserves, the prohibition of fishing activities, etc. This action will help to protect juveniles and improve living standards and resource development in the regions concerned. More than ECU 30 million of FIFG resources have been allocated to these projects, of which ECU 16 million has gone to Spain. Objective 5(a) for fisheries concerns only measures outside Objective 1 and 6 regions (within those regions "fisheries" operations are included in CSFs and/or single programming documents). There are a total of 12 of these programmes, nine in the old Member States, which were adopted in 1994, and three in the new Member States, which were adopted in 19954-. ECU 176. 9 million has been committed under this heading and ECU 81 million was paid out in 1995 (of which ECU 65 million and ECU 19. 1 million respectively were for the new Member States). FIFG measures in Objective 1 regions were implemented through five operational programmes for fisheries, but also under the "fisheries and aquaculture" chapters in a total of nine SPDs and three OPs. Similarly, in Objective 6 regions both the single programming documents for Finland and Sweden contain a "fisheries and aquaculture" heading. ECU 270. 8 million has been committed and ECU 81. 3 million was paid out in 1995 for Objective 1 regions, while for Objective 6 regions commitments and payments represented ECU 1. 4 million and ECU 700 000 respectively. 45 See Chapter I. A. 7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 99 Table 48: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Operational priorities of single programming documents for 1994-99 (ECU million) A d j u s t m e nt of fishing e f f o r ts O t h er fishing fleet m e a s u r es M o d e r n i z a t i on a nd r e n o v a t i on of t he fishing fleet Aquaculture P r o t e c t i on of m a r i ne a r e as P o rt facilities P r o c e s s i ng and m ark et in g of p r o d u c ts P r o m o t i on of p r o d u c ts S o c i o - e c o n o m ic m e a s u r es ( 2) O t h er m e a s u r es ( I ) Indexed amounts. B DK D ( l) 3 7 ,7 0,0 3 5 ,0 9,2 3,2 9,8 6,8 0,0 12,3 7,1 0,0 5,6 E 4 0 ,6 0,0 3 5 ,9 7,2 1,8 6,0 F 16,2 2 7 ,0 2 0 ,3 3 3 ,7 0,0 8,1 ' 3 5 ,4 0,0 3 3,6 2 0 ,5 1,2 5,6 3 0 ,1 3 9 ,4 2 3 ,9 5 4 ,8 2 8 ,1 7,2 pm 7,6 2,5 pm 1,8 1,8 pm 2,4 5,0 pm 2 4 ,8 3,6 pm 6. 4 5,2 0,0 7,9 1,9 0,7 1,5 5,9 1,2 pm 0,2 L N UK T o t al 0,0 0,0 0. 0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 pm 0,0 1. 1 8,0 0,0 2,2 1,5 0,0 2 0 ,4 8,5 6. 0 pm 0,0 13,5 18,5 13,3 3,8 0,4 4,3 2 2 ,7 12,1 pm 0,2 1 6 3 ,4 4 5 ,5 1 6 0 ,5 8 5 ,6 7,3 6 1 ,3 2 1 3 ,7 3 9 ,5 pm 4 3 ,4 4 6 ,6 8 8 ,7 8 2 0 ,2 T o t al 2 4 ,5 1 3 9 ,9 7 5 ,5 1 1 9 ,6 1 8 9 ,9 1 3 4 ,4 (2) Following the am en dm en t of Regulation (EC) No 3 6 99/93 in 1995, these m easures may be introduced by the M ember States The am ount of these measures is to be determ ined within the overall financing allocation. Implementation of Objective 5(a) for fisheries in 1995 ~~ In 1995 the main steps taken were the adoption of socio-economic measures, a specific measure to assist Spanish and Portuguese fishermen and the rescheduling of FIFG appropriations for certain Member States. Socio-economic measures for fishermen: Alongside the measures to reduce the fleet and improve fisheries and aquaculture structures, a new, socio-economic dimension was added to FIFG-financed measures in 1995. A Regulation adopted by the Council in November46 allows the FIFG to finance, at the request ofthe Member States, two new types of measure to alleviate the social consequences of the far-reaching restructuring ofthe sector, in particular job losses arising from the reduction ofthe Community fleet. These measures consist of aid for national early retirement schemes for sea-going fishermen (under certain conditions concerning age and the length of time spent in this occupation) and individual grants for younger fishermen obliged to leave this employment because of the withdrawal of fishing vessels from use. These measures, which meet the requests of several Member States, the European Parliament and those employed in the sector, will impose no additional burden on the Structural Fund budget since they will be financed through the rescheduling cf FIFG appropriations already allocated. Specific measures to assist Spanish and Portuguese fishermen: The expiry of the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco and the temporary absence of a new one caused around 700 vessels in Spain and Portugal, whose fishing activities were in waters under Moroccan sovereignty or jurisdiction, to be laid up between May and November 1995. A specific measure for the crews concerned, designed to limit the consequences of this situation, was established47 using a system of monthly individual compensation payments. Expenditure on this measure is limited to ECU 31. 8 million (ECU 27 million for Spain and ECU 4. 8 million for Portugal), of which the Union provided ECU 23. 85 million. In addition, FIFG appropriations already granted to these two Member States under their operational programmes were partly re-directed to compensate ship-owners for the temporary inactivity of their vessels, on the basis of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93. For the entire period during which activity was interrupted, ECU 52 million were made available (ECU 48 million for Spain and ECU 4 million for Portugal), of which ECU 39 million came from Union resources. Reprogramming of FIFG appropriations: The delayed adoption of a number of FIFG programming documents in 1994 and difficulties relating to the establishment of a completely new financial instrument led in some Member States to a certain delay in the use of FIFG appropriations programmed 46 Regulation (EC) No 2791/95 of 20 November 1995, OJ No L 283, 25. 11. 1995. 47 Council Decision 95/451/EC of 26 October 1995, OJ No L 264, 7. 11. 1995. 100 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) for 1994. To avoid this delay having repercussions on the entire programming period, the Commission and the eight Member States concerned decided, through the partnership, to reschedule the commitments by transferring part ofthe 1994 appropriations to 1995. Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom benefited from this arrangement under Objective 5(a), and similar rescheduling was carried out for Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain under Objective 1. Changes in the rules: Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector was amended twice in 1995. The first amendment48 introduced gross tonnage as the unit of vessel measurement (used to establish premiums for permanent abandonment of activity). The second concerned socio-economic measures for sea-going fishermen (see above). A third proposal for a Council Regulation was introduced before the end of the year49 intended, firstly, to maintain at a constant level permanent withdrawal premiums for vessels more than thirty years old and, secondly, to put a ceiling on the cost of measures for the temporary cessation of fishing activity. Finally, with regard to rules for the payment of FIFG appropriations, the Commission adopted a new Regulation50 laying down the procedure for presenting half-yearly statements of expenditure and annual implementation reports, on the basis of which advances and balances are paid out. These measures are intended to harmonize and rationalize systems for paying out FIFG assistance, as well as guaranteeing greater transparency. 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 49: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) P r o g r a m m ed A d o p t ed % C o m m i t m e n ts 1994-95 % o l ' a s s i s t a n ce P a y m e n ts 1994-95 % of a ss is tan ce B 24,5 24,5 100% 4. 1 17% • 13% DK: D E F 1 L N 139,9 139. 9 100% 46,6 3 3% 30,3 2 2% 74,5 74,5 100% 24,9 3 3% 16,1 2 2% 119,6 119,6 100% 39,8 3 3% 10,0 8% 189,9 189,9 100% 63,3 3 3% 41,1 22% 134. 4 134,4 100% 44,8 3 3% 11,2 8% 1,1 1,1 100% 1,1 100% 0. 2 15% 46,6 46,6 100% 9? 20% 6,2 13% AT 2,0 2. 0 100% 2. 0 100% 0,2 10% FI 23. 0 23. 0 100% 23,0 100% 6. 9 30% SE 40,0 40. 0 100% 40,0 100% 12,0 30% Ok 88,7 88,7 100% 14,8 17% 11,8 13% Total 884,2 884. 2 100% 313,4 3 5% 149. 3 17% Country-by-country survey Table 50: Objective 5(a) fisheries - Financial implementation of SPDs (ECU million) P rojj ranimes and year of adoption Total c o st s S F a s s is l a n ce (1) Commitments 1995 Commitments 1994-95 (2) «À ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments 1995 Payments 1994-95 (3) % (3)/(2) 1994 S PD B e l g i um S PD D en m a rk S PD G e r m a ny S PD S p a in S PD F r a n ce S PD Italy S PD L u x e m b o u rg S PD N e t h e r l a n ds S PD t 'n ited K i n g d om 91. 9 438. 8 369. 2 334. 1 S-J 3. 0 380. 8 3. 7 123,5 240. 8 TOT. -xL 2. 8 2 5 ,» 24. 5 139. 9 74. 5 119,6 189. 9 134. 4 1. 1 46. 6 88,7 8 1 9 ,2 0,0 23. 3 12. 5 19,9 3 1,6 22,4 0. 9 1. 4 0,0 l i t ,9 4,1 46. 6 24. 9 39,8 63. 3 44. 8 1. 1 9. 2 14. 8 248,4 1 7%, 3 3 % 3 3% 3 3% 3 3% 1 0 0% 2 0% 1 7% 3 0% 1. 2 18. 6 9. 9 0. 0 25. 3 0. 0 0,1 4. 4 (il,9 3,3 30. 3 16. 1 10,0 41,1 11. 2 0. 2 6. 2 11. 8 130,2 80% 65% 65% 25% 65% 25% 15% 68%, 80% 5 2% Belgium: The contribution ofthe FIFG to the single programming document under Objective 5(a) in Belgium is ECU 24. 5 million for 1994-99, with ECU 4. 1 million each for 1994 and 1995. Implementation ofthe programme began in 1995 in the case of adjustment ofthe fishing effort and renewal and modernization ofthe fleet. 48 Council Regulation (EC) No 1624/95 of 29 June 1995. OJ No L 155, 6. 7. 1995. 49 COM(95) 627 final. 5. 12. 1995. 50 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1796/95 of 25 July 1995, OJ No L 174, 26. 7. 1995. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ Q \ Denmark: ECU 23. 3 million was committed in 1995 under Objective 5(a) for fisheries in Denmark. The Monitoring Committee met twice in that year and adopted detailed, project selection criteria. Implementation ofthe programme proceeded satisfactorily. Substantial legislative work was carried out in Denmark in 1995 in order to adapt national law to the Structural Fund system. The Danish authorities organized a major conference in May 1995 on the future of fisheries in Denmark. Germany: In 1995 Monitoring Committees were established and adopted their rules of procedure and project selection criteria. This facilitated a rapid start-up of the programmes (adopted in December 1994), so that absorption of appropriations was satisfactory. Two thirds ofthe annual instalment for 1994 was implemented, which meant that the 1995 instalment could be committed and the second 1994 advance paid out, as well as the first advance for 1995 (total FIFG payments: ECU 16. 1 million out of ECU 24. 9 million committed. ). Spain: Since the Spanish single programming document was adopted on 22 December 1994, implementation could not really start until 1995. The level of implementation was 25% ofthe 1994 instalment (total FIFG payments: ECU 10 million out of ECU 19. 9 million committed). Reprogramming was carried out on 19 October 1995 involving the transfer of ECU 15. 1 million to the 1995 instalment, which subsequently enabled the Commission to commit the 1995 instalment. France: The single programming document, adopted on 22 December 1994, was actually implemented in 1995. However, implementation was satisfactory and used 64% ofthe annual instalment for 1994, so that the second instalment for the year could be paid out, the 1995 instalment committed and a first advance paid out within the time limits provided for (total FIFG payments: ECU 41. 1 million out of ECU 63. 3 million committed, with a national contribution of ECU 42. 5 million). Italy: 1995 was marked by difficulty in absorbing appropriations because ofthe delayed availability of the national financial contribution for internal administrative reasons (delayed approval ofthe findings ofthe inter-Ministerial Committee for economic programming; Sardinian appeal against those findings). As a result of these delays, the appropriations needed for national part-financing only became available from October 1995. On 23 October 1995 the Monitoring Committees for the two FIFG programmes (Objective 5(a) and Objective 1) approved the rescheduling ofthe 1994 instalment to adjust it to the real state of progress, thereby enabling the Commission to commit the 1995 instalment. Almost all the projects financed are part ofthe last instalment (1994) under Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, paid out of the FIFG budget. Luxembourg: The main objective ofthe programme is to assist the development of aquaculture and the processing and marketing of aquaculture products. The Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995 and the principal beneficiary has already made substantial investments in improving and increasing production of certain species offish in aquaculture. Netherlands: In 1995 the programme's Monitoring Committee was set up. After it had adopted its rules of procedure and project selection criteria, actual implementation ofthe programme began with the first measures for the permanent withdrawal of fishing vessels. In addition, the Dutch authorities informed the Monitoring Committee of various measures launched under other headings in the programme, namely agriculture, product processing and marketing, and the promotion of fisheries products. Financial rescheduling was, however, adopted on 29 November 1995, reducing the 1994 instalment initially provided for (ECU 7. 8 million) by ECU 1. 2 million, while the 1995 instalment was increased from ECU 7. 8 million to ECU 14. 3 million. United Kingdom: The Objective 5(a) single programming document concentrates on adjusting fishing effort, modernizing and improving the safety of vessels, adjusting the processing industry and developing ports. Appropriate national legislation was adopted in June 1995 and certain FIFG measures were launched at the end of 1995. It was necessary to revise the financial plan for the single programming document, reducing the 1994 instalment by 30% and increasing the 1996 instalment by the same proportion, in order to schedule expenditure more efficiently over the whole period. The ] 02 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) meeting ofthe Monitoring Committee enabled project selection criteria to be adopted. A measure for taking vessels out of service is underway for 1993-98: around 7% ofthe fleet has currently been taken out of service, and it is estimated that at the end of 1998 around 12% will have been withdrawn. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 10; 6. Objective 5(b) 6. 1. Programming for 1994-99 Table 51: Objective 5(b) - area and population of eligible areas and funding allocated to each Member State, 1994-99 Member States Area (km2) Population ('000 inhab. ) S t r u c t u r al Fund allocation ( Ed million) Belgium Denmark Germany Spain France Italy Luxembourg Netherlands United Kingdom ËLk 9 Austria Finland Sweden EUR 3 Total 6. 831 8. 374 96. 178 85. 223 291. 558 80. 486 831 5. 405 67. 987 642. 873 5Ô. Ô4Ô 95. 219 52. 746 198. 005 840. 878 448 361 7. 823 1. 731 9. 759 4. 828 30 800 2. 841 28. 621 2. 276 1. 094 754 4. 124 32. 745 78. 1 54. 0 1. 229,0 664,0 2. 239,4 903. " 6. 0 150. 0 S20. 5 6. 144. 7 411. 0 194. 0 138. 0 743,0 6. 887. " A study ofthe 78 single programming documents approved in 1994 and 1995 for the Objective 5(b) 1994-99 programming period confirms that the main priorities set by the Commission have been taken into account. Article 4 ofthe Framework Regulation, specifying that "Community operations shall be such as to complement or contribute to corresponding national operations," has led the Commission to adjust its assistance to the specific contexts of each Member State and region. The result has been a great diversity of programmes, reflecting the very varying nature of European rural areas. Priorities adjusted to national and regional contexts forestry-related diversif cation, support for activities and the construction of rural Agricultural infrastructures together receive more than 27% of Community funding. However, this percentage can vary greatly from one Member State to another: Denmark, Spain, France, Italy and Austria submitted programmes under which the proportion ofthe appropriations set aside for this development priority is higher than average. This means that farms located in Objective 5(b) areas may be assisted when they engage in product improvement projects, in particular under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications. In fragile rural areas, the major role that can be played by farmers in tourist development (farm tourism) and maintaining or protecting the environment their products arc also encouraged. These measures, which are targeted and adjusted to each different regional or even "micro- regional" context, are a useful complement to the common agricultural policy, the effects of which they are designed to reinforce. 51 is very actively encouraged. Farmers' efforts to diversify is the second largest sphere of assistance (25% o{ Community Setting up and supporting SMEs funding). For Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom, this is the most important priority and the proportion of appropriations devoted to it exceeds the Community average. It enables trade and crafts to be maintained and developed in villages and thus helps to improve the services available to the rural population. Production too is involved, since appropriations are also allocated to supporting direct investment by SMEs and enabling them to develop or establish themselves (areas of economic activity, industrial premises, etc. ). The main purpose of this assistance is to allow rural SMEs to benefit from the effects ofthe single market. 51 See Chapter 1I. D. 2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 104 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) in human resources is the third largest sphere of assistance. Almost 15% of Community Investment funding is being used to finance training and recruitment aid measures. Investment in "human capital" must be inseparably linked with other productive investment. In the countryside, the priority is to adjust training arrangements to the specific conditions of particular areas and their inhabitants (low population density, development projects which are often very specific and do not always conform to pre- established training models). The Commission has put a great deal of effort into ensuring that priority for assistance under this heading is given to training modules designed and implemented to meet real needs and which support local development trends. Tourism (complementary to the farm tourism referred to above) involves more than 12% of the Community appropriations allocated. In Denmark, the majority of funding is allocated to this priority. The United Kingdom and Italy also decided to devote a major part of the funding to this area of assistance, which takes second and third place respectively in their list of priorities. One aim is to improve and increase tourist accommodation capacity. Where necessary, accompanying investment is planned to make rural areas more attractive (site improvements, tourist sign-posting, development ofthe cultural, architectural and natural heritage). A key objective is to make original forms of tourism available on the market (cultural tourism, discovery trails, open-air sports, etc. ). in Objective 5(b) measures : Consideration ofthe environment A high-quality environment can contribute to the development of rural areas. It is the basis for many tourist and farming activities which, in turn, can contribute to a better environment. Thus, under Objective 5(b), direct investment in environmental projects accounts for ECU 720. 5 million for 1994- 99, i. e. 11. 7% of the appropriations for this Objective, which are to a very large extent (56%j concentrated on measures, most frequently of a preventive nature, contributing to the conservation of the countryside and biodiversity. Another substantial fraction (30%) of the funding goes towards restorative measures to reduce pollution. More specific examples are the establishment of teams and structures for introducing people to environmental protection tourism sector in particular (discovery trails, education and reception points) and measures to protect aquatic hiotopes (reintroducing salmon, restoring sites which have deteriorated). In very sensitive areas (for this example, wetlands), Community assistance imposes on economic activity and provides them with additional resources for adjustment. In addition, productive high-quality environment, such as services associated with research and development on food and agriculture, investments "green tourism", organic farming and nature conservation. In rural areas, as elsewhere, are also encouraged in SMEs to support products and techniques compatible with the needs of the environment, renewable energy and techniques which economize on the use of energy and water. takes account of the particular constraints which entailing diversification and based on a in cooperation with the farm activities are encouraged Table 52: Objective 5(b) and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the environment, 1994-99 (EUR 9 - ECU million - 1994prices) M a n a g e m e nt of n a t u r e, t he c o u n t ry s i de a nd b i o d i v e r s i ty (a) D e p o s i t i on ' t r e a t m e nt ( c l e an t e c h n o l o g i e s, i n d u s t r i al w a s t e) (l>) U p y ra d in y w o o d l a n ds ( c ) 400. 5 216,2 103,8 TTUJ Total (C) 14% ( b) 30% ( a) 56% 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) A contrasted impact of Community investment in different Member States Commission expectations concerning the impact of Community investment in relation to total expected investment were of two kinds: firstly, to ensure that the Community allocation to each programme could directly generate by the "lever effect" a significant total investment; secondly, to avoid Community funding being so diluted among the vast range of public assistance measures that the qualitative contribution made by Union assistance could not be perceived. A study of the financing plans of each SPD adopted shows that the ratio between Community investment and total planned investment is directly related to the content of the programmes (priorities, content of measures, types of operations). On average, one ecu from the Community should generate ECU 3. 9 of investment : • • • Italy and Austria proposed programmes envisaging ECU 5. 2 to 6. 5 of investment lor each ecu allocated by the Community; in the case of Finland, Belgium, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg, the expected impact ranges from ECU 3. 2 to 4. 3 of total investment planned for each ecu from the Community; in the case ofthe United Kingdom and Spain, investment of ECU 2. 5 to 2. 7 is expected for every ecu contributed by the Community. 106 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 6. 2. Implementation of Objective 5(b) in 1995 Table 53: Objective 5(b) - Summary of SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 (ECU million) S P Ds A D O P T ED IN 1994 SPDs A D O P T ED IN 1995 M e m b er S l a t e / r e g i on T O T AL E A G GF E R DF E SF M e m b er S t a t e / r e g i on T O T AL E A G GF E R DF E SF 78,1 10,3 41,4 26,4 145,7 74,9 46,8 24,1 46,1 •4d,l 21,3 12,7 8,6 23,8 3,5 12,4 7,9 68,7 42,4 18,3 7,9 20,7 20, ' 7. 0 2. 8 4,2 41,1 5,2 20,4 15,5 58,6 27,4 23,7 7,5 12,2 12,2 12,3 8,3 3,9 13,2 1,6 8,7 2,9 18,4 5,1 4,7 8,7 13,2 13,2 2,0 1,5 0,5 239,5 105,7 105,9 27,9 44. 0 35,8 76,2 83,5 433,5 30,4 25,4 47,7 12,2 39,5 53. 7 40. 6 20,7 13,3 37. 6 34,1 72,6 3,7 6,4 2,1 4,8 9. 5 7. 4 17,8 18,1 30,5 39,5 5,5 4,3 8,1 9. 9 284,6 76,3 20,7 17. 1 34,4 8,2 28,6 36,2 24,2 6,1 5,1 6,9 1. 8 6,1 8,0 8,9 184,0 35. 6 115,1 33. 3 T O T AL 1995 964,2 298,5 1110% 31% 514,7 53%, 151,0 16%, D e n m a rk G e r m a ny Havana Hesse Lower Saxony Rhinekmd-Palattnale Schleswig-Hotstein Spain Aragon ( 'alalunia Rioja Madrid Savarre liasque ( 'ounlry F r a n ce Alsace Aquitaine Auvergne 1 jiwcr Sormandy Burgundy Hnitany ( 'entre ( hantjxignc-Ardenne l'ranchc-i'oiiué 1 'pper Sormand) Ixtnguedoc-Roussi lion Limousin 1 orraine Midi-1'yrcnécs 1 otre I'oitouA liarentes Provence-Alfies-(. 'oie d'Azur Klu'me-Alpes I t a ly Bolzano L'jnilia Homagna lazio himhardy luscany li-enlo ( 'mhrta l'allé d'Aosta 1 'enelo L u x e m b o u rg N e t h e r l a n ds L ries land < In iningen ! 1 irenliie l. imhourg Overiissel Zee/and United K i n g d om Past Anglia Ijiglislt Northern Uplands South West pngland 54,0 21,6 1. 083,3 45422 5 6 0 ,; 235,3 21,6 416,5 207,3 32,3 98. 0 44,5 34,4 10,8 Belgium 212,6 Meetjesland 117,6 Walkmia 6,5 Westhoek 49,0 G e r m a ny 22,3 liaden- Wiirttemherg 17,2 North Rliine-Westpltalia 42,0 98,0 44,5 34,4 393. 9 148,6 75,5 Saarland 197 7 88,6 26,3 24. 3 37,8 19,1 72,8 36,0 10,1 13,2 12,1 4,5 2 8 ,! Spain 23,4 Balearic Islands 2,6 F r a n ce 11,7 6,7 Massif Central Massif des Pyrenees 3,0 Italy 80,8 245,1 111,3 85,9 6 1 7 ,9 298. 6 148,0 38,0 49,3 56,b 26,5 2. 218,1 1. 000,1 927,2 290,8 Friuli- Venezia Giulia 48,8 225. 3 164. 7 I33. i 112. 7 186,3 84. 1 29. 5 78. 1 11. 2 1 19. 0 128. 0 96. 8 2S3. 1 122. 0 130. 1 95. 0 I6f>,4 19,0 113,5 80. 3 47,0 o l ,2 73,0 36. 1 12,1 34,3 5. 0 63. 5 68,5 36,3 24. 2 81,5 63,3 61,3 39,4 91,1 35,9 14,2 33. 2 4. 8 41,2 39,1 48. 3 122. 2 130,9 47,0 59. 3 46. 0 75,7 57. 7 47,4 38,7 75,0 664,2 305. 2 264,4 43. 0 57. 1 145. 7 40. 3 133. 0 10 () 75. 5 4. 2 145. (i 6,0 150. 0 68. 7 3 4. " 19. 1 15,5 11. 8 3 8 7. 0 60,0 10S,( 219,0 ]Q,Q 28,5 70,0 18,1 5S. 5 Q ; 33. 1 65,5 2,2 50,6 20. 6 11. 5 8. 1 4. 8 5. 6 78,6 10. 5 27,1 41,1 17. 9 21. 5 51,5 18. 1 56,1 32,6 2,0 56. 8 3,1 81,8 43. 5 16. 8 8,1 8,(> 4,6 250,4 40. 5 64. 8 145,1 5,5 Liguria 30,3 Marthe 21,1 Piedmont 25,0 United K i n g d om 12. 1 Borders Region Central Scotland 1 Tayside 12,0 Dumfries and Galloway 3,0 ICnglish Midland Uplands 10. 6 Grampian 1,4 Lincolnshire 15. 2 The Marches 20. 5 Wales 12. 2 30. 0 17. 3 23,4 10. 3 18. 6 94,7 5. 2 7. 1 24. 1 4. 0 18,5 2,8 9,7 0,0 23,3 0,8 17,6 4,6 6,6 1,8 1,6 58,(»l 0,0 16. 2 32,8 T O T AL 1994 5. 180. 5 2. 306,2 2. 113,5 760. 8 T O T AL 1994-1995 6. 144,7 2. 604,7 2. 628,2 100%', -15% -11% 15%, 100% •42% 43% 911,8 15%, In 1995 the Commission approved 30 Objective 5(b) SPDs, including nine for the new Member States,^2 bringing the total number of such documents adopted for 1994-99 up to 78 (48 were adopted in 1994). 52 See Chapter I. A. 7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 107 Among the programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995, 77 include contributions from three Funds (the ERDF, EAGGF and ESF) and only one (Valle d'Aosta) from the ERDF and EAGGF alone. More generally, 1995 was the year in which implementation of most Objective 5(b) SPDs actually began, with financing for 1994-99 forecast at ECU 6 900 million. Substantial work was done regarding the new Member States (Austria, Finland, Sweden) in order to decide which areas are eligible, define the amounts of Community funding, prepare and adopt the single programming documents and organize the first meetings ofthe Monitoring Committees. Almost ECU 6 750 million was allocated to Objective 5(b) programmes approved in 1994 and 1995. Over these two years, the Commission committed ECU 1 181 million (or 17. 5% ofthe 1994-99 total allocation) and paid out ECU 662 million (or 9. 8% of total funding). After the 78 single programming documents had been adopted, the Commission committed a first instalment and paid half the appropriations so committed. Regions were then entitled to apply for subsequent payments and commitments according to the actual state of progress of projects on the ground. Excluding Austria, Finland and Sweden, whose single programming documents were approved somewhat later, 21 regions were in a position to apply for a second Community payment (second advance on the first instalment from the EAGGF, ERDF and ESF); 15 regions were able to apply for a third Community payment (the balance ofthe first instalment) in the case ofthe EAGGF, and 13 in the case ofthe ERDF. Few regions were able to apply for a fourth payment (second advance on the second instalment): five regions in the case ofthe ERDF and eight in the case ofthe EAGGF. Table 54: Objective 5(b) -1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) Programmed Adopted /o Commitments 1994-99 % of assistance Payments 1994-99 % of assistance B 78,1 78,1 100% 9,2 12% 4,6 6% DK 54,0 54,0 100% 9,8 18% 5,7 10% D 1. 229,0 1. 229,0 100% 261,7 2 1% 134. 2 11% E 664,0 664,0 100% 162,1 24% 118,4 18% F 2. 239,4 2. 239,4 100% 373,2 17% 207,9 9% I 903,7 903,7 100% 107,0 12% 53,5 6% L 6,0 6. 0 100% 0. 8 14% 0,4 , 7% N 150,0 150,0 100% 25,6 17% 12. 6 8% AT 411,0 411. 0 100% 78. 3 19% 39,2 10% Fl 194,0 194. 0 100% 32. 8 17% 15. 9 8% SE 138,0 0,0 0% 0. 0 0% 0,0 0% IK 820. 5 820. 5 100% 120. 7 15% 69. 4 8% Total 6. 887. 7 6. 749. 7 98% 1. 181. 2 18% 661. 9 10% As regards the state of progress ofthe programmes, it should first be noted that financial implementation will have to be accelerated. To achieve this, an effort will be made to ensure better circulation of the appropriations. Greater involvement of public part-financers will have to be encouraged at Monitoring Committee meetings. If it proves appropriate, adjustments to the programmes could be adopted. Secondly, greater attention should be paid to the objective of integrating the three Funds, thereby achieving concrete results reflecting a link between investment in human resources and investment in the productive sectors. 108 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 6. 3. Country-by-country survey53 BELGIUM Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 Population ('OOOinhab. ) Area (km2) 4*4T 6. 831 ECU million iSl'Ùs ToTÏÏTl Average per SPD Breakdown hy Bund : EAGGF I ERDF ESF UJ 26,0 23^" 41,1 13,2 Implementation in 1995 (9) 1% (a) 35% (b) 26% • Agriculture, forestry, horticulture (a) p Economic stimulation and diversification (b) B Maintenance of sea fishing (c) p Tourists development (d) ^ V i l l a ge attractiveness and j living standards (e) • Human resources and training (f) i i B Technical assistance (g) ' Three SPDs were approved by the Commission at the beginning of 1995: in Flanders, two programmes for the regions of Westhoek and Meetjesland, and in Wallonia one programme for the south-east of Belgium. Flanders and Wallonia are responsible for the implementation of these Community operations, which give high priority to developing small and medium-sized firms and industry and to diversification in agriculture and forestry. The three Monitoring Committees met during 1995. Proposals for assessment and information programmes will be submitted at their next meetings. Precise project selection criteria have been established and communicated to Committee members. 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 55: Objective 5(b) - Belgium - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es T o t al cost S F a s s i s t a n ce C o m m i t m e n ts C o m m i t m e n ts "A, P a y m e n ts P a y m e n ts and y e ar of adoption 199 S M eetjeslan d W a lion ia W e s t h o ek T O T AL (1) 1995 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2)1(1) 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 3 ) / ( 2) ( 2) ( 3) 34. 2 135,4 96. 6 2 6 6 ,2 10. 3 41. 4 26,4 78,1 1. 2 4,9 3,1 9,2 1. 2 4,9 3,1 9,2 12% 12% 12% 12%, 0. 6 2. 4 1. 5 4,6 0. 6 2. 4 1. 5 50% 50% 5 0% 4,6 5 0% Progress on financial implementation ofthe programmes must be accelerated in 1996, since in 1994-95 the Commission committed 12% and paid out 6% ofthe total appropriations for the whole period. DENMARK Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 Population (000 inhab. ) A r c a ( k n r) I 361 8. 374 /:( '{/' million I SPD Total I Average per SPD Breakdown by Bund '• EAGG1-'| ERDF ESF 54,0 54,0 TTJ 21,6 10,8 (d) 2% ( a) 2 5% (C) 37% ( b) 3 6% [Diversification/ environmental protection (Business development (b): rjTounsm (c) « T e c h n i c al assistance (d) 53 For a more detailed description of each Member State's programming priorities, see the 1994 Annual Report. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 109 Implementation in 1995 On 21 December 1994 the Commission approved the single programming document for Denmark which established three major priorities of equal importance: diversification of agriculture and forestry, diversification and development of non-agricultural sectors and development of tourism. The Danish Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for implementing the programme. The Monitoring Committee for the programme met at the end of 1995. Its members were informed ofthe project selection criteria. Assessment and information programmes are to be adopted in 1996. 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 56: Objective 5(b) - Denmark - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce Commitments C o m m i t m e n ts (1) 1995 1994-95 (2) "A, ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments P a y m e n ts 1995 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % ( 3 ) / ( 2) | 201. 5] 54,01 3,4 [ 9,8 j 1 8 %| 2. 51 5. 71 58% and year of adoption 1994 Denmark Between 1994 and 1995, after committing 18% ofthe total Community appropriations, the Commission paid out 10. 5% ofthe overall allocation for the period as a whole. GERMANY Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 P o p u l a t i on ('000 in h a b. ) I A r e a ( k n r) 7~82T 96. 178 S SPDs TôtâTI 1229,0 HCU million A v c i ^e per SPD 153. 6 (C) 19% (a) 42% ( d) 0 , 1% Breakdown /> y Bund : EAGGF I E R DF E SF ( b) 3 9% 5723" 475,1 231. 0 Implementation in 1995 Q Diversification and adjustment of agricultural structures (a) • Development of non- farming sectors (b) ^Development of human resources (c) rj Environmental protection (Saarland) (d) Between December 1994 and March 1995 eight single programming documents were approved for the German regions. These programmes give high priority to the development of small and medium-sized firms and industry, followed by agricultural and forestry diversification. Responsibility for each ofthe programmes is in the hands ofthe Lander. The eight Monitoring Committees met in 1995. Project selection criteria were precisely defined under the various arrangements for regional aid used for the implementation ofthe programmes. Mid-term assessment was to begin in 1996 and be finalized in 1997. 110 ~ih Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 5 7: Objective 5(b) - Germany - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es T o t al cos t S F a s s is t a n ce O) C o m m i t m e n ts C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 2) % ( 2 V O) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 ( 3 ) / ( 2) u nd y e ar of a d o p t i on 1 V 9 i B a d e n -W ù r t t e n i b e rg N o r th R h i n e- \V c s t p li alia S a a r l a nd 1 VV4 B a v a r ia H e s se L o w er S a x o ny R h i n e l a n d - P a l a t in ate Sch les vvig-Ho Is te in T O T AL 450,8 1 17,9 108,0 2 933,4 232,3 706,5 426,8 229,6 5. 2 0 5 ,3 74,9 46,8 24,1 560,2 80,8 245,1 11 1,3 85. 9 1. 2 2 9 ,0 8,8 5,5 2,8 70,4 14,1 15,6 8,0 10,7 1 3 5 ,8 8. 8 5,5 12% 12% 2,8 12% 135,5 23,7 44,4 20,2 24% 29% 1 8% 18% 20,9 2 6 1 ,7 24% 2 1% ( 3) — • 4. 4 2,7 5 0% 5 0% 1,7 6 1% 67,4 12,8 25,7 12,5 7,0 5 0% 5 4% 5 8% 6 2% 3 3% 1 3 4 ,2 5 1% 4,4 2,7 1,7 34. 9 8,0 1 1,3 6. 4 1,8 7 1,2 The state of financing of the single programming documents is satisfactory, as the Commission has committed 21% and paid out 11% ofthe appropriations provided for the period as a whole. SPAIN Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 Population ('000 inhab. ) Area(knr) | 1. 731 85. 223 ECU million ' SPDs TÏÏTàTj WbTJ ( d) 10% A v e r a ge p er S PD y~4~9" (e) 13% (a) 3 1% Breakdown h y Bund : EAGGF) ERDF ESF (C) 22 4~TT~6 160. 8 88. 6 ( b) 24% Implementation in 1995 p Basic infrastructure (a) • Diversification of economic activity (b) B Protection of natural resources (c) • Improving rural living conditions (d) H Human resources (e) All the Spanish Objective 5(b) single programming documents were approved in 1994, with the exception ofthe one for the Balearic Islands (approved on 18 January 1995). In total, seven programmes are being implemented. They are organized around five priorities : basic infrastructure for economic development (country roads, electrification and small-scale industrial infrastructure, consolidation of holdings and improving existing irrigation networks); economic diversification and job creation (agricultural diversification, quality policy, aid to craft, industry and service SMEs); protecting and developing the potential of the environment (protection and extension of forested areas, combating erosion, developing the potential of protected country areas): improving rural living conditions (improving small-scale infrastructure and the renovation of villages): and human resources (training, recruitment aid. improving employment structures, improving scientific and technological potential). Responsibility for implementing the programmes is in the hands ofthe Autonomous Communities. The Monitoring Committees for these programmes were set up during the first half of 1995. The Madrid and Balearic Committees held second meetings at the end of 1995. A national Monitoring Committee responsible for coordination at national level of aspects concerning more than one single SPD met in July and December. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 111 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 58: Objective 5(b) - Spain - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es T o t al c o st S F a s s i s t a n ce C o m m i t m e n ts C o m m i t m e n ts a nd y e ar of a d o p t i on 1995 (1) 1995 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / ( l) P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 P a y m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (3) % ( 3 ) / ( 2) Balearic I s l a n ds | 146,9 j 46,1 | 8,2 ( 8. 21 18% | 6. 81 6. 81 8 2% 1994 A ra g o n Catalonia Rioja M adrid Navarre B a s q ue C o u n t ry 763,6 366. 7 166,5 112,9 161. 0 81,2 298,6 148,0 38. 9 49,3 56,6 26,5 TOTAL 1. 798,7 6"64,û 41,0 17,1 1,9 6,5 10,1 3. 8 88,6 78. 8 34,7 6,2 11,3 16,4 6,4 162,1 26% 23% 16% 23% 29% 24% 24% 3 7,S 15. S 1. 8 5,4 10. 9 1 ™* 8 1 ,7 56. 8 24,6 4. 0 7,8 14. 1 4. 6 72% 7 1 % 6 4% 69% 86% 7 1 % 118,4 73% Financial implementation generally went ahead very rapidly in 1995 in order to make up for the delay in approving single programming documents in 1994. The Commission was able to commit 24% and pay out 18% ofthe total appropriations allocated to the single programming documents for the period as a whole. FRANCE Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 Population ('000 mhab. ) 1 A r e a ( k n r) 20 Sl'D. s ECU million Total I 2239,4 (C) 3 3% 9. 759 291. 558 (d) 2% ( a) 14o/o Average per SPD 112,0 lircakdt) wn h v Bund : EAGGF I ERDF ESF TÏÏÏÏ7T 939. 4 292. 9 Implementation in 1995 (b) 5 1% • Agricultural diversification (a") • Economic development (b) • Altractiveness of rural areas (c) « Technical assistance id) Eighteen French single programming documents were approved in 1994 and two further programmes concerning the Massif Central and the French Pyrenees were adopted in the first quarter of 1995. A specific programme concerning technical assistance still remained to be adopted at the end of 1995. All these programmes confirm the priority given to strategies for diversification and developing the potential of agricultural and forestry production. The second level of priority is "diversification and development in non-agricultural sectors". Responsibility for the implementation ofthe programmes is in the hands of the regional representative ofthe State. Thirty Monitoring Committee meetings were held in 1995. This allowed all the partners to be informed about the project selection criteria, which were set out in the application documents drawn up in each region. Most of the Committees considered and proposed assessment programmes, and the assessors were to be selected in the first half of 1996 in order to start interim assessment during the second half of the vear. 112 "7/? Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 59: Objective 5(b) - France - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption 199$ Massit Central Massif des Pyrénées 19 94 Alsace Aquitaine Auvergne Lower Normandy Burgundy Brittany Centre Ch a m p a g n e-A rd e n n e Franche-Comlé Upper Normandy Languedoc-Roussillon Limousin Lorraine M idi-Pyrénées Loire Poitou-Charentes P. A. C. A. ( l) Rhône-Alpes TO TA L ( 1 ) Provence-A lpes-Cô Total cost SF a s s i s t a n ce (1) Commitments 1995 Commitments 1994-95 (2) % ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments 1995 Payments 1994-95 (3) % (3)/(2) 27,4 17. 8 169,1 762,4 724,7 433,4 407,6 510,6 259,7 100,1 437,6 32,9 344,3 560,8 304,6 849,9 334. 2 450,8 288,0 844,5 7. 860,4 e d'Azur 12,7 8,6 48,8 225,3 164,7 133,3 112,7 186,3 84,1 29,3 78,1 11,2 119. 9 128,0 96,8 283,1 122,0 130,1 95,0 169,4 2. 2 3 9 ,4 1,1 1. 1 0. 2 2. 8 25,7 12. 8 20,4 0,0 1,1 0. 0 6,9 0,0 0,0 14,0 1,4 4. 9 12,5 3,8 0. 3 1. 6 I 1 0 ,5 1,1 1,1 8% 13% 6,7 34,4 44. 9 31,5 29,7 26,2 5. 1 4. 1 13,9 1,1 11,7 32,0 10,2 33. 9 27. 8 20,9 12,1 24,9 373,2 14% 15% 27% 24% 26% 14% 6% 14% 18% 10% 10% 25% 11% 12% 23% 16% 13% 15% 1 7% 0,5 0,5 0. 0 3,4 19,0 7. 8 9,4 3,1 0. 5 0. 0 4. 8 0. 0 0. 0 12,5 1. 2 3. 7 4. 2 2. 6 1. 9 1. 5 7 6,6 0,5 0,5 50% 50% 3,3 19,2 28,6 17. 1 14,1 16. 2 2. 5 2. 1 8,3 0. 5 5,8 21. 5 5,6 18. 2 11,8 11. 1 7. 8 13. 2 207,9 4 8% 56% 64% 54% 47% 62% 49% 50% 60% 50% 50% 67% 55% 54% 42% 53% 65% 5 6% The Commission committed 17% and paid out 9% ofthe Community allocation for France (entire period). A sustained effort must be made to make up for the delay caused largely by the fact that programmes were adopted at the end of 1994. ITALY Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 P o p u l a t i on ('000 i n h a b. A r ea (ktrr) 4. 828 80. 486 / : ' ( ' (/ million n SPDS Total ~9~0T7 (C) 12% A v e i a g e p er S P D - 6 1 T 5- Break do wn h y E und ( d) 12% ( e) 1% a) 32% EAGGF E R DF E SF 370. 3 122. 6 (b) 43% Implementation in 1995 Q Modernization and diversification of agriculture (a) p Reinforcement of non- agricultural sector (b) m Environment (c) • Human resources (d) • Technical assistance (e) During the first quarter of 1995, the adoption procedures for the 13 Italian single programming documents were completed. These programmes show the priority given to agricultural and forestry diversification, the second priority being the development of small and medium-sized firms and industry and tourism, while an effort was made to ensure that, in addition to the training measures provided for under each of the priorities, a separate priority was adopted for the development of human resources. The Italian programmes call for substantial participation by the private sector. Responsibility for implementing the programmes is in the hands ofthe regions and autonomous provinces. The Commission participated in seventeen Monitoring Committees meetings, which concentrated on the importance of transparent procedures and project selection criteria. All the Committees drew up and approved assessment programmes. Selection of independent assessors by invitation to tender will be completed in the middle of 1996. The Committees also adopted information and publicity programmes. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 113 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 60: Objective 5(b) - Italy - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption TWT Friuli-Venezia Giulia Liguria Marche Piedmont TFR Bolzano Emilia Romagna Lazio Lombardy Tuscany Trento Umbria Valle d'Aosta Veneto TOTAL Total cost SF assistance (1) C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 95 C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) Payments 1995 ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments 1994-95 (3) ( 3 ) / ( 2) T73T 189,6 429,9 438. 2 B TJ 311,6 514,9 213,8 744,9 66,0 341,9 13,9 1. 033,2 4. 728,4 35,8 76,2 83,5 ~~737T 57. 1 145,7 40,3 133,0 19,9 75,5 4. 2 145,6 TLTTJ T2~ 4,2 8,9 9. 8 3,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0. 0 0,0 TTJ 17% 12% 12% 12% 17% 12% 11 % 12% 1 2% 6% 14% 14% 6,8 16. 7 4,8 15,8 1,1 10,7 0,6 HI) 17. 3 12% HfTfi u%- T 5l "5U%" 5 0% 50% 5 0% 3 8 2 7 0 5 0,3 8. 6 5ÏÏ% 5 0% 50% 5 0% 5 0% 50% 5 0% 5 0% 50% T1T5 TÏÏ7^ For 1994-95, the Commission committed 12% and paid out 6% ofthe Community allocation reserved for the Italian single programming documents. Following the invitations to tender issued in 1995 and appraisal of the projects submitted, it was expected that the utilisation of available financing would increase from 1996. LUXEMBOURG Objective 5(h) - programming jor 1994-99 Population ('000 inhab. ) Area (knr) I / S I'D ToTâT] ECU million A v e ra g e per SPD Breakdown h y Blind : E A G G FI ERDF ESF Implementation in 1995 MT 831 oTF 6~TT IT 3. 1 0. 8 (C) 51% (a) 21% (t>) 28% Q Revitalization of agriculture and forestry (a) • Employment in industry and services (b) H Tourism and living standards (c) The single programming document for the Objective 5(b) area of Luxembourg was approved in December 1994. The priorities of this programme are creating and maintaining jobs in SMEs and small and medium-sized industry and developing tourism and the quality of life. Responsibility for implementation ofthe programme is in the hands ofthe Ministry of Agriculture. The first meeting ofthe Monitoring Committee, which was to have been held in 1995, was postponed to 1996. 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 61: Objective 5(b) - Luxembourg - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) P r o g r a m me a n d year of adoption 1994 Luxembourg Total cost S F a s s i s t a n ce 0) Commitments I Commitments 1 9 95 1 9 9 4 - 95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments I 9 9 5 P a y m e n ts 19 9 4 -9 5 (3) ( 3 ) / ( 2) 2 5 31 6,01 "ôin O. ST 14% I 0. 21 The Commission committed 14% and paid out 7% ofthe Community allocation for the whole period. 114 NETHERLANDS Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 Population ('OOOinhab. ) Area (km2) I 8W 5. 405 S SPbs ECU million TotaT] Average per SPD Breakdown hv Euntl : EAGGF) ERDF ESF Implementation in 1995 TWJT JUJ ÎÏÏJ 81,8 17,6 7ih Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) (e) 11% W 1% <a> 8% (d) 13% (C) 42% • Development of agriculture and horticulture (a) p Business establishment ( b) 25% (b) a Tourist infrastructure (c) • Environmental protection (d) d Human resources (e) • Technical assistance (f) Five single programming documents for the Netherlands were adopted by the Commission in December 1994. The operations are directed primarily towards supporting small and medium-sized firms and industry and protecting the environment. Responsibility for the implementation of the programmes is in the hands ofthe regional authorities. The Commission participated in eight Monitoring Committee meetings in 1995. During the meetings information was provided on the project selection criteria. The programmes are currently being drawn up, and should lead to the first invitations to tender being issued during 1996. 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 62: Objective 5(b) - Netherlands - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P ro« ranimes and year of adoption 1994 Erie s la nd Gron in gen / Drenthe Limburg Overijssel Zee land T O T AL Total cost S F assis tance (1) Commitments 1995 Commitments 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments I 9 9 5 Payments 1994-95 (3) (3)/(2) 266,9 157,4 48. 4 70,2 49. 2 592,1 68. 7 34. 9 19,1 15,5 11. 8 150,0 4,5 0. 0 0. 0 1,4 1,4 7,3 12,7 4. 2 2. 3 3. 3 3. 2 2 5,6 1 8%, 12% 12% 21% 27% 1 7 % 4. 1 1. 7 0. 4 1. 2 2. 0 9,5 5. 2 2. 1 1. 1 1. 6 2. 5 12,6 4 1 % 50% 50% 50% 79% 4 9%, Between 1994 and 1995, the Commission committed 17% and paid out 8% of the Community appropriations allocated for the period as a whole. UNITED KINGDOM Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 Population t/000 inhab. ) Area (knr) I 2. 841 67. 987 TTsTTh, PA'U million TÔ1ÏÏT] STTTTJ (d) 15% (0 1% (e) 3% (a) 6% Average per S I'D Hreakdo wn hv Eund '• EAGGF I ERDF ESF (C) 20% 74. 6 T3TT 535. 0 134. 3 D Diversification of agriculture (a) p Business (non- agricultural) (b) B Tourism (c) • Environmental protection (d) a Human resources (e) ( b) 55% • Technical assistance (f) 7lh Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Implementation in 1995 115 Eleven single programming documents for the United Kingdom were approved between the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995. Generally speaking, they give a high priority to supporting small and medium-sized firms and industry and to developing tourism. The programmes are implemented by the Government departments concerned. Eighteen Monitoring Committee meetings were organized in 1995. At the meetings Committee members were informed ofthe project selection criteria. Assessment programmes should be finalized in 1996. 1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period Table 63: Objective 5(b) - United Kingdom - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost SF a s s i s t a n ce ( 1) Commitments 1995 Commitments 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 Payments 1994-95 (3) ( 3 ) / ( 2) I 99S Borders Region Central Scotland / Taysidc Dumfries and Galloway English Midland Uplands Grampian Lincolnshire The Marches Wales 1994 76,6 64,0 125,3 33. 3 96. 2 133,6 90. 8 483,4 East An g lia English Northern Uplands South W est England TOTAL 132,4 262,3 514,5 2. 012,3 30,4 25,4 47,7 12. 2 39,5 53,7 40,6 184,0 60,0 108. 0 219. 0 820,5 3. 8 6,7 1,4 5. 6 7,5 6. 2 27. 1 1. 4 2. 2 5. 1 74,6 25% 15% 14% 12% 14% 14% 15% 1 5% 3. 8 6,7 1,4 5. 6 7,5 6. 2 27,1 8,6 15,0 31. 2 120,7 14% 14% 14% 15%, 3. 1 2. 0 3 6 0. 7 2. 9 4. 0 3. 4 15. 3 1. 0 1. 7 8. 8 4 (. ,4 3. 1 2. 0 3. 6 0. 7 2. 9 4. 0 3. 4 41 % 5 4% 5 4% 5 ~> % 5 5% 56%, 4. 6 8. 1 21. S 6 9. 4 5 3 " o 54";, 7 0% 58% The Commission committed 15% and paid out 8% ofthe Community allocation for the period as a whole. 16 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies Integration of the three new Member States into the structural policies was an important aspect of the 1994 accession negotiations; it is an aspect which is largely regulated by the Act of Accession itself. The Act provides for the creation of a new Structural Funds Objective, Objective 6, for regions with a very low population density, makes the Austrian Land of Burgenland eligible under Objective 1 and also fixes for each Member State the financial resources for Objectives 1 (Austria), 6 (Finland and Sweden) and Objectives 2 and 5(b) (all three countries). The Act did not establish the list of eligible areas under Objectives 2 and 5(b), nor did it allocate the appropriations for Objectives 2 to 5(b). This was a task for the Commission, which adopted the decisions in 199554. In 1995, activities relating to the new Member States were more concerned with preparing all the programming documents under the various Objectives than with implementing the programmes, given that Community rules did not apply to those countries until 1 January 1995. It was therefore felt that the priorities for the different programmes for those countries should be presented in a separate section, whereas for the other Member States the Report concentrates on implementation and execution during 1995. However, almost all the programmes of assistance by Objective were adopted rapidly in 1995 so that most of them could start up before the end ofthe year. A total of 35 programming documents were adopted for the three new Member States in 1995: 17 for Austria and 9 each for Finland and Sweden. By the end ofthe year there were only six Swedish SPDs left to approve, one under Objective 4 and five under Objective 5(b). Objectives 2 and 5(b) had the majority of the approved programmes (10), followed by Objective 5(b) (9), then Objective 5(a) agriculture (5). For the other Objectives, one SPD per Member State was approved (Objective 1: 1, Objective 3: 3, Objective 4: 2, Objective 5(a) fisheries: 3, Objective 6: 2). to environmental The desire to preserve sustainable development: Austria, Finland and Sweden are environmentally conscious countries. The state ofthe environment in all three new Member States is very good. The northern parts of Sweden and Finland in particular (the sparsely-populated Objective 6 region) is recognized as one ofthe last natural wildernesses left in Europe in an almost pristine state. Austria possesses some of Europe's most beautiful mountain regions. The high sensitivity of public opinion in well developed environmental legislation in each of these Member States. In the Finnish and Swedish Objective 6 and threat posed by cross-border is probably 2 regions, the main environmental problem pollution. Some damage is caused through acidification of land and water. Another important issue in these two countries the main is the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. in the mountainous environmental regions against transport pollution and the promotion of sustainable forms of tourism. The environment as a horizontal concern in all programmes : A common feature of all programmes horizontal theme underpinning all measures. In all the Swedish programmes, environmental are regarded as a horizontal criterion in most measures. It is however not possible commitment to give priority to actions contributing to sustainable development or to an of environmental conditions into monetary terms. in the new Member States is regard for the environment as a concerns the improvement the protection of the natural environment issues are probably issues has resulted the potential to translate In Austria, 54 For more details on the structural aspects of enlargement in 1994, see the 1994 Annual Report. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 117 7. 1. Objectives 1 and 6 Objective 1 AUSTRIA Burgenland is the only region in the three new Member States eligible under Objective 1. In 1995 the per capita GDP in this region bordering three central European countries was about 70%> ofthe Community average. Its 270 000 inhabitants live in 4 000 km2 of mainly rural areas. The SPD presented to the Commission on 20 April 1995 was adopted on 15 November 1995 and provided for ECU 165. 6 million in Structural Funds assistance to a programme costing a total of ECU 831. 4 million. Objectif 1: Autriche - la programmation 1995-1999 S. F. Priorities Total cost Total assistance ESF EMU F National Private EAGOF public contribution contribution 1 rade and industry (a) Research & development (b) Tourism (c) Agriculture and environment Promotion of job creation and stability (e) Technical assistance (f) (d) 360,9 82,6 191,5 125,0 63,0 8. 4 56,8 15,5 38,7 24,2 26,3 4,1 53,8 12,5 38,7 3,0 3,0 0,7 2,0 25,6 1,5 Total 831,4 165,6 107,6 33,1 24,2 0,6 24,8 I 14,4 26,9 63,2 48,2 26,7 4,2 283,6 189,7 40,2 89,6 52,6 10,0 382,1 (e) 8% (f) 1% (a) 43% (d) 15% (C) 23% (b) 10% The general aims of the regional development programme are to create in central Europe a region with dynamic industrial, commercial, tourist and agricultural sectors and to reduce internal economic disparities by creating a more uniform standard of living throughout the region. The measures financed will create an extra 7 300 jobs (6 000 in industry, 1 000 in technology-based SMEs and 300 in technology centres). A few general priorities: • Particular attention will be paid to ways of increasing job opportunities for women, unskilled labour and young people in essentially rural areas, this being an essential way of stopping population drift and reducing out- migration. • Measures to train and reskill local labour are aimed at better meeting the needs ofthe region with regard to training SME entrepreneurs in technology and to development ofthe local economy. Internationalization, cooperation and networking, reflecting the geographical situation of Burgenland and its cooperation with Hungary and other central and eastern European countries. • • Preservation of a unique environment: The measure "protection of nature and the environment" (ECU 800 000 of Structural Funds money; total cost: 2. 26 million) provides part-finance for projects in protected zones and landscapes attractive to tourism: the Burgenland ecological programme, the programme to clean up the Neusiedlersee, the Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel national park and the programme to protect threatened biotopes and habitats. The opportunities offered by the new situation in central Europe and by the accession of Austria to the European Union need to be fully exploited to the profit of Burgenland between 1995 and 1999. In this respect, the growth potential in neighbouring countries and the other regions of Austria should have a very favourable impact on the future prospects for northern and central Burgenland. The southern part does not benefit from the same external stimuli and will have to concentrate on the development of its locally-generated potential (particularly spa tourism) while drawing maximum benefit from cross-border cooperation. 118 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 64: Objective 1 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) Total cost 5T: assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % (3)/(2) 1TiJ\ TOJI "2571 TJ% \AJ\ ~5Wo Programme and year of adoption T9T5 SPD Burgenland Objective 6 Objective 6 w as introduced by the Act of Accession and targets the development of sparsely populated areas; this is understood to mean a population density of no more than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre. T he areas in Finland and Sweden eligible under Objective 6 were defined in Protocol No 6 to the Act of Accession. As a general rule, the provisions o f t he Structural Funds Regulations, in particular those applicable to Objective 1, also apply to Objective 6. Table 65: Objective 6 in Finland and Sweden - basic statistics Total Objective 6 population Vo of national total Finland Sweden TOTAL 840. 000 449. 000 1. 289. 000 17% 5% - total Objective 6 area (km2) 206. 000 241. 640 447. 640 % of national total 60% 50% - FINLAND The Finnish regions eligible under Objective 6 cover a continuous surface comprising the regions of Lappi (Lappland), Kainuu, Pohjois-Karjala (North Karelia) and Etelâ-Savo (South Savo) and parts ofthe regions of North and Central Ostrobothnia, Pohjois-Savo (North Savo) and Keski-Suomi (Central Finland). The average population density is 4 inhabitants per km. The increase in unemployment resulting from the crisis in the 1990s has worsened the traditional problems in those regions - a gradual decrease in population and an exodus from the land towards the towns. All the regions are also highly dependent on the agriculture and forestry sectors and on public services, and the industrial base is unbalanced, concentrated on a number of major forestry, metals and chemicals businesses. In addition, there are relatively few SMEs and job losses in the public sector are affecting women more than men. The Objective 6 SPD was presented to the Commission on 8 March 1995 and adopted on 11 July 1995. Its strategy is to develop the strengths ofthe regions: timber and forestry products, specialized branches of agriculture, metals, electronics and tourism. It is aimed at creating a stronger SME sector through incentives to establish local industry and private service firms and through training and R&D. The programme also aims to exploit to their maximum the opportunities offered by new technologies, particularly in telecommunications, so as to counteract the effect of the long distances. Because of the significance of agriculture, particularly in the southern parts of the zone, about a quarter of the programme is to be earmarked for aid to farmers under the system of aid to less-favoured areas (Objective 5(a)). The programme also contains ESF measures to aid the unemployed and to support training. The ESF will also finance projects relating to the information society. During negotiations with the Finnish authorities, a number of amendments were made to the programmes initially presented. The Community part-financing rate for the less-favoured areas was reduced so as to release appropriations for development. Basic infrastructure projects were abandoned and measures relating to human resources in the information society were strengthened. Lastly, a number of relatively minor measures were regrouped into a package of flexible rural development which will finance mainly local projects in a large variety of sectors, including projects relating to the Sami minority in northern Lappland. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 6, Finland - programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 119 Priorities Total cost Total ERDF S. F. assistance ESF EAGGF FIFG National public contribution Private contribution ( d) 1% (a ) 39% Industrial development (a) Development of human resources (b) Agriculture, forestry, fisheries, rural development & environment (c) Technical assistance (d) 513,4 189,8 604,5 18,4 Total 1. 326,1 153,7 87,9 209,1 9,2 459,9 133,8 16,7 18,6 3,4 172,5 19,9 71,2 12,6 2,1 105,8 0,0 0,0 174,0 3,6 177,6 0,0 0,0 3,9 0,1 4,0 153,7 87,9 280,5 9,2 531,3 206,0 14. 0 114,9 334,9 (c) 46% ( b) 14% The final programme consists of three priorities: industrial development, the creation of businesses and investment in existing businesses, and human resources, comprising training and advice to the unemployed, research and the information society, and agriculture, forestry, fisheries, rural development and the environment. The Community contribution to the programme is ECU 459. 9 million (a major proportion of this, 39%, coming from the EAGGF as a result ofthe size of compensatory allowance payments) out of total expenditure of ECU 1 326 million. Measures for the environment: Under the industrial development and environmental protection priorities, the Finnish SPD provides for environmental measures requiring a Community contribution of ECU 14. 4 million: • Firstly, to encourage the use of biomass and other renewable energy sources and to develop energy infrastructures and networks (Structural Funds assistance: ECU 8 million; total cost: 35. 3 million). This relates, inter alia, to environmentally sound production methods (renewable energy sources, emission reduction, etc) and measures for the rational use of energy. • The environmental protection measure provides for improving water supply and waste disposal systems, developing recycling, environmental protection in tourist centres, investments in nature reserves, environmental studies, environmental management plans, etc. (Structural Funds assistance: ECU 6. 4 million, total cost: 16 million). The aims ofthe programme are to reduce the rate of unemployment by 2% and to put 8 000 people back to work each year, this in a region which had 90 600 jobless in 1994 (24% ofthe active population): to increase to 135 000 the number of jobs in the private services and industry (117 500 in 1994): and to reduce by 5 points (from 20% to 15%) the gap between local GDP and the national average. Management ofthe SPD is shared between the regions and central government. Each region has adopted its own programme which it will implement in accordance with a common framework of project selection procedures and criteria via a regional management committee comprising representatives of the region, of the ministries' local offices and of the social partners. This is why the programme is contained in a single SPD with a single Monitoring Committee. Two meetings of the Monitoring Committee took place, in September and November 1995. SWEDEN There are seven Swedish regions eligible under Objective 6, located in the north ofthe country. They are one entire county (Jamtland), and parts of six others (Vàrmland, Kopparberg, Gàvleborg, Vâsternorrland, Vàsterbotten and Norrbotten). Their population density is 2 inhabitants per km". These areas taken as a whole are characterized by small urban centres separated by long distances, with a third ofthe population living in very isolated habitats outside those centres. The sparseness ofthe population in the interior of the region along with the resulting close dependence on the coastal regions creates a great demand for infrastructure and social solidarity. The rate of unemployment is 13% and jobs, particularly those for women, are mainly in the public sector followed by forestry and mining, which is in decline, in second place. The SPD was adopted by the Commission on 6 November 1995 and provides for a Structural Funds contribution of ECU 252 million to a total cost ECU 635 million. The aim ofthe programme is to help to overcome the problems linked to the remoteness of the region, to job losses in traditional industries 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) (especially in the mines) and to population imbalances caused by the exodus of women and young people. The programme also seeks to develop the strengths of the region: its unspoilt environment, abundant natural resources and relatively well developed infrastructures. The SPD therefore seeks to create jobs in the private sector so as to reduce unemployment and offset the planned job losses in the public sector, which will mainly hit women. The viability ofthe widely scattered small communities will depend on their capacity to create new jobs and keep the region attractive as a place in which to live and work. Objective 6, Sweden - programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Total cost Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG S. F. assistance National public contribution Private contribution (e) 2% (f) 2% ( a) 43% Lmployment, trade and industry (a) Promotion of know-how (b) Agriculture, fisheries & natural res. (c) Rural development & community work (d) Sami population (e) Technical assistance (f) Total 269,4 102,7 151,5 85,4 15,7 10,3 635,0 82,6 48,8 66,1 41,7 7,6 5,2 252,0 58,2 35,7 12,5 13,7 0,0 2,5 122,6 26. 9 13,1 6,0 20,C 2. 6 1. 3 63,9 3,5 0,0 43,6 8,0 5,0 1,2 61,4 0,0 0,0 4,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 4,1 80,2 40,4 61,0 41,7 7,6 5,2 236,1 106. 6 13,5 24,4 2,0 0,5 147,0 (C) 24% ( b) 16% The programme's strategy, which revolves around five priorities, is also based on a number of horizontal themes: maximum use ofthe information technologies in all socio-economic activities, guaranteed equal opportunities for men and women, preservation of the exceptional natural environment and cultural heritage, exploiting the competitive advantages ofthe region, and improving the skills and qualifications of individuals. There is also a set of measures to help firms and increase their competitiveness, develop the potential of RTD and information technologies, develop natural and agricultural resources while respecting the environment, expand tourism, encourage local initiatives and improve the level of training and qualifications. The special priority for the Sami people will help to preserve their environment and their traditional way of life, the farming of reindeer. Measures for the environment: The Swedish SPD provides for two measures with Community funding of ECU 6 million: • for natural resources and conservation ofthe country-side: measures for recycling, improvement of water supply and drainage systems, research and pilot projects in environmentally sound agriculture, and development of better environmental management systems (Structural Funds contribution: ECU 4 million; total cost: 8 million); to support training in environmental to develop environmental expertise, it is planned technologies, the training of farmers and forest owners in environmental management, training in recycling for industry and commerce, new water technologies, and publicity in the tourism sector on public right of access to the countryside ("allemansrdtt") (Structural Funds contribution: ECU2 million; total cost: 4 million). • The general targets of the programme are to create or preserve about 9 500 jobs, to reduce the gap between the per capita GDP in the region (excluding energy production) and the national average, to create 900 new firms and to increase expertise in information technologies. The majority of the programme budget (80%) will be executed by regional management committees made up from existing local and regional structures. Some measures, for example those under Objective 5(a), will be managed by central bodies, while the Sami will receive a global grant. The first meeting of the SPD Monitoring Committee took place in December 1995 and the approval and execution ofthe projects commenced in that year. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 121 Table 66: Objective 6 - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) Programmed Adopted % Commitments 1995 % of assistance Payments 1995 % of assistance Fl 459,9 459,9 100% 81,0 18% 40,5 9% sv 252,0 252,0 100% 44,9 18% 22,5 9% Total 711,9 711,9 100% 125,9 18% 63,0 9% 7. 2. Objective 2 The Commission, acting in accordance with the Regulations governing the Structural Funds and the provisions ofthe Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and with the unanimous approval of the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions, adopted the lists of zones eligible under Objective 2 for Austria and Finland on 22 February 199555 and for Sweden on 10 May 199556. Table 6 7: Objective 2 in the new Member States - basic statistics N u m b er of e l i g i b le r e g i o ns 4 6 5 Total Objective 2 population Vo of total Total a r ea /o of total 640. 000 790. 000 970. 000 8% 15% 11% 8. 692 17. 000 35. 325 10% 5% 8% A u s t r ia Finland Sweden AUSTRIA The Austrian authorities presented proposals for the four Austrian Objective 2 regions (Styria, Lower Austria, Upper Austria and Vorarlberg) on 26 April 1995, and the Commission adopted the SPDs on 15 November 1995. The programmes cover the period 1995-99. Their total cost is ECU 816 million, and the Structural Funds contribution is ECU 101 million. Table 68: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund (ECU million) SPD Total cost lotal ERDF ESF S. t. assistance Styria Lower Austria Upper Austria Vorarlberg T O T AL 463,4 199. 2 67. 0 86,6 816,1 58,0 22,4 10,8 9,9 101,0 38,8 17,9 7,1 6,4 70,2 National public contribution Private contribution 19. 2 4. 5 3. 6 3. 5 30,8 123. 7 33. 7 18. 7 12. 0 188,2 281. 7 143. 0 37. 5 64. 7 5 26,9 The strategy behind the SPDs is to modernize and diversify the economy in these areas, which have been hit by the rapid decline in the metallurgical, mining and textile sectors. The accent is on creating new enterprises and strengthening existing ones (particularly SMEs) by developing new technical skills. About 60% of the available resources are earmarked for strengthening industry and the handicrafts sector and the corresponding technical skills; 30% will help to finance measures to provide human resources with skills and 7% will help to develop and promote tourism. It is estimated that measures financed under the four SPDs will help to create or maintain 11 000 jobs. 55 OJNoL 51, 8. 3. 1995. 5 6O J N oL 123,3. 6. 1995. 122 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 2 Austria - programming for 1995-99 Total S. F. assistance National Private Priorities cost Total ERDF ESF public contribution contribution (d) 9% (e)i% Investments in enterprises (including tourism) (a) R&D, innovation, technology transfer (b) Infrastructures supporting activities (c) Training and reskilling (d) Technical assistance (e) 573,4 84,4 76,6 75,6 6,1 40,8 10,2 16,7 30,5 2,8 40,8 10,2 16,7 0,0 2,5 TOTAL 816,1 101,0 70,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 30,5 0,3 30,8 84,9 23,2 35,1 41,7 3,3 188,2 447,7 51,0 24,8 3,4 0,0 526,9 (a) 71« Integration ofthe environment: Environmental protection is an integral part of the SPDs and is included in support for the introduction of "clean" technologies and the use of alternative energy sources: • In Styria, two measures under two different priorities (investment in industry and tourism, technology transfer and advice) provide for support to investment in environmental protection enterprises and advice on energy-saving and environmental technologies. In Vorarlberg, the know-how improvement measure provides for aid to pilot and full-scale projects promoting the rational use of energy and more environmentally-sound production methods. in Lower Austria, action to help the environment is planned within three measures: economic restructuring: support to investment by enterprises (rational use of energy, reducing industrial waste and air pollution, etc); advisory services to enterprises: advice to SMEs (waste treatment, pollution reduction, audits, etc), and economic infrastructure: investments in renewable energy sources (solar, biomass, wind, hydro-electricity, etc). • • In addition, there are special measures aimed at the reintegration of women into the labour market, mainly in Lower and Upper Austria. Technical assistance will be supplied to strengthen and create regional management structures aiding the development and launching of innovative project ideas and the coordination of regional development efforts. Table 69: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r og r a m m e s and year of adoption Total cost S. F. assistance (I) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1995 (3) % (3)/(2) 1995 SPD Lower Austria SPD Upper Austria SPD Styria SPD Vorarlberg T O T AL FINLAND 199,2 67,0 463,4 86,6 816,1 22,4 10,8 58,0 9,9 101,0 22,4 10,8 11,1 9,9 54,1 100% 100% 19% 100% 5 4% 7. 6 3,9 5,6 4. 3 21,4 34% 37% 50% 44% 4 0% Six industrial areas of Finland are eligible under Objective 2. Programming is integrated into a single SPD for 1995-96, the Finnish authorities having opted to present a new programme for 1997-99. Three ofthe areas are coastal regions (parts ofthe regions Satakunta and South-West Finland on the west coast and Ita-Uusimaa and Kymenlaakso on the eastern coast of the Gulf of Finland and Kokkola on the northwestern coast); the other three are in the interior, in the regions of Paijat-Hame (Lahti) and in Central Finland (Jyvàskylà) and South Karelia (Lappeenranta). The main problem is the high rate of unemployment (an average 23% in 1994 against a national average of 20%), due to structural changes and the constant erosion of jobs in the main industries, dominated by the major companies in the forestry, metals and chemicals sectors. The structural decline in employment in those industries has been speeded up by the collapse in trade with Russia after 1990. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 123 Dependence on a few large employers is one ofthe weak points in these regions. Because of this, the SPD stresses the development and diversification of SMEs. In addition to aid for setting up new enterprises, the programme encourages the development of existing SMEs through investments, research, the development of new products and improving skills in technology and marketing, hence the importance of training and networking with other SMEs or larger enterprises (grouped development). Lastly, the programme is aimed at developing Finland's role as an access route to Russia and the Baltic States, especially by means of targeted investments in the ports used for transit trade. Objective 2 Finland - programming for 1995-96 Priorities D e v e l o p m e nt of e n t e r p r i s es ( a) Skills a nd t e c h n o l o g i es ( b) E n v i r o n m e n t, i n f r a s t r u c t u r es a nd t o u r i sm (c) T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce ( d) Total cost 1 7 2. 8 4 5 ,6 6 1 ,8 2,8 T O T AL 2 8 3 ,0 S. F. assistance National Private Total ERDF ESF public contribut on (C) 22% (d) 1 contribution 3 6 ,6 16,3 1 4 ,9 1,4 5 9 ,2 3 0,5 8,7 14,9 I. I 5 5 ,2 6. 1 7. 6 0,0 0,3 1 4 ,0 4 9. 4 20. 1 3 7 ,0 1,4 1 0 7 ,9 8 6 ,8 9. 2 9. 9 1 0 5 ,9 (b) 16 (a) 61% The programme was presented to the Commission on 8 March 1995 and adopted on 11 July 1995. It contains three priorities: the development of enterprises; the development of skills and technologies; and the environment, infrastructures and tourism. The Community contribution is ECU 69. 2 million, and the total cost is ECU 283 million. The aims ofthe programme are a net increase of about 10 000 jobs in the industry and service sectors, a reduction in the rate of jobless towards the national average, a 3% increase in the number of SMEs and a 3% increase in the number of exporting SMEs. Two environmental protection measures: One is included in the priority for the development of skills and technologies and the other in that for the environment proper: • The measure "development and application of environmental technologies" (ECU 300 000 from the gathering and the Structural Funds, total cost: ECU 1. 1 million) provides aid for dissemination of information on "green" technologies, for the development of environmentally- sound products and production methods, and for studies into environmental research and into cooperation between enterprises in the environmental field. • The measure "environmental protection and urban renewal" (Structural Funds: ECU 6. 9 million, • total cost: ECU 30 million) provides aid for the renovation and use of vacant industrial structures, for improving the environment in town centres, for public awareness campaigns on environmental issues, and for research and development in waste treatment. Programme management is divided between the regions and central government. Each area has adopted its own programme which it is implementing in accordance with a common framework of selection procedures and criteria via a regional management committee composed of representatives ofthe region, of the regional offices of the ministries and of the social partners. This is why the programme is integrated into a single programming document with a single national monitoring committee. The Monitoring Committee met twice: in September and November 1995. Table 70: Objective 2 - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) Programme and year of adoption Total cost assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) ~~%~ (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % (3)H2) TWT SPD Finland 18TÏÏ1 TOI "3TT]~ -FVÔ] T376I IrWo 124 SWEDEN 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) The proposals covering the five Swedish Objective 2 regions (Angermanlandskust, Blekinge, Fyrstad, Norra Norrlandskust and Bergslagen, with a total population of 970 000) were presented to the Commission on 16 June 1995 and the five SPDs, which cover the period 1995-99, were adopted on 22 November 1995. The five regions are characterized by a high degree of dependence on traditional industries (forestry, mining, mechanical engineering), the dominance of one or two large employers on the local labour markets, a weak enterprise spirit and a tendency for people to leave resulting in ageing of the remaining population. The programmes provide for a total Structural Funds contribution of ECU 160 million to a total cost of just over ECU 800 million. The main challenge facing these regions is to create new jobs to compensate for the losses suffered recently in traditional industries and those anticipated in the public sector. The main aim ofthe SPD is therefore to modernize and diversify the economies in the regions so as to provide a solid foundation for the creation of jobs in the private sector. The five programmes seek to improve the business environment in the regions concerned and strengthen SMEs in the productive sector and services to businesses. Another aim is to develop tourist activities based on the rich cultural heritage and natural beauty of the regions. It is estimated that implementing the programmes will create 21 000 new jobs. Table 71: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund (ECU million) SPD Total cost Total ERDF ESF S. F. assistance Angermanlandskust Bergslagen Blekinge Fyrstad Norra Norrlandskust T O T AL 89,5 321,4 85,8 145,5 161,0 803,2 18,0 67,0 15,0 24,0 36,0 160,0 14,2 47,5 12,3 19,0 28,7 121,7 National public contribution Private contribution 3,8 19,5 2,7 5,0 7,3 38,3 29,5 150,9 33. 1 56,0 83,0 352,5 42. 0 103,5 37,7 65. 5 42,0 290,7 In order to achieve these strategic aims, the priorities are centered on the development of businesses and industry, tourism and human resources. Aid will go to advisory services, networking and research and training activities so as to encourage diversification and increase the competitiveness of businesses and the export potential. To stimulate innovation in SMEs, the SPDs provide for aid to business networking, collaboration between businesses and centres of expertise and SME staff training. Efforts will also be made to attract investments (restructuring and cleaning-up of industrial sites and promotion activities). Lastly, the programmes will assist measures to encourage the development of tourist activities (for example, small-scale tourist infrastructures, the organization of cultural events emphasising the rich heritage of the regions, the development of new attractions). These priorities are based on horizontal themes such as the development of information technologies, the promotion of equal opportunities, conservation ofthe environment and increasing skills and know-how. Measures for the environment: Each ofthe Swedish SPDs include such measures, which concern: • The renovation and cleaning-up of abandoned industrial sites and structures (Bergslagen: ERDF: ECU 3 million; total cost: 16 million). • Aid for the development of environmentally-sound products and for the introduction of "clean" technologies into SMEs (Fyrstad: ERDF: ECU 600 000; total cost: 3. 6 million). • Aid for the conservation and maintenance ofthe heritage (Fyrstad: ERDF: ECU 1. 6 million; total cost: 9. 1 million; Norra Norrlandskust: ERDF: ECU 1. 8 million; total cost: 8. 7 million). The main beneficiaries ofthe programmes will be the SMEs, those wishing to start up businesses, the municipalities, various local organizations and training and R&D institutions. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 2 Sweden - programming Priorities for 1995-99 Total cost S. F. assistance National Private Total ERDF ESF public contribution contribution Development of enterprises (a) Innovation, research & technology (b) Enterprise environment, tourism, local development (c) Training, skills (d) Technical assistance (e) 453,1 86,7 157,1 97,2 9,1 79,5 17,8 33,8 24,3 4,6 63,5 17,8 30,8 6,2 3,4 TOTAL 803,2 160,0 121,7 16 0,0 3 18,1 1,2 38,3 171,7 39,8 89,6 46,9 4,5 352,5 201,9 29,1 33,7 26,0 0,0 290,7 (d) 12% ( e) 1% (C) 20% ( b) 1 1% ( a) 56% Programming will be carried out through partnership involving the Commission, central government and regional and local authorities representing all local interests, including the social partners, via a system of management committees under one general Monitoring Committee for the SPD. The first meeting of the five SPD Monitoring Committees was held in December 1995. Table 72: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % (3)/(2) 1995 SPD Angermanlandskust SPD Bergslagen SPD Blekinge SPD Fyrstad SPD Norra NorrlaniJskust TOTAL 7. 3. Objectives 3 and 4 ^ 9 ,5 321,4 85,8 145,5 161,0 803,2 18. 0 67. 0 15,0 24,0 36,0 160,0 18. 0 12,8 15,0 24,0 36,0 105,8 100% 19% 100% 100% 100% 6 6% 6,2 6. 4 5,0 8,2 12,3 38,1 34% 50% 34% 34% 34% 3 6% As for the other Objectives, 1995 was the year in which the Objective 3 and 4 SPDs for the new Member States were established in an active partnership process. Table 73: Objectives 3 and 4 - Indicative breakdown of appropriations for the new Member States (ECU million) A u s t r ia F i n l a nd S w e d en T o t al O b j e c t i v es 3 a nd 4 395,0 343,0 520,0 1. 2 5 8 ,0 O b j e c t i ve 3 O b j e c t i ve 4 334,0 258,4 347. 0 9 3 9 ,4 61. 0 84. 6 173. 0 3 1 8 ,6 AUSTRIA The Austrian Objective 3 and 4 SPDs were adopted in July 1995. They represent total ESF funding of ECU 395 million and are implemented under the general responsibility ofthe Minister for Labour and Social Affairs, mainly via the public employment service and the Lander social affairs departments. They cover 1995-99. 126 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Objective 3: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Support for categories hit by structural changes (a) Integration ofthe long-term unemployed, old people and those threatened with exclusion (b) Integration ofthe handicapped (c) Aid for integration of y o u ng people into employment (d) Promotion of equal opportunities (e) Technical assistance (f) ESF 25,8 113,8 95,2 22,9 61,1 15,2 Total 334,0 (f) 5% (a) 8% (e) 18% (d) 7% (C) 29% (b) 33% Objective 3: Under this Objective special priority will be given to aid for those parts of the population particularly affected by economic trends resulting from accession. The ESF funding - continuance and deepening of Austrian labour market policies - will be targeted mainly at the long-term unemployed, old people and those threatened with exclusion from the labour market. There will be sizeable aid to encourage unemployed handicapped people to reintegrate into the labour market. Additional measures will promote equal opportunities and the integration of young people into the labour market. "~~ Objective 4: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Anticipation of labour market trends and updating of skills (a) Professional training (b) Improvement and development of training system (c) Technical assistance (d) Total I ESF 4~JT 46,0 8,4 2,1 61,0 (C) 14% <d> 3% <a) 7% (b) 76% Objective 4: The main aim ofthe SPD is to help salaried staff to adjust to industrial change and to new production methods. To this end, in accordance with the principle of concentration, measures will be centered around SMEs. They will target old workers, unskilled workers or workers with obsolete skills, workers in key positions, customs agents, short-time and seasonal workers. Since this is a new approach to labour policy in Austria, the measures will be evaluated after two years and adjusted or replaced if necessary. Implementation ofthe programmes in 1995 was facilitated by the decision ofthe Austrian authorities to pay advances to project promoters. However, the socio-economic effects will only become clear during the course of 1996. Table 74: Objectives 3 and 4 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption total cost S. K. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) /o (3)/(2) Objective 3 1995 SPD Austria Objective 4 7 ^5 SPD Austria TOTAL FINLAND 779,3 334,0 64,1 19% 32. 0 50% 171,4 950,6 61,0 395,0 11,7 75,8 19% 19% 5^ 3 7,9 50% 5 0% Finland was the first of the new Member States to have its ESF programmes approved. The Finnish Objective 3 and 4 SPDs were adopted on 25 July 1995 and provide for total ESF funding of ECU 343 million. This is equivalent to 7% ofthe national funds earmarked for employment measures. Finland is 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 127 one ofthe most advanced countries in Europe in terms of education, training and employment policy so the ESF measures and programmes give a significant place to innovative measures. With regard to implementation, Monitoring Committees have been set up for each Objective and all of them have already met. Several seminars, preparatory meetings and working parties have also been organized. The monitoring and evaluation rules have been developed with the Finnish authorities and the Monitoring Committees will take decisions on them during the first half of 1996. The employment ministry will be responsible for coordinating Objective 3 and 4 measures and will coordinate, with the competent authorities, the human resources measures under all Objectives. It will be responsible for executing most ofthe ESF horizontal programmes. Establishment ofthe budget and national rules will guarantee wide distribution ofthe decision-making procedures applied to ESF projects. Objective 3: The SPD is designed to combat unemployment and trigger economic growth by the creation of SMEs. Some 97 400 people should benefit from the measures programmed under Objective 3. Objective 3: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Reintegration pathways (a) Job creation and human resources development in SMEs (b) Young people's employment needs (c) Measures in favour o f t he Aland islands (d) Technical assistance (e) I ESF 110,0 61,5 82,2 0,8 3,9 (d) 0,3% (e) 2% ( a) 42% (c) 32% Total 258,4 ( b) 24% In early 1995 the Finnish authorities speeded up the launch of the programme by introducing an "absolute priority procedure". Drawing up new working methods and practical models, the administrative procedure and the creation ofthe necessary tools had taken longer than anticipated. Most ofthe projects started up in late autumn. A total of 204 projects started up in 1995. Given the problems bound to be encountered in the first year, this overall picture for 1995 is satisfactory. Objective 4: Objective 4 will receive total funding of ECU 84. 6 million in 1995-99. It contains three priorities and should benefit 34 500 people. Objective 4: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Forecasts of trends throughout working life (a) Professional training and retraining; guidance and advice (b) Development of innovative know-how and networks (c) Measures in favour ofthe Aland islands (d) Technical assistance (e) Total ESF 7. 6 47. 5 25. 5 0,2 3,8 84,6 (d) 0,2% <e) 4% (a) 9% (c) 30 (b) 57% The Objective 4 programme started up more rapidly than anticipated in most ofthe Member States. The only problem is the concentration of funding and projects on a small number of measures, especially the measure to develop practical skills in the workforce, the largest one in the SPD and the only one really to have started properly. The other measures still contain only a few projects. A total of 81 projects got underway in 1995. 128 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 75: Objectives 3 and 4 - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU mil/Ion) Total cost WT. a s s i s t a n ce (1) Commitments 1995 (2) (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) T>— (3)/(2) "5Î61T 1ÏÏ? W IWo 1ÏÏT WTJ 1. 227,5 84,6 3 4 3 ,0 T O" 75T 18% 2 2% 7. 4 37,6 ~w% 50% ~5~F^ Programmes and year of adoption Objective 3 TW5 SPD Finland Objective 4 TW5 SPD Finland TOTAL SWEDEN Objective 3: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Integration of young people into the labour market (a) Combatting long-term unemployment (b) Integration into the labour market of people threatened with exclusion (c) Technical assistance (d) Total ESF 96,6 173,1 63,3 14,0 347,0 (C) 18% ( a) 28% Objective 3: Sweden presented its draft SPD for Objective 3 to the Commission in April 1995, and the Commission approved it on 6 December 1995. It did not start up until 1996 but it was agreed to grant ESF funding retroactively to eligible projects started after 1 July 1995. The ESF funding will be concentrated on the most effective and innovative integration measures targeted at those most at risk of exclusion from the labour market. All the measures will respect the principle of equal opportunities. Some 160 000 people should benefit from the programme between 1995 and 1999. Objective 4; Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Forecasting, planning and development (a) Improving skills, guidance and advice (b) Cooperation and transfer structures, networks (e) Technical assistance (d) ESF 26,0 1 12,4 26,0 8,6 173,0 Total (c) 15% (d) 5% ( a) 15% (b) 65% Objective 4: The draft Objective 4 SPD was presented to the Commission by the Swedish authorities in April 1995, but it was not approved until February 1996. As a result, ESF financing could be allocated only to projects started in the period 1996-99. The programme will concentrate mainly on innovative adjustment measures for the staff of SMEs employing fewer than 50 people. The SPD forms a coherent whole, each measure leading to or opening a door to another: the macro-economic forecast is duplicated by a forecast and definition ofthe enterprises' professional needs. This approach comprises the drawing up of individual business plans, permanent training of senior staff and - the main measure - developing the skills of staff, in particular those threatened with unemployment. The final measure encourages the establishment of networks between workers, businesses and transfer structures. A maximum of 15% of the budget earmarked for the main measures will be reserved for projects which, at the municipality and county level, are aimed at staff of SMEs in the public caring sector. Concern for equal opportunities underlies all the measures. The total number of beneficiaries will be ofthe order of 240 000 in the period 1996-99. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 129 Table 76: Objective 3 - Sweden - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) Programme and year of adoption Objective 3 TW5 SPD Sweden Total cost STF. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) ^ 55 (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) ~Vo (3)/(2) 771,0 14TÔ" 73,0 TT% 36. 5 50% 7. 4. Objective 5(a) Objective 5(a) agriculture The forecasts of expenditure in the new Member States on Objective 5(a) agriculture outside the Objective 1, 5(b) and 6 areas were adopted during 1995, along with the priorities by activity sector, category of farmer and type of area. =— Table 77: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Forecast implementation in the new Member States 1995-99 (ECU million) A u s t r ia Total 385,8 Finland 331,0 Sweden 90,1 Total 806,9 Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing Production Processing and marketing 323,5 62,3 287,9 43,1 67,2 22. 9 678,6 128,3 % 8 4% 16% 8 7% 1 3% 7 5 % 2 5 % 8 4% 1 6 % Objective 5(a) - The Member States' options for 1995-99 A u s t r ia ( f ) l 2% (a) 11% (b) 3% (C) 2 7% Finland (a) 1. 2% (h (f)7% \ •* * '' (C, 1. (e) 57% (e) 66% n In v e s t m e nt s in t he h o l d i ng ( a) r-j P i o d u c er g r o up s ( b) i P r o c e s s i ng a nd m a r k e t i ng ( c) r—i T i f i n i ng a nd s u p p o rt s e r v i c es (< • M o u nt a l l i o ns a nd l e a st -1 ;i\ o u r cd a i e as ( e) I—I Y o u nu f a r m e rs i f) Objective 5(a) for fisheries After preparatory work which started in 1994, the three Objective 5(a) fisheries programmes for Austria. Finland and Sweden for the period 1995-99 were adopted during 1995. It should be noted that the Objective 6 SPDs adopted for Sweden and Finland also contain a section on fisheries. 130 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 78: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Priorities for assistance in the new Member States (ECU million) Adjustment and reorientation of fishing elfort Other fleet measures Fleet renewal and modernisation Aquaculture Protected marine areas Port facilities Processing and marketing of products Product promotion Socio-economic measures (1) Other measures Austria Finland Sweden 4,1 4,0 S. F. total 8,1 0,0 14,4 12,2 2,4 3,2 16,4 4,4 pm 3,9 65,0 12,0 5,1 1,9 2,2 9,0 2,2 pm 3,6 40,0 1,05 0,87 0,04 pm 2,4 6,0 0,5 1,0 6,5 2,2 pm 0,3 23,0 Total ( 1 ) Since the amendment in 1 VV5 ot Regulation (EC) No J 6 y v / y j, such measures may be introduced by the Member States. The amount allocated to such measures must be determined within the overall budget. 2,0 Table 79: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S. F. (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % (3)/(2) 1995 SPD Austria SPD Finland SPD Sweden AUSTRIA 22,5 81,9 115,9 220,3 2,0 23,0 40,0 65,0 2,0 23,0 40,0 65,0 100% 100% 100% 1 0 0% 0,2 6,9 12,0 19,1 10% 30% 30% 2 9% T O T AL The Objective 5(a) fisheries SPD (non-Objective 1) was adopted on 26 July 1995 and provides for an FIFG contribution of ECU 2 million for the period 1995-99. It relates mainly to the aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of products. The Monitoring Committee met for the first time in October 1995, approving its rules of procedure and the project selection criteria. The Austrian authorities have already taken the first steps to implement the programme. FINLAND The Objective 5(a) fisheries SPD for Finland covers all the fisheries measures outside the Objective 6 zone. The indicative financing plan provides for a total investment of ECU 82 million for 1995-99, ECU 23 million of which will come from the FIFG. The programme was approved on 28 July 1995 and comprises eight priorities, including the adjustment of fishing effort, fieet modernization, aquaculture and product processing. The first meeting ofthe Monitoring Committee, whose members include five representatives ofthe various fishery organizations, was held in December 1995. Although a small number of projects have already been approved, the method of assistance by programming is new and it will be a little while before the Finnish authorities and the Monitoring Committee can adopt procedures and monitor the implementation ofthe programme. SWEDEN The Swedish Objective 5(a) fisheries programme (non-Objective 6) was approved on 8 November 1995. The FIFG contribution is ECU 40 million, and its main aim is to assist the adjustment and modernization of the fishing fleet and the qualitative and quantitative development of the processing industry. The Monitoring Committee, which will cover Objective 5(a) measures throughout the country, including the Objective 6 zones with the exception of financial matters, held its constitutive meeting in December 1995, where it adopted the selection criteria for projects; this enabled programme implementation to begin in early 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 131 7. 5. Objective 5(b) Before the SPDs were adopted prior appraisals of the Objective 5(b) programmes for the three new Member States were carried out. The appraisals covered one programme for mainland Finland and one for the Aland islands, seven programmes for Austria and five programmes for Sweden. The aim was to give the Commission a better idea ofthe needs ofthe regions, their potential and the priorities for their agricultural and rural development. The appraisals concentrated on these points: a clearer definition of the programme strategies and quantification of their aims, particularly for income and jobs; respect for the principle of regionalization, particularly for mainland Finland, where one programme was presented for all the Objective 5(b) areas; determination of the physical and performance indicators and measurement ofthe impact of applying the common agricultural policy on rural areas. The studies also proved a useful tool for the Commission during negotiations on the programmes. Table 80: Objective 5(b) - SPDs adopted in 1995 in the new Member States (ECU million) Member State/region A u s t r ia Carinthia Lower Austria Upper Austria Salzburg Styria Tyrol Vorarlberg Finland Mainland Aland islands Finland TOTAL % Total cost 2. 679,9 404,8 762,7 539,3 104,3 629,1 181,3 58,3 624,1 613,8 10,3 3. 304,0 S. F. total 411,0 58,0 111,6 98,5 16,0 85,3 34,4 7,2 194,0 191,4 2,6 605,0 100% EAGGF ERDF ESF 164,2 20,9 44,6 41,3 6,4 34,1 13,8 3,1 66J 65. 5 1. 2 230,9 38% 175,0 28,9 46,7 41,3 7. 0 34,1 13,8 3,1 94,5 93,4 1,2 269,5 45% 11,8 8. 2 20. 3 15,9 2. 6 17. 1 6. 9 1. 0 32,8 32. 5 0. 3 104,6 17% AUSTRIA P o p u l a t i on ('000 i n h a b. ) I A r ea ( k n r) ' SIJDs A v e r a ge p er S PD BreukJow n by J'und 2. 276 50. 040 HCU million (f) 17% O) 1% ( a) 2 8% T o t al I 4 1 1 ,0 (e) 4% 58,7 Ï 6 4J 175. 0 71,8 ( d) 14% (C) 8% ( b) 2 8% E A G GF I E R DF ESF Q Diversification and dev e lop ment of agriculture and forestry (a) • Diversification and deve lop ment o f t he non-agricultural sectors (b) ^ P r o t e c t i on o f t he environment (c) • Tourism (cl) g L o c al d e v e l o p m e nt and renovation of villages (e) Q Human resources (f) « T e c h n i c al assistance (g) At the beginning ofthe year the Commission adopted the list of Austrian areas eligible under Objective 5(b) and the amount of Community appropriations: ECU 411 million for the period 1995-99. The seven SPDs were approved on 4 December 1995. The priority under the programmes is agricultural diversification and aid to small firms and industries. They require a very considerable investment effort from the private sector. The Lander will be responsible for their implementation. With regard to financial execution in 1995, the Commission committed 19% and paid 9% ofthe Community allocation for the entire period. 132 7lh Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 81: Objective 5(b) - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es and year of adoption total cost ST a s s i s t a n ce (1) Commitments 1 9 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / ( l) Payments 1 9 95 (3) % (3)/(2) S P D C a r i n t h ia SPD L o w er A u s t r ia SPD U p p er A u s t r ia SPD Salzburg SPD Styria SPD T y r ol SPD Vorarlbere T O T AL •4TJ4--C, 762,7 539,3 104,3 629,1 181,3 58,3 2. 6 7 9 ,9 111,6 98,5 16,0 85,3 34,4 7,2 4 1 1 ,0 TT7J 21,2 18,9 3,1 16,2 6,6 1,4 78,3 ~TWo 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 1 9 % 5,5 10,6 9. 4 1,5 8,1 3,3 0,7 39,2 1U% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 5 0% F I N L A ND P o p u l a t i on ('000 i n h a b. ) A r ea (km2) 2 S I'D s I TÏÏ9T 95. 219 ECU million T o t al I 1 9 4 ,0 A v e r a ge p er S PD Breakdown by Fund E A G GF I E R DF ESF 97,0 66~7 94,5 32,8 (C) 8% (f) 17% ( 9) 1% Q D i\ e r s i f i c a l i on a o i L j i c v e l o p ni ent. of a g r i c u l t u re a nd f o r e s t ry ( a) (a) 22% Q D i v e r s i f i c a t i on a nd d e v e l o p m e nt of t he n o n - a g r i c u l t u r al s e c t o rs ( b) ^ P r o t e c t i on o f t he e n v i r o n m e nt ( c) p T o u r i sm (d) ff L o c al d e v e l o p m e nt a nd r e n o v a t i on of v i l l a g es ( e) ( b) 4 1% Q H u m an r e s o u r c es (f) « T e c h n i c al a s s i s t a n ce (g) Definitions ofthe Finnish Objective 5(b) areas and the amount ofthe Community contribution, ECU 194 million for 1995-99, were adopted by the Commission in January and February 1995. The draft SPDs were presented by the Finnish authorities on 8 March 1995 and the Commission adopted the two programmes on 13 November 1995. Each programme was designed to take account ofthe geographical and socio-economic characteristics ofthe area concerned, one programme being for the Aland islands, the other, containing fourteen regional subsections, for the mainland. The main priority is aid to small firms and industries. The second is agricultural and forestry diversification. For the Aland isl ds tourism is a major development priority. Responsibility for implementation has been entrusted at regional level to "regional councils" and at 13 national level to the Ministry ofthe Interior. The Monitoring Committees were constituted on 1 ! December 1995 while in 1995 the Commission committed 17% and paid 8% of the Con lity contribution for the two programmes for the entire period. Table 82: Objective 5(b) - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) P r og r am me s Total cost S. F. a s s i s t a n ce (1) C o m m i t m e n ts 1 9 95 (2) % ( 2 ) / (D P a y m e n ts 1 9 95 (3) % (3)/(2) 6 13. 8 10. 3 6 2 4. 0 1 9 1 ,4 2. 6 I'M. 1) 30. 5 3 2. 8 16% 89% 1 7 "/,, 1x2 0. 7 1 5. 9. "H)% 30% 4 9 % A 11 (I \ c ar of adoption 1995 SP13 M amland Fin land SPD A l a nd islands T O T AL 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 133 SWEDEN ( fl 2 1% (fl) 2% ( a) 17% P o p u l a t i on ('000 i n h a b. ) A r ea ( k m2) TTPlJs 754 52. 746 ECU million îolïT] TSipr A v e r a ge p er S PD 27,6 (d) 1 1% (C) 5% (b) 36% ^Diversification and development of agriculture and forestry (a) g Diversification and development of the non-agricultural sectors (b) ^ P r o t e c t i on o f t he environment (c) pTourism (d) g Local development and renovation of villages (e) £]Human resources (0 ^Technical assistance (g) Selection ofthe Swedish areas eligible under Objective 5(b) was adopted by the Commission on 18 April 1995. They have a very low population density (14 inhabitants per km2). There are three mainland zones (South-East Sweden and Vâsterbotten/Gàvle/Dalarna, a forest area with a very scattered population; West Sweden, with an ageing population and a continuous out-migration of yojmg people) and two island zones (Skàrgârden, an archipelago of some 300 islands suffering from remoteness, an ageing population and out-migration of young people, and the island of Gotland, the largest Swedish island, with local production remote from the main markets but with an exceptional and underdeveloped cultural and environmental heritage). The allocation of appropriations was decided by the Commission on 22 March 1995 and covers ECU 138 million for the period 1995-99. The five draft SPDs were presented to the Commission in 1995 and were to be finalized in 1996. 134 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) B. OTHER ASSISTANCE 1. Community Initiatives 1. 1. Introduction Many programmes approved The main events in 1995 were the adoption of most of the Community Initiative programmes and the proposal for allocating the reserve available for the Initiatives. The Commission approved 263 programmes in 1995, about two thirds ofthe total of 401 programmes submitted by the Member States. This represents ECU 9 540 million, or 81% ofthe total of ECU 11 729 million initially allocated to the Twelve for 1994-99, plus ECU 157. 7 million, or 42% of the total of ECU 376 million allocated to the three new Member States for 1995-99. Ofthe programmes approved, 45 are in the new Member States (14 INTERREG programmes and 31 programmes under other Initiatives). As the allocation of resources between Initiatives in the new Member States was not decided until April 1995, only eight rjrogrammes were adopted in 1995. 1 Table 83: Number of Community Initiative programmes presented and adopted in 1995 ADAPT <A> (B) 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 B DK D EL E F IRL I L N P UK EUR 12 14 14 1 1 1 17 n AT FI SE EUR 15 Interreg/ Regen Peace TOTAL RECHAR (A) <Br KONVER (A) (B) RESIDER (B) (A) RETEX* (B, (A) 2 LEADER (A) w 0 4 1 14 1 17 20 1 21 1 4 1 5 Employment (B) (A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 13 1 17 11 1 12 1 A 1 5 PESCA (A) <B) S ME (A) (B) REGIS (B) (A) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 4 - 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 • 0 0 4 - 1 4 - - 1 - 6 2 1 16 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 0 9 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 4 34 21 1 2 1 0 0 0 38 21 6 • • • 1 ' 1 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 90 66 8 2 2 1 0 0 102 67 2 • 7 1 1 7 • 2 • 1 8 29 1 2 6 1 0 6 2 - 1 8 26 0 3 1 3 1 16 13 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 1 44 - 1 1 0 17 - 0 0 0 1 1 37 - 0 37 2 • 9 1 1 7 - 1 1 1 0 3 2 - 8 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 26 1 19 0 20 1 12 0 1 - 4 1 0 1 0 2 - 1 0 2 URBAN (A) (B) TOTAL (A) (B) 3 1 10 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 10 40 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 20 5 8) 8 25 69 5 31 6 12 8 37 13 3 62 8 20 46 3 18 3 11 7 26 18 307 220 1 0 0 15 8 8 4 2 2 30 26 45 27 19 21 12 43 19 3 38 228 62 1 34 1 17 17 3 3 102 67 6 4 38 21 6 3 30 26 45 37 27 19 21 12 43 19 401 263 (A) Programmes presented in 1995 (B) Programmes adopted in 1995 * Including CIPs adopted in 1993 and amended in 1995 The adoption ofthe programmes was a slow process, hampered at first by the sheer number of Initiatives (13) and hence of programmes (about 400) for the Structural Funds as a whole, which was partly due to certain Member States having submitted regionalized programmes under the Community Initiatives. A further factor in slowing down progress was the Commission's concern to adopt good programmes matching the specific features ofthe Initiatives, to keep them distinct from CSFs and SPDs. The purpose of these concerns is to: • • implement measures of an experimental nature, transferable between regions of the same Member State and from one Member State to another (exchange of experience, good practice); raise the local profile of the measures and clearly demonstrate the Union's interest in vulnerable target groups (e. g. in dealing with urban matters or equal opportunities) or sensitive subjects (e. g. conversion and restructuring of declining industrial regions). 1 See below: 1. 3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 3 5 Community Initiatives and the environment: The environmental aspects of Community Initiatives are a recurring theme, whether environment- friendliness is seen as a priority in its own right or as an asset for development and innovation at local or regional level. This concern is not new: in 1990, the Envireg Initiative was introduced, with an endowment of ECU 580 million, to help the less developed coastal areas through depollution of water and processing of waste, improvement ofthe coastline and protection of biotopes. 2 Since 1994, measures financed under Envireg are integrated into CSFs and SPDs, a sign ofthe new approach of systematically taking environmental considerations into account for structural operations. The "second generation" Initiatives also take account of this aspect. It is difficult to estimate exactly how much is specifically allocated to environmental expenditure under the Initiatives from 1994-99, but most of them include relevant innovative and integrated measures. The main purpose of the industrial conversion Initiatives (RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX and KONVER) is to restore and find a new use for buildings (previously used for mining, steel production, textile production or military purposes) in seriously run-down industrial areas} The urban environment is one ofthe basic dimensions of the programmes adopted under the URBAN Initiative. Similarly, in terms ofthe rural environment, LEADER is geared in particular to improving the quality of life in the countryside, where it promotes integrated measures for the restoration of sites and villages. More specifically, REGIS includes measures in the most remote regions, such as the improvement of coastal areas, treatment of waste water and urban or industrial waste, or the prevention of natural hazards. One of the priorities ofthe SMEs Initiative is to support firms that take account of environmental aspects and rational use of energy, in particular through the development of non-polluting production procedures and technologies. Lastly, through INTERREGII, a whole series of cross-border cooperation measures are financed in the field of rational use of natural resources, from joint management of nature parks and the development of renewable energy sources to the combined development of infrastructure for waste water treatment, the prevention and control of pollution, waste disposal and the monitoring of compliance with environmental standards by new industries in border regions. Under REGEN, for the completion of energy networks, it is possible to give explicit priority to measures to introduce natural gas, which can reduce the pollution resulting from energy consumption. Proposal for the allocation ofthe reserve in 1995 On 4 October, the Commission adopted a proposal for the allocation of the reserve available for Community Initiatives (ECU 1 665 million) for the period up to the end of 1999. The reserve corresponds to the amount still available after approval in 1994 ofthe guidelines for 13 Community Initiatives in the Twelve, as well as some financial adjustments in the meantime. On 2 November 1995, the Commission also proposed amendments to the guidelines for URBAN, EMPLOYMENT ("Integra" strand) and ADAPT ("Bis" strand) and a new Initiative: INTERREG II C. 2 See Chapter IV. C. Ex post evaluation ofthe Community Initiatives. 3 For more detail, see below the presentation of programmes adopted in 1995. 136 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 84: Summary of Commission decisions on Community Initiatives in 1994-95 (ECU million) Decisions (l^°pUr?c|s) Amounts (1995 prices) Dates July 1994 - Total for CIs (9 %) - Overall amount for 13 CIs (allocation by Member State for 9 CIs) (allocation by subject for 4 "industrial" CIs) (adjustment RETEX) October 1994 December 1994 April 1995 May 1995 January 1995 October 1995 therefore: reserve available for CIs - adjustment E, IRL, N, UK therefore: reserve available for CIs - Allocation by Member State for Rechar, Résider, Retex - Supplementary allocation for Luxembourg Résider therefore: reserve available for CIs - Allocation by Member State for Konver - Allocation for Spain therefore: reserve available for CIs - Council Regulation on Textile Portugal (1) therefore: reserve available for CIs - Allocation for Peace therefore: reserve available for CIs - Reserve for new Member States therefore: reserve available for CIs - Proposed distribution by CI and by Member State ofthe reserve (12 MS) - Proposed distribution by CI and by Member State ofthe reserve (3 MS) therefore: reserve available for CIs 13. 467,0 -11. 872,5 (9. 950,5) (1. 916,8) (5,2) 1. 594,5 -250,0 1. 344,5 (1. 416,8) -5,1 1. 339,4 (500,0) -50,0 1. 289,4 +400,0 1. 689,4 -98,4 1. 591,0 —- 1. 613,7 51,3 1. 665,0 -1. 613,7 -51,3 0,0 (1)NB: the textiles and clothing programme in Portugal, adopted in 1993 by the Commission as a CI to support modernization of this sector in Portugal, was transferred in 1994 to heading 3 ofthe Financial perspective and is covered by a specific Council Regulation. As a result of this transfer, the corresponding appropriations were paid back into the reserve for the CIs. For information, in 1995 the budget appropriations under the heading for this programme comprised a commitment of ECU 80 million and a payment of ECU 40 million. The proposed allocation of total financing was infonned by a concern to concentrate on the following priorities: industrial restructuring, human resources, urban and rural development and spatial planning, in line with the wishes ofthe European Parliament. Other factors taken into account were the guidelines set by the Edinburgh European Council and the overall amount set aside for Objective 1. The allocation ofthe reserve among the three priorities can be summarized as follows. • The purpose of "industrial restructuring" is to achieve greater diversification in regions highly dependent on the sectors of textiles and clothing, coal, steel or armaments. Under this heading, the Commission proposed the reinforcement of each of the four Initiatives (RETEX, RECHAR, RESIDER and KONVER) and their extension to 1999. • The purpose of "human resources" is: - the expansion of employment, involving the reinforcement of the EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, KONVER, RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX, URBAN, LEADER and PESCA Initiatives; - the reinforcement of measures to promote equal opportunities, first of all through the "NOW" strand of the EMPLOYMENT Initiative and changes in the guidelines for URBAN, and secondly through reinforcement ofthe measures to encourage employment of young people through the "Youthstart" strand ofthe EMPLOYMENT Initiative; - combating social exclusion, which also involves working to eliminate racism and xenophobia, through the new "Integra" strand of EMPLOYMENT; - helping workers adapt to the information society, through the inclusion of a series of complementary measures (ADAPT "Bis"). • The purpose of "urban and rural development" is twofold: - reinforcement of measures for towns and cities, in particular medium-sized towns (it is planned to amend the guidelines for the URBAN Initiative accordingly, allocating a budget 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) i3 7 of ECU 140 million), while continuing to stress rural development (a further ECU 230 million for LEADER II); - a new departure in trans-national cooperation, for which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a new Initiative: INTERREG II "C". Reinforcement of URBAN : The Commission has suggested concentrating on medium-sized towns and on priority matters in the urban context such as long-term unemployment, equal opportunities for men and women, and the urban environment. IIC New strand INTERREG (ECU 415 million): This new Initiative relates solely to European spatial planning, and it is quite distinct from the cross-border cooperation promoted by the first strand of INTERREG. This is clear from the extent ofthe area covered: the cooperation is trans-national (rather than cross-border) over a wide area, well beyond border regions, involving only matters of spatial planning. There are three aspects to take into account: general measures of trans-national cooperation in the field of spatial planning; flood prevention through trans-national cooperation; combating drought. The first implies a global approach, while the others relate to more specific needs. The mai» point is to give the Member States and the regions a new incentive to work together on defining a strategy to ensure smooth development, i. e. balanced distribution of economic activities and human resources, within the major common trans-national, areas, and the practical application of joint measures. Examples o f t he areas concerned are the Baltic, the Alps, the Mediterranean basin, and the Atlantic seaboard. This will make it possible to demonstrate in concrete terms how a trans-national approach can add value. is of major INTERREG IIC and the environment : spatial planning and the management of water The "Europe 2000+ " report stressed the link between the protection of natural resources and spatial planning, i. e. the distribution of activities over the territory. Spatial planning importance to preservation, protection and improvement ofthe environment, and to the prudent and rational use of natural resources. Article 130s of the Treaty refers to this aspect. For example, the extremely for uneven distribution of water resources throughout the Community has inevitable consequences activities in the regions where water is in short supply. Similarly, the location and/or concei. iration of economic activity has affected groundwater and river basins, sometimes seriously, and trans-national to ensure concerted exploitation. For sea water, a global and cooperation has become necessary integrated territorial approach is needed to preserve both the development and the natural resources of coastal areas. In 1995, the Commission prepared a proposal for a new strand of the INTERREG II Initiative, to help promote concerted trans-national action. The aims of INTERREG IIC explicitly relate to drawing up strategies for sustainable development and seeking to restore a balanced allocation of activities over Community territory. There are three aspects to this: • in spatial planning measures, consistent with trans-national regions concerned, involving in particular sensitive areas and the improvement of the territorial cooperation trans-national development ofthe environmentally policies (especially transport policy); flood prevention improvement of river basins and flood prevention measures; the sustainable the identification of impact of Community • through trans-national cooperation, in particular in the form of joint plans for the • combating drought through sustainable development measures to limit excess water consumption and encourage rational allocation of water resources. For coastal areas, the Commission presented a communication on the subject in 1995} Each of the subjects mentioned above - industrial restructuring, human resources, urban and rural development and spatial planning - has been broken down by Initiative and by Member State, in accordance with Article 12 ofthe Structural Funds Framework Regulation and the criteria for the initial allocation ofthe total available for Community Initiatives in 1994. See Chapter I. B. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 138 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 85: Allocation ofthe reserve between Initiatives proposed by Commission in 1995 (ECU million) Industrial Initiatives: Rctex Rechar Résider Konver Employment Adapt-Bis InterregHC Transnational cooperation Drought Flooding Urban Leader Pesca TOTAL 380,0 45,0 45,0 45,0 245,0 100,0 170,0 415,0 100,0 150,0 165,0 140,0 230,0 30,0 1. 665,0 This proposal for allocating the reserve was presented to the European Parliament on 17 October 1995, and to the Management Committee for Community Initiatives at an introductory information meeting on 12 December 1995. 5 It was due to be formally approved by the Commission early in 1996. 6 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-97/99 Table 86: Community Initiatives - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-97/99 (ECU million)' | ADAPT | Employment! LEADER 1 PESCA | SME | REGIS | RECHAR| KONVER| RES1DERJ RETEX" | URBAN |lNTERREG***| Total 1. 402,0 1. 452,0 1. 451,3 100% 236,0 16% 117,8 8% 1. 402,3 100% 265,1 19% 132,6 9% BJR12 Programmed (1994 pices) adopted % adopted Commitments 1994-1995 %ofaid Payments 1994-1995 %ofaid EUR3 Programmed (1994 prices) adopted % adopted Commitments 1994-1995 %ofaid Payments 1994-1995 % of aid * Including networks ** Including only appropriations for the period 1994-97 *** Including Peace 42,5 42,5 100% 42,5 100% 20,0 47% 72,9 72,9 100% 72,9 100% 36,4 50% 1. 447. 0' 1. 243,6* 86% 466,8* 38% 13Z4* 11% 257,0* 253,0* 98% 53,1 - 21% 17,2* 7% 1. 027,0 * 491,3 * 48% 203,5* 41% 67,7* 14% 600,0 456,5 76% 58,8 13% 22,0 5% 62,1 2,6 4% 2,0 78% 0,3 13% 6,5 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 36,3 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0,0 0% -. " 406,0 328,0 81% 172,5 53% 75,6 23% 1,8 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 506,0 352,1 70% 238,2 68% 87,3 25°/i 3,3 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0,0 C% 520,0 284,2 55% 177,1 62% 78,3 28% 5,1 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 0,0 0% 522,0 512,1 98% 165,1 32% 75,5 15% 2,6 0,0 0% 0. 0 0% 0,0 0% 651,0 375,0 58% 150,5 40% 54,7 15°/ 17,0 9,8 57% 6,8 70% 3,4 35% 2. 939,0 2. 390,8 81% 561,8 24% 234,4 10% 11. 729,0 9. 540,2 81% 2. 748,7 29% 1. 095. 5 11°/ 125,9 30,0 24% 23,5 78% 7,0 23% 376,0 157,7 42% 147,7 94% 67,3 43% Although the adoption of programmes fell behind schedule in 1994, the lost time was largely made up in 1995. By the end of that year, programmes accounting for 81% of financing planned up to 1999 had been adopted, the proportion rising to 100% or thereabouts for certain Initiatives (ADAPT, EMPLOYMENT, PESCA, RETEX). The least advanced Initiatives are SMEs, RESIDER and URBAN. This good progress is matched by rates of commitment, which are closely linked to the proportion of programmes adopted by the beginning ofthe programming period. However, payments are less well advanced, as could be expected since the programmes had hardly filtered down to final recipients by the end of 1995, owing to the start-up stage. In negotiations for the approval of the programmes and during implementation, the Commission has made sure that Community Initiatives add value to the action of the Structural Funds in relation to 5 See Chapter III. A. 4. Committee opinions. 6 The allocation o f t he reserve and the amendments to the guidelines for the Urban, Interreg II, ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT Initiatives were adopted by the Commission on 8 May 1996. 7 The amounts shown in the table and in the rest of this Chapter correspond to those programmed after adjustment but before allocation ofthe reserve for Community Initiatives, which was decided only in 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 139 activities under CSFs and SPDs. To this end, the Commission encourages trans-national and innovative measures. Moreover, the Commission will have to ensure coordination and dissemination throughout the Community of local measures that deserve to be shared with other regions. With this in mind, the Commission is exploring the possibility of launching European networks in 1996 to enhance the usefulness of Community Initiatives. Table 87: Summary of Community Initiative programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995 - EUR 15 (ECU million) Total cost Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Structural Fund assistance to areas covered % to areas covered by O b j. 1-6 by O b j. 1-6 3. 010,9 1. 444,9 52,5 1. 392,4 Community Initiatives (No of p r o g r a m m e s) ADAPT (17) Belgium (2) Denmark (1) Germany (1) Greece (1) Spain (1) France (1) Ireland (1) Italy (1) Luxembourg (1) Netherlands (1) Austria (1) Portugal (1) Finland (1) Sweden (1) 91,9 65,7 480,4 44,6 403,2 622,5 28,3 360,5 0,8 142,8 25,8 29,2 42,9 21,7 31,2 29,5 228,8 30,1 256,4 249,7 21,2 190,0 0,3 57,6 11,6 21,0 19,7 11,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,5 25,6 23,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 31. 2 29,5 228,8 26,6 230,8 226,4 21,2 190,0 0,3 57,6 11,6 21,0 19,7 11,3 286,6 United Kingdom (2) 650,6 286,6 E M P L O Y M E NT (17) 2. 738,7 1. 524,2 55,2 1. 469,0 Belgium (2) Denmark (1) Germany (1) Greece(1) Spain (1) France (1) Ireland (1) Italy (1) Luxembourg (1) Netherlands (1) Austria (1) Portugal ( 1 )" Finland (1) Sweden (1) United Kingdom (2) LEADER (68) Germany (13) Greece (1) Spain (17) France (11) Ireland (1) Italy (12) Luxembourg (1) Netherlands (4) Austria (1) Portugal ( 1 ) United Kingdom (5) P E S C A ( l l) Belgium (1) Denmark (1) Germany (1) Greece (1) Spain (1) France(1 ) Ireland (1) Italy (1) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (1) 70,2 20,7 297,5 83,1 576,8 384,4 99,5 589,1 0,6 90,9 49,4 55,6 66,3 39,9 314,9 3. 092,1 382,4 263,6 1. 161,9 319,0 165,6 436,0 4,8 35,2 6,5 156,8 160,4 605,9 4,3 48,6 62,0 54,6 95,7 81,3 12,2 81,2 34,2 47,2 84,7 32,1 10,6 156,8 64,4 386,6 146,5 76,1 348,7 0,3 42,4 23,0 40,3 29,2 20,7 146,5 1. 242,4 169,8 148,0 354,8 122,9 67,9 183,2 1,0 8,5 2,6 117,6 66,2 253,0 2. 0 16,4 23,0 27,1 41,5 28,3 6,7 34,2 10,8 25. 6 37,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,8 38,7 0,6 4,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,1 0,0 0,0 1,0 554,8 59,9 68,2 162,8 59,5 41,0 68,7 0,5 4,4 0,9 47,4 41,5 116,9 0,0 5,0 18,0 18,2 11,9 2,4 2,4 26,5 4,8 5,8 22,0 32,1 10,6 156,8 58,6 347,9 145,9 72,1 348,7 0,3 42,4 23,0 35,2 29,2 20,7 145,5 120,4 16,9 7,0 29,3 15,3 8,7 24,6 0,0 0,3 0,6 5,7 11,9 33,8 0,0 4,1 2,4 0,3 8,4 7,1 0,7 1,4 0,1 2,1 7,1 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 0,0 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 0,0 567,3 93,0 72,7 162,7 48,1 18,2 89,9 0,5 3,8 1,1 64,5 12,8 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 0,0 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 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 0,0 0,0 o. o 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 102,3 2,0 7,3 2,6 8,5 21,3 18,8 3,7 6,3 5. 8 17,7 8. 4 413,5 3,8 0,0 63,1 30,1 151,7 " 77 21,2 76,7 0,0 0,0 0,4 21,0 3,0 0,5 34,9 925,2 9,5 0,0 68,9 64,4 386,6 5,9 76,1 246,8 0,0 1,2 0,8 40,3 0,0 1,0 23,7 886,1 82,1 148,0 296,0 3. 0 67,9 143,5 0,0 2,1 2,6 117,6 23,3 129,0 0,0 0,0 13,1 27,1 29,1 0,3 6,7 19,0 2,0 25,6 6,1 29V. 12% 0% 28% 100% 59% 3% 100% 40% 0% 0% 3% 100% 15% 4% 12% 6 1% 30% 0% 44% 100% 1 00% 4% 100% 7 1% 0% 3% 3% 1 00% 0% 5% 16% 7 1% 48% 100% 83% 2% 100% 78% 0% 25% 100% 100% 35% 5 1% 0% 0% 57% 100% 70% 1% 100% 56% 19% 100% 16% 140 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Community Initiatives (No of programmes) SMEs (21) Belgium (1) Germany (9) Greece (1) France (3) Ireland (1) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (4) REGIS (3) Spain (1) France (1) Portugal (1) R E C H AR (26) Belgium (2) Germany (6) Greece (1) France (6) Italy (2) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (8) KONVER (37) Belgium (3) Denmark (!) Germany (13) Greece (1) France (17) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (1) RESIDER (20) Belgium (2) Germany (8) Greece (1) France (5) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (2) RETEX (18) * Belgium (1) Germany (7) Greece (1 ) Spain (1) France (1) Ireland (1) Italy (2) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (2) URBAN (19) Belgium (2) Denmark (1 ) Germany (8) Greece (1 ) Spain (1) Luxembourg (1) Netherlands (2) Austria (1) Portugal (!) United Kingdom (1) PEACE (1) I N T E R R E G / R E G EN (34) Total cost Total ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Structural Fund assistance to areas covered % to areas covered by O b j. 1-6 by O b j. 1-6 1. 025,5 14,2 356,3 156,9 139,2 53,2 26,9 235,9 43,0 751,5 385,5 209,2 156,8 900,2 58,1 400,8 2,0 39,4 34,1 1. 1 364,6 883,7 30,4 5,3 342,3 20,3 244,1 10,7 230,6 840,6 52,9 558,3 8,9 105,8 51,5 10,8 52,5 491,3 9,4 156,8 83,3 58,5 28,8 10,3 124,0 20,1 456,5 216,9 115,6 124,0 328,0 15,7 128,4 1,5 16,7 1,7 0,9 163,2 352,1 11,5 2,4 144,5 12,9 71,0 7,9 101,9 284,2 24,4 164,3 4,7 42,6 18,1 6,9 23,2 445,4 7,5 139,0 74,4 56,0 26,5 9,5 113,7 18,8 384,4 205,0 63,4 116,0 266,0 11,6 101,7 1,4 15,5 1,7 0,9 133,2 299,8 9,9 1,6 122,9 11,5 64,4 7,9 81,6 234,4 24,4 127,0 4,1 38,1 14,7 6,9 19,1 1. 756,2 592,7 559,5 6,0 284,3 145,3 361,1 79,3 22,5 249,2 3,5 526,8 78,2 822,9 26,6 3,0 270,1 67,2 248,7 1,( 87,9 31,9 62,f 24,5 3,0 65,9 87,5 90,4 28,9 11,4 79,0 1,0 189,0 36,6 384,8 8,2 1,5 86,4 45,2 162,6 0,5 9,3 9,8 44,3 17,0 415,5 3. 888,3 300,0 2. 120,8 2,0 59,8 78,0 87,3 24,3 9,2 79,0 1,0 189,0 30,0 320,0 6,3 1,3 74,8 34,1 144,9 0,4 7,9 6,8 35,3 8,1 148,3 1. 904,3 45,9 1,9 17,8 9,0 2,5 2,3 0,8 10,3 1,3 28,7 0,0 28,7 0,0 62,1 4,1 26,6 0,2 1,2 0,0 0,0 30,1 52,4 1,6 0,8 21,6 1,4 6,6 0,0 20,4 49,8 0,0 37,3 0,6 4,5 3,4 0,0 4,1 33,2 1,0 6,1 9,5 3,1 4,6 2,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 6,6 64,8 2,0 0,2 11,6 11,1 17,7 0,1 1,4 2,9 9,C 8,8 127,8 105,C 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 42,9 12,0 22,9 8,0 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 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 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 o,r o,c o,c 22,4 108,; 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,6 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 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0. 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 o. o 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 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,5 2,6 402,1 8,5 136,7 83,3 9,3 28,8 2,2 124,0 9,2 456,5 216,9 115,6 124,0 61,0 0,9 5ÏTJ 1,5 0,0 0,8 0,9 2,9 87,5 0,0 0,0 59:0 12,9 0,0 7,9 7,7 46,6 9,0 26,0 4,7 0,0 0,0 6,9 0. 0 437,4 3,0 51,4 87. 5 50,7 0,0 1 1,4 39,4 0,0 189. 0 5,0 315,0 5,7 0,0 70. 3 45,2 132,6 0,0 0,0 0. 0 44,3 I7. C 3oo,e 1. 825,7 82% 90% 87% 100% 16% 100% 22% 100% 46% 100% 100% 100% 100% 19% 6% 42% 100% 0% 46% 100% 2% 2 5% 0% 0% 4 1% 100% 0% 100% 8% 16% 37% 16% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 74% 100% 78% 100% 56% 0% 100% 50% 0% 100% 14% 82% 60% 0% 8 1% 100% 82% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 86% TOTAL (291) | 20. 732,4| 9. 774,8 5. 341,3| 3. 585,l| 741. SJ 107,0 6. 285,6| 6 4% * Including 1 1 CIPs adopted in 1993, 5 of which were amended in 1995 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 141 1. 2. The individual Initiatives in the Twelve Member States ADAPT(1994-99) ADAPT (ECU 1 402 million): Under the new Objective 4, the purpose of ADAPT is to encourage the adaptation of the workforce to industrial change, to help firms increase their productivity, and to encourage the emergence of new activities. The measures cover the following fields: training, counselling and guidance, anticipation and promotion of new employment opportunities, adaptation of support structures and systems; information, dissemination and increasing awareness. The average amount of financing available for each measure and each country means that 43% ofthe total allocated to all the Member States will be absorbed by counselling and guidance measures. The main beneficiaries are workers affected by industrial change and those whose jobs are in danger or have disappeared following reorganization ofthe firm that employs them. In May 1995 the Commission adopted the first 14 ADAPT programmes; the programmes ofthe three new Member States were adopted in December 1995. 8 Among the measures financed, those relating to anticipation, promotion of networking and job creation will account for 25%. The other measures relate to the adaptation of support structures and systems (20%) and information, dissemination and awareness (12%). In the first phase of project selection, a total of 3 600 applications were received. It is estimated that 1 400 ADAPT projects would be approved, and started by February 1996. Table 88: ADAPT Programmes adopted in 1995 -EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % of (3)/(2) Belgium (2) Denmark (1) Germany (1) Greece (1) Spain (1) France ( 1) Ireland (1) Italy (1) Luxembourg (1) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (2) Total (14) 91,9 65,7 480,4 44,6 403,2 622,5 28,3 360,5 0,8 142,8 29,2 650,6 2. 920,5 31,2 29,5 228,8 30,1 256,4 249,7 21,2 190,0 0,3 57,6 21,0 286,6 1. 402,3 5,7 5,3 42,9 7,1 48,1 46,9 3,9 36,1 0,1 11,5 4,0 53,5 265,1 18% 18% 19% 24% 19% 19% 18% 19% 18% 20% 19% 19% 19% 2. 8 2,7 21,5 3,6 24,0 23,5 1,9 18,1 0,0 5,8 2,0 26,7 132,6 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 5 0% Belgium: The Flemish authorities emphasize the improvement of employees' skills rather than the more technical aspects of adjustment to change. The priorities defined by the French-speaking authorities comprise the improvement ofthe general level of skills and competitiveness of firms, and devising new measures for job creation. Denmark: The programme concentrates on the introduction of new technologies, new materials and new ways of organizing work, and on new systems of quality management and flexible working arrangements. Germany: The programme tackles two main subjects: improvement of basic skills and the way these skills can contribute to reinforcing the competitiveness of SMEs. In the new Lander, priority will go to the building industry, distribution, environment protection and training, and to new business start-ups. Greece: The aim of the programme is to train management personnel in setting up and using shared services, training instructors, encouraging high-quality information for groups of companies, assisting with the development projects of small businesses and with business-type initiatives able to share product development, raw material supplies and training. 8 See below: 1. 3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 142 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Spain: The programme targets workers who need to up-date their skills or prepare themselves for new or newly-created jobs, newly-recruited workers needing training, workers in jobs for which a quality management scheme has been introduced, workers in danger of losing their jobs or temporarily unemployed, managers and owners of small businesses, and self-employed workers and members of cooperatives. France: The programme provides for an intensification of the effort to anticipate industrial change at local level, to assist the training of workers in small businesses and to create new forms of work. Italy: A feature of the Italian programme approach is the responsibility of the regions, not only for selecting projects, but also for implementing ADAPT. The main point is to support a national plan to introduce a modern and efficient further training scheme. The first stage (1994-96) is intended to encourage training within firms, to re-focus public capacity for vocational training, to set up regional monitoring units to assist training groups and the retraining of unskilled workers. Ireland: The purpose ofthe programme is to remedy the inadequate level of investment jrj_ training in Irish firms, their unsuitable training schemes, the need for multi-purpose and innovative approaches to training, the lack of training in very small firms and the lack of links between firms and teaching and training institutions. Luxembourg: The programme is expected to improve human resource development schemes for SMEs and provide new data bases and networks giving them better access to and use of information. Netherlands: The accent is on small firms, which are potential job-creators, with priority to new business start-ups. Portugal: The programme targets an improvement in the still weak level of basic training and labour skills, modernization of production capacity, the reinforcement of education and vocational training systems, aid for the modernization and adjustment of firms, and consequently job creation. United Kingdom: The two UK programmes (for Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively) concentrate on small businesses. They highlight the steady decline in the manpower of large companies, and the increase in the number of jobs in small firms (especially those with fewer than 50 employees), particularly in expanding sectors like services, tourism and culture. EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES (1994-99) EMPLOYMENT and HUMAN RESOURCES (ECU 1 452 million): Through the development of human resources, and an integrated approach, this Initiative is intended to back up the recovery of employment and promote solidarity and equal opportunity on the labour market. It comprises three strands, each with its own budget: • Now (ECU 361 million) supports the development of innovative and more effective instruments for the training of women and their entry into working life; • HORIZON (ECU 731. 1 million) encourages the disabled and other disadvantaged groups to enter working life, as part ofthe effort to combat exclusion; • YODTHSTART (ECU 319. 3 million) helps young people without qualifications to enter working life. Each strand is organized around four main types of measure: (i) measures to improve the quality of schemes for training, guidance, counselling and employment; (ii) training measures, aiming not only at the target groups but also at those who influence the quality of access by those groups to the labour market; (iii) measures to aid job creation and new activities; (iv) measures to raise the profile of the problems dealt with and the action taken under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 143 For EMPLOYMENT, as indeed for ADAPT, there were almost two years of negotiation and preparation between the Commission's original guidelines in February 1994 and the presentation of projects by the Member States at the end of 1995, followed by the launching of measures. The major events of 1995 were the negotiation ofthe programmes for the new Member States, approved by the Commission on 8 December,9 and the first stage in selecting projects for the whole of the Union (programmes for the Twelve, including two in Belgium, two in the UK and one in each of the other Member States having been approved by the end of 1994). Over 2 364 projects were selected altogether: 763 for NOW, 1 133 for Horizon (some 930 projects for the disabled and about 200 for the disadvantaged), and 464 for Youthstart. These are tentative figures, as the information had not been fully confirmed by the national authorities responsible for selection when this report was drafted. Projects are selected on the basis of priorities defined in the programmes of each Member State, which combine the general priorities and objectives of EMPLOYMENT with each country's specific circumstances. They indicate the priority objectives and show how the results of the projects will be fitted into general policy and its implementation. A major trans-national technical assistance programme was launched in 1995 to assist the-Commission and the national and regional authorities in implementing the Initiatives, and especially in developing the trans-national aspects. National support structures for both EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT were set up in all the Member States early in 1995. A technical assistance body at Community level, known as Europs, was appointed from 1 May 1995 following a public call for tenders. 10 These technical assistance structures at national and Community level are now up and running with a full staff. Programme Monitoring Committees were set up in 1995 in each Member State; most ofthe Member States have separate committees for EMPLOYMENT and for ADAPT, but some have combined monitoring of the two Initiatives, and others have Monitoring Committees dealing with the main Objective 3 and 4 programmes as well as these Initiatives. Over 50 Monitoring Committee meetings have already been held. Table 89: Implementation of EMPLOYMENT programmes - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) Programmes adopted in 1994 Belgium (2) Denmark (1) Germany (1) Greece ( 1 ) Spain (1) France ( 1 ) Ireland (1) Italy (1) Luxembourg (1) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (2) Total (14) 70,2 20,7 297,5 83,1 576,8 384,4 99,5 589,1 0,6 90,9 55,6 314,9 2. 583,2 32,1 10,6 156,8 64,4 386,6 146,5 76,1 348,7 0,3 42,4 40,3 146,5 1. 451,3 21,7 1,6 23,1 8,0 58,6 22,3 7,6 51,5 0,3 4,2 5,7 31,4 236,0 68% 15% 15% 12% 15% 15% 10% 15% 100% 10% 14% 21% 16% 10,8 0,8 11,6 4,0 29. 3 11,1 3,6 25. 7 0,2 2,1 2,8 15,7 117,8 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 47% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% NOW: NOW mainly concerns authorities and bodies involved in training, employment and the occupational integration of women, i. e. regional or local authorities, organizations promoting equal opportunities, training and information centres, trade unions, private associations and women's organizations. Measures financed under the NOW strand ofthe EMPLOYMENT Initiative are designed to achieve four objectives: 9 See below: 1. 3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 10 See Chapter l. B. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. • • • • 144 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) to reduce horizontal and vertical segregation on the labour market by improving women's access to the sectors with good job prospects and strong growth potential. In the Danish programme, priority is given to combating the growing trend towards marginalization of women on the labour market. In Greece, one of the priority objectives is to encourage participation by women in non-traditional sectors of the economy. The programme of the Flemish authorities in Belgium provides incentives for young women to choose training programmes that are likely to lead to jobs with good prospects. The programme in the United Kingdom gives priority to training methods, concentrating on women's careers within the labour market rather than on their access to it; to reconcile working life and family life. The German programme gives priority to reconciling a job with family responsibilities through innovative work organization, child-care and measures to help women come back on to the labour market after a period spent bringing up children; to promote enterprise and job creation by women, in particular through financial instruments to support new business start-ups. This is the main thrust ofthe French programme; to raise awareness among firms, trade unions and others with influence. This approach leads the Netherlands programme to promote the presence of women in trade union and professional organizations, while the Portuguese programme aims at raising awareness among public and private bodies ofthe equal opportunities aspects of a changing society. Horizon: The purpose of Horizon is to improve the quality of training and create jobs for the disabled and those threatened with social exclusion. In many cases, this twofold aim has led Member States to introduce strategies adapted to the specific needs of these categories of persons. Horizon measures for the disabled: The programmes ofthe Member States reflect the disparity of national strategies and priorities. The areas for action can be divided into two: • development of schemes for training, guidance, counselling and employment, and the organization of further vocational training. In Denmark, priority is given to projects to help disabled persons undertake vocational training (particularly higher education and further training), with the emphasis on the use of new technologies, the adaptation of jobs and improving conditions for general education and vocational training; • job creation and support for new business start-ups, cooperatives and partnerships between the public and private sectors. The French and Italian programmes, for example, stress the integration of disabled persons into the labour market, through personalized access to employment, with the help of local authorities. Belgium's Flemish programme concentrates on suitable jobs and the use of new technology, and the development of distance working, with special attention to individual approaches to preparatory training, vocational skills and assistance in the early stages of a new job. In Germany, where women were under-represented in the earlier Horizon programme, the programme gives priority to projects meeting the needs of disabled women wishing to enter the labour market. In Greece, a special effort will be made towards trans-national cooperation to establish standards and procedures for distance working for specific tasks. Horizon measures for the disadvantaged: The EMPLOYMENT programmes include a separate list of priority measures for disadvantaged groups in all the Member States except Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg. As the guidelines of Horizon for the disadvantaged cover a wide range of target groups, the Member States have usually decided not to limit the choice of target categories. Measures planned therefore involve target populations and innovation in methods. • A number of Member States give clear priority, among target groups, to immigrants, especially in the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal, while drug addiction is a growing priority in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Many Member States also give priority to training for instructors, including the training of those responsible for human resources, the organization of courses for 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) j 45 specialists (social workers, career counsellors, etc. ) and the drawing up of new career profiles (local development workers, social and educational officers, etc. ). • Some approaches provide a context conducive to innovation and the trans-national exchange of know-how. The idea of structured access to employment is now generally accepted. Emphasis is on a tailor-made approach or, as in Belgium, on setting up structures to give the target groups increasing access to employment. In France and Portugal, acquiring basic skills (literacy and language) is of major importance, while in Germany, Greece and the Netherlands various types of preparatory training are offered, providing guidance and work experience, to improve job-seeking ability (the UK) or the ability to cope in a real work situation (France). It should also be possible to undertake major experimental work in the sphere of job creation. Some Member States have given priority to developing partnership between projects and local employment or to setting up local partnerships between private and public sectors. For example, local firms have been involved in helping ex- prisoners return to working life after training provided through a project. Companies may also be associated in setting up firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector, or local bodies providing start-up aid. Another popular approach is to prepare disadvantaged groups to_work in the sectors providing new employment opportunities. Training programmes are geared in particular to the environment, leisure and tourism, health, and social services. There is also a concern to prepare people for adjustment to new types of jobs, while raising levels of skills. Certain Member States, such as Denmark, offer preparation for flexible working, distance working, job-sharing, etc. Although trend analyses for target categories show concern linked to the concentration of disadvantage in certain geographical areas, especially in towns and cities, the Member States do not use location as a criterion for priority. However, the method of local partnership is implicitly necessary to organize structured lines of assistance for firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector, or for micro- business start-ups. It is clear from the first set of projects approved that very many of them are managed by local partnerships. Youthstart: The Youthstart strand of the EMPLOYMENT Initiative is intended to stimulate the implementation of measures for young people in all the Member States. To attain this objective, Youthstart must provide efficient services to ensure that all young people have access to appropriate training and to the labour market. To this end, the Member States have adopted two approaches: • innovation with a view to improving vocational training in general, so as to make it more accessible to young people, especially the least skilled, and better adapted to the labour market, with special emphasis on work experience. For example, the French programme tries to strengthen and improve the quality of sandwich courses, by establishing closer links between theoretical training and practical on-the-job training, and to develop the skills ofthose responsible for training within firms. It is also intended to widen the scope of sandwich courses to the whole of Europe, by offering work experience in other Member States; • personalized training: Ireland emphasizes pre-training projects, while the Danish programme is intended to develop and test remedial training outside the formal school framework in order to stimulate individual motivation and personal initiative in relation to training. In Greece, the accent is on new teaching methods, training instructors in guidance and support, self-assessment, team- working and methods of communication. The programme of the Flemish authorities in Belgium involves training instructors to identify youngsters with problems at an early stage. Several programmes hope to deal with the cultural and linguistic barriers facing ethnic minorities and young immigrants in their access to vocational training and their progress in it. The German programme, for example, gives priority to projects such as informing and counselling young immigrants in their mother tongue. Most programmes also highlight improving the quality of guidance and counselling, so as to provide a more coherent and better coordinated service centring on individual needs and abilities. In Denmark, counselling and guidance for young people in the final years of compulsory school attendance is to be improved and extended, concentrating on the interaction between education, training 146 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) and the labour market, and on the integration of local support facilities such as joint counselling and guidance centres. The Youthstart guidelines fonnally call on the Member States to examine means of helping young people to become self-employed. In Belgium, for example, management training and legal advice are available for young people who wish to start up in business. Greece will concentrate assistance on local employment initiatives developed and managed by young people themselves. The programme for Northern Ireland is intended to tap into young people's ability to create jobs in rural areas with the support of local resources. The various programmes show a wide range of initiatives intended to reduce the institutional and administrative barriers to an innovative use of Youthstart. Setting up networks between public and private sectors at local and regional level is a priority in Italy, while the Netherlands concentrates efforts on cooperation between education, training and the authorities (police and organizations representing ethnic minorities). LEADER II (1994-99) LEADER (ECU 1 447 million) is intended to support rural development projects designed and managed by local partners in country areas, with emphasis on measures that are innovative, have a demonstration value and are transferable. The LEADER Initiative should stimulate close involvement by the local population, associations and communities, which should together define and implement a coherent strategy suitable for the characteristics of the area concerned. This is reflected in the fact that financing under LEADER II is available to only two categories: local action groups (public and private partners jointly devising a development strategy) or other rural collective bodies (local authorities, chambers of agriculture, commerce and industry, cooperatives, etc. ) on condition their action fits in with a development strategy at a local level. LEADER II also supports trans-national cooperation projects and encourages exchanges of experience and the transfer of know-how through a European rural development network (an indicative amount of 2. 5% is intended to finance the activities ofthe Community network and the national networks). LEADER II applies in the rural areas covered by Objectives 1, 5(b) and 6 (with ECU 900 million set aside for Objective 1 regions). The Commission received 102 proposals for programmes for LEADER II from the fifteen Member States (90 from the Twelve). It made sure that the proposals resulted from wide agreement between local operators, as required under the guidelines for LEADER II. Of these proposals, 67 programmes and global grants have been approved (66 for the Twelve), and another 35 are awaiting adoption (comprising 24 from the Twelve, and 11 from the new Member States). Table 90: LEADER IIprogrammes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Germany (13) Greece ( 1 ) Spain (17) France (11) Ireland (1) Italy (12) Luxembourg ( 1 ) Netherlands (4) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (5) Networking Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(I) Payments 1995 (3) % of (3)/(2) 382,4 263,6 1. 161,9 319,0 165,6 436,0 4,8 35,2 156,8 160,4 169,8 148,0 354,8 122,9 67,9 183,2 1,0 8,5 117,6 66,2 124,6 22,6 112,1 95,6 7,5 28,6 1,0 8,2 6,7 56,2 3,7 466,8 73% 15% 32% 78% 11% 16% 100% 97% 6% 85% 3 8% 38,8 11,3 34,9 15,5 3,8 14,0 0,4 2,5 3,6 4,8 2,9 132,4 3 1% 50% 3 1% 16% 50% 49% 40% 30% 5 3% 9% 77% 2 8% Total (66) 3. 085,6 1. 239,9 Most of these programmes include the three measures provided for in the notice setting out the Commission's guidelines for LEADER II: 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 47 • • acquiring skills: where the practice of local development is new, this measure provides financing for informing and motivating local people, analysing the area's strong and weak points and drawing up a development strategy; rural innovation programmes: this measure provides financing for the development strategy drawn up by local operators for the area concerned; trans-national cooperation: this measure helps with joint projects undertaken by local action groups or other potential beneficiaries from more than one Member State. • The operations planned can be divided into three main types: • reinforcing territorial identity: this includes such operations as the renovation of the architectural heritage (Asturias) and small urban centres (Ireland), promotion of traditional know-how (Portugal, Aragon), the development of local products or the natural heritage (East Anglia, Italy, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal), or, more broadly, supporting local communities (United Kingdom); • networking: this relates to the supply of tourist facilities (Burgundy) or associations (Limousin), farmers and distribution companies (Hesse), public services, associating small urban centres and the surrounding countryside (Languedoc-Roussillon), setting up business service centres (Luxembourg); • support for new forms of activity, which may be based on the use of new communications technologies, such as distance working (Northern Uplands) or reservation systems for rural tourist facilities (Greece, Portugal). LEADER and the rural environment: LEADER had to integrate environmental considerations into a sustainable development policy. Economic development must take account ofthe natural heritage, which is an essential asset of such areas, especially the least-favoured. A number of measures with an impact on the environment at local level are being undertaken in the countryside. One essential factor in keeping the inhabitants in the countryside, or attracting new residents, is to preserve an agreeable living environment. Several ofthe major categories of funding under LEADER programmes have an environmental impact: • ecological management of the countryside: this involves protecting or restoring the natural heritage. In Denmark, the Danish Islands group has supported a "villages in bloom " operation; in Belgium, the Hageland group has organized the ecological improvement and management of natural landscape features (hedge planting, creation of marshes, upkeep of trees, etc. ); • waste management through the reduction of pollution, exploitation of waste, or production of energy from biomass. In France, the Buech-Durance group took part in the installation of a mobile treatment plant for household waste. In Ireland, the Cavan and Monaghan group recovers the waste from mushroom production to make compost. In Spain, the Sierra de Béjar-Francia group has perfected a new system for complete purification of oil mill waste, the residue being used as fuel or fertilizer. In Greece, the Thebes group supports operations for the production of biomass energy for heating; • protection of ecosystems: improved management of natural resources, protection for fauna and flora and sensitive natural spaces. Many groups have given priority to planting woodland: Orense and Sierra de Gâta in Spain, Tuscany in Italy, etc. In Greece, the Thessaloniki group is helping to improve a bio tope for the reproduction of herons; the Mytilene group has begun work on the protection of a fossilized forest; • ecotourism: the natural heritage is a basic factor in the development of tourism in the countryside; but facilities and activities are also needed. In Germany, the group from the Daun region has established a geological discovery route around the volcanos of the Eifel In Ireland, the Bally Houra group is developing recreational activities in the region's mountains. Also important is the development of organic farming, and of measures for training, outreach and counselling. In France, the Haut-Allier group is supporting an information and study centre dealing with the ecology and environment of rivers, and the Est-Magnus group is organising a permanent centre for initiation to environmental studies. In Scotland, the Loch Aber group is taking part in the establishment of a natural heritage observation centre near a bird sanctuary. 148 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Following an invitation to tender, the Commission also selected the body responsible for organization and running of the European Observatory of Rural Innovation and Development, whose role is to identify, classify, validate and facilitate the transfer of innovations introduced in the countryside. PESCA (1994-99) PESCA (ECU 257 million) provides financing to complement the structural aid available under CSFs, helping fishermen to retrain and firms in the sector to diversify. The operations planned relate to diversification in the fisheries sector (into tourism and crafts), improvement of occupational skills of fishermen, or upgrading of fisheries products and improvement of distribution channels. PESCA mainly applies in areas dependent on fisheries situated in Objective 1,2 and 5(b) areas, with half the financing being earmarked for Objective 1. Four PESCA programmes (Italy, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) were adopted during 1995, seven programmes having already been adopted by the end of 1994. The late adoption ofthe programmes, and the somewhat complicated system of management, explain the level oTtake-up of financing. On the commitments side, 64% of the appropriations entered in the 1995 budget were committed (ECU 28. 3 million out of ECU 45 million, divided among France, Italy and the United Kingdom), while only 17% of appropriations provided were paid (ECU 5. 3 million out of ECU 31. 9 million, divided among the Netherlands, Italy and the United Kingdom). Table 91 : PESCA programmes adopted in 1995 and 1994 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % of (3)/(2) Programmes adopted in 1995 France (1) Italy (1) Netherlands ( 1 ) United Kingdom (1) Programmes adopted in 1994 Belgium (1) Denmark ( 1 ) Germany ( 1 ) Greece (1) Spain (1) Ireland (1) Portugal (1) Total (11) 81,3 81,2 34,2 84,7 4,3 48,6 62,0 54,6 95,7 12,2 ' 47,2 605,9 28,3 34,2 10,8 37,4 2,0 16,4 23,0 27,1 41,5 6,7 25,6 253,0 18,8 4,4 1,2 5,1 0,3 2,7 3,8 4. 5 6,9 1,1 4,3 53,1 • 66% 13% 11% 14% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 2 1% 0. 0 2,2 0,6 2. 5 0. 2 1,4 1. 9 2,3 3,5 0,6 2,1 17,2 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 3 2% In most ofthe Member States, the selection of projects had just started or was about to start at the end of 1995, except in Ireland, where 22 projects had already been approved by the national authorities. In Greece, the authorities decided to appoint an intermediary to manage the programme, because of the great complexity of planned operations due to the involvement of a number of different Funds. In the French overseas departments, where PESCA operations are covered by the REGIS programmes, only the programme for Réunion had been adopted by December 1995. The Swedish and Finnish programmes were presented to the Commission towards the end of 1995. ' ' 11 See below: 1. 3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 149 SME (1994-99) SME (ECU 1 027 million) responds to the need for SMEs to adapt to the constraints ofthe internal market and the globalization of economies. This Initiative also continues, with adjustments, the earlier Initiatives, STRIDE (strengthening technological potential in less-favoured regions), Prisma (improvement of business services) and TELEMATIQUE (use of advanced telecommunications services). The SMEs Initiative is intended in particular for Objective 1 regions, where 80% ofthe appropriations will be spent. The measures promoted are intended to improve the system of production and organization of firms, to take better account of environmental considerations, to develop cooperation and networking between SMEs, or to reinforce cooperation between research centres, technology transfer centres, universities and SMEs. As the SME Initiative is a new Initiative for 1994-99, the proposals for programmes from the Member States were considerably adjusted to ensure that the guidelines were followed. The adjustments related in particular to innovative aspects and internationalization of SMEs, and they increased the time needed for negotiations. Ofthe 38 programmes presented by the Fifteen, 21 were approved in 1995; the others comprised one in Belgium, six in Germany, one in the United Kingdom, the non=regionalized programmes in Denmark, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg, and four programmes in the three new Member States. Table 92 : SME programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Belgium (1) Gennany(9) Greece ( 1 ) France (3) Ireland (1) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (4) Total (21) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) 14,2 356,3 156,9 139,2 53,2 26,9 235,9 43,0 1. 025,5 9,4 156,8 83,3 58,5 28,8 10,3 124,0 20,1 491,3 7,5 101,2 10,5 15,4 26,5 9,5 13,2 19,7 203,5 80% 65% 13% 26% 92% 92% 11% 98% 41% 2,2 30,9 5,2 4,6 7,9 2,9 6,6 7,3 67,7 30% 30% 50% 30% 30% 30% 50% 37% 33% Belgium: The programme adopted concerns Wallonia (a programme for Flanders will also be approved). It is designed around two central ideas: strengthening coordination and support networks for SMEs, and strengthening joint services to SMEs. Accent on networking and services to SMEs: Wallonia's programme is organized around two main themes:. the coordination of support and networking through: measures to integrate bodies providing services to SMEs so as to promote exchanges of experience and synergies; establishment of coordination centres;. joint services to SMEs through: setting up a financial forum to study conditions of access to sources of financing; technological measures, with a view in particular to coordinating and assessing certain measures for SMEs; stimulating SMEs, taking account of the need to seek partners, of environmental constraints, of information technology, and of quality requirements. Germany: Nine programmes have been adopted to support SMEs in the sectors of industry and services. Five programmes relate to the western Lander (a further five have not yet been approved), and four to the new Lander. It has proved difficult to draw up these programmes for German SMEs, because of difficulties of harmonization and coordination at national level; this has seriously delayed matters. An example of planned projects is management ofthe environment and of energy sources (Berlin, Structural Funds contribution of ECU 615 000). This involves, first, developing strategies to inform firms of ways 150 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) of conserving energy and reducing C02 emissions, and secondly, making the "Eco-Audit" instrument available to firms. Greece: The main objective of the programme is to promote the internationalization of Greek SMEs through a policy of "clusters", and to facilitate their access to the capital market by promoting financial engineering instruments (venture capital, mutual guarantees) and by introducing quality policy (certification, standards and standardization). France: Three programmes were adopted. Under the two Objective 1 programmes (Corsica and Nord/Pas-de-Calais), investment of ECU 40. 9 million will be supported by Community assistance of ECU 9. 3 million, to contribute, in Nord/Pas-de-Calais, to intangible investment by SMEs, support for collective measures, and the improvement of the technological environment. The operations to be carried out in Corsica involve setting up innovative new businesses, developing new forms of cooperation and communication between firms to facilitate access to new markets, and developing expertise in economic conversion. The programme for the Objective 2 and 5(b) areas (Community assistance: ECU 49. 2 million; total cost: ECU 98. 3 million) will enable a guarantee fund to be set up for SMEs with projects for partnership or innovation, contribute to collective modernization and innovation projects following up the STRIDE programme and constitute partnerships between European businesses in various fields. Ireland: The programme is specifically directed towards SMEs with fewer than 50 employees, or with a turnover under ECU 3. 7 million. It concentrates on access to financing and credit, access to public contracts, the adjustment of service companies to the internal market, the dissemination of good practice, and the improvement of know-how and ofthe business environment. Netherlands: The programme covers all the Netherlands regions under Objectives 1 and 2, and is intended to improve the competitiveness of SMEs in order to reinforce regional production structures. To this end, it comprises five priorities: the development of systems of production and technological innovation; cooperation between SMEs and research centres; setting up networks of SMEs; job skills; technical assistance and trans-national exchanges. Portugal: In terms of financing, the Portuguese programme is the biggest SME programme adopted in 1995. It covers the whole of Portugal and includes measures intended, first, to improve competitiveness and to modernize Portuguese SMEs, the basis of the country's productive economy, and secondly, to improve the business environment, in particular through training and financial engineering. United Kingdom: Four programmes have been approved: Highlands and Islands, Lowland Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland; the programme for England is yet to be adopted. As an example, the programme for the Highlands and Islands accounts for Structural Fund aid of almost ECU 3 million for SMEs; the geographical features of the region are particularly difficult for small businesses, and the problems arising are very different from those encountered in most European regions. The aim of the programme is thus to counter the risk of isolation from the main economic current of Europe, through assistance with services to SMEs, a high standard of training, and cooperation between firms. REGIS (1994-99) REGIS (ECU 600 million) is intended to improve integration into the Community of the most distant regions. It includes some ofthe measures under the former Poseidom, Poseima and Poseican programmes, and measure from other CIs in the most remote regions, to enable them to take a full part in trans-national cooperation networks. The measures are intended to achieve diversification of economic activity, consolidation of links with the rest of the Union, cooperation between remote regions, natural risk prevention and vocational training. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 151 Three Member States take part in the REGIS Initiative: Portugal, Spain and France. In 1995, Portugal presented a programme for Madeira and the Azores, Spain presented one for the Canary Islands, and France presented four programmes for the overseas departments. The Spanish and Portuguese programmes were approved in 1995, as was France's programme for Réunion; at the end of 1995, therefore, the programmes for Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana were still awaiting approval. Table 93: REGIS programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) Spain (1) France (1) Portugal ( 1 ) Total (3) 385,5 209,2 156,8 751,5 216,9 115,6 124,0 456,5 28,0 8,8 22,0 58,8 13% 8% 18% 13% 0,0 4,4 17,6 22,0 0% 50% 80% 37% Spain: The programme provides for Community financing of ECU 216. 9 million. through A programme for the Canary Islands: The main objectives of the REGIS programme are to diversify economic activity, promote technological development and remedy spatial and economic the development of tourism without threatening the imbalance environment and the cultural heritage, consolidation of links with the rest of the Community and the other remote regions, and vocational training and employment. Ten measures are planned: local development (14%); encouragement of tourism (21%); infrastructure to support economic activity (22%); development ofthe economic fabric (11%); URBAN Las Palmas (4%); URBAN Santa Cruz de Tenerife (4%); regional cooperation (0. 3%); SMEs industrial development plan (19%); assessment, monitoring and technical assistance (0. 7%). The Structural Funds finance 56% ofthe programme. France: The programme for Réunion concentrates on the promotion of economic activity, the development of communications and regional and interregional cooperation, local development, control of the environment and prevention of natural hazards,and training for improved skills and equal opportunities. Portugal: The purpose ofthe programme is promotion of a series of priority measures concerning basic infrastructure (Madeira airport, etc. ), the development of local potential (e. g. energy production in the Azores), inter-regional cooperation and agricultural promotion. RECHAR II (1994-97) RECHAR II (ECU 406 million) still supports conversion in the areas worst affected by the decline ofthe coal industry, but it gives higher priority to environmental protection, new economic activity and human resources. The planned measures are thus intended to rehabilitate the environment and former mining buildings, promote new activities (especially in SMEs), support economic conversion agencies and regional development bodies, and contribute to training and employment (especially in SMEs). The Member States have submitted 30 programmes under the RECHAR Initiative. The experience ofthe the negotiation and approval of preceding programming period (1990-93) was useful during programmes. Consequently, 26 programmes, almost all those submitted, were approved, with only four still to be adopted in 1996 (one in Germany, one in France, one in Austria and the non-regionalized programme in Spain). 152 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 94: RECHAR IIprogrammes adopted In 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Belgium (2) Germany (6) Greece (1) France (6) Italy (2) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (8) Total (26) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) 58,1 400,8 2,0 39,4 34,1 1,1 364,6 900,2 15,7 128,4 1,5 16,7 1,7 0,9 163,2 328,0 15,7 55,9 1,4 15,5 1,7 0,9 81,6 172,5 100% 44% 90% 93% 100% 100% 50% 53% 7,8 26,8 0,7 1,8 0,4 0,3 37,8 75,6 50% 48% 50% 12% 23% 30% 46% 44% Belgium: The two programmes, for Wallonia and Flanders, concern respectively the Charleroi area (Châtelet) and Limburg. The Châtelet programme comprises measures to restructure water supply networks, which have been damaged by intensive coal mining. These measures continue those already carried out under RECHAR I. The priorities in Limburg are conversion of economic infrastructure, modernization of social structures, and economic and social integration of labour. — Germany: Six programmes were adopted, with only one, that for Brandenburg, still awaiting adoption at the end of the year. Three programmes concern the new Lander, and three the western Lander, that for North Rhine-Westphalia being the largest RECHAR programme in financial terms. The measures in the programmes mainly concern improving the environment, fostering new economic activity and maintaining existing human capital. The programme for North Rhine-Westphalia is intended to diversify sectors of activity and reinforce intermediary economic activity. To strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs, the programme will support the creation of new markets through the development of new procedures and the sale of new products, and the improvement of opportunities for access to the latest technologies. It is hoped that the implementation of this programme in North Rhine-Westphalia will safeguard some 5 400 jobs. Greece: The main purpose ofthe RECHAR programme, which covers the industrial area around Kozani and Ptolemaida in northern Greece, is to improve the environment in areas damaged by lignite mining. A further measure will help the occupational conversion of workers who are unemployed or threatened with unemployment. France: The six programmes approved for France involve Community assistance of about ECU 17 million, including ECU 11 million in Lorraine (districts of Boulay, Forbach and Sarreguemines), intended especially for the promotion ofthe mining areas concerned. Among the planned operations, it is worth noting the development of industrial tourism through the enhancement ofthe industrial heritage, in particular further improvement ofthe Blanzy mining museum (Montceau-les-Mines mining area, in Burgundy). Other mining areas to be promoted are those of Gardane (Bouches-du-Rhône), Albi- Carmeaux (Tarn) and Lorraine (recovery of derelict land, urban restructuring, tourism, etc. ), while measures in the areas of Aies (Gard) and La Mure (Isère) should create an environment and reception facilities conducive to conversion. Italy: Two programmes were adopted in 1995: Sardinia and Tuscany. The programme for Sardinia, which provides for investment of ECU 1. 6 million, concerns the coal-mining area of Sulcis-Iglesiente, and comprises a single environmental improvement measure for the installation of SMEs. In Tuscany, the mining area concerned is Santa Barbara, and the main feature ofthe programme is the very close involvement of the private sector, which is contributing almost 95% of the financing (ECU 35. 6 million). This programme too comprises a single measure, relating to the diversification ofthe local small business fabric, through interest-rate subsidies to firms presenting investment projects for technological innovation, energy or environment protection. Portugal: The programme is intended to finance operations in the Castelo de Paiva area (in the Nord region), which has been adversely affected by the closure of coal mines. Besides aid to provide the 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 153 infrastructure needed for the development of replacement activities, the objectives of this programme are to improve the environmental situation and to provide technical assistance for economic activity. United Kingdom: Eight RECHAR programmes were adopted in 1995. The programmes for Yorkshire and the East Midlands are the largest, accounting for about half the financing, but other coal-mining areas in England and Scotland are also eligible. The other major programmes are those for Wales and for North-East England. KONVER (1994-97) KONVER (ECU 506 million) follows on from the Perifra I and II action programmes (support for demonstration projects for conversion from military activity) and from an initial year of implementation in 1993. It is now being implemented on a multi-annual basis, with the aim of supporting economic diversification in areas highly dependent on the defence sector, through conversion of industries related to that sector, and the encouragement of viable commercial activities in all industrial sectors, excluding activities with possible military applications. At least 50% ofthe financing is earmarked for regions covered by Objectives 1, 2 or 5(b). Because ofthe delay in allocating finance among the Member States and drawing up the list of areas eligible under this Initiative,12 the presentation of programmes by the Member States was also delayed. In 1995, 37 programmes were approved, mostly at the end of December, and eight were still to be adopted by the end ofthe year (three in Germany, and the non-regionalized programmes in Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden). They account for 70% of total funding for this Initiative. Table 95: KONVER programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Belgium (3) Denmark (1) Germany (13) Greece (1) France (17) Portugal ( 1 ) United Kingdom (1) Total (37) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % of (3)/(2) 30,4 5,3 342,3 20,3 244,1 10,7 230,6 883,7 11,5 2,4 144,5 12,9 71,0 7,9 101,9 352,1 11,5 2,4 130,6 11,5 64,4 7,9 10,0 238,2 100% 100% 90% 89% 9 1% 100% 10% 6 8% 5,7 1,2 38,7 5,7 32. 0 3. 9 0,0 87,3 50% 50% 30% 50% 50% 50% 0% 3 7% Belgium: The three Belgian regions each have a programme. In Flanders (Bruges, Louvain, Turnhout, Tongeren and Hasselt), the planned measures concern economic promotion and environmental support. In the Brussels-Capital region, a barracks is to be restored and converted for the installation of new economic activities (crafts, small shops, arts centre). In Wallonia, the programme covers part of the areas eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), and is intended to encourage small businesses, develop tourist activity after restoring derelict sites and re-skill workers employed in the sector. Denmark: The programme covers two areas: Karup in the centre of Jutland, and Copenhagen, both of which are outside the areas covered by Objectives. The measures concern services and support for the technological development of SMEs, the promotion of tourism and the environment, and training to re- skill workers. Germany: With ECU 144. 5 million in Structural Fund appropriations adopted in 1995 and 13 programmes, Germany is the largest recipient under the KONVER Initiative. To give an example, under the priority for converting sites, the programme for North Rhine-Westphalia, the main programme in the western Lander, includes the construction of the Cartec technological centre on the site of the former Churchill barracks at Lippstadt. At Rôdinghausen, the Birdwood military barracks, which is now empty, 12 Completed in 1994; see 1994 Annual Report. 154 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) will be converted into a shopping area, and in the town of Minden a former army college will be converted into training premises for commercial studies. Greece: The main purpose of the programme is the conversion of economic activities linked to the armaments industry and the adaptation of commercially viable businesses in all industrial sectors. France: The 17 French programmes concern 57 travel-to-work areas, 23 of which are outside the areas eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b). In general, individual programmes receive less than ECU 5 million, although the largest, that for Aquitaine, has available financing of ECU 13. 2 million. Vocational training measures account for 9% of Structural Fund financing, while 31% of total investment is for restoring military sites and areas adversely affected by the reduction in military activity, in order to encourage the installation of SMEs. The next aspect is renovation and modernization of social and economic infrastructure (14%>). The bulk of the aid (46%) concerns measures for SMEs, with priority for operations to improve the business environment. On the whole, these programmes reinforce the Objective 2 programmes in the same area or a neighbouring area (except those for Île-de-France, Limousin and Aquitaine). Portugal: The main objectives ofthe programme are to help the economy ofthe regions dependent on the defence sector (e. g. the Azores, Alentejo or Lisbon), to contribute to the rehabilitation of military zones with a view to developing new activities and to improve the environment around military training grounds. United Kingdom: A single programme was adopted, for Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. Almost 50%o of the financing is for investment outside areas covered by the Objectives, so as to take account of specific problems due to the decline in the defence industry. Operations will be aimed at diversification ofthe economic base in the areas covered, concentrating on improving the environment. Another aspect is technology transfer, which should enable the vast system of expertise in the defence sector to be used for diversification and innovation in industrial SMEs. The programme, for which a Monitoring Committee will be established, will be divided into 14 area sub-programmes, each one to be managed by a working party of representatives of ministries, local bodies and the Commission. RESIDER II (1994-97) RESIDER //(ECU 520 million) is a continuation of RESIDER I; it supports conversion in steel-producing areas. Like RECHAR II, this Initiative gives priority to environmental protection, new economic activities and human resources, in order to speed up adjusfrnent to radical change in the economic conditions in the areas concerned. The measures planned are ofthe same type as those under RECHAR II. In 1995, 27 programmes were submitted by the Member States for the RESIDER II Initiative (including one programme by Austria). Thanks to experience gained between 1990 and 1993, it was possible to approve virtually all the programmes by the end of 1995: 19 programmes were adopted in the course of the year (the programme for Portugal having already been adopted in 1994), which left only eight programmes still to be approved at the end of 1995 (one in Germany, two in France, one in the United Kingdom, and the non-regionalized programmes for Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Austria). 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 155 Table 96: RESIDER IIprogrammes adopted in 1994 and 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) Programmes adopted in 1995 Belgium (2) Germany (8) Greece (1) France (5) Netherlands (1) United Kingdom (2) Programme adopted in 1994 Portugal (1) Total (20) 52,9 558,3 8,9 105,8 51,5 52,5 10,8 840,6 24,4 164,3 4,7 42,6 18,1 23,2 6,9 284,2 23,7 62,5 4,1 38,6 18,1 23,2 6,9 177,1 97% 38% 88% 91% 100% 100% 100% 62% 5,6 31,2 2,1 17,5 7,4 11,6 2,9 78,3 24% 50% 50% 45% 41% 50% 42% 44% Belgium: Two programmes were approved, for the areas of Charleroi and Liège, both of which have been seriously affected by the decline of the steel industry (unemployment running at over 20% in Charleroi in 1994, and over 10 000 jobs lost in Liège between 1978 and 1993). Both programmes include a measure for environmental improvement and/or site rehabilitation. Measures are"aIso planned for diversification of the economic fabric, creation of a business start-up fund for new or restructured firms, aid for the provision of reception infrastructure, amenities and access roads to business parks for craft and service firms, better equipped research centres and promotion of technological innovation. Germany: Eight programmes were adopted, with only one, that for Brandenburg, still awaiting adoption in 1996. One ofthe main priorities is the reclamation of derelict industrial sites and their conversion to new economic purposes. The aid planned will make available new land for industrial and commercial firms, and also integrate areas of industrial and commercial activity into town planning while improving the environment. For example, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia is carrying out general urban renovation, through the Internazionale Bauausstellung-IBA-"Emscher Park", of a particularly run-down area of the Ruhr, in line with very strict environmental and urban development standards (Structural Fund financing of ECU 25. 9 million). The programme should prevent the loss of a total of 6 500 jobs. Greece: The programme covers three areas, in the vicinities of Thessaloniki, Volos and Athens; its main purpose is to repair damage to the environment and to redeploy economic activity in the steel-producing areas. It also provides for a measure for the retraining of workers who are unemployed or threatened by unemployment. France: Five programmes were approved, and two, those for Nord-Pas de Calais and for Normandy, were still awaiting approval at the end of 1995. The programmes adopted concentrate over 70%> ofthe available financing in the departments of Meurthe-et-Moselle and Moselle, and three districts in Meuse (Etain, Spincourt and Verdun-Est), in the region of Lorraine. The main objective is industrial conversion of these areas to a dynamic process of job-creation and improved living environment. The programmes provide for measures to develop public amenities, such as setting up a meeting and training centre for industry in premises formerly used for steel production (Le Creusot), or transforming a former steel works into an exhibition park (Ugine). Another priority is to enhance environmental and urban attractiveness, through such measures as treatment of pit water (Lorraine) or setting up a "centre of excellence" for technical expertise and know-how (Lorraine). Support for the creation and development of new businesses by improving amenities and joint services is also available through a number of measures such as the provision of logistic amenities for harbour and on-shore activities (Fos-sur-Mer), or the reclamation of derelict industrial land for new activities to develop technological networks and technology transfer (Picardy). Netherlands: There is a programme for IJmond, an area affected by the decline in steel and other industries, especially fisheries. Its main purpose is to broaden the economic base ofthe region and it should lead to the creation of 2 000 permanent jobs. The measures relate to cleaning up industrial sites and developing new sites and installations, developing logistic infrastructure (port facilities), business innovation (aid plans for SMEs, risk capital, start-up aids, small business networks), training and the 156 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) labour market (guidance, monitoring centres, transfer of expertise), and an action plan to encourage tourism. Portugal: The RESIDER programme for Portugal was adopted in 1994, the first programme adopted under this Initiative. Its objectives are to speed up economic conversion in the region of Setubal, particularly hard hit by restructuring in the steel industry, to help unemployed workers and those threatened with unemployment back on to the labour market and to promote the creation and development of new economic activities with good job-creating potential, alongside the development of human and material resources. By the end of 1995, 69%> of public expenditure programmed for 1994-95 had actually been incurred. United Kingdom: The programmes for Wales and for Western Scotland were adopted in 1995; the programme for England was still awaiting adoption. The two programmes supplement the other Community programmes in these regions, and the Objective 2 SPD for Western Scotland. RETEX (1994-97) RETEX (ECU 522 million) was launched in 1992 to support economic diversification in areas heavily dependent on textiles and clothing; in 1994, it was extended to 1997, taking in new areas that had become eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). The measures supported involve such things as counselling and non-productive equipment to improve firms' expertise, support for local groups of firms and cooperation measures, and staff training and business services. The increase in financing for RETEX from 1994 for Objective 1, 2 and 5(b) areas was accompanied by major adjustments to most of the programmes adopted in 1993. New programmes have also been submitted. In 1995, 21 RETEX programmes were presented to the Commission, seven new programmes were approved, and five existing programmes were amended. Altogether, therefore, 12 programmes were adopted or amended in 1995. The total of 18 programmes adopted for RETEX represent 98% of the total amount allocated to the Initiative for the period 1994-97. Table 9 7: Situation of RETEX programmes in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) P r o g r a m m es adopted in 1995 Assistance for 1994-97 0) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) "A, (3)/(2) Gennany Saxony Thuringia Lower Saxony Belgium - Wallonia Netherlands - Twente United Kingdom Northern Ireland Great Britain 53,2 41,') 9. 6 l. fi 3,0 1,0 36,6 4,2 32,4 13. 1 3, - H. 2 1,2 3,0 1,0 30,0 3,H 26. 2 2 5% 9% S6% 6'% 100% 100% 82% H'J%, SJ% 6,6 /,<S" 4. 1 0. 6 1,5 0,5 14. 1 1,9 12. 2 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 4 7% 50% 4'% P r o g r a m m es adopted in 1993 and amended in 1995 Assistance 1993 (1993 prices) Assistance 1994-97 Assistance 1993-97 0) Commitments 1993-95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1993-95 (3) % (3)/(2) Gennany - Bavaria France Italy I areas Objective Objective 2 and 5(b) areas Greece 1,3 4,0 12,1 '. 9 4,2 12,1 7,6 24,9 66,9 31,5 35,5 75,4 P r o g r a m m es adopted in 1993 Assistance 1993 (1993 prices) Assistance 1994-97 (1993 prices) 8,8 28,9 79,0 39,4 39. 6 87. 5 Assistance 1993-97 8,8 7,0 12,1 ~,9 4,2 11,8 Commitments 1993-95 (1993 prices) (2) (1) 100% 24% 15% 20%, 10%, 13% 1,0 3,4 6. 0 3,9 2. 1 9. 1 1 1% 49% 5 0% 50% 50% 78% % (2)/(l) Payments 1993-95 (3) "A, (3)/(2) Gennany North Rhine- Westphalia Baden- Wurttemhcrg Hesse Spain Ireland Portugal 0,7 0,2 0,2 0. 3 18,1 2,3 30,0 3,1 1,4 0,6 1,1 72,3 9,1 159,0 3,7 1,6 0,H 1,4 90,4 11,4 189,0 0,9 0,2 0. 2 0,5 38,5 6,9 111,4 2 5% 11%, 2H%, 40%, 4 3% 6 1% 59% 0,6 0. 1 0. 1 0,4 34,2 4,1 63,1 59% 50%, 50%, 65% 89% 59% 5 7% 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 57 Belgium: The RETEX programme adopted in 1995 concerns Wallonia (Hainaut); a second programme is planned for Flanders. The two main priorities are diversification of activity for SMEs through the development of locally-generated potential (assistance and information provided by a new economic development team, recruitment of management staff, recourse to external consultants to enhance openness to markets) and the improvement of skills (training in new technologies, internal and external mobility and collaboration between training centres and businesses). Germany: Four RETEX programmes, for Bavaria, Baden-Wurttemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse, were adopted in 1993. The programme for Bavaria was granted extra financing in 1995 for the period 1995-97. A decision in 1996 for Baden-Wurttemberg, but not for Hesse or North Rhine-Westphalia. In 1995, three new programmes were approved for the period 1994-97: Lower Saxony, Thuringia and Saxony. Altogether, there are thus seven RETEX programmes in progress in Germany, with Structural Fund financing totalling ECU 63. 8 million from 1994 to 1997. to increase financing was also expected to be taken Spain: The RETEX programme, which covers the period 1993-97, was adopted in 1993j_. lt concerns parts of the areas covered by Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) in eleven regions. Additional Community financing of ECU 800 000 is to be granted for the period 1994-97. Diversification of regions dependent on the textile and clothing sector in Spain: The RETEX programme in Spain covers areas in eleven regions: Andalusia, Aragon, Castile-Leon, Castile-La Mancha. Catalonia, Extremadura, Galicia, Rioja, Madrid, Murcia and Valencia; its distinguishing feature is the level of partnership achieved (measures within the competence of regional and local authorities represent 59% of Community financing). It comprises five sub- programmes: • "business competitiveness" (41%), on a multi-regional scale, implemented by the Industry Ministry in the framework of measures for adjustment to international competition and diversification of areas dependent on the textiles and clothing sector; "improvement of the industrial fabric" (54%), on a regional or local scale, aiming at the constitution of development and consultancy teams and groups of firms, consultancy and diagnostic reports, modernization plans and the dissemination of new production methods; "access by businesses to risk capital and loans" (4%), also on a regional or local scale; "vocational training" (1%) on a regional or local scale; • • • • monitorins, and assessment to France: The RETEX programme for 1994-97 considerably extend the area covered, from 21 employment areas in 1993 to 53 in 1994-97, and to channel more finance into diversification projects, while maintaining a maximum of 30% of Structural Fund financing to assist firms in the textile sector. is a programme adopted in 1993, amended Ireland: The programme, adopted in 1993, covers the whole period from 1993 to 1997. It is specifically designed to deal with a certain number of structural weaknesses in the Irish textile industry. Italy: Two programmes, one for the Objective 1 Italian regions and the other for the Objectives 2 and 5(b) areas, were adopted in 1995. They amend the two programmes that began in 1993 by changing the content of several regional measures and the annual breakdown of Community assistance. A special feature of both programmes is the participation ofthe private sector, which accounts for almost 30% in the Objective 1 regions and 52% in the Objective 2 and 5(b) areas. Netherlands: The programme, adopted in 1995, covers the period 1994-97 and concerns the region of Twente. The aim is to reinforce the competitiveness of SMEs in the region both within and outside the 15 8 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) textiles and clothing sector; consequently, the programme has a single priority: to introduce innovative business organization, with special attention to quality management, environmental management, working conditions and strategic management. Portugal: The programme, which was adopted in 1993, is the largest RETEX programme in financial terms. It is intended to diversify the production structure in regions affected by restructuring in the textile sector, and to modernize the sector in regions where it is highly concentrated. By the end of 1995, 51% ofthe programmed public expenditure had actually been incurred. United Kingdom: Two programmes were approved in 1995, for Northern Ireland and for Great Britain. The programme for Great Britain covers nine areas eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), in some of which the programme will be supplemented by specific regional strategies. Measures are concentrated on diversification ofthe economic base ofthe regions through the introduction of new technologies and new products. A training and re-skilling programme has been set up to facilitate the move towards self- employment and new business start-ups. Special measures for the environment are also planned, for example liquid waste treatment projects in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the East Midlands are expected to improve the image ofthose areas. URBAN (1994-99) URBAN (ECU 651 million) is intended to help solve the crisis in a number of urban areas, by supporting measures for economic and social revitalization through the launching of new economic activities; measures for the renewal of social, health and safety infrastructure and facilities; ensuring employment for local people; and improvement of the environment in connection with these measures. The projects must have a demonstration effect for other urban areas, and they should be part of longer-term urban integration strategies. Two thirds ofthe financing is eannarked for Objective 1 regions, the remaining third for Objective 2 areas. The Member States put forward some 130 towns and cities for assistance under the URBAN Initiative, of which 86 were chosen. Some programmes were presented by national authorities, and cover several towns and cities in the Member State. Consequently, there are only 43 programmes, 18 of which had been approved by the end of 1995. By the end ofthe year, there were thus 24 programmes still to be adopted, comprising one in Belgium, two in Germany, the eight French programmes, the Irish and the Italian programmes, which are not regionalized, nine UK programmes and two programmes in the new Member States. Urban and the urban environment: The URBAN Initiative is intended to benefit neighbourhoods facing particularly difficult environmental conditions. This may be reflected, for example, in derelict or contaminated sites, a lack of green spaces and basic infrastructure, or lack of mobility on the part ofthe local population. The environmental and sustainable development aspects of URBAN's integrated approach are clear. The Initiative clearly declared the environment to be one ofthe keys to dealing with problems in the areas covered. Many of the measures in the URBAN integrated programmes are therefore geared to improving infrastructure and the environment, for example, renovation of buildings to adapt them to new economic and social activities, reclamation of public open spaces, particularly green spaces, energy conservation, or the supply of cultural or recreational services that respect the living environment. Under the new guidelines to improve the URBAN Initiative, using part of the reserve available for the Community Initiatives,^ the problem ofthe urban environment will receive much greater attention. 13 See above 1. 1: Introduction - Proposal for the allocation ofthe reserve in 1995. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 159 Table 98: URBAN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Member State (No of CIPs) Belgium (2) Denmark (1) Germany (8) Greece ( 1 ) Spain (1) Luxembourg ( 1 ) Netherlands (2) Portugal (1) United Kingdom (1) Total (18) Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) % of (3)/(2) 26,6 3,0 270,1 67,2 248,7 1,0 87,9 62,0 24,5 791,0 8,2 1,5 86,4 45,2 162,6 0,5 9,3 44,3 17,0 375,0 8,2 1,3 79,0 4,5 22,8 0,5 7,9 9,2 17,0 150,5 100% 88% 9 1% 10% 14% 100% 85% 2 1% 100% 4 0% 4,1 0,4 23,2 1,7 11,4 0,0 2,4 4,6 6,9 54,7 50% 30% 29% 38% 50% 8% 30% 50% 40% 3 6% Belgium: Two programmes were adopted, with that for Brussels still awaiting approval. The area of Antwerp covered by the programme is the north-eastern section ofthe 19th century neighbourhood around the main railway station. The programme aims at new job creation, better security, training, education and town planning. The programme for Charleroi covers the Foucault quartérT where the educational level is low, housing is dilapidated, unemployment is high, and crime and drugsare a problem. The measures are intended to enhance the attractiveness ofthe neighbourhood (by establishing a permanent conference centre, and an exhibition stand to present the city and its products), to encourage development in a new sector by setting up a comic-strip institute, to benefit the whole neighbourhood, in particular by improving traffic conditions for both vehicles and pedestrians, and to change the social standing ofthe neighbourhood through a series of measures part-financed by the ESF and carried out in partnership with the Charleroi CPAS (public social welfare centre) and the MIREC (regional mission for employment and integration). Denmark: The programme concerns the town of Aalborg (suburb of Thistedvej) in northern Jutland, an area eligible under Objective 2. The town is facing a high level of unemployment, traffic problems and inadequate social and cultural services. The programme will concentrate on a single project, a sustainable urban development centre, intended to modernize the Thistedvej suburb by encouraging sustainable and financially stable industrial growth and by encouraging the local inhabitants. Germany: Eight programmes were adopted: Berlin, Brandenburg, Rostock, Magdeburg, Chemnitz, Erfurt, Bremen and Duisburg; six are in the new Lander and two in the western Lander. A third programme for Saarland was to be adopted in 1996. In the framework ofthe programme for Duisburg- Marxloh, for example, a Stadtteilwirtschaft development project will be drawn up, along with aid and outreach measures to safeguard the potential of the area and encourage new business start-ups. The prime objective is to stop the out-migration of small firms and to identify opportunities for setting up new innovative businesses. Greece: The programme covers six projects: Drapetsona-Keratsini and Peristeri in Attiki, Nea-Ionia in Volos, Patras (south-east), Thessaloniki (east) and Syros (Ermoupolis), each of which constitutes a sub- programme. These are all demonstration projects for other urban areas, involving innovative measures within a long-term urban integration strategy. The objective in each case is to launch new local economic activity, which should in return encourage the measures, both social (jobs for local people, sanitation infrastructure) and urban (infrastructure and environmental measures related to economic activity) required to improve living conditions for the areas and people concerned. Spain: In terms of financing, the Spanish programme is the largest programme adopted under the URBAN Initiative in 1995. It covers 17 neighbourhood projects in cities with a population of over 100 000 (see table below), which relate to economic and social revitalization, renovation of buildings, and the improvement of infrastructure, including environmental infrastructure. The projects also attempt to include innovative measures to deal with social exclusion and crime. Associations of citizens will participate in implementing the programme, and technical assistance will concentrate on the exchange of experience within Spain and throughout Europe. Day-to-day management ofthe programme will be the 160 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) responsibility ofthe local and regional authorities, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, which has overall responsibility for the programme. Table 99: URBAN - Detailed financing of the programme in Spain (ECU million) Objective 1 regions Cadiz Malaga Hueiva Seville Badajoz Cartagena Valencia Toledo Valladoiid Salamanca Langreo La Corufla Vigo Objective 2 areas Sabadell Badalona Baracaldo not covered by an Objective Madrid Total towns and cities Assessment, management TOTAL Total cost SJruct. Funds ERDF ESF 14,3 14,3 14,4 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 13,4 6,6 20,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 10,0 6,7 3,3 10,0 7,0 10,0 8,0 9,1 7,6 9,0 10,0 8,0 10,0 9,9 8,8 9,1 8,1 6,1 2,3 9,4 20,0 245,8 2,9 248,7 10,0 160,0 2,6 162,6 10,0 142,3 2,6 144,9 3,0 0,0 2,0 0,9 2,4 1,0 2,0 0,1 1,2 0,9 1,9 0,6 1,0 0,6 - 17,7 0,0 17,7 Netherlands: Two programmes were adopted in 1995. The URBAN programme for the Hague is intended to benefit the Schilderswijk quarter, which was built in the second half of the nineteenth century and covers 149 hectares. Its purpose is to strengthen the local economy, create new job opportunities for the local inhabitants and improve safety. The URBAN programme for Amsterdam in Amsterdam Zuidoost. The purpose of the covers Amsterdam-Bijlmermeer, an area of 7 km programme is to give the area a boost through measures for territorial innovation and socio-economic and administrative renewal. Portugal: The URBAN programme for Portugal was established nationally rather than for individual cities; it provides for four projects in the Lisbon area and two in the Oporto area. Measures include not only small infrastructure projects but also a set of measures to stimulate local initiatives and involve the community. It cannot be expected to have a major impact on creating and safeguarding jobs, but it should contribute to considerably improving the living environment. Some ofthe measures will have a high profile, such at that in the Casal Ventoso neighbourhood of Lisbon. United Kingdom: Only the programme for Northern Ireland was adopted in 1995, nine other projects having also been presented by the UK authorities with applications for Structural Fund assistance of almost ECU 80 million. At the end of 1995, the Commission was awaiting revised programmes. The Northern Ireland programme relates to Belfast and Londonderry. In both cases, the Catholic and Protestant areas concerned will combine their efforts to launch a process of renewal. In Belfast the emphasis is on job creation for parents, especially mothers, and on helping young unemployed people get back to work. In Londonderry, urban reclamation and economic recovery projects on the initiative of the local community will be granted financial assistance and help with training measures. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) INTERREG II (1994-99) 161 INTERREG II (ECU 2 939 million) has two strands corresponding to the INTERREG I and REGEN Initiatives: cross-border cooperation and aid to areas on the Union's internal and external borders (ECU 2. 4 billion, 75% of which is for Objective 1 regions); and the completion of energy networks to link them up to wider European networks (ECU 500 million). For the borders with the countries of central and eastern Europe, a cross-border cooperation programme between those countries and the Community Member States was adopted in 1994 in the framework ofthe Phare programme. Of 62 INTERREG II programmes presented by the fifteen Member States, a total of 34 were approved, three under the REGEN strand and 31 under cross-border cooperation. This corresponds to about 77% of the total amount presented. The programmes approved in 1995 are the largest in financial terms. The forms of cross-border cooperation have progressed since the first programming period, in 1990-93, and the Commission has financed some measures developed by the Association of European Border Regions. In September, a practical guide to the organization of cross-border cooperation was published. REGEN strand: Table 100: INTERREG/REGENprogrammes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) INTERREG/REG EN Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) Spain/Portugal Greece/Italy (electricity) Greece: Completion of energy networks Total 548,2 189,4 450,0 1. 187,6 220,0 75,8 180,0 475,8 61,9 4,3 45,0 111,2 28% 6% 25% 23% 43,5 2. 1 4,5 50,2 70% 50% 10% 45% REGEN Spain and Portugal: The objective ofthe programme is to finance the last stage of work on the system to receive and transport natural gas to Portugal and to interconnect systems for the transport of natural gas in Spain and Portugal. These projects are part ofthe development of trans-European energy networks with a view to diversifying energy supplies in the two Member States, which will have a favourable impact on the environment and improve the competitiveness ofthe economies concerned. By the end of 1995, 42% ofthe public expenditure planned for this programme for 1994-95 will have been incurred. REGEN Greece and Italy (electricity): This programme completes the interconnection ofthe Italian and Greek electricity supply networks and continues the achievements of the REGEN programme of the earlier period. Financing is entirely allocated to Objective 1 regions. A project within the context ofthe completion ofthe internal market: The INTERREG/REGEN programme between Italy and Greece to interconnect the electricity networks of the two countries provides for total investment of ECU 204 million and Community financing (ERDF) of ECU 75. 8 million (with ECU 189. 4 million covered by the programme). It involves: • the construction of two stations for conversion between alternating and direct current; installing an overhead direct current cable to connect the two stations; laying a 160 km cable on the sea-bed to transport 600 MW between Porto Badisco (Italy) and Aetos (Greece). • • This programme thus contributes not only to cross-border cooperation between Greece and Italy, but also to the completion ofthe internal market, especially for energy and reduction of dependence on oil, as well as to the Community's environmental policy (reduction of SQ2 and CQ2). REGEN Greece: "completion of energy networks": This programme concerns the completion of work on reception and transport facilities for the introduction of natural gas into Greece; it follows on from the 162 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) measures financed under REGEN between 1989 and 1993. The project as a whole was covered by ERDF financing as a "natural gas" major project under the first Greek CSF between 1989 and 1993. The programme relates to the main high-pressure pipeline bringing Russian gas from the Bulgarian frontier to Athens, the main high-pressure branches, and work on the reception, processing and transport by pipeline of Algerian liquefied gas (LNG). Table 101: INTERREG II cross-border cooperation programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) Total cost S. F. assistance 0) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2V0) Payments 1995 0) •/. of (3)/(2) Between Member States Belgium/Netherlands: Euregio Scheldemond Belgium/Netherlands: Middengebied Germany/Netherlands/Belgium: Euregio Meuse-Rhin Denmark/Germany: Fyns Amt/KERN Denmark/Germany: S. Jutland/Planungsraum V Denmark/Germany: Storstrom/Ostholstein/Lubeck Germany/France: Rhineland-Palatinate/Saarland/Lorraine France/Germany: PAMINA Germany/Luxembourg: Euregio Germany/Netherlands: Ems-Dollard Germany/Netherlands: Euregio Germany/Netherlands: Euregio Rhine-Meuse-North Germany/Netherlands: Euregio Rhine-Waal Ireland/United Kingdom: Northern Ireland Ireland/United Kingdom: Wales Spain/Portugal Between Member States and non-member countries Denmark/Baltic Sea Germany/Czech Republic: Bavaria Germany/Poland: Brandenburg Germany/Poland: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Germany/Poland/Czech Republic: Saxony Greece/Albania/Bulgaria Germany/France/Switzerland: Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud Germany/Switzerland : Lake Constance France/Switzerland: Franche-Comté France/Switzerland: Rhône-Alpes United Kingdom/Morocco: Gibraltar 22,8 66,3 71,9 3,6 22,2 10,4 46,5 22,1 30,9 62,7 53,6 12,8 23,1 261,7 142,8 755,3 4,6 42,2 120,0 84,1 215,7 459,4 49,9 9,7 14,2 11,6 1,7 11,1 32,4 35,7 1. 8 11,1 5,2 23,3 11,1 8,0 22,5 22,0 6,4 11,5 157,0 84,1 552,0 2,0 16,8 72,0 63,1 146,5 277,0 24,6 4,9 7,1 5,4 0,7 9,8 29,2 33,5 1,4 8,3 4,1 22,3 10,1 8,0 22,5 22,0 6,4 11,5 26,9 10,9 75,0 1,8 16,8 10,1 8,0 16,6 28,1 23,4 4,9 7,1 0,6 0,5 Total I 2. 621,9| 1. 615,0| 419,6] Cross-border cooperation strand 88% 90% 94% 80% 74% 79% 96% 9 1% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 17% 13% 14% 90% 100% 14% 13% 11% 10% 95% 100% 100% 11% 66% 2 6 %| 2,9 8,8 10,0 0,4 2,5 1,2 6,7 3,0 2,4 6,7 6,6 1,9 3,5 13,4 5,5 44,6 0,5 5,4 5,0 4,0 8,3 14,0 7,0 2,4 2,2 0,2 0,0 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 50% 50% 59% 30% 32% 50% 50% 50% 50% 30% 50% 3 1% 30% 0% 169,41 40% A large proportion ofthe programmes adopted in 1995 were part ofthe cross-border cooperation strand of INTERREG II. Altogether, 59 were presented and 31 adopted, leaving 27 still to be adopted at the end of the year, including ten from the new Member States. The introduction of INTERREG II and the enlargement of the European Union to three new Member States has considerably enhanced the importance of cross-border cooperation. In particular, on the eastern borders of the Union, the Commission, the Member States and the countries of central and eastern Europe involved in joint "cross- border" measures under INTERREG II and the Phare programme have introduced joint mechanisms and instruments to improve their cooperation. The programmes adopted in 1995 between the Member States Between Belgium and the Netherlands: Two programmes were adopted with a total Structural Fund contribution of ECU 43. 5 million (total investment: ECU 89. 1 million). The two programmes concern respectively the Scheldemond Euregio (Zeeland (NL)/ East Flanders and part of West Flanders (B)) and the Middengebied area (Antwerp, Limburg and part of Louvain (B)/ North-Brabant and Limburg (NL). As well as reinforcing cross-border cooperation, each programme has a development objective: the first aims at stimulating sustainable, high-quality social and economic development and the second at strengthening the economic base ofthe border area. Between Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany: The regions concerned by a programme for the Meuse-Rhine Euregio are partly eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b). This programme is coordinated by the Meuse-Rhine Euregio, a body established under Netherlands law with long experience of cross- 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) i ^ border cooperation, by the governments of the Lander and the federal authorities on the German side, and by national ministries in the Netherlands and Belgium. The programme is organized around five priorities: economic and technological development and innovation (28%), environment, nature and sites (27%>), regional planning (15%), socio-cultural integration (15%) and development of skills and the labour market (11%); technical assistance accounts for the remaining 5%. several financed successful Between Denmark and Germany: There are three programmes in receipt of Structural Fund financing totalling ECU 18. 1 million (total cost: ECU 36. 2 million). The programmes cover three regions with different geographical features: the Planungsraum V (Nordfriesland, Schleswig-Flensburg, Flensburg) and Sonderjyllands Amt, the only land border between Germany and Denmark, for which the Community had the Ostholstein/Liibeck area and Storstroms Amt, a maritime region encountering structural difficulties, which was already eligible under INTERREG I; and the so-called KERN (Kiel, Eckernfbrde, Rendsburg, Neumunster) and Fyns Amt, which is now eligible under INTERREG for the first time. The strategies for these three programmes are slightly different, first because cross-border structures are well-established in some cases but fairly new in others, and secondly because the border concerned is a land border in some cases, and a sea crossing in others. Among other things, the measures aim at the development of SMEs, and research and development and training; the first two programmes are also intended to help reconcile the needs of the environment with energy consumption, and the last two provide for the development of tourism. cross-border projects recent years; in Between France and Germany: Two programmes have been adopted, with total assistance of ECU 34. 3 million. The programme for Saarland, Lorraine and the Palatinate, in cooperation with the INTERREG programme between Germany and Luxembourg, provides for the construction of a "Euro-Management Centre", which will offer European seminars to businessmen interested in the European Market. In 1991-93, a joint Franco-German financial institution, the Saarlàndische Investitionskredietbank (SIKB), was set up on the basis of an agreement between the three regions and France, and this agreement has been renewed for the present period. The other programme concerns the regions of southern Palatinate, Mittlerer Oberrhein and northern Alsace (PAMINA); it is intended to intensify integration over this area through measures for economic development, regional planning, development of natural resources and the environment, social cohesion, and culture and training. For the first time, the ESF is contributing to the financing of measures, under the last two headings. Between Luxembourg and Germany: There is a programme for areas that are partly eligible under Objectives 2 or 5(b). Joint management and financial resources for the projects was introduced under INTERREG I and continued under this programme. Measures relate to protection of the environment (32%), economic and technological development and innovation (19%), and tourism (19%). Between the Netherlands and Germany: Four programmes were adopted, for a total of ECU 62. 4 million. The Ems-Dollard programme complements the Objective 2 or Objective 5(b) SPDs in the regions. While the INTERREG I programme concentrated on tourism, the present programme aims at improving business competitiveness and attracting new investment, especially in infrastructure (35%), tourism (29%) and economic development (15%). The other three programmes, Euregio, Euregio Rhine- Waal and Euregio Rhine-northern Meuse, concern areas partly eligible under Objectives 2 or 5(b). They provide for a limited series of measures: economic and technological development and innovation (35%), the development of skills and the labour market (17%), regional planning (14%) and socio- cultural integration (13%). Each ofthe programmes is managed independently. They were drawn up by the Euregios, with ten years' experience of cross-border collaboration, the governments of the Lander and the federal authorities on the German side, and the national ministries on the Netherlands side. Between Ireland and the United Kingdom: Two programmes were approved in 1995, involving total Structural Fund financing of ECU 241 million. The first concerns cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and follows on from an INTERREG I programme; it will concentrate more than its predecessor on locally-generated cross-border projects and small infrastructure of direct benefit to the area. The other programme concerns areas not previously eligible under INTERREG, the east coast of 164 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Ireland and the areas of Gwynedd and Dyfed in Wales. It is aimed at the maritime development of these areas, with special attention to ports and access to ports (especially in Ireland), and also their genera! economic development, supporting only joint projects relating to the economic and commercial field, tourism and culture and human resources. Ad hoc cooperation structures between Ireland and the United Kingdom: Each INTERREG programme provides for the establishment of ad hoc cooperation structures. A responsible authority has been designated for the Ireland-Northern Ireland programme, to raise the programme's profile and act as a link between local groups, central authorities in the two Member States, and authorities responsible for other Structural Fund programmes in the area. Similarly, for the Ireland-Wales programme, a local coordination team (comprising two coordinators for Wales and representatives ofthe three regional authorities concerned in Ireland) was set up to encourage partnerships and economic development projects. Between Portugal and Spain: The INTERREG II programme includes measures to remedy-the specific difficulties ofthe border region, due to its relative isolation from the national economies and the rest of the European Union. The strategy concentrates on locally-generated cross-border development, and the reinforcement of economic and environmental infrastructure. The projects considered are also intended to promote balanced economic and social development on both sides ofthe border, to keep people from leaving, to achieve cross-border regional planning and to support the setting up of cross-border cooperation arrangements. At the end of 1995, 38% ofthe public expenditure programmed had actually been incurred in 1994-95. Programmes adopted in 1995 with non-member countries With the Baltic countries: A programme was adopted between Denmark and the regions of the Baltic sea, with the aim of continuing to develop cooperation between the county of Bornholm (Denmark) and other Baltic regions. INTERREG cooperation on the Baltic sea: The programme adopted in November 1995 supports cross-border cooperation between the county of Bornholm (eligible under Objective 5(b)) and the Baltic regions, mainly in Poland and the Baltic States. The measures are aimed at: • developing SMEs through the activities of a commercial and industrial consultancy body; • establishing cross-border structures, involving working parties and • conferences to encourage both bilateral and multilateral cooperation; ensuring cooperation in the field of communications and media, in order to develop new activities at the Baltic Media Centre in Bornholm; • providing the vocational training needed to establish and develop cooperation. With the countries of central and eastern Europe : Four programmes involving German regions were adopted in 1995, with Structural Fund financing totalling ECU 298. 3 million. These programmes are coordinated with Phare operations. There are two programmes for the German-Polish border (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania/Poland and Brandenburg/Poland), O\\Q that involves three countries (the German Land of Saxony, Poland and the Czech Republic), and one for the border between Bavaria and the Czech Republic. The first three are intended to reduce the structural weaknesses specific to the border regions of Poland and the Czech Republic. Appropriations are concentrated on infrastructure and the environment, on economic development (including the development of tourism) and agricultural development, on human resources and on technical assistance. Many projects got under way in 1995. socio-economic The programme development, especially infrastructure and protection o f t he environment (34%), human resources (12%), and regional planning and technical tourism and economic cooperation (44%), transport, the Czech Republic concentrates on involving Bavaria and 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 65 assistance (10%). The Monitoring Committee includes representatives of the Czech Republic, which means that for the first time, representatives of a central European country are closely involved in implementing a programme in a shared area. It is interesting to note that the programme was designed as a function both of the cross-border cooperation strand of Phare for the Czech Republic, and of the INTERREG II programme in Saxony, Poland and the Czech Republic. This made it possible to define a standard line from Pomerania to Passau for the composition of monitoring and steering committees. A programme linking Greece and Albania with Bulgaria was adopted under the protocols on cross- border collaboration agreed with the Albanian and Bulgarian authorities, also financed under Phare. 14 The measures in this programme concern not only transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure, which are essential to link these non-member countries to trans-European networks (e. g. the Via Egnatia), but also industry, tourism, the environment, agriculture, local development and human includes cooperation (exchange of experience on education, resources. The programme also management of water resources, etc. ) with Cyprus and some countries ofthe Middle East (Egypt, Israel, etc. ). With Switzerland: Four programmes were adopted, involving France, Germany and Austria, with a Community contribution totalling ECU 41. 9 million. The programme for the Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud, between France, Germany and Switzerland, concentrates, as it did in the first stage of INTERREG, on cooperation on questions relating to the economy, the environment, training and tourism. Moreover, it will include measures to encourage collaboration in the fields of vocational training and health. The Monitoring Committee decided, at one of its early meetings, to establish a new information and consultancy bureau at the border, at Breisach/Neuf Brisach (to supplement the two existing information bureaux, one in the north and the other in the south). The purpose of these bureaux is to inform and advise private and public bodies and individuals about the neighbouring country. Between Germany and Switzerland, the Hochrhein-Bodensee programme launched under INTERREG I has now been extended, following enlargement, to an Austrian border region, the Voralberg, thus forming a new Alpenrhein- Bodensee-Hochrhein programme with an internal and an external component. In 1995, only the German side ofthe programme was adopted, for an amount of ECU 4. 9 million. Two programmes were adopted between France and Switzerland, one involving the French region of Franche-Comté and the other the region of Rhône-Alpes. With Morocco: The programme with Gibraltar is additional and complementary to Objective 2 operations in Gibraltar. The measures under this programme - infrastructure, cooperation studies and pilot projects, cooperation in the fields of vocational education and training - are intended to add value to cooperation between businesses in Gibraltar and those in Morocco, which is expected to have a multiplier effect on cross-border trade in the medium term. The Monitoring Committee for the programme, on which the Moroccan Government will have observer status, will be responsible for supervising provisions for the selection of individual projects. PEACE (1994-97) On 28 July, the Commission approved the PEACE Initiative for peace and reconciliation, involving Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland. In the spring of 1995, three major conferences were held for local consultations with interested parties and people with experience of restoring dialogue and mutual understanding, which facilitated rapid adoption ofthe programme. Structural Fund participation in the programme amounts to ECU 300 million out of a total cost of about ECU 416 million between 1995 and 1997, with supplementary aid to be decided later for 1998-99. The whole of Northern Ireland and the six border counties of Ireland are eligible for assistance under this programme. 14 The aid approved in 1995 (ECU 277 million) should be supplemented in 1996 by EAGGF assistance (ECU 32. 8 million). 166 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 101 bis: PEA CE programme (ECU million) PEACE Total cost S. F. assistance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1995 (3) %of (3)/(2) ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Total Northern Ireland Ireland - 415,9. 148,3 127,8 22,4 1,5 300,0 240,0 60,0 18,7 11,0 1,3 0,1 31,1 - 13% 9% 6% 9% 10%. 8,6 5,5 0,6 0,07 14,8. 46% 50% 50% 50% 48%. The aim of the programme is to help consolidate the cease-fire in Northern Ireland by providing those involved in local economic and social life with the resources needed to transform these developments into a lasting peace. The objective is to promote the social integration of people on the margins of economic and social life, and to restore economic growth in the areas that have suffered most from the conflict. This involves seven sub-programmes: the regeneration of urban and rural sites; employment; cross-border cooperation; combating social exclusion; the promotion of productive investment and industrial development; establishing partnerships, and technical assistance. In order to involve as many people as possible in the decision and implementation process, the distribution of resources is very decentralized, with 43% being distributed by non-governmental agencies (trusts and cooperatives), including one cross-border organization, which will have a major role in selecting projects and allocating funds. Moreover, 15% of resources are under the responsibility of 26 newly created district partnerships, which must include elected representatives of district councils, representatives of local or voluntary bodies, and representatives ofthe private and other sectors, including local statutory agencies. The main achievement of 1995 was to set up these new structures. The contracts between the Commission and the eight intermediaries were signed in December, and a political stumbling block to the establishment of district partnerships was eliminated. Moreover, the necessary coordination between the various financing bodies and the authorities was set up. All this made for rapid progress towards the first grants, the green light for district partnerships, and a major information and promotion campaign. 1. 3. Community Initiatives in the three new Member States In April 1995, the Commission adopted a communication on the implementation ofthe Community Initiatives in the three new Member States, setting out an indicative allocation of appropriations between Initiatives and Member States. Table 102: Community Initiatives in the new Member States Indicative allocation of appropriations 1995-99 (ECU million) ADAPT EMPLOYMENT LEADER PESCA Industrial change - of which: RECHAR - of which: RESIDER - of which: RETEX - of which: KONVER - of which: SMEs URBAN INTERREG Reserve TOTAL Austria Finland Sweden Total 11,6 23,0 23,3 18,2 1,8 5,1 2,6 8,7 9,8 42,7 17,5 146,1 19,7 29,2 24,7 3,0 10,8 10,8 3,9 43,7 18,4 153,4 11,3 20,7 14,2 3,5 20,0 3,3 16,8 3,4 39,5 15,3 127,8 42,5 72,9 62,1 6,5 49,1 1,8 5,1 2,6 3. 3 36,3 17,0 125,9 51,3 427,2 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 167 Each ofthe new Member States will participate in a different way in the Community Initiatives. Austria will not take part in KONVER, PESCA or REGIS; Finland will not take part in RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX, KONVER or REGIS; Sweden will not take part in RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX or REGIS. The three new Member States also differ as to progress with approval of their programmes. Of its 15 programmes presented (half of them under LEADER), Austria has had four adopted; Finland has had two out of eight adopted, and Sweden two out of seven. Table 103: Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Programmes adopted in 1995 (ECU million) Community Initiatives (No of CIPs) Total cost S. F. assitance (1) Commitments 1995 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1995 (3) % of (3)/(2) ADAPT Austria (1) Finland (1) Sweden (1) Total EMPLOYMENT Austria (1) Finland (1) Sweden (1) Total LEADER Austria (1) URBAN Austria (1) INTERREG Austria/Hungary Austria/Czech Rep. Austria/Slovakia Austria/Slovenia Total ADAPT | | 25,8 42,9 21,7 90,4 49,4 66,3 39,9 755,5 6,5| 31,9| 28,2 12,1 16,0 22,6 78,9 11,6 19,7 11,3 42,5 23,0 29,2 20,7 72,9 2,6| 9,8| 11,0 4,5 5,5 9,0 30,0 11,6 19,7 11,3 42,5 23,0 29,2 20,7 72,9 2,0| 6,8| 8,8 3,9 4,9 5,9 23,5 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78%| 70%| 80% 88% 88% 65% 78%. 5,8 8,6 5,6 20,0 11,5 14,6 10,3 36,4 0,3 j 3,4| 2,6 1,2 1,5 1,8 7,0 50% 44% 50% 47% 50% 50% 50% 50% 16% 50% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% The three programmes, one for each of the three new Member States, were prepared with the Commission in the second half of the year and adopted in December, which enabled the promoters in these Member States to play a full part in the ADAPT Initiative from the outset. For example, Finland has concentrated on aid to increase productivity and employment. The accent will be on the internationalization of firms (especially SMEs), the promotion of distance and flexible working, improved programming of training, distance learning, promoting the introduction of new technologies into firms, and the creation of data bases for employment services. The priority under the Austrian programme will be to establish local networks associating SMEs and public and private training bodies. Sweden's programme aims at finding new means and structures to enable employees and their firms to anticipate the changes facing them. As in Austria, the emphasis is on joint work by complementary bodies (firms, research centres, local agencies, etc. ), on taking account ofthe specific needs of women in the working world, and on the potential of information technologies. EMPLOYMENT The programmes ofthe three new Member States under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative were adopted in 1995. Each national programme describes specific priorities for each strand ofthe Initiative. Under the Horizon strand for the disabled, the Austrian programme will support the introduction of flexible training schemes (training instructors in the use of multimedia aids, distance learning, computer-assisted learning); while one of the priorities under the Swedish programme will be to devise models for the integration of measures for counselling, training, employment and working in the firm, so as to organise a continuous chain of ability and experience which can be transformed into jobs. Under the Horizon strand for the disadvantaged, neither Sweden nor Finland has opted for a specific target population, 168 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) although Sweden gives clear priority to immigrants while Finland proposes various forms of preparatory training on guidance or working experience. Finland gives priority to developing partnership between projects and local employment, while Austria stresses employment programmes combined with support services to improve self-confidence in the target groups. Under the NOW strand, Sweden has provided for a wide range of measures including new business start-up incentives for women and incentives to choose careers in areas perceived as "masculine". Finland shares this priority, where the accent is also placed, as in Austria, on reconciling work and family life, e. g. through flexible working hours and high-quality child-care services. Under the Youthstart strand, all three Member States emphasize a varied series of measures to respond to the range of difficulties encountered by young people. The priorities relate both to training and to experience within firms. The Austrian and Swedish programmes aim to open ways into work that take account of young people's problems on the training and on the social fronts, encouraging cooperation between all those involved at local level. The Finnish programme highlights, among other things, opportunities for practical experience within the "young people's workshops" that already exist in Finland. It pays special attention to young people with "multiple disadvantages", while the Swedish programme refers in particular to young immigrants as one ofthe priority target groups. LEADER Only one LEADER programme (the Austrian programme for Burgenland) was approved in 1995 for the new Member States, out of the total of twelve that were presented (eight for Austria, two for Finland, two for Sweden). The programme for Burgenland was approved by the Commission on 21 December, and was to have been followed by the seven other programmes for Austria. Projects selected should be innovative, have demonstration value and be transferable. Stress is placed on motivating the local population. PESCA The PESCA programmes for the new Member States (i. e. for Sweden and Finland, since Austria is not taking part in PESCA) could not be adopted in 1995, but progress was made with preparations and it was planned to adopt them early in 1996. URBAN Austria, with only one programme under the URBAN Initiative, is the only new Member State to have had an URBAN programme adopted. On 17 July the Austrian authorities presented a proposal for a programme for the city of Vienna, which was adopted by the Commission on 21 December. The programme concerns an inner-city area with a population of 130 000. It will finance an integrated package of economic, social and infrastructure measures. The programme is based on quantified objectives, comprising the creation of 400 new jobs, renovation and refurbishing of 7 000 to 10 000 m of business premises and the training or retraining of 3 000 people. INTERREG II Austria is the only one ofthe three new Member States to have had programmes adopted in 1995 under INTERREG II. About one third of total resources available for Community Initiatives in Austria is for INTERREG. Austria has a long border with Germany and Italy, but also with four central European countries, and, like the Community, it attaches great importance to these new external borders. It has therefore decided to concentrate the major share of INTERREG II resources (ECU 30 million) on the four programmes concerning external borders. Proposals for these four programmes were presented on 17 July and adopted by the Commission on 21 December. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 69 The main aim is to work in conjunction with Phare to help the common borders ofthe new framework of Europe to adapt, encouraging bilateral cooperation at local and regional level through the creation of cooperation networks. Almost 60% of total financing under these four programmes is to be spent on improving cooperation and economic development. Other priorities are technical infrastructure, human resources, protection of the environment and cross-border studies. INTERREG II programmes are of major strategic importance with a view to the preparation ofthe future enlargement ofthe Union. Even if available resources are fairly modest, the measures in receipt of financing are an expression of the commitment of all partners concerned to improve cooperation and cross-border contacts. Community Initiatives and the environment in Austria: All the Community Initiative Programmes adopted for Austria in 1995 include direct or indirect environmental measures. LEADER: The preservation and enhancement of the environment is one of the priorities in the programme for Burgenland; in the south of Burgenland, it is planned to set up a centre for marketing organic products. URBAN: There are no explicitly environmental measures in the programme, but many of+hem have a strong "environmental orientation": in the priority "requalification and job creation", one ofthe main projects to be funded is the redevelopment of a derelict building block to house a business centre for companies involved in solar energy (training will be provided in solar technology and other environmental techniques); the "urbion" priority is directly aimed at improving the physical environment in the area (renovation of Stadtbahnbôgen, improving public spaces, including green areas). The environmental component of the programme could probably be estimated at at least one quarter ofthe total EU budget available (or at around ECU 2. 5 million of Structural Fund resources). INTERREG: All the programmes contain explicit measures for environmental protection. The reason is twofold: the special geographical situation caused by the former "Iron Curtain" left nature almost untouched in large parts ofthe border regions; environmental pollution in the neighbouring countries is a serious threat for the development of new economic activities, in particular of soft tourism, for which expectations are high in the border regions. The measures are the following: • INTERREG Austria-Slovenia: cooperation in cross-border nature preservation and environmental programmes (studies, surveys and pilot measures e. g. to modernize Alpine huts écologie. 'ly, protect water reserves and prevent flooding); water saving and hydraulic engineering; cross- border nature protection and nature parks. how INTERREG Austria-Czech Republic: environment and energy, including environmental / transfer and counselling, use of renewable energy; tourism will be developed in the foi m soft tourism, including provision to increase understanding of nature and the environmental context: agricultural measures include the restoration of damaged forests. INTERREG Austria-Slovak Republic: the priority "environment" includes measures for technical environmental protection, environmental and energy counselling, and nature protection. INTERREG Austria-Hungary: the priority "environment and nature" supports the enlargement and creation of cross-border national parks. • • • 170 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 1. 4. Summary by Member State - EUR 1215 Table 104: Community Initiatives - Summary of financial allocations by Member State 1994-99 (before allocation ofthe reserve, after adjustment- 1994 prices) Member State B DK D EL E F IRL I L N P UK Networking TOTAL •including Peace INTERREG* 82 18 402 595 565 246 160 347 4 72 340 109 0 2. 939 ADAPT 31 30 229 30 256 250 21 190 0 58 21 287 0 1. 402 Employment 32 11 157 64 387 147 76 349 0 42 40 LEADER 8 8 174 146 350 187 67 282 1 8 116 147 0 1. 452 65 34 1. 447 PESCA SME REGIS 2 16 23 27 42 28 7 34 0 11 26 37 5 257 12 3 183 82 248 58 28 188 0 10 122 67 25 1. 027 0 0 0 0 214 262 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 600 RECHAR 16 0 159 2 34 33 0 2 0 0 1 161 0 406 KONVER 11 2 219 13 23 70 0 45 0 12 8 101 0 506 RESIDER 24 0 191 5 72 62 0 84 12 18 7 45 0 520 RETEX (ECU million) TOTAL URBAN 4 0 68 75 75 25 9 67 0 1 162 36 0 522 11 2 97 45 160 55 16 115 1 9 44 97 0 651 234 89 1. 902 1. 083 2. 425 1. 421 384 1. 703 19 242 1. 010 1. 152 64 11. 729 BELGIUM Belgium is participating in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS, with a total of 16 national programmes approved in 1994 and 1995, and three INTERREG Programmes. At the end of 1995, there was still one programme awaiting approval for each of the following Initiatives: URBAN, RETEX, SMEs, INTERREG (with France) and LEADER. DENMARK Between 1994 and 1995, five programmes were adopted at national level in Denmark, as well as four INTERREG programmes. Three programmes were awaiting approval: those under the SMEs Initiative, LEADER and an INTERREG programme with Sweden. This means that Denmark will be taking part in seven Community Initiatives: URBAN, KONVER, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, SMEs, PESCA, LEADER and INTERREG. GERMANY Most ofthe programmes were approved by the Commission in the course of 1995. It was sometimes difficult to approve these programmes, since the measures were not described in sufficient detail (in particular, there was not enough information about how they complemented Objective 2 programmes) and the indicators for assessing them were somewhat vague. Altogether, 67 programmes for implementation at national level were adopted, for all the Community Initiatives except REGIS, plus 17 INTERREG programmes. By the end of 1995, there were still 19 programmes awaiting approval, for the LEADER, URBAN, RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX, SME and KONVER Initiatives. In the new Lander, entirely eligible under Objective 1, eight Community Initiatives - KONVER, RESIDER, RECHAR, RETEX, SME, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG - are being implemented according to regionalized arrangements, mainly using ERDF appropriations. They involve 38 programmes and Structural Fund financing of ECU 817 million (80% from the ERDF). In 1995, 31 ofthe 38 programmes were adopted (28 national programmes and 3 INTERREG programmes). The remaining seven concern Brandenburg (5), Saxony-Anhalt (1) and Saxony (1). As a rule, payments could be made under programmes for 1991-94 until the end of 1995, and it is worth recalling that a substantial number of programmes from the first programming period were still being financed in 1995. In the western Lander, the situation varies quite widely from one Initiative to another, some programmes having been completed in 1995, while payment deadlines have been extended for 15 For a more detailed presentation ofthe Community Initiatives in each Member State, see Annex 3, Table 2. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 7 ] others. On the whole, the volume of payments for these programmes is fairly limited. For INTERREG I, the payment period expired at the end of 1995, but an extension was granted for three programmes (to 31 December 1996 for Pamina and Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud, and to 30 June 1996 for Germany/Switzerland/Austria/ex-Czechoslovakia). Payments under the STRIDE Initiative were fairly modest, at ECU 117 000, but results were considerable in terms of improved potential for research, technology and innovation in the regions concerned, and thus in terms of wider use of modern technology. One of the two programmes under RECHAR I, that for North Rhine-Westphalia, was completed in 1995 (an application for payment of the balance of ECU 23. 1 million was made in February). Altogether North Rhine-Westphalia will have received ECU 54. 1 million from the ERDF for this programme. The RECHAR I programme for Saarland was still under way, with a balance still to be paid of ECU 1. 4 million (out of total assistance of ECU 7. 5 million). The RESIDER I programme for North Rhine-Westphalia was also completed in 1995. The balance paid in 1995 amounted to ECU 15. 7 million and the total ERDF contribution was ECU 31. 1 million. There was more of a delay for KONVER I programmes, due to their having been approved only at the end of 1993 so that commitments were postponed until 30 June 1994. Consequently, after long and difficult programming procedures, the deadline for payments was extended to 31 December 1995 for ten programmes16 and to 1996 for a further six. 17 Some interesting projects were carried out in Germany involving the conversion of military buildings and sites to mainly economic use, which is one of KONVER's main priorities. In Rhineland-Palatinate, for example, part of the former Zweibrucken air base has been converted into a civil airport, with the remainder being transformed into a centre for industry and crafts. A municipal grouping was set up to deal with conversion work on the aerodrome; the runway has been kept in service, and several training services for air traffic careers have been introduced alongside the industry and crafts centre. G R E E CE Greece participates in all the Initiatives with the exception of REGIS; all the programmes (one for each Initiative) were adopted in 1995, with the exception ofthose for EMPLOYMENT and PESCA, which were adopted in 1994. Ten programmes are therefore in the course of implementation at national level, alongside three INTERREG programmes (two for REGEN and one for cross-border cooperation). SPAIN. Spain is taking part in all the Community Initiatives for the period 1994-99. Each operation is implemented through a single programme at national level, except LEADER (17 programmes, including ten in Objective 1 regions). Three programmes were approved in 1993-94, for the RETEX, PESCA and EMPLOYMENT Initiatives, and 22 in 1995, comprising two INTERREG programmes (one for cross- border cooperation and one for REGEN), one each for URBAN, ADAPT and REGIS, and 17 LEADER programmes. Altogether, this makes 23 programmes implemented nationally, and two INTERREG programmes. Six programmes were still awaiting a decision (INTERREG Spain-France, INTERREG Spain-Morocco, RECHAR, RESIDER, SME and KONVER) and were under consideration at the end of 1995. FRANCE The French authorities presented 85 proposals for programmes under all the Initiatives in 1994 and 1995, all but five regionalized (the exceptions being programmes under EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, RETEX, SME Objectives 2 and 5(b) and PESCA). Of these 85 proposals, the Commission had already approved the programme under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative in 1994, and 51 programmes were 16 Hamburg, Saarland, Baden-Wurttemberg, Berlin, Bremen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anthalt, Thuringia. 17 Rhineland-Palatinate, Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. 172 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) adopted in 1995 (46 at national level), with 33 still awaiting a decision, for most of which the procedure was in the final stages by the end ofthe year. The 51 programmes comprise five under INTERREG, six under RECHAR II, five under RESIDER, the amendment of the RETEX programme, three under the SME Initiative, one under REGIS, all the KONVER programmes, the PESCA programme, the ADAPT programme and 11 programmes under LEADER. IRELAND All but one of Ireland's programmes were approved in 1995, the exception being URBAN (with a planned Structural Fund contribution of ECU 15. 8 million). The programmes approved in 1995 involve the SME, ADAPT and LEADER Initiatives, the RETEX programme having been adopted in 1993 and the EMPLOYMENT and PESCA programmes in 1994, along with the PEACE programme and the two INTERREG programmes involving Ireland. Ireland does not take part in RECHAR, RESIDER, KONVER or REGIS. ITALY — Eighteen programmes were adopted in 1995 for Italy, the programme under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative having been adopted in 1994. The programmes adopted involve RECHAR, RETEX (amendments to the programme adopted in 1993), ADAPT, LEADER and PESCA; programmes under URBAN, RESIDER, SME and KONVER are scheduled for adoption in 1996. Alongside the national programmes, there are two INTERREG programmes under the REGEN strand, also adopted in 1995. Italy takes part in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS. LUXEMBOURG Only three programmes were adopted for Luxembourg in 1995 (under URBAN, ADAPT and LEADER) but a programme under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative was approved in 1994. There were three is also programmes still awaiting approval, those under RESIDER, SME and KONVER. Luxembou involved in an INTERREG programme, but does not take part in the RECHAR, RETEX, RJDGJ r PESCA Initiatives. NETHERLANDS Eleven programmes in the Netherlands were adopted in 1995, under all the Initiatives except EMPLOYMENT (programme adopted in 1994), RECHAR and REGIS (in which the Netherlands does not take part). There are seven INTERREG programmes involving the Netherlands. By the end of 1995, only the KONVER programme was still awaiting approval. PORTUGAL Portugal takes part in all the Initiatives, and all the programmes have now been adopted: RETEX in 1993, RESIDER, EMPLOYMENT and PESCA in 1994, and the rest in 1995. Altogether, 11 programmes are being implemented at national level, one for each Initiative, plus two INTERREG programmes, one under REGEN and the other under cross-border cooperation. UNITED KINGDOM The United Kingdom takes part in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS, and also participate in the PEACE programme for Northern Ireland. Altogether, 28 national programmes were approved in 1995, two programmes under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative having been adopted in 1994. Moreover, three INTERREG programmes were adopted in 1995. A further 11 programmes were presented, one for RESIDER, one for the SME Initiative, and nine for the URBAN Initiative, with projects that were later amended after negotiations between the UK authorities and the Commission. By the end of 1995, progress had been made towards their adoption. All the regionalized programmes for Northern Ireland 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 73 (which is eligible under Objective 1) were adopted in 1995; they comprise programmes under PEACE, RETEX, SME, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT and LEADER. Northern Ireland also benefits from KONVER and PESCA programmes for the United Kingdom as a whole. Arrangements have already been introduced for the implementation of some of the Initiatives in the United Kingdom. In certain cases, the management committees have adopted new procedures such as the approval of projects in groups. There is a distinction to be made here between programmes for which an ad hoc Monitoring Committee has been set up (national Monitoring Committees for KONVER, RETEX, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, PESCA), and the programmes for which a specific Monitoring Committee was not needed, since the SPD Monitoring Committees (Objectives 1 or 2) were also responsible for monitoring Community Initiatives. The RECHAR programmes are in the second category; since each programme follows on from a priority under the SPD for these regions, the corresponding Monitoring Committees have the general task of supervising the implementation of the various Community programmes in the region concerned, including Community Initiative programmes. Actual implementation on the ground is the responsibility of the RECHAR management committees, which reflect local partnership in the mining areas. Similarly, for RESIDER, a partnership structure like that for the RECHAR programmes has been introduced, with stress on involving local communities and bodies. In Western Scotland, for example (Lanarkshire), the strategy was designed in partnership between groups managing the programme, which include the Lanarkshire Development Agency, local authorities, the Strathclyde regional council, the East Kilbride Development Corporation, Scottish Enterprise National and the Scottish Office. 174 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance Each of the Structural Funds and the FIFG may finance measures on its own initiative concerning studies, pilot schemes or technical assistance. A ceiling is imposed on the maximum amounts for financing such measures for each Fund: 1. 5% ofthe ERDFs annual budget, 1% for the EAGGF, 0. 5% for the ESF and 2% for the FIFG18. 2. 1. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Articles 7 and 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation Innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation provides for the financing, in particular, of innovative studies and pilot schemes to promote economic and social development. Priorities for this type of measure were defined and rationalized in 199419, and a total of ECU 395 million was allocated for 1995-99. Measures were launched in 1995. Table 105: Innovative measures (Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation) - priorities for assistance, 1995-99 (ECU million) Priorities Inter-regional cooperation - within the Union - with non-member countries Innovative regional development measures - promotion of technological innovation - information sociey - culture and economic development - new employment areas (particularly local jobs) Physical planning Urban pilot projects I 180,0 110,0 70,0 90,0 45,0 80,0 395,0 Total J The Commission has opted for three main priorities in its approach to innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation for the new period: improving the transparency of project selection through systematic use of calls for proposals; • • closer collaboration between those responsible at the political level, the different levels of local authorities and the economic and social partners; • greater involvement ofthe Member States in the monitoring and assessment of pilot projects so that their innovative character can influence the operational programming ofthe regional policies. During the autumn of 1995 the Commission published a series of calls for proposals with a view to implementing measures financed under Article 10. These calls for proposals, concerning the priorities listed above, cover five domains: the information society, technology transfer, new employment areas, economic development networks in the cultural area and urban pilot projects. Innovative measures in regional development: The calls for proposals under Article 10 in the fields of the information society and technology transfers were prepared by two sets of pilot projects. The first, 18 For the principles and the changes made by the 1993 amendments to the Regulations, see the 1994 Annual Report. 19 See the 1994 Annual Report. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 75 jointly financed by the ERDF and the ESF20, is a programme of pilot schemes, with financing of ECU 20 million, to prepare regional strategies for the development of the information society in six regions (Nord-Pas de Calais, Saxony, North-West England, Central Greece-Macedonia, Piedmont and Valencia). The chief objective is to make the concept ofthe information society a reality in the everyday life ofthe regions through demonstration services and innovative applications, strongly encouraging the participation of users and disseminating good practice, particularly in less-favoured regions. Following this series of calls for proposals, it is planned to select some 150 pilot projects in 1996. The second series consists of eight pilot projects launched as regional technology plans, concerning regional innovation strategies in Lorraine, Saxony, Wales, Limburg, Norte (Portugal), Abruzzi, Central Greece-Macedonia and Castile-Leôn and with a budget of ECU 15 million. These regional innovation strategies will seek the best methods for promoting cooperation between SMEs, research institutes and public authorities with a view to assessing the local technological requirements of firms and the skills and potential existing locally for improving a region's capacity for innovation. Regional planning and the sustainable integrated development of coastal areas The "Europe 2000+ " report and the Report on implementation of the Fifth European Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment - "Towards Sustainability"21 reveal the threats to the environment and the sustainable development ofthe Community's coastal areas. On 31 October 1995, in order to propose ways of acting in the spirit of integrated development and preservation of national resources, the Commission adopted a communication on the integrated management of coastal zones12 reviewing the situation in these areas, reiterating the reasons for Community action and laying the foundations for a demonstration programme. This programme fits into the context ofthe Fifth programme of action in relation to the environment and the preparation of a European approach to spatial planning and has two objectives: • to demonstrate the conditions for the sustainable development of coastal zones in all their diversity, giving special attention to innovative models and mechanisms for collaboration between the different levels of responsibility and to structures facilitating coordination between the different sectoral policies; to stimulate debate between those mainly involved in the development of these areas in order to facilitate the emergence of a consensus at the different levels of decision-making. • The selection of demonstration projects is planned for 1996 and great importance will be attached to disseminating the lessons learned from the programme, particularly for the least favoured regions. ERDF financing could be arranged in two ways: through Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation, under the regional development section; or through the new strand of the Community Initiative InterregllC23, since the integrated management of coastal areas could be an important aspect of programmes for trans-national cooperation between the coastal Member States. Urban pilot projects: As in the case of innovative local development measures, in 1995 the Commission launched the new programme for urban pilot projects for 1995-99, under which 25-30 projects will be financed in the Member States. The call for proposals was published in November 1995 and was presented in December at Directoria (see below). The closing date for submission of proposals was April 1996. It should be noted that the possible themes proposed in the call for proposals included environmental improvement, giving as examples the creation of green spaces, the treatment of waste, recycling and use of renewable sources of energy. Also, 32 projects from the 1989-93 programming period were still running in 1995, with the Commission continuing to provide technical assistance and monitoring. Some of these projects should be wound up at the end ofthe year, while others will need to be extended because of unexpected difficulties (flooding, archaeological finds, changes in legislation, etc. ). However, all the projects are now in the last phase of implementation and most should be completed in 1996. 20 See below, 2. 2 Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation. 21 COM(95) 624 final of 10 January 1996. 2 2C O M ( 9 5 ) 5 1 1. 23 See Chapter I. B. I Community Initiatives. 176 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Economic cooperation measures: In December 1995 the Commission organized the Directoria event in Brussels, in which more than 500 delegations from local and regional authorities in the European Union participated. The objective was to enable those involved in economic development and inter-regional cooperation to identify partners with whom to set up pilot projects. This event was a follow-up to an initial Directoria encounter held in March 1995, at which the Community programmes specifically concerning local authorities were presented. In addition, as in previous years, two Europartenariat events were organized in 1995 and financed under Article 1024. This measure for SMEs was supplemented by the launch in 1995 of 14 new European Business Innovation Centres (BICs) in the eligible areas, including the new Member States, giving SMEs easier access to all the advisory services needed for their establishment and development. The Commission also launched a pilot experiment concerning four monitoring and management centres at large construction sites (Belgium, France, Greece and Portugal) to promote local development and capitalize on economic spin-offs at local level. Technical assistance under Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation -— Under Article 7 of this Regulation the ERDF may finance preparatory, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation measures, as well as studies and information measures concerning Community regional action. In 1995 expenditure on accompanying measures carried out on the Commission's initiative under Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation was greater than in 1994, at ECU 14 million in commitments (0. 11% ofthe ERDF budget) as against ECU 12 million in 1994 (also 0. 11% ofthe ERDF budget). Table 106: Measures financed under Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation in 1995 - commitments (ECU million) Preparation and monitoring Assessment Regional studies Conferences, symposia, seminars Information and publicity Technical assistance and equipment TôtâT ERDF I% 1,0 3,0 1,3 0,4 4,9 3,4 lT^T 7% 21% 9% 3% 35% 24% 100% The assessment exercises (21%) launched during 1995 concern Structural Fund assistance imp^ Tented during the 1989-93 programming period and certain Community Initiatives. The regional studies (9%) added some useful knowledge to understanding ofthe regional question and will be used in particular as the basis for preparing the first three-yearly report on economic and social cohesion. The various conferences and symposia part-financed (3%) included the conference organized with the Council of Europe in Prague on European integration and regional planning in greater Europe. The various publicity measures and the creation of an information and communication strategy (35%) enabled the Commission to continue its efforts to improve the visibility of Community regional policy2^. As in previous years, most ofthe measures benefited several or all Member States. 2. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation Article 6 of this Regulation permits the ESF to finance different types of innovative measure, technical assistance and pilot and demonstration projects in the field of vocational training and the development of employment as well as the monitoring and evaluation of measures it has part-financed. There were two parallel innovative operations in 1995: the launch ofthe projects selected in 1994 and the selection ofthe projects to be financed in 1995. In March 1995 32 projects from the 1994 call for 24 See Chapter II. D. 4. Structural Funds and SMEs. 25 See Chapter III. D. Information and communication, dissemination of good practice. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 177 proposals were approved for the twelve Member States. The projects cover three main themes: seeking a model of growth which generates more employment; improving the operation ofthe labour market and strengthening training systems. The vast majority of projects concern strengthening training systems and range from the establishment of mobile local training centres (Greece) to partnerships to improve employment for the disabled. The total cost of these projects for the Twelve amounts to ECU 32 million, with the ESF contributing ECU 18 million (56%). The first payments (50% ofthe ESF commitment) were made in August 1995. Calls for proposals for 1995 were issued in May and June 1995. By October, the closing date for submission of proposals, the Commission had received 169 proposals. These were assessed by external experts selected from candidates put forward by the Member States and the Commission's internal assessors. After assessment, a provisional list of 61 projects was drawn up. The total budget estimate totals ECU 62 million, with an ESF contribution of ECU 27 million. Among the innovative regional development measures financed under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, the measure to integrate the concept of the information society into the regional development policies of the least-favoured areas is jointly financed under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation and Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation. 26 Total available funding for this measure will therefore amount to ECU 20 million (ECU 15 million from the ERDF and ECU 5 million from the ESF), with two sections: the preparation of regional strategies for the information society (comprising aspects linked to employment and human resources) and the launch of multiregional applications with an innovative effect and demonstration value in the less-favoured regions. The ESF will focus on networks running projects related to employment, training and management of the labour market. Applications could thus concern distance education using information and communications technology or using these technologies more effectively to link institutions and other parties involved in the local labour market on the one hand and job seekers on the other hand. The projects will be launched during the second half of 1996. Most of the technical assistance measures are included in the programmes financed under the different Objectives or Community Initiatives. Appropriations for the Commission's initiative are used to help it to carry out its activities, and particularly to implement the Community Initiatives Employment and Adapt, for which an external support structure called Europs, managed by a firm under contract, was set up in May 1995. This structure was selected on the basis of an invitation to tender and has an annual budget of ECU 5 573 000. Its main role in 1995 was to help the Commission select programme proposals. The chief mission of Europs is to analyse the contents ofthe Employment and Adapt CIPs and to help prepare and circulate information on these Initiatives. In addition, an intermediary support structure specialized in public relations and communication was selected following a tendering procedure to run information and communication measures concerning the ESF. Table 107: Measures financed under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation in 1995 (ECU million) Innovative measures, studies Technical assistance T O T AL Commitments 18,0 8,0 26,0 % P a y m e n ts 69% 3 1% 1 0 0% 9. 0 9. 9 18,9 26 See above, 2. 1 Innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation - Innovative measures in regional development. 178 7lh Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 2. 3. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 8 ofthe EAGGF Regulation. Under Article 8 of its Regulation, the EAGGF may finance: • preparatory and monitoring measures, technical assistance and general studies. Technical assistance may be implemented on the initiative of the Commission or a competent national or regional authority. Studies may be proposed only by the Commission, in accordance with the priority requirements of its departments; • pilot projects for adjusting agricultural structures and promoting rural development. Pilot projects concern the small-scale application in real conditions of promising research results; • demonstration projects to show the real possibilities of systems, methods and techniques of production and management which are in accordance with the objectives ofthe common agricultural policy. Demonstration projects are applied at almost full scale and must be based on results which have already been validated at research level; • measures needed for the circulation of experience and results of the work on rural development and improving agricultural structures. Summary of measures financed between 1989 and 1995 Since previous Annual Reports have made no mention of measures implemented under Article 8 ofthe EAGGF Regulation since 1989, it was decided to include them at this point because some ofthe first- generation projects were continued in 1995 and second-generation projects were launched. Table 108: Measures financed under Article 8 ofthe EA GGF Regulation, 1989-95 (ECU million) Number of projects EAGGF % Technical assistance, assessment, studies Pilot and demonstration projects Dissemination Total 51 78 8 137 19,2 51,6 1,8 72,6 26% 71% 2% 1 0 0% Assessment, monitoring, technical assistance and studies: Between 1989 and 1995, six projects concerned prior appraisal and seven expost evaluation of specific Regulations. Most of the technical assistance measures (19 projects) concerned assistance in the implementation and monitoring of Community Regulations. Lastly, 19 general studies were launched on the Commission's initiative. Pilot and demonstration projects were implemented in the context of various sectors of agriculture and rural society. Most of the projects concerning diversification in farming and product development focused on non-food products (development of forestry, rural tourism and regional planning), but also included the promotion of high-quality regional products. Agri-en vironmental pilot projects: EAGGF pilot and demonstration projects are an excellent vehicle for testing different methods of reconciling agricultural production with sustainable rural development and environmental protection. Measures financed in 1989-95 included the demonstration of more environmentally friendly techniques and the setting up of pilot farms to demonstrate the viability of farming systems taking account of environmental concerns and management ofthe countryside. Dissemination measures mainly concerned the financing of booklets and the organization of seminars to circulate information on the Community's rural development policy and on the knowledge and results of experience in improving agricultural structures. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 179 1995: a year of transition for EAGGF pilot and demonstration projects In order to ensure more widespread circulation of information about the pilot and demonstration projects financed under Article 8 ofthe EAGGF Regulation, a call for proposals was published in October 1994 (closing date for presentation of projects: 31 March 1995) relating to four priorityareas: non-food products, agri-environmental aspects, forestry and rural development. 583 proposals were received and assessed by independent experts and the Commission's departments during 1995. The selected projects will be financed under the 1996 budget. It should be noted that this call for proposals concerned only pilot and demonstration projects. Assessment, technical assistance, monitoring and dissemination measures and studies (projects presented on the initiative of the Commission or national, regional or local authorities) are financed outside this procedure (six projects and technical assistance measures in 1995). 2. 4. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation Like the other Structural Funds, the FIFG may finance studies, pilot projects and demonstration projects, the provision of services and technical assistance, information campaigns, etc. on the basis of Article 4 of its Regulation. In 1995 a total of ECU 2 050 000 was spent on measures of this type. Table 109: Measures financed under Article 4 ofthe FIFG Regulation in 1995 (ECU million) | FIFG Studies Publications Technical assistance TôtàT TJ 0,0 0,6 IT %" TP%" 2% 27% 100% Thirteen studies were launched following a call for proposals, mainly collecting data for biological purposes or dealing with the links between fisheries and the environment, socio-economic aspects, fisheries technology, the quality of water for the production of bivalve molluscs and quality certification for fisheries products. Appropriations for technical assistance went towards updating and demonstrating the Community register of fishing vessels, preparing the MGP IV (multiannual guidance programme for the adjustment of fishing effort, 1997-2000) and launching the Infosys system for computerizing the monitoring and assessment of structural measures financed by the FIFG. Lastly, publications financed under Article 4 include the report on Aquaculture and the Environment, and information booklets on structural measures for fisheries and aquaculture, which were distributed in each Member State. lriA% CHAPTER II BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION OF THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 183 A. BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS The financial year was marked by adoption of a supplementary and amending budget to make available the appropriations in the reserve for the three new Member States and introduce specific budget headings for CSFs/SPDs under Objective 6. This supplementary and amending budget provided the ERDF with ECU 261 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 130 million in payment appropriations, an increase of 2% on the original total. 1. Budget implementation in 1995 1. 1. General implementation in 1995 The aim of this section is to look at implementation of the 1995 budget as a whole, that is, of appropriations for 1994-99 and those for previous periods. However, it distinguishes between implementation of appropriations newly entered in the 1995 budget and that of appropriations carried over to the 1995 budget from the previous year. Table 110: Origin and implementation of commitment appropriations in 1995 (ECU million) I C S F C SF ERDF ESF CSF EAGGF CSF FIFG Community Initiatives Transitional measures T O T AL Initial budget Transfer of appropriations Supplementary and amending budget Total appropriations 1995 Appropriations reconstituted Appropriations carried over Appropriations availabe Implementation Rate of implementation " 10. 592,70 -129,70 221,41 10. 684,41 0,00 OfiO 10. 684,41 10. 566,05 99% 6. 443,80 -54,80 317,11 6. 706,11 0,00 <M>3 6. 710,74 5. 125,25 '6% " Appropriations not implemented Appropriations carried over early 1996 Decommitments without reconstitutions Appropriations reentered in the budget for subsequent years Decommitments (1) including ECU 7. 5 million blocked at 31 March 1995. (2) ECU 24 400. 6 million after deduction ofthe ECU 7. 5 million blocked. 118,06 283,75 118,36 0,00 1. 585,49 4,32 1. 584,79 99,28 3. 315,80 -192,80 251,10 3. 374,10 0,00 0^00 3. 374,10 3. 348,33 99% 25,77 0,00 438,95 0,05 12,28 451,28 0,00 (^00 451,28 451,23 100% ôfil 0,00 2. 144,00 378,00 80,20 2. 602,20 0,00 313,58 2. 915,78 2. 666,65 91% 249,13 20,41 242,00 0,00 8,90 250,90 0,00 20,90 271,80 111,92 41% 159,88 45,88 25,58 28,66 0,22 48,49 228,71 31,34 115,42 42,03 23. 177,25 0,75 891,00 24. 069,00 0,00 339,11 (1) 24. 408,11 (2) 22. 269,43 91% 2. 138,68 70,63 5,44 2. 072,78 533,56 Table 111: Implementation of appropriations in 1995 (excluding carry-overs from 1994 to 1995 and appropriations made available again - ECU million) liiaget lietuBngs Approprierions available (A) Comnitments Payments] Utilizatiin tfappmpriatUms (It) Commitments Payments! Appmpriatùm carried met to 1996 (Q Commit mats Payments! Ajipnipriaûiins nu Commitments inpleniattal Payments] Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5(a) agriculture (excluding Objectives I &5(b)) Objective 5(a) agriculture (in Objective 5(b)) Objective 5(a) fisheries Objective 5(b) Objective 6 Transitional and innovative measures Community Initiatives Anti-fraud Former GDR 15190,83 1. 978,20 2013,51 365,39 296,76 384,72 178,97 680,80 125. 92 250,90 2 602,20 0,75 12550,17 2252,60 1756,76 188,20 462,03 295,50 134,60 948,90 76,24 376,65 2. 107,15 0,77 52,00 14. 517,77 1 734,74 1606,59 94,50 282,60 373,31 178,97 571,86 125,92 93,90 2. 357,71 0,06 0,00 11877,54 1091,05 1. 474,72 54,11 316,64 288. 26 91,63 437,85 62,96 183,87 1. 320. 06 0,13 16,01 T O T AL 24. 069,00 21. 201,55 21. 937,92 0,00 0,00 4,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 0. 00 0,00 0,00 38,74 20,41 0,00 0,00 63,47 116,00 20,50 73,00 0,00 44,50 IZ39 0,00 0,00 0,00 10,00 184,36 0,00 113,06 673,11 243,46 402,59 270,89 14,16 11,41 0,00 108,94 0,00 118,26 224,08 0,69 0,00 556,62 1. 141,05 209,03 134,08 100,89 -5,15 42,97 511,05 13,28 182,78 602,73 0,64 -77,07 57331 2. 067,61 3. 412,90 Taking all the assistance and all the Funds together, during 1995 the Commission committed ECU 21 938 million and paid ECU 17 215 million from the 1995 appropriations. In addition, ECU 331. 6 million was committed from appropriations carried over from the previous year. These figures should be compared with the ECU 24 069 million available for commitment appropriations (ECU 24 408 million including carryovers) and the ECU 21 202 million available for payment appropriations. 184 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) In all, ECU 2 131 million in commitment appropriations (ECU 2 139 million including carryovers) and ECU 3 987 million in payment appropriations remained unused. Of these appropriations, ECU 63. 5 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 573. 8 million in payment appropriations were carried over to the 1996 budget and ECU 2 072 million in commitment appropriations will be entered in budgets for later years. Table 112: Implementation of appropriations in 1995 by budget heading (excluding carry-overs and appropriations made available again) Number Heading Commitments Payments tu O o < o Q C/5 B2-100 B2-1000 B2-1001 B2-1002 B2-1003 B2-1004 B2-1010 B2-110 B2-1100 B2-1101 B2-I102 B2-1110 B2-120 B2-1200 B2-1201 B2-1202 B2-1203 B2-1210 B2-130 B2-1300 B2-1301 B2-I302 B2-1303 B2-1304 B2-1305 B2-131 B21400 B21400 B21400 B21400 B2141 B21410 B21410 B21410 B21410 CSF CSF Objective 1 Objective 5(a) (excluding 1 and 5(b) areas) Objective 5(a) (in 5(b) areas) Objective 5(b) Objective 6 Anti-fraud CSF Objective 1 Objective 5(a) Objective 6 Anti-fraud CSF Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 5(b) Objective 6 Anti-fraud CSF Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5(b) Objective 6 Anti-fraud 2. 395. 179. 999 1. 694. 819. 384 282. 599. 220 373. 305. 787 249. 500. 000 47. 740. 000 10. 000 316. 643. 872 288. 255. 362 207. 015. 401 23. 870. 000 7. 500 Total EAGGF 3. 348. 335. 006 2. 530. 611. 520 270. 833. 000 178. 967. 000 1. 430. 000 155. 710. 334 91. 628. 181 715. 000 Total FIFG 451. 230. 000 248. 053. 514 8. 960. 795. 036 1. 332. 611. 700 228. 388. 044 44. 260. 000 30. 000 Total ERDF 10. 566. 084. 780 2. 890. 964. 235 402. 127. 449 1. 606. 593. 025 94. 500. 000 93. 970. 958 32. 490. 000 19. 000 7. 379. 713. 350 815. 617. 460 156. 122. 460 22. 130. 000 37. 106 8. 373. 620. 376 2. 647. 301. 618 275. 434. 338 1. 474. 721. 111 54. 111. 428 74. 715. 824 16. 245. 000 81. 000 Total ESF 5. 120. 664. 667 4. 542. 610. 319 COMMUNITY INITIATIVES Pesca (restructuring the fisheries sector) ESF FIFG ERDF Inter-rcgional cooperation ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF Total Pesca Total INTERREG 964. 000 20. 760. 036 6. 552. 899 28. 276. 935 4. 745. 000 7. 010. 000 334. 460. 500 346. 215. 500 482. 000 1. 564. 518 3. 276. 449 5. 322. 967 2. 372. 500 4. 030. 200 218. 259. 850 224. 662. 550 7th Annual Report on the Structural "unds (1995) 185 Number Heading Commitments Payments B21412 B21412 B21412 B21412 B2142 B21420 B21420 B21421 B21421 B21422 B21422 B21423 B21423 B2143 B21430 B21430 B21431 B21431 B21432 B21432 B21433 B21433 B2144 B21440 B21440 B21440 B2145 B21450 B21450 B2146 B21460 B21460 B21460 B2147 B21470 B21470 53 E « E :•= r i « ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF Employment and the development of human resources Total PEACE ESF ERDF ESF ERDF ESF ERDF ESF ERDF Total N OW Total HORIZON Total YOUTHSTART Total ADAPT Total RECHAR Total RESIDER Total KONVER Total RETEX Total REGIS Total URBAN Total LEADER Total PME Industrial restructuring ESF ERDF ESF ERDF ESF ERDF ESF ERDF REGIS II (most remote regions) EAGGF FIFG ERDF URBAN (rural aeras) ESF ERDF LEADER II (rural development) ESF EAGGF ERDF SME Initiative ESF ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF Total Community Initiatives 10. 963. 000 1. 271. 000 137. 000 15. 014. 000 27. 385. 000 26. 728. 815 1. 626. 298 28. 355. 113 51. 908. 658 3. 110. 964 55. 019. 622 22. 813. 724 1. 463. 454 24. 277. 178 297. 622. 306 10. 041. 768 307. 664. 074 23. 002. 000 148. 660. 161 171. 662. 161 11. 258. 000 143. 470. 500 154. 728. 500 10. 654. 000 227. 568. 000 238. 222. 000 2. 047. 000 162. 776. 410 164. 823. 410 36. 777. 000 36. 777. 000 14. 285. 177 121. 611. 382 135. 896. 559 2. 965. 637 221. 085. 705 217. 026. 189 441. 077. 531 13. 937. 000 183. 390. 000 197. 327. 000 493. 894. 317 229. 366. 705 20. 897. 036 1. 613. 549. 525 2. 357. 707. 583 5. 481. 500 635. 500 68. 500 7. 507. 000 13. 692. 500 13. 364. 407 713. 149 14. 077. 556 25. 954. 329 1. 455. 482 27. 409. 811 11. 406. 861 731. 727 12. 138. 588 147. 600. 000 5. 020. 884 152. 620. 884 11. 501. 000 63. 672. 168 75. 173. 168 5. 629. 000 71. 390. 850 77. 019. 850 5. 327. 000 82. 004. 885 87. 331. 885 1. 023. 500 74. 335. 571 75. 359. 071 22. 020. 400 22. 020. 400 7. 142. 588 46. 574. 610 53. 717. 198 2. 882. 818 67. 106. 871 62. 719. 602 132. 709. 291 6. 968. 500 60. 739. 701 67. 708. 20l] 247. 136. 003 71. 772. 571 1. 633. 018 720. 422. 327 1. 040. 963. 920 186 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Number Heading Commitments Payments OTHER ASSISTANCE 11 B2148 B2148 B2148 B2148 B2-180 B2-181 B2-182 B2-183 B21900 B21900 B21900 B21900 B21900 ESF EAGGF ERDF Reserve EAGGF FIFG ERDF ESF ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF Reserve Total Earlier measures (*) Total Transitional and innovative measures 10. 867. 167 13. 371. 419 30. 980. 969 38. 677. 505 93. 897. 060 (*) Payments for 1989-93 Total Former GDR 51. 654. 647 19. 827. 041 207. 616. 049 0 279. 097. 737 42. 062. 926 12. 772. 210 82. 322. 392 46. 709. 165 183. 866. 694 0 14. 938. 560 1. 073. 579 0 0 16. 012. 139 Table 113: Commitments in 1995 (excluding carry-overs and appropriations made available again ECU million) T O T AL C SF Obj. 1 Obj. 2 O b j. 3 O b j. 4 O b j. 5(a) O b j. 5(b) O b j. 6 T o t al C SF T r a n s i t i o n al C o m m u n i ty m e a s u r es Initiatives % T o t al available 24. 068,25 (1) 15. 190,88 1. 978,20 2 0 1 3 , 51 365,39 860,45 680,80 125,92 21. 215,15 (1) 250,90 2 6 0 2 , 20 Total i m p l e m e n t ed % 21. 937,86 (2) 14. 517,77 1. 734,74 1. 606,59 94,50 91,15% 96% SS% S0% 834,87 <)-% 571,86 S4% 125,92 19. 486,26 (2) 100% 92% E R DF E SF E A G GF F I FG 12. 210,59 (2) 8 960,80 1. 332,61 5. 653,22 (2) 2. 890,96 402,13 1. 606,59 3. 588,56 (2) 2. 395,18 485,50 100% 270,83 66% K% '% 26% 94,50 228,39 44,26 10 566,05 (2) 93,97 32,49 5. 120,65 (2) 655,91 249,50 47,74 3. 348,33 (2) 178,97 4% 3% 1,43 1% 451,23 H9% ( 1 ) Not including ECU 750 000 available for anti-fraud measures (2) Not including ECU 59 000 committed for anti-fraud measures (ERDF: ECU 30 000, ESF: ECU 19 000; EAGGF: ECU 10 000) 0% 93,90 S'% 30,98 38,68 10,87 13. 37 0% 2. 357,71 100%, 91% 1. 613,55 493,89 229,37 20,90 Tl% 56% 26% 16% 2% In terms of programming, 1995 saw the adoption ofthe Community Initiative programmes, programmes for the new Member States and a few programmes still to be adopted for the various Objectives. However, these new commitments did not account for the bulk of budget implementation in 1995, which was rather the reflection of the implementation of the national initiative assistance programmes (CSFs/SPDs) decided on in 1994. The fact that implementation was spread over two years explains the failure to use all the commitment appropriations, with 91% (ECU 21 938 million) ofthe appropriations available used in the current programming period. The preparation and adoption of the programming documents towards the end of 1994 had an impact on budget implementation in 1995, since the requirement that 40% of the annual instalment for the previous year has to be used before the next annual instalment can be committed generates a degree of inertia, with lack of implementation in 1994 acting as a drag on 1995. This inertia is amplified by the system of SPDs under which, while it is true that the first annual instalment can be committed more quickly, the amounts in question are greater than those in CSF operational programmes so that a higher level of implementation has to be achieved before the next instalment can be committed. Implementation varies considerably from one Objective to another. Only Objective 6 was fully implemented, through the adoption of a very small number of programmes. Over 95% of the appropriations for Objectives 1 and 5(a) were committed and Objectives 2 and 5(b) were around the 85% mark. Only Objectives 3 and 4 encountered substantial difficulties in implementing the commitment appropriations (80% and 26% respectively). However, in general terms these were largely 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 187 offset by the fact that Objective 1, for which the rate of commitment in 1995 was fairly satisfactory with ECU 673 million out of ECU 15 190 million remaining unused, by itself accounts for two thirds of commitments for 1995, with the share taken by the other Objectives ranging from 0. 4% (Objective 4) to 8% (Objective 2). Turning to other assistance, total commitment appropriations for the Community Initiatives (excluding appropriations carried over and made available again) totalled ECU 2 358 million, leaving ECU 244. 5 million (9% ofthe appropriations available in 1995) unused. This made up to a considerable extent for the delay in 1994, as can be seen from the proportion of commitments for 1995 represented by the Community Initiatives (almost 11%). Table 114: Payments in 1995 (excluding carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) T O T AL C SF O b j. 1 O b j. 2 O b j. 3 O b j. 4 O b j. 5(a) O b j. 5(b) O b j. 6 Total C SF T r a n s i t i o n al C o m m u n i ty m e a s u r es Initiatives % T o t al available 20. 678,79 (1) 12 550,17 2 252,60 1. 756,76 188,20 892,13 948,90 76,24 18. 664,99(1) 376,65 1. 585,15 T o t al i m p l e m e n t ed % 16. 919,60 (2) 11. 877,54 1. 091,05 1. 474,72 81,82% 95% 48% 84% 54,11 29% 696,53 '8% 437,85 46% 62,96 15. 694,77 (2) 83% 84% 183,87 49% 1. 040,96 100% 66%, E R DF E SF E A G GF F I FG 9. 176,33 ( 2) 7. 379,71 815,62 4. 836,37 ( 2) 2. 647,30 275,43 1. 474,72 54,11 2. 644,44 (2) 1. 694,82 262,46 100% 155,71 70% 6% 9% 0% 156,12 74,72 22,13 8 373,58 (2) 16,25 4. 542,53 (2) 604,90 207,02 23,87 2. 530,60 (2) 91,63 4% }% 0,72 0% 248,05 93%, 82,32 4 6 , 7! 42,06 12,77 1%, 720,42 54%, 247,14 71,77 1,63 6% 29% 16% 2% (1) Excluding ECU 765 000 for anti-fraud measures and ECU 522 million in the reserve for earlier measures (2) Excluding ECU 126 000 for anti-fraud measures (ERDF: ECU 37 000; ESF: ECU 81 000; EAGGF: ECU 8 000), ECU 279 098 000 in the reserve for earlier measures and ECU 16 012 000 for the former GDR. Payment appropriations implemented in 1995 totalled ECU 16 920 million, 82% of the ECU 20 679 million available. Appropriations unused therefore totalled ECU 3 759 million. This means that implementation of programmes is still fairly poor in view ofthe fact that they had only been adopted over the period end-1994 to 1995. It should be stressed that Community payments reflect the implementation of programmes at national level since, when the programme has been adopted, the corresponding annual instalment committed and the first advance paid, the Commission cannot make a second payment until the Member State can certify that expenditure amounting to at least half the first advance has actually been incurred by the final beneficiaries. In the case of programmes adopted in mid- 1995 or at the end ofthe year it was therefore difficult to make the payments originally entered in the budget. Rates of payment vary much more between the various Objectives than do rates of commitment. Only in the case of Objective 1 did the rate of implementation of available appropriations approach 95%. Those for the other Objectives either hovered around 80% (Objectives 3, 5(a) and 6) or fell below 50% (Objectives 2 and 5(b)) or even 30% (Objective 4). Once again, the fact that Objective 1 accounts for 70% of all payment appropriations explains the overall rate of implementation of 82%. Implementation of payment appropriations for the Community Initiatives (66%) reflects the fact that 1995 was the year when the programmes were approved and actual implementation had not yet begun fully. The above paragraphs refer to the implementation of appropriations for the second programming period entered in the 1995 budget for the first time, that is, excluding appropriations carried over and made available again. However, appropriations carried over and made available again from 1994 to 1995 ' represent only a limited proportion of total budget implementation (ECU 339. 1 million). They comprise 1 Usually, commitment or payment appropriations not implemented at the end ofthe financial year for which they have been entered are cancelled. However, a decision to carry them over, to the next financial year only, may be taken in the following cases: for commitment appropriations, when they relate to commitments which are going to be made before 31 March of the following year; for payment appropriations, when the appropriations authorized are exhausted. Furthermore, commitments not used in a particular year are normally decommitted, which means they are cancelled. However, commitment appropriations may be made available again in order to carry out the programme originally planned. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) ECU 4. 6 million for the ESF under Objective 2 (fully implemented) and, more importantly, ECU 313. 6 million for the Community Initiatives (ERDF: ECU 268. 9 million; ESF: ECU 18. 3 million; EAGGF: ECU 20. 6 million; FIFG: ECU 1. 2 million) with ECU 20. 9 million (ESF: ECU 18 million) for innovative and transitional measures. In total, during 1995 ECU 331. 6 million out of a total of ECU 339. 1 million (98%) was committed from appropriations carried over or made available again. A considerable volume of payments was also made for assistance decided on before 1994, i. e. corresponding to the first programming period (1989-93) or even earlier. These totalled ECU 1 835 million, of which ECU 1 551 million corresponds to commitments for 1989-93. These are payments still being made normally for the completion of assistance under the first period. It should be noted that, while commitments for that assistance had to be made before the end of 1993 (unless the programmes were extended), the Member States normally had two years (up to 31 December 1995) to make payments to the final beneficiaries and a further six months (up to 30 June 1996) to send certificates of expenditure to the Commission. The Commission's payments in 1995 reflect the closure of programmes from the first programming period. Table 115: Payments in 1995 in respect of assistance prior to the second programming period (including carry overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) ERDF ' 736,81 549,09 ES F 2 7 9 , 99 2 7 8 , 00 O B J E C T I V E! EAGGF (D 75,50 F i s h e r i es 133,40 15,88 r%. c T o l i l sï 1. 68é,3ô (ij 976,37 0,00 34,84 80,05 50,83 0,03 242,74 5,20 (3) 0,00 90,88 13,14 0,27 91,49 30,00 (3 25,90 41,80 13,40 9,50 8,60 1,10 (3) 0,92 6,83 0,00 4,71 0,75 36,30 61,65 219,55 77,37 14,50 343,58 ,Ï 3 E R &. E 2; O B J E C T I VE 1 tiï. -ESF. ;;. 21,06 524,25 Total. 245,25 224,25 15,41 0,44 80,65 17,85 23,25 14,73 5,19 9,19 20,53 3,39 0,29 5,21 0,15 11,01 0,49 0,00 0,00 244,78 18,80 0,73 85,86 18,01 34,26 15,21 5,19 9,19 O B J. 3 ESF 198,11 198,11 16,89 17,36 27,22 14,1 1 0,00 83,84 0,00 0,00 O B J E C T I VE 5(a) F i i h e r ie : EAGGF 0) 8,56 8,05 0,07 0,10 1,27 1,80 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,28 T o t al 8,50 (2) 57,55 4,27 0,10 7,17 2,90 2 0 , 70 1 1,60 0,10 4,08 49,5 4,2 0,0 5,9 1,1 20,7 1 1,6 0,1 2,8 139,73 0,86 77,03 0,00 2,30 1,90 1,25 0,34 220,31 3,10 57,53 0,00 57,53 38,70 3,1 3,53 6,63 < 1994 1 9 8 9 - 1 9 93 B DK. D EL E F IRL 1 L N P UK OBJECTIVE 5(b) "EST- EAGGF TTJT ( i) 17,3i 0,96 0,00 10,70 ERDF 20,86 T o t al 38,17 (2) ERDF 975,92 "EST" 516,42 T99"T 1,26 3,78 0,28 2,93 2,20 17,80 20,86 1,05 0,21 0,45 36,16 2,80 0,00 3,60 T4TTT 4,81 0,21 14,76 1989- B DK D EL E F IRL I L N P UK (I ) It is not p ossible to break d o wn by O bjective E A G GF p ay ment s in resp ect of com m it ment s before 1989. (2) Excluding E A G GF p a y m e n ts (see above). (3) F o r m er G DR (heading B 2-1 900). (4) No p a y m e nt w as made under O bjective 4. 794,19 16,47 0,65 81,1 1 34,84 98,18 77,01 0,03 269,93 5,19 10,10 139,73 60,96 12,46 0,00 0,90 21,18 0,00 2,50 0,62 0,00 0,00 8,10 0,00 1,60 3,73 24,51 0,00 0,00 2,57 2,57 513,96 21,23 17,65 48,33 0,00 106,39 27,93 0,27 176,43 0,00 0,00 77,03 38,70 TOTAL <4> E A G GF 221,76 219,66 7,00 0,00 39,50 25,90 45,10 51,90 9,50 28,30 0,10 4,40 2,30 5,00 I F i s h e r ie 82,92 1TJT 0,07 0,10 2,37 0,92 8,63 0,00 4,71 0,75 0,00 1,2 8 1,25 3,87 T o t al 1. 835,13 1. 551,09 44,77 18,40 171,31 6 1 , 65 2 5 8 , 31 156,84 14,50 475,41 5,29 15,78 220,31 108,52 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 189 Table 116: Appropriations outstanding at 31 December 1995 (ECU million) Total aéstanàng comtitncnts end 1995 1995 commtncnts outstanding 1994contritments outstanding Comnitmcntsfrom hrforel994 outstanding Obj. l ObjJ ObjJ Obj. 4 Obj. 5(a) 0bj. 5(b) Obj. 6 ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG 13. 776^6 8. 723,20 2. 631,38 1. 828,05 593,72 2. 694,83 1. 484,88 174,95 974,19 2. 202,91 491,92 1. 484,88 174,95 784,73 189,46 7. 539,44 4. 682,46 1. 092,77 838,39 635,63 6802 617,29 254,38 635,63 68,22 828,% 718,46 110,51 773,10 646,06 127,03 313,84 106,74 313,84 106,74 535,41 0,00 535,41 0,00 1. 345,99 1. 262,87 248,12 1021,43 1. 415,48 367,73 174,78 63,45 4. 215,49 2625,26 917,67 390,40 282,16 491,83 125,46 192,49 151,81 40,68 164,41 141,09 23,32 923,10 377,22 143,44 402,44 332,00 136,31 50,85 144,84 118,89 90,00 28,89 472,22 150,91 63,70 257,61 0,00 62,96 22,13 16,25 23,87 0,72 62,96 22,13 16,25 23,87 0,72 - - - Total Objectives 20. 091,27 11. 325,46 4. 942,83 3. 039,09 783,90 10. 34831 5679,29 2. 371,31 1923,41 374,29 3. 582,34 2. 223,93 927,70 326,58 104,13 6. 160,63 3. 422,24 1. 643,82 789,10 305,48 Community Initiatives 2. 704,155 Transit measures 377,58 Former COR Anti- fraud 254,32 0,05 TOTAL end 1995 23. 427,87 % 100°/. 1. 608,77| 51,46 0,00 0,02 11008,56 51% 120,22 86,69 0,00 0,03 3. 789,28 16% 975,66 239,42 254,32 0,00 7. 630,03 33% The increase in commitment appropriations available arising both from the Edinburgh undertakings and carryovers from 1994, and the failure to use all the payment appropriations has an immediate impact on the payment appropriations outstanding at the end ofthe year. The rate of settlement in 1995 was 46%, as compared with 54% in 1994, which means that total appropriations outstanding rose from ECU 15 000 million in 1993 to ECU 23 428 million in 1995. However, the increase was due to a lower rate of settlement during the current year (1995, but this is also true for 1994) rather than a slowdown in the settlement of appropriations committed in previous years. At the end of 1995, when the programmes were being closed, outstanding appropriations relating to the first programming period amounted to one third. As a result ofthe closure in 1995 of a very large number of programmes from the first period, the rate of settlement of appropriations committed in previous years has increased. Taking all Objectives and Funds together, payments have been made in respect of 85% of the appropriations committed in 1992 and 1993. The shares of each Fund in the total appropriations outstanding at the end of 1995 are as follows: ERDF: 56%; ESF: 25%; EAGGF: 15%; FIFG 4%. These figures are fairly similar to those for 1994 (ERDF: 56%; ESF: 27%; EAGGF: 13%; FIFG 4%). They differ, however, from those for the first programming period in that the share ofthe ERDF has fallen considerably (from 68% in 1989 and 56% in 1993) while that ofthe EAGGF has increased (from 11% in 1989 and 13% in 1993). The share ofthe ESF rose between 1989 and 1995 but fell between 1993 and 1995 (20% in 1989, 27% in 1993); this was also true of appropriations for fisheries (0. 5% in 1989, 5% in 1993). 1. 2. Implementation of each Fund in 1995 in the context of 1994-99 The aim of this section is to look at the implementation of appropriations for 1994-99 excluding implementation for previous years. It therefore includes appropriations not implemented in 1994 and carried over to the 1995 budget. The share of each Fund in the total implementation ofthe Structural Funds varies slightly depending on the type of appropriations even though the proportions remain the same (see Tables 113 and 114). The share ofthe ERDF is about 55%) but is slightly higher in the case of commitment appropriations (55. 7%) and slightly lower for payment appropriations (54. 2%). The position with regard to the EAGGF is similar: its share in the work of the Structural Funds is about 16%, 16. 4% for commitment appropriations and 15. 6% for payment appropriations. The same is true of the FIFG (2. 2% for commitment appropriations, 1. 5% for payment appropriations). By contrast, the ESF has proved more dynamic in implementing payments (28. 6% ofthe Funds as a whole) than commitments (25. 8% ofthe Funds as a whole). 190 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 117: Implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) Available 1 9 9 5 ( 1) (a) Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4 Obj. 5(a)A Obj. 5(a)F Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (2) (b) C o m m i t m e n ts 1995 21. 219,78 14. 513,10 1. 739,37 1. 567,90 94,50 655,07 177,02 571,86 125,92 T o t al •/. (2)/(l) B DK D EL E F IRL IT L N AT P FI SE UK 8,97 2. 022,55 2. 653,04 4. 778,90 222,47 954,21 2. 228,63 17,20 28,80 1. 379,72 218,60 4,63 6,00 38,01 659,21 313,09. 9,15 54,15 - 31,10 105,78 518,25 33,39 41,00 48,22. 206,97 396,80. 3,29 143,83 64,06 - 60,33 73,00 497,00 - 5,00 -. 62,70 -. 0,27 - 11,70 - 14,83 - - 30,23 16,73 165,14. 21,09 252,08. 22,37 5,47 4,88 61,50 - 61,42 13,73 22,80 - 23,28 12,46 19,90 31,62. 9,16 3,36 135,77 88,58' 110,46. 31,50 0,89 1,40 2,00 23,00 40,00 0,11 7,31 78,33 32,81 - 74,59 P a y m e n ts 1995 81,00 44,92 19. 444,74 9 2% 86,38 95,37 2. 422,15 2. 653,04 5. 837,35 1. 326,52 954,21 2. 282,50 9,92 183,77 300,54 1. 379,72 304,49 277,43 1. 331,35 A v a i l a b le 1995 ( l ) ( c) Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4 0bj. 5(a)A Obj. 5(a)F Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 T o t al (2) (d). 62,96 81,02 54,11 885,91 363,41 554,63 1. 349,82 10. 794,61 29,57 18. 932,14 447,96 145,06 - 2,50 - 1. 251,97 1. 705,79 1,29 18,63 9,93 11,75 8,35 32,52 4,58 2,45 71,21 42,33 39,04 104,48 12,74 16,49 160,90. 3. 779,30 140,37 856,47 1. 176,13 T o t al %(2)/(l) B DK D EL E F IRL IT L N AT P FI SE UK (a) Not including ECU 750 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures. (b) Not including ECU 59 000 in commitment appropriations for anti-fraud measures. (c) Not including ECU 765 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures and a reserve of ECU 522 million for prior measures. (d) Not including ECU 126 000 in payment appropriations for anti-fraud measures, a reserve of ECU 279 098 000 for prior measures. 4,00 142,57 32,03. 30,17 36,50 436,17. 0,21 - 5,85. 7,42 - -. 2,01 1,96 30,75. 15,75 - 2,33 0,20 9,56 14,40 1. 667,23 27,64 242,14. 15,55 38,06 152,96 30,71 6,86 22,43 6,90 12,00 4,43 0. 21 9,45 39,16 15. 94 - 46. 39 169,65 312,88 81,69 76,57 12,30 21,42 38,13 - - 25,31 163,81. 40,50 22,46 and ECU 16 012 000 for the former GDR. 14. 146,47 7 5% 102,26 87,46 1. 631,01 1. 705,79 4. 544,37 942,33 856,47 1. 191,88 6,43 178,17 143,81 1. 667,23 147,19 115,88 826,18 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 191 ERDF Table 118: ERDF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) Available (1) Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (2) Commitments 1995 Obj. l Obj. 2 0bj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (*) 9. 021,26 1. 332,64 285,95 44,26 10. 684,11 8. 960,80 - 1. 332,61 - 228,39 - 44,26 1,97 921,90 1. 812,99 3. 202,10 96,22 498,13 1. 558,98 10,00 19,96 709,83 128,71 0,00 6,00 20,33 545,10 261,90 0,00 0,00 0,09 38,91 24,80 83. 22 352,26 4,82 3,36 49,48 25,22 45,02 12,41 0,00 1,94 33,34 16,03 0,00 36,78 22,40 21,86 8. 960,80 1. 332,61 228,39 44,26 10. 566,06 6,79 9,36 991,71 1. 812,99 3. 772,42 403,14 498,13 1. 571,39 0,00 12,03 92,21 709,83 63,23 105,08 517,75 /o (2)/(l) 99% 100% 80% 100% 99% Payments 1995 Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total 6. 651,15 - 20,77 452,44 1. 131,50 2. 517,66 37,65 391,45 878,35 4,29 9,98 1. 123. 93 83,14 611,01 - 9,43 8,35 15,63 395,86 98,97 0,00 0,00 7,77 13. 80 12,40 26,78 22,03 135,13 - 22,13 2,41 2,45 15,54 26,00 27,77 6,20 0,21 7,40 16,67 7,78 0,00 22,68 11,20 10,93 6. 651,15 611,01 135,13 22,13 7. 419,42 32,61 10,80, 483,61 1. 131,50 2. 939,51 164,38 391,45 884,55 0,21 19,46 40,45 1. 123,93 31,38 37,71 127. 85 (*) Not including ECU 300 000 in available appropriations ECU 30 000 in commitments and ECU 37 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures Total implementation of ERDF appropriations in 1995 amounted to ECU 12 211 million in commitments and ECU 9 176 million in payments (see Tables 113 and 114). For the CSFs/SPDs (budget heading B2-120), it amounted to ECU 10 566 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 8 374 million in payment appropriations, rates of implementation of 99% and 87% of the total allocations (after adoption ofthe supplementary and amending budget and transfers of appropriations). Some of these payment appropriations relate to periods prior to 1994. Payments for 1994-99 alone amounted to ECU 7 419 million. The operations concerning the CSFs/SPDs accounted for 87% ofthe commitment appropriations and 91%» ofthe payment appropriations in the ERDF. A significant proportion ofthe commitments in 1995 arose directly from the adoption of new forms of assistance, mainly in Italy and the three new Member States. However, by the end of 1995 virtually all the assistance planned for Objectives 1, 2 and 6 had been adopted. Implementation of Objective 1 had made good progress, as reflected by a high capacity to absorb commitment appropriations (over 99% of the available appropriations). The initial allocation of commitment appropriations (including the supplementary budget) to the heading for the ERDF (B2-1200) was boosted by a further ECU 627 million from ERDF allocations available in the headings for other Objectives (2, 5(b) and 6). In contrast, the original allocations for the ERDF under the other Objectives proved excessive. Hence, besides the transfer for Objective 1 mentioned above, a transfer of ECU 130 million was made from Objective 2 to the Leader Initiative as part ofthe annual general transfer process. In the case of payment appropriations, Objective 1 accounted for ECU 6 651 million during the period 1994-99; there too, the implementation rate was 99% ofthe appropriations available. However, the lower capacity for absorption of payment appropriations of Objectives 2 and 5(b) and the lack of alternative outlets meant that ECU 1 253 remained unused at the end ofthe year. In the case ofthe Community Initiatives, implementation of ERDF appropriations (budget heading B2- 14), including appropriations carried over and made available again, amounted to ECU 1 882 million in commitments and ECU 928 million in payments, 96% and 70% respectively ofthe total allocations after the supplementary and amending budget and transfers. Taking appropriations for 1995 alone (excluding appropriations carried over and made available again), the Community Initiatives represented ECU 1 614 million in commitments (13% ofthe activity ofthe ERDF) and ECU 720. 4 million in payments (8%). 192 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) All the commitment appropriations in the ERDF allocations for regional Initiatives (Interreg, Peace, Regis, the industrial conversion Initiatives, Urban, SMEs) were implemented and, with a few exceptions, all the commitments reflected the adoption of new programmes. A large volume of these commitments arose from assistance for which a single commitment was made (programmes for which assistance amounted to less than the prescribed limit of ECU 40 million). This significantly increased the capacity to absorb commitment appropriations and resulted in an increase in the ERDF allocation of ECU 552 million, partly through the annual general transfer which released appropriations from the headings for the CSFs/SPDs but mainly through transfers within the Community Initiatives chapter from allocations to the ESF. In the case of the Employment and Adapt Initiatives, it should be noted that ERDF participation in these programmes was lower than expected when the budget was drawn up so that ERDF allocations in both commitment and payment appropriations proved excessive. The initial allocation of payment appropriations for the Community Initiatives in 1995 was too high because very few programmes were adopted in 1994 so that commitment appropriations were underused in that year. This meant that only part ofthe commitment appropriations for 1994 could be used and this had an effect on the payment appropriations for 1995. Implementation of transitional measures and ERDF innovative measures in 1995 (budget heading B2- 1820) amounted to ECU 31 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 82. 3 million in payment appropriations, 23% and 40% respectively of the original allocation (after the amending budget and transfers). This budget heading finances measures adopted by the Commission under Articles 7 and 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation and Article 16 ofthe Coordination Regulation. To ensure the greatest possible transparency in the adoption of these measures, the Commission decided in 1995 to apply a specific procedure. 2 However, late adoption ofthe procedure meant that the calls for projects had to be held over to 1996 and so the appropriations for those measures could not be used in 1995. ESF Table 119: ESF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) Available (1) Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj 3 Obj. 4 Obj 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (2) Commitments 1995 Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj 4 Obj 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (*) 3503,61 650,19 2013,51 365,39 145,35 32,49 6710,54 2. 886,29 -. - - 406,76 - 1 567,90 - - 94,50 93,97 - 32,49 4,63 0,00 17,68 33,39 41,00 48. 22 0,00 5,00 0,00 114,11 51,19 206,97 396,80 62,70 0,00 0,00 0,00 9,06 15,24 6,30 22,56 165,99 0,00 3,29 143,83 64,06 60,33 73,00 497,00 0,00 0,27 0,00 11,70 14,83 0,00 - 1,55 0,00 5,10 5,30 29,73 3,27 0,00 0,92 13,68 5,18 0,00 29,24 5. 00 5,04 370,86 21,10 11,39 2. 886,29 406,76 1. 567,90 94,50 93,97 32,49 5. 081,91 39,57 46,00 677,05 368,56 226,83 593,36 295,13 226,66 3,56 158,81 109,72 370,86 107,74 106,95 751,10 % (2)/(1) 82% 63% 78% 26% 65% 100% 76% Obj. l Obj 2 Obj 3 Obj. 4 Obj 5(b) Obj 6 Total Payments 1995 2. 470,76 - - 274,90. - 1. 349,82 - 54,11 57. 40 - 16,25 7. 41 476,56 253,46 765,90 95,74 293,97 80,79 3,46 2,52 437,67 2,32 0,00 16,89 42,33 39. 04 104,48 52,10 46. 09 169,65 312. 88 0,00 0,00 4,53 7,62 3,15 11,28 130. 93 0. 00 4. 00 142,57 32,03 30. 17 36. 50 436. 17 00 50 00 13 ,00 00. 21 ,00 ,85 0,77 0,00 4. 26 3. 21 18,21 1,64 0,00 0,46 6,84 2,59 0,00 19,42 10,55 5,70 2. 470,76 274,90 1. 349,82 54,11 57,40 16,25 4. 223,24 52,83 41,54 602,19 253,46 1 028,99 472,92 293,97 82,43 4,21 151,02 54,86 437,67 53,88 53,48 639,79 (*) Not including ECU 200 000 in available appropriations, ECU 19 000 in commitments and ECU 81 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures During 1995 the ESF implemented ECU 5 653 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 4 836 million in payment appropriations (see Tables 113 and 114). In the case of commitment appropriations, this represents a rate of 76% ofthe total available of ECU 6 710 million. The CSFs/SPDs for 1994-99 (budget heading B2-130) contain ECU 5 082 million in commitment appropriations (90% of the ESF's commitments in 1995). Ofthe total committed, ECU 4. 6 million corresponds to commitments carried over from 1994 to 1995, all of which were implemented. This substantial under-implementation, 2 See Chapter I. B. 2 Innovative measures and technical assistance. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 93 which varies depending on the Objective and the Member State, may be explained by the following factors: • under-implementation ofthe instalment of commitments for 1995 (ECU 1 448 million) was caused primarily by delays in taking a large number of decisions and hence in implementation with consequent reprogramming to later years. In some cases, the situation was also aggravated by local problems of coordinating assistance from different Funds to multi-fund programmes; taking all the Objectives together, the total 1995 instalments ofthe original financing plans, which constitute what the ESF should have implemented without any reprogramming, amounted to ECU 6 529 million. This meant that the ECU 6 710 million entered in the 1995 budget represented a surplus of some ECU 181 million. • Under-implementation was particularly marked in Italy (28% of commitments for the 1995 instalment were implemented), Belgium (35%) and Germany (66%). These rates vary considerably from one Objective to another: only 24% ofthe 1995 instalment of appropriations for Objective 4 was committed in that year while the rate for Objective 1 was 86%, for Objective 3 76%, for Objective 2 74% and for Objective 5(b) 57% despite the fact that a single instalment for certain SPDs and OPs adopted in 1995 under Objectives 2 and 5(b) was committed. Only in the case of Objective 6 were the appropriations fully committed. ECU 4 223 million in payment appropriations was committed in respect of 1994-99 (94% of total ESF payments). The overall implementation rate for the CSFs/SPDs, including payments for periods before 1994,was 81% ofthe appropriations available. ECU 1117 million was not implemented. The Community Initiatives (B2-140) contained ECU 493. 9 million in ESF commitments (9% ofthe total) and ECU 247. 1 million in payment appropriations (5%). The rate of implementation was 82% for commitment appropriations and 46% for payment appropriations. Here too, the situation varied depending on the Initiative. Among the "human resources" Initiatives, commitment appropriations for Adapt were fully implemented and payment appropriations implemented at 86% because all the programmes were adopted in 1995. In the case of Employment, only 80%) of the commitment appropriations available and 32% of the payment appropriations were used, leaving ECU 26 million unused at the end of 1995. The main reason was that five programme decisions were carried over to 1996. For the other Initiatives in which the ESF was involved, the rate of implementation was only 56% for commitment appropriations and 33% for payment appropriations. The reasons are as follows: • • there are some 300 Community Initiative programmes; the ESF participates in 230 of them. With such a large number of programmes, some holdups in management and monitoring are inevitable; these problems are aggravated by the fact that, despite the Commission's efforts, the programmes were adopted at the end of 1995 (it proved very difficult to plan activities); • unlike the other two Funds, the ESF Regulation requires the Member States to submit applications for assistance electronically. The departments responsible for the ESF in the Member States were informed of this late or proved reluctant to accept this requirement. In the case ofthe innovative measures under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation (ECU 38. 7 million, or 0. 6%) of total commitments), all the ECU 18 million in commitment appropriations carried over from 1994 was implemented. However, it was impossible to take the decisions required on 61 projects representing a total of ECU 26. 8 million by the end of 1995 so this amount had to be carried over to 1996. 194 EAGGF 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Table 120: EAGGF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) Available (1) Obj. l Obj. 5(a) Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (2) Commitments 1995 Obj. l Obj. 5(a) 0bj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (*) 2395,18 681,48 249,50 47,74 3373,90 2. 395,18 655,07 - 249,50 - 47,74 2. 395,18 655,07 249,50 47,74 3. 347,49 Obj. l 1. 591,42 % (2)/(l) 100% 96% 100% 100% 99% Payments 1995 Obj. 5(a) Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 554,63 - 170,89 - 23,87 1,39 7,00 21,10 252,08 2,79 0,00 81,19 30,23 16,73 165,13 482,60 452,19 571,12 9,50 154,76 411,69 B DK D EL E F IRL I L N AT P 5,56 FI 0,00 SE 4,29 UK (*) Not including ECU 200 000 in available appropriations, ECU 10 000 in commitments and ECU 8 000 in payments for anti-fraud 40,02 16,73 728,92 452,19 650,28 297,28 154,76 427,52 5,47 9,34 96,60 275,10 109,82 24,66 58,79 314,87 315,50 454,79 6,12 167,06 216,99 15,83 0,00 4,45 31,30 0,00 5,47 4,89 61,50 0,00 2. 01 1,96 30,75 0,00 3,80 275,10 12,74 16,49 160,90 7,91 0,00 1,59 15,65 1,40 0,00 51,41 61,42 13,72 22,80 30,71 6,86 22,43 0,53 1,90 86,53 11,60 0,00 8,57 27,64 242,14 36,80 10,94 52,48 30,59 58,06 35,70 27,42 25,75 18,40 5,47 Total 1. 591,42 554,63 170,89 23,87 2. 340,81 15,53 16,49 527,18 315,50 534,91 278,85 167,06 224,90 2,01 4,08 48,30 86,53 54,67 12,33 52,47 measures. Commitment appropriations under the EAGGF Guidance Section implemented in 1995 amounted to ECU 3 589 million and payment appropriations to ECU 2 644 million (see Tables 113 and 114) - the implementation rates were 97% and 83%> ofthe appropriations available. During 1995 ECU 183 million in commitment appropriations was transferred from the EAGGF to the other Funds. This concerned primarily the Community Initiatives, which had needs arising from programmes approved during the year but not known when appropriations were entered in the budget. Only a small amount (ECU 32. 5 million) of payment appropriations was transferred from the EAGGF to the other Funds. Of the appropriations implemented in 1995, those for the CSFs/SPDs (B2-100) amounted to ECU 3 347 million for commitments (93%o ofthe total for the EAGGF) and to ECU 2 530 million for payments (96%). 99% of these appropriations was committed. Implementation left ECU 94. 9 million unused. This amount concerns: • Objective 5(a), with ECU 25. 6 million (4% ofthe appropriations available) not used because of late • • approval of two marketing programmes for Austria and Italy; the Community Initiatives, with ECU 49 million unused including ECU 29. 8 million (16% ofthe available appropriations) for Leader, where the rate of implementation is the consequence of certain Member States preferring to use the system of commitments in annual instalments rather than a single commitment ofthe whole amount although the appropriations available had been calculated on the basis of single instalments for all the Member States. In the case of the other Initiatives with which the EAGGF is concerned, appropriations allocated outstripped needs in the financing plans and, in any case, there was a delay in adopting the programmes; transitional ineasures (ECU 20. 3 million or 65% of the appropriations available unused). Commitments for measures under Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation were virtually zero (ECU 600 000 compared with forecasts of over ECU 20 million) because of delays in the prior appraisal of projects. The rate of implementation of payment appropriations (83%, leaving ECU 553 million unused) was due to the low level of implementation of programmes in the first period, which were not closed as planned. This was true of Objective 5(b) (ECU 36. 1 million paid or 16% ofthe ECU 228 million outstanding at the beginning of 1995) and of programmes for marketing and processing under Objective 5(a) (ECU 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 95 94 million paid or 22% ofthe ECU 431 million outstanding at the beginning of 1995). Because of this situation, the Commission approved an extension to the deadline for payments for these programmes. Implementation ofthe EAGGF varied considerably from one Objective to another. Objective 1 is still the most important (72% of commitments under the CSFs/SPDs and 68% of payments) and overall it demonstrates a certain dynamism in the absorption of appropriations (all but two of the programmes under the CSFs were adopted in 1995), although the situation varied from one Member State to another. During 1995, the Objective 1 CSFs set the pace for implementation of EAGGF appropriations since certain Member States (Greece, Spain and Germany) submitted applications to commit the 1996 instalments, which meant that part of the unused appropriations for Objectives 5(a) and 5(b) could be committed. Implementation therefore amounted to ECU 2 395 million as against ECU 2 250 million programmed for the year. As stated above, the Objectives with the lowest rates of implementation were Objectives 5(a) and 5(b). This was due to the fact that most ofthe programmes were approved in November and December 1994 and so the remainder were approved in 1995 (by the end of that year all but two programmes had been approved in the twelve Member States). This meant that the Member States could not apply for commitments and payments in respect ofthe 1995 instalment. In the case of Objective 5(a), commitment appropriations amounted to ECU 655. 1 million, 62% ofthe ECU 1 057 million in the budget. However, this rate should be seen in context since the appropriations available were calculated on the assumption that part ofthe EAGGF reimbursements for expenditure by the Member States in 1993 (the former programming period) would be made in 1995. In fact, all these reimbursements were made in 1994 and implementation ofthe 1995 budget therefore concerned only commitments for the new period. This means that implementation amounting to' ECU 655. 9 million should be compared with the ECU 958 million programmed for the 1995 instalment of the new programmes. This raises the rate of implementation to 68%. This ECU 655. 9 million comprises commitments under "indirect programming" (mainly Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91), which accounted for ECU 578 million, and commitments for marketing and processing measures (Regulation (EEC) No 866/90), which amounted to ECU 78 million. In the first case, appropriations for the three new Member States totalled ECU 129. 7 million (22%) and those for the twelve to ECU 448. 3 million (78%), or 75% of the ECU 594 million available for the twelve in 1995. The reason for this was that implementation in 1994 was lower than programmed in Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands. Ofthe ECU 78 million in commitments for marketing and processing measures, only ECU 8. 4 million (11%) related to commitments from the 1995 instalment (including ECU 6. 9 million for Finland), while the remainder comprised commitments from the 1994 instalments for the new period which had not been approved in 1994 but were approved at the beginning of 1995. The position with regard to the appropriations for Objective 5(b) is similar, with implementation of ECU 249. 5 million (49%) ofthe ECU 507. 5 million originally entered. Of this amount, only ECU 170 million (68%) related to commitments programmed for 1995 and ECU 42. 9 million (25%) of this amount went to Austria and Finland. The remaining ECU 79. 5 million committed in 1995 related to instalments programmed for 1994 and committed at the beginning of 1995 following delays in approving the programmes. The only Member States which committed the 1995 instalments were Spain, Germany (Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate and Schleswig-Holstein), France (a very small number of programmes: Auvergne, Burgundy, Limousin) and the Netherlands (Friesland and Zeeland). Implementation varies considerably from one Member State to another. Consumption of commitments was highest in Germany (ECU 728. 9 million) followed by Spain (ECU 650. 3 million) while in terms of payments the order was reversed (Germany: ECU 527. 2 million; Spain: 534. 9 million). It would, however, be premature to draw conclusions because 1994 and 1995 were years when programmes were approved at different rates depending on the Objectives and the Member States. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that the time lost in certain Member States (France for Objectives 1 and 5(b), Italy and the United Kingdom for Objective 5(b)) may well prove hard to make up in later years. A large 196 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) number of programmes for the new Member States were approved and appropriations committed in 1995 totalled ECU 231. 1 million. Hence all the SPDs for Objectives 1 and 6 and all the "indirect programming" under Objective 5(a) were approved and committed while under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 only appropriations for Finland were committed in 1995 and under Objective 5(b) commitments were made for Austria and Finland. A large number of programmes were approved under the Leader Community Initiative; these amounted to ECU 236 million in commitments (ECU 221 million excluding appropriations carried over and made available again). FIFG Table 121: FIFG implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) Available (1) Obj. l Obj. 5(a) Obj. 6 Total (2) Commitments 1995 Obj. l Obj. 5(a) Obj. 6 Total (*) 270,83 178,97 1,43 451,23 270,83 177,02 1,43 270,83 177,02 1,43 449,28 % (2)/(l) 100% 99% 100% 100% Obj. l 81,27 Payments 1995 Obj. 5(a) Obj. 6 81,02 0,72 Total 81,27 81,02 0,72 163,01 I •. 1. 1 (*) Not including ECU 50 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures 1995 was the second year of programming for the FIFG, except in the three new Member States. In order to monitor carefully the actual implementation of programmes on the spot, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1796/95 of 25 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of assistance granted by the FIFG. All the commitment appropriations entered in the budget were used and some commitments had to be held over to the 1996 budget. Total commitments for the FIFG amounted to ECU 485. 5 million (see Table 113), including ECU 449. 3 under the CSFs/SPDs (93% of the work ofthe FIFG). Payments in 1995 amounted to ECU 262. 5 million, including ECU 163 million for the CSFs/SPDs for 1994-99, 94% of FIFG payments. In the case ofthe Pesca Initiative, 1995 was the second year of programming for the seven programmes adopted at the end of 1994 and the first for the others (Netherlands, France, Italy, United Kingdom). In 1995 ECU 28. 2 million ofthe ECU 45 million in the budget was committed. The appropriations not implemented in 1995 concerned the ERDF and the ESF while those for the FIFG were committed in full (ECU 20. 7 million). Only ECU 5. 3 million out of ECU 31. 9 million in payment appropriations was paid out (ECU 600 000 to the Netherlands, ECU 2. 2 million to Italy and ECU 2. 5 million to the United Kingdom). Late adoption of the programmes and complex management mechanisms may explain the low level of consumption of Pesca appropriations compared with the previous period. A solution should be found to these problems in 1996. The shortfall of ECU 24 million in commitment appropriations will have to be recovered in the budgets for 1997-99. To simplify management, the three Objective 5(a) FIFG programmes for the new Member States were committed in a single instalment. Decisions for two other programmes were amended to permit 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 197 commitment in a single instalment. Six programmes had to be reprogrammed to take account of delays in implementing 1994. These concerned Italy (Objectives 1 and 5(a)), the United Kingdom (Objective 5(a)) and the Netherlands (Objective 5(a)). The Objective 1 programme in Germany was reprogrammed because appropriations were used more quickly than had originally been expected. 2. Implementation of programming for 1994-99 2. 1. Implementation 1994-95 Table 122: Implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) Available 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ( 1) (a) Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4 Obj. 5(a)A Obj. 5(a)F Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (2)(b) C o m m i t m e n ts 1994-95 T o t al V. (2)/(l) B DK D EL E F IRL IT L N AT P FI SE UK 40. 266,37 27. 268,56 3. 796,91 3. 357,11 363,63 1. 387,32 313,45 1. 181,25 125,92 107,00 3. 892,08 4. 572,22 8. 317,41 497,67 1. 709,66 3. 024,80 37,20 28,80 4. 549,40 532,32 62,16 30,29 286,85 659,21 904,39 299,95 7,97 105,02 54,15 - 31,10 105,78 1. 250,05 97,76 85,00 307,77. 426,59 778,40. 200,47 6,46 282,27 64,06 - 60,33 73,00 975,00 4,63 6,00 29,61. 118,10 95,39. 60,61 0,53 22,23 11,70 - 14,83 - - 53,03 38,67 322,72. 77,41 518,73. 117,47 12,22 25,27 61,50 61,42 13,72 85,16. 4,08 46,59 24,87 39,83 63,27 44,77 1,10 9,16 2,00 23,00 40,00 14,78. 9,16 9,79 261,74 162,09 373,18 107,00 0,84 25,61 78,33 32,81 - 120,70 81,00 44,92 37. 794,15 9 4% 337,82 216,34 5. 125,65 4. 572,22 9. 800,64 3. 231,03 1. 709,66 3. 855,07 29,12 506,76 300,54 4. 549,40 304,49 277,42 2. 978,01 A v a i l a b le 1994-95 ( l ) ( c) Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Payments 1994-95 Obj. 5(a)A Obj. 4 Obj. 5(a)F Obj. 5(b) O b j. 6| Total (2) (d) T o t al 35. 529,48 17. 754,80 1. 877,84 2. 407,64 188,68 730,60 149,28 661,85 62,96 79,77 2,32 3,00 14,81 3,33 30,29 16,13 29,31 19,99 156,94 74,51 74,24 234,26 16,51 19,19 209,82 2. 470,05 2. 791,66 5. 549,60 279,66 1. 399,16 1. 555,47 %(2)/(D B DK D EL E F IRL IT L N AT P FI SE UK (a) Not including ECU 1 500 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures and ECU 44 232 000 under heading B2-1000 100,23 5,59 253,32 32,03 19,63 14,40 3. 264,05 149,97 3,99 52,51 21,42 53,50 0,42 12,56 39,16 30,31 0,34 11,12 5,85 58,73 5,37 12,15 30,75 11,20 0,11 6,21 0,20 30,17 36,50 818,57 15,55 38,06 518,85 4,58 5,66 134,20 30,71 6,86 41,73 6,90 12,00 11,82 447,96 423,29 118,44 207,93 244,54 503,68 55,81 242,97 9,97 41,13 65,83 47,70 331,36 69,45 15,94 7,42 40,50 22,46 23. 833,64 6 7% 210,34 152,37 3. 236,20 2. 791,66 6. 492,14 1. 746,36 1. 399,16 1. 959,41 15,81 367,50 143,81 3. 264,05 147,19 115,88 1. 791,78 (Structural actions directly linked to markets policy) not allocated by Objective in 1994. (b) Not including ECU 174 000 in commitment appropriations for anti-fraud measures, and for Objective 5(a) for agriculture, ECU 43,65 million under heading B 2 - 1 0 00 and ECU 356,6 million of reimbursements under reg. (EEC) No 2328/91 (in 1994 only). (c) Not including ECU 990 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures, ECU 61 million under heading B2-1000 not allocated by Objective in 1994 and a reserve of ECU 522 million for prior measures. (d) Not including ECU 126 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures, a reserve of ECU 279,098 million for prior measures, ECU 16,012 million for the former G D R, and for Objective 5(a), ECU 43,65 million under heading B2-1000 and ECU 417,02 million of reimbursements under reg. (EEC) No 2328/91 (in 1994 only). For the Funds as a whole, budgetary implementation of commitment appropriations for the new programming period stood at 90% in 1994 and 91% in 1995, which means ECU 2 billion was not implemented in 1994 and ECU 2. 1 billion in 1995. However, for the two years 1994 and 1995, the rate of implementation ofthe appropriations available for the CSFs/SPDs alone under the various Objectives was 94%). If these first two years are compared with the period 1989-93, the results are less good. However, implementation of appropriations was very good between 1989 and 1993 with rates of over 99% in 1989 and 1991 to 1993 (although only 93. 7% in 1990). 198 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) In 1994 commitments of appropriations for the CSFs/SPDs stood at virtually 99% for all funds wim only the ESF using no more than 95% of its allocation (ECU 272 million unused). The main reason why appropriations remained unused was the delay in adopting the Community Initiatives in 1994 when only 12% of appropriations was committed. This left ECU 1 697 million unused of which ECU 339. 1 million was carried over and ECU 311. 6 implemented in 1995. The rate of implementation of payment appropriations was 75% in 1994 with ECU 4. 8 million unused. 1995 therefore represented an improvement with a rate of implementation of 82% and ECU 3 759 million unused. This corresponds to the beginning of effective implementation ofthe programmes in 1995. 2. 2. Implementation of each Fund in 1994-95 in the context of 1994-99 ERDF Table 123: ERDF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) Available (1) Commitments 1994-95 Obj. 2 Obj. 5(b) Obj. l Obj. 6 Total (2) % (2V(D Payments 1994-95 Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (*) 16. 766,42 2. 932,64 581,95 44,26 20. 325,27 16. 705,60 - 2. 931. 52 - 485,60 - 44,26 16. 705,60 2. 931,52 485,60 44,26 20. 166,97 10. 626,76 - 1. 375. 72 - 100% 100% 83% 100% 99% 257,48 - 22,13 53,75 1. 027,06 1. 847,77 3. 582,35 107,89 568,45 1. 087,57 11,44 9,98 2. 161,09 169,41 24,39 17,77 104,49 395. 86 326,44 119. 65 3. 01 33,48 13,80 12. 40 26,78 297,66 2,41 3,74 40,32 35,72 83,81 21. 93 0. 21 7,40 16,67 7,78 0,00 37,48 11. 20 10,93 10. 626,76 1. 375,72 257,48 22,13 12. 282,09 80,55 21,51 1. 171,87 1. 847,77 4. 013,93 518,14 568,45 1. 229,15 3,22 52,32 40,45 2. 161,09 31,38 37,71 504,55 (*) Not including ECU 600 000 in available appropriations, ECU 45 000 in commitments and ECU 37 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures. In the case ofthe ERDF, progress in commitments under the CSFs/SPDs at the end of 1995 shows a slight backlog of 1. 3% (ECU 265 million) compared with the instalments for 1994 and 1995 shown in the financing tables. However, this is due to a variety of situations. Generally, for the ERDF Objective 1 shows commitments running ahead of the financing plans by ECU 526 million (3%), to the greatest degree in Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal, where extra implementation totalled ECU 1 071 million. By contrast, under-implementation in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom amounted to a total of ECU 1 178 million. Overall, Objective 2 showed ERDF commitments lagging behind the financing plans by ECU 650 million (18%). The main reason was that most assistance was adopted at the end of 1994 and during 1995. This rate of adoption did not permit programmes to advance sufficiently for the second instalments to be committed. A number of operations were the subject of a single commitment, in accordance with Article 20(3) of the Coordination Regulation, which helped improve slightly the utilization of commitment appropriations. Lags in implementation, totalling ECU 709 million, affected mainly Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom while only Austria, Luxembourg and Sweden outstripped their plans since single commitments were made there. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 199 In the case of Objective 5(b), ERDF commitments fell 39% (ECU 305 million) short ofthe financing plans. The reason was similar to that affecting Objective 2. Most Member States were affected, but mainly France, Italy and the United Kingdom, where under-implementation totalled ECU 244 million. The Member States where programme implementation proceeded satisfactorily were Spain and Denmark. Operations in Austria and Finland were adopted in 1995. Operations under Objective 6 were adopted in 1995. Commitments for the first instalments were made as programmed. In the case of the Community Initiative programmes, very few of which were adopted in 1994, budgetary implementation for the ERDF reflects their progress in 1994 and 1995. There was a general delay in implementing all the regional Initiatives which resulted in a total shortfall as compared with expectations of ECU 833 million (32%). Since financial implementation of these Initiatives is directly linked to the adoption of the programmes, utilization of commitment appropriations was strongly affected by the number of new programmes which were the subject of a single commitment. This means that no firm conclusion about progress in the financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives can be drawn from implementation of commitment appropriations. ESF Table 124: ESF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) Available (1) Obj 1 Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4 Obj. 5(b) Obj 6 Total (2) Commitments 1994-95 Obj. l Obj. 2 Obj 3 Obj. 4 Obj 5(b) Obj 6 Total (*) 6572,80 1187,19 3822,31 634,59 256,95 32,49 12506,33 5. 780,37 - - 865,39 - - - 3. 357,11 - 363,63 - 180,31 - 32,49 5. 780,37 865,39 3. 357,11 363,63 18031 32,49 10. 579,31 % (2)/(l) 88% 73% 88% 57% 70% 100% 85% Obj. l Obj. 2 4. 084,30 - - 502,13 Payments 1994-1995 Obj 3 Obj 4 Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6. - 2. 407,64 - 188,68 - 100,57 - 16,25 Total 4. 084,30 502,13 2. 407,64 188,68 100,57 16,25 7. 299,57 (*) Not including ECU 400 000 in available appropriations, ECU 119 000 in commitments and ECU 81 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures The general situation relating to implementation in 1994 and 1995 shows better results than those for 1995 alone. The rate of implementation of commitment appropriations was 85% taking all the Objectives together, which demonstrates the multi-annual nature ofthe programmes. The situations of the various Objectives and Member States do not differ substantially from those in 1995. Apart from Objective 6, which was fully implemented, utilization was highest for Objective 1, whether in terms of available appropriations (83%), the 1995 instalment (86%) or the 1994-95 instalment (91%). However, this conceals substantial backlogs in two Member States (Italy and the United Kingdom). Implementation of Objective 3 was clearly lagging in Germany (18% ofthe financing plan for 1995 and 58%) of that for 1994-95) and, to'a lesser extent, in Belgium (53%) ofthe financing plan for 1995). There was a complete failure to use the 1995 instalment for Objective 4 in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Despite the assistance provided by the adoption in 1995 of a number of single-instalment decisions for the SPDs and OPs under Objectives 2 and 5(b), implementation remains particularly weak, or indeed zero, in Denmark (Objectives 2 and 5(b)), Germany (Objectives 2 and 5(b)), Spain (Objective 5(b)), France (Objective 2), Italy (Objectives 2 and 5(b), Luxembourg (Objective 5(b)) and the Netherlands (Objectives 2 and 5(b)). 200 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Since programmes under the Employment Community Initiative were approved in December 1994 and those under Adapt in May 1995, the Member States used the following months to seek partners in other countries. Hence the first contracts with project promoters were not signed until mid-1995 with the result that no appropriations were used in 1994 and only a limited amount in 1995. EAGGF Table 125: EAGGF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) % (2)/(D 100% 78% 100% 100% 94% Payments 1994-1995 Obj. l Obj. 5a**» Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total 2. 844,47 730,60 - 303,81 - 23,87 2. 844,47 730,60 303,81 23,87 3. 902,74 Available (1) Obj. l Obj. 5a** Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total (2) Commitments 1994-95 Obj. l Obj. 5(a) Obj. 5(b) Obj. 6 Total * 4275,92 1769,48 515,41 47,74 6608,55 4. 275,75 - 1. 387,32 - 515,34 - 47,74 14,00 861,60 699,19 979,67 69,21 332,56 477,78 1,90 3,80 776,14 59,91 53,03 38,67 322,72 2,79 2,57 135,24 77,41 518,73 104,15 151,36 117,47 12,22 25,27 61,50 61,42 13,72 85,16 48,78 0,30 9,37 31,30 11,60 0,00 17,87 36,80 10,94 4. 275,75 1. 387,32 515,34 47,74 6. 226,15 69,82 41,24 1. 319,56 699,19 1. 161,23 739,30 332,56 644,03 12,52 36,54 96,60 776,14 109,82 24,66 162,94 Not including ECU 400 000 in available appropriations, ECU 10 000 in comrrrtments and ECU 8 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures. * Not including ECU 43,65 million under heading B2-1000 (Structural actions directly linked to markets policy) and ECU 356,6 million of reimbursements under reg. (EEC) N°2328/91 (in 1994 only). ** Not including ECU 43. 65 million under heading B2-1000 and ECU 417,02 million of reimbursements under reg. (EEC) N°2328/91 (in 1994 only). At the end of 1995, progress in using CSF/SPD commitment appropriations for the EAGGF Guidance Section lagged slightly behind (by 0. 4% or ECU 25. 6 million) the 1994 and 1995 instalments shown in the financing tables. This was, however, the result of a variety of situations. Overall, commitments under Objective 1 were ahead of the financing plans by ECU 790 million (23%). This was most marked in Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. However, France and Italy were lagging behind. Commitments under Objective 5(a) were lagging behind the financing plans by ECU 115 million (8%) mainly because of under-implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (agricultural structures) everywhere, but most notably in Italy, and a lag of one year everywhere except Spain and Luxembourg in implementing OPs under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 (marketing and processing). EAGGF commitment appropriations for Objective 5(b) lagged behind the financing plans by ECU 25 million (32%) because of delays in implementing the OPs everywhere except Spain and Germany. Assistance under Objective 6 was adopted in 1995. Commitments for the first instalments were adopted, so there was no divergence from what had been programmed. Since very few programmes under the Community Initiatives (mainly Leader) had been adopted in 1994, implementation in 1995 reflected progress during the two years 1994 and 1995. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 201 FIFG Table 126: FIFG implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) Available (1) Commitments 1994-95 Obj. l Obj. 5(a) Obj. 6 Total (2) % (2)/(D Obj. l Obj. 5(a) Obj. 6 Total (*) 506,84 317,97 1,43 826,23 506,84 313,45 1,43 506,84 313,45 1,43 821,71 100% 99% 100% 99% Obj. l 199,28 Payments 1994-95 Obj. 5(a) Obj. 6 149,28 0,72 Total 199,28 149,28 0,72 349,28 (*) Not including ECU 100 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures. The rate of implementation of FIFG appropriations for the two years 1994-95 was satisfactory, amounting to 99%) ofthe appropriations available for the CSFs/SPDs (ECU 4. 5 million unused). With regard to payments, at the end of 1995, ECU 199. 3 million (39%) had paid for Objective 1 out ofthe ECU 506. 8 million committed in 1994 and 1995. This is a reasonable rate in view ofthe fact that the programming period was reduced by approving programmes at the end of 1994. Similarly, in the case of Objective 5(a) fisheries, by the end of 1995 ECU 151. 6 million (48%) had been paid out ofthe ECU 317. 8 million committed in 1994-95, which is satisfactory. 1995 was the first year of programming for Objective 6 and the figures for 1995 remain reasonable (ECU 720 000, or 50%, paid out of ECU 1. 43 million committed). In the case of Pesca, ECU 53. 1 million (65% of ECU 81 million) was committed and ECU 17. 2 million (32% ofthe ECU 53. 1 million committed) paid out. 202 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) B. CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Under Article 205 of the Treaty, the Commission is responsible for implementation of the Community budget as a whole, and therefore ofthe Structural Funds budget. It ensures that implementation is correct and effective, since this is essential for the effectiveness and credibility of Community structural measures. However, in doing so, it must take account of the fact that on-the-spot management of Structural Fund programmes and projects is the responsibility of the Member States, in line with the principle of subsidiarity and partnership which governs the Structural Funds. Nevertheless, with the launching of the second programming period (1994-99) and the increase in Structural Fund appropriations, the Commission is keeping a closer watch on the quality ofthe management and control system employed both by itself and by the Member States. All those involved are aware of this need: at the informal ministerial meeting in Strasbourg in March 1995, for example, the Commission and Member States agreed on the need to improve and strengthen the control and management of the Structural Funds. Following that, in May 1995 Mrs Wulf-Mathies, the Member with special responsibility for regional policies and cohesion, wrote to the Member States stressing once again the importance of improving the financial management system for Community appropriations, and control and assessment, and requesting the Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that these requirements are met. As for the Commission itself, in 1995 its attention was directed towards the stepping up of on-the-spot checks, which it had been pursuing since 1994 and continued in 1995, and, at a more fundamental level, the launching of an exercise to rationalize and improve financial management. 1. Checks 1. 1. Checks carried out by the Commission's Structural Funds departments The Commission's role is to ensure that appropriate systems for financial monitoring and management of programmes have been put in place in the Member States. To do this, it makes on-the-spot checks and systems audits to ensure that Structural Fund appropriations are put to proper use. However, under Article 23(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, it is primarily the Member States that are responsible for ensuring that proper use is made of Community funds and preventing irregularities. For example, they are responsible for the reliability of certificates of expenditure submitted to the Commission, and the eligibility of expenditure incurred in implementing programmes. In this way, each of the Structural Funds is subject to specific checks by the departments responsible for them. All these checks are intended to verify the reliability of the control and management systems in the Member States, and to check the regularity of expenditure incurred under the programmes. 1995 saw greater coordination of these monitoring activities among themselves, and greater coordination with the checks made by Financial Control, the UCLAF1 and the Court of Auditors. ERDF: For the ERDF, 20 on-the-spot inspections were carried out in 1995 (one in Denmark, one in the Netherlands, two in France, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom, three in Spain and Portugal, and four in. Germany). As required by Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended, the inspection programmes are communicated to the Member States concerned. Firstly, these checks are intended to verify the existence and effectiveness of a system for the management and control of operations, and the reliability ofthe information forwarded to the Commission (in particular certifications of expenditure). Secondly, they are intended to check on proper use of ERDF funds, accounting accuracy, legality, regularity and sound financial management in the light ofthe objectives of each form of assistance and of Community rules and policies. Each programme of inspection visits was drawn up to take account, inter alia, ofthe checks made by Financial Control and the Court of Auditors and the results ofthe risk analysis and previous checks. 1 The Commission's Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 203 The checks show that individual or system irregularities frequently occurred in operations on the ground. In general, these relate to the unreliability of certifications of expenditure, which are the basis for Community payments and advances, and the weakness of certain internal checking procedures, which do not adequately reflect Community rules. The declarations of expenditure often include expenditure not eligible for financing by the ERDF (such as the salaries or operating expenditure of ministries or other public bodies), and expenditure declared as actually incurred sometimes includes estimates of future expenditure. The beneficiaries' declarations of expenditure are in some instances submitted to the Commission and certified by the authorities appointed by the Member States without any internal checks, which can lead to incorrect submissions and formal irregularities. In addition, in many regions Community rules on public procurement are not fully complied with and the programming of assistance is not monitored or assessed with sufficient precision. For example, in some cases the legal and financial commitments and payments are not established by the deadlines laid down in the decisions to grant assistance. ESF: As with the ERDF, and as is done each year, a coordinated control programme was sent to the Member States before the beginning of 1995. The programme was implemented as planned: a total of 73 inspection visits were made, 10% of which were unscheduled visits in coordination with the Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention. In general the checks covered the management systems and revealed a number of weaknesses in the national, regional and local administrations. These were analysed in partnership and solutions to ensure the proper administration of Community and national funds are under consideration. More specifically, the checks revealed problems with ineligible expenditure (financing costs, for example), operations not eligible under the ESF, accounting documents not acceptable for tax purposes, non-compliance with the VAT rules of the Member State, non-compliance with the principle of sound financial management (disproportionate costs), etc. The checks also revealed a few cases of fraud, which are being pursued by the national authorities. EAGGF: In 1995, 35 inspection visits were made to check the use made of EAGGF appropriations, a considerably larger number than in 1994 (21). These were organized on the initiative ofthe departments responsible for the EAGGF or the Financial Control of the Member States concerned. The audits focused on the systems used and on the entries in the accounts, which were checked for compliance with Community rules. Priority was given to programmes and operations covered by the first programming period, 1989-93, funds for which should have been committed by the end of 1993 or, where an extension was granted, in 1994 or 1995. Once again, in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended, the Member States were requested to increase the number of their own inspection visits and keep the Commission informed ofthe results of these audits. As a rule, the systems introduced by the majority of Member States to check declared expenditure function well. Nevertheless a number of weaknesses and irregularities were revealed in almost all the Member States and measures. Examples of these include: uncertainty as to the validity of some commitments made before the end of the prescribed period, the lack of publicity and information on EAGGF part-financing, non-compliance with Community rules on public procurement, the award of aid for ineligible expenditure, unsuitable and inadequate control measures, major delays in payments to the final beneficiaries, incorrect application of conversion rates, and a risk of duplicate Community funding from different sources. FIFG: In 1995 the departments responsible for the FIFG made six inspection visits (one in Greece, France, Italy and the United Kingdom, and two in Spain) to check 20 projects financed under the old rules (Regulations (EEC) No 4028/86 and 4042/89), since checks on the FIFG are not due to begin until 1996. The inspections revealed irregularities in four Member States. In France (La Seyne-sur-Mer and Saint-André), one aquaculture project had been stopped by the beneficiary himself (a decision on possible suspension is pending), and ineligible expenditure was detected for another. In Greece (Thessaloniki, Khalkidiki and Athens), a processing plant had not yet started operation (a report was requested from the Member State for 1996) and, in the case of an eel farm project, the Member State has been requested to make a thorough check ofthe beneficiary company and the construction company. In Spain (Madrid), a small amount of ineligible expenditure was discovered in a processing project. 204 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Finally, in Italy (Naples and Bari), in one of the three processing/marketing projects inspected, a considerable delay in implementation was discovered. The Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention took part in the inspection visits to Greece and Madrid. No major irregularities were detected during the other inspection visits, to Lugo (Galicia, Spain), relating to vessel construction projects, and in Scotland, relating to six aquaculture projects. All Funds: In most cases the results of each inspection are communicated to the Member State concerned, drawing its attention to shortcomings and requesting changes to bring the procedures in line with current rules and in most cases the Commission also requests the designated authority in the Member State to submit a new, duly corrected declaration of expenditure, and makes the necessary financial adjustments. However, the Commission departments may - where the situation warrants - stop any further funding. They then propose to the Member State (pursuant to Community rules) a number of general or specific solutions to permit compliance with Community rules and national provisions, and then monitor their implementation. When judicial inquiries are opened (in cases of suspected fraud), the Commission suspends payments until the procedure is closed, so that it can then take the necessary steps (payment, reduction or discontinuation). However, the most important effect of these inspections is their role in instructing the regional authorities and bodies responsible for the administration and internal auditing ofthe Structural Funds how to adjust their practices and procedures where they do not comply with the rules. The Commission departments regularly remind the authorities ofthe Member States ofthe need to apply the provisions on financial implementation contained in the Commission decisions approving the programmes at all administrative levels. In 1995, the departments responsible for the Funds focused more closely on monitoring the results of inspection visits by the Court of Auditors (sector letters, annual report) and Financial Control, and intensified their cooperation with the Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention. In addition, all departments took part in discussion meetings held at the Commission on the problems linked to the eligibility of expenditure2. Inspection activities were also intensified by the introduction of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the structural policies. On the whole, the situation resulting from the information forwarded by the Member States is far from satisfactory3, since the Commission continues to discover a large number of cases of irregularity which are not reported. Finally, at the request ofthe European Parliament, in October 1995 the Commission presented a report on irregularities in the management of Community Structural Funds in the new German Lander4 for the period 1991-93. The report highlights the irregularities and suspected cases of fraud detected, the weaknesses in the management and control systems, inadequate knowledge of Community rules and the lack of administrative organization, due to the exceptional political, economic and administrative situation in the new German Lander during that transitional period. It also describes the measures taken by the Commission and the Member State to correct and prevent such irregularities. 1. 2. Inspections carried out by Financial Control In 1995 Financial Control carried out its Structural Fund inspection activities in line with the current discussions on improving financial management5. The main aim was to rationalize the inspections, partly by investigating whether random sampling could be used to grant approval within the Commission and partly by increased use of systems audits in the Member States. 2 See 1. 2 below - Inspections carried out by Financial Control. 3 See 1995 Annual Report "Protecting the Community's financial interests" (COM(96) 173 final). 4OJNoL353, 17. 12. 1995. 5 See below: 2. Improving financial management. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 205 In 1995, Financial Control made 86 on-the-spot inspections in which expenditure totalling around ECU 7 250 million under the forms of assistance audited was checked. The main aim of the control programme was to check the legality, regularity and effectiveness of transactions under the Structural Funds and, at the same time, to complete the audit records for each Fund and each Member State available to Financial Control and update the 1994 systems audit report. To that end, the checks concentrated on an audit of the administration and control systems in the Member States for all the Funds, in accordance with the audit methods developed by Financial Control. One of the more general findings was that the certifications of expenditure by the authorities designated in the Member State are not always based on a reliable or adequate control system. This is particularly the case with the lack of checks on the eligibility of expenditure at the various stages of processing of the financial information forwarded by the final beneficiaries, resulting in some expenditure being rejected as ineligible in a large number of spot checks on projects. These cases involve the purchase of second-hand equipment, general or personnel costs incurred outside the eligibility periods, non-entry into the accounts of revenue to be deducted from declared expenditure, methods of converting expenditure into ecus not complying with the rules (ESF), the purchase of land, financial commitments not complying with the rules or outside the time limits laid down in the programmes (EAGGF), etc. In order to make better use ofthe resources ofthe various authorities involved in checks, and in line with the guidelines adopted by the Commission under the SEM 2000 exercise, negotiations continued in 1995 with a view to extending the cooperation protocols concluded between the Commission and the relevant national inspection authorities to other Member States. For example, following the establishment of a special inspection coordination body within the Greek Ministry of Finance, a protocol was signed with Greece (April 1995), and thorough discussions with the Netherlands will make it possible to adapt the formula ofthe protocols to the decentralized or distributed inspection systems ofthose Member States with a similar structure (in particular the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland) and those with a federal structure (Belgium, Germany and Austria). As far as the existing protocols are concerned, coordination of inspections with France, Italy and Spain was put into practice in line with the coordinated plans drawn up and discussed at the beginning ofthe year. Finally, following the systems audit programme carried out between 1992 and 1994, and the report mentioned above, it became apparent that there was a special problem with expenditure eligibility. The reason is that the regulations governing the Structural Funds do not give any detailed definition of eligible expenditure, and that, although the texts approving the various forms of assistance contain standard clauses for certain general aspects (expenditure committed and paid, supporting documents, definition ofthe final beneficiary and eligibility dates), they do not provide any specific guidelines on certain items or particular types of expenditure. Therefore a detailed discussion within the Commission was launched in 1995 to clarify some of these complex eligibility problems. The inter-departmental working party set up to that end in September 1994 and chaired by Financial Control produced an initial set of datasheets describing and harmonizing the approach of the Structural Funds to certain items of expenditure, such as second-hand equipment, depreciation, VAT, bank interest, eligibility periods and the concept of final beneficiary. The work centred on the establishment of transparent and monitorable methods of implementing financial engineering measures - venture capital funds (guidelines laid down by the Commission in July 1995) and guarantee funds. Several eligibility issues remain to be studied for 1996 (investments in land and property, for example). Subsequently, the question of eligibility was put on the agenda for the group of personal representatives ofthe European Finance Ministers set up as part ofthe exercise for improving financial management described below. 2. Improving financial management When it took up office, the new Commission decided to launch an internal discussion on ways of strengthening financial management within the Commission. The discussion began in 1995 as a three- stage process and are of vital concern to the departments responsible for the Structural Funds. The first stage consisted in consolidating the internal administration system within the existing framework by rationalizing the Commission's financial procedures and departments. The idea was to give the budget 206 7tn Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) and financial units a more effective structure, provide better training for staff and modernize management tools, in order to rationalize financial management procedures, improve assessment of Community programmes and improve the effectiveness of the action taken in response to the observations of the other Community institutions on budget issues. The second stage was aimed at a more substantial reform of internal procedures and organization, in particular to introduce greater transparency into budget decision-making and initiate an assessment process for the measures adopted. These two stages were introduced successively in the course of 1995 and continued in parallel throughout the year. The third stage ofthe exercise was launched at the end of 1995 and is to continue in 1996. It is aimed at strengthening and developing the partnership with the Member States in those areas in which they are responsible for administering Community appropriations. This therefore very much concerns the Structural Funds. For example, discussions began at ministerial level in various areas relating to the organization and administration of Community appropriations in the Member States to ensure that their administration is proper and effective. These discussions, which are intended to improve cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, concern in particular, as far as the Structural Funds are concerned, the question of finding a common, transparent and universally agreed definition of expenditure eligible for Structural Fund part-financing. The discussions will therefore be decisive for the immediate future of the programmes, both as regards their monitoring and in terms of their proper economic and administrative implementation. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 207 C. COORDINATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS !• Cohesion Fund Cohesion Fund, Structural Funds and environment: Like the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund provides major financial support for environmental projects. The Regulation establishing it specifies that a suitable balance must be struck between transport infrastructure and environmental projects, the two sectors for which it was set up. From its ECU 16 million budget for the period 1993-99, 45% of appropriations in its first two years of operation (1993-94) were allocated to environmental projects. For the period as a whole, a 50/50 balance between environment and transport will be sought. Projects cover, for example, water management, waste water treatment and waste disposal. In all cases the Commission seeks maximum coherence and coordination between Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund financing. The need to coordinate assistance from the Cohesion Fund, the Structural Funds, the EIB and other financial instruments for environmental and trans-European transport network projects is mentioned in the preamble to the Council Regulation establishing the Cohesion Fund1. Article 1 ofthe Regulation states that the Fund may contribute to financing project stages that are technically and financially independent. The Commission must accordingly ensure that an item of expenditure relating to a project in several stages financed from the Cohesion Fund is not granted assistance at the same time from the Structural Funds, and Article 9 ofthe Regulation (on cumulation and overlapping) states that no item of expenditure may benefit from both the Cohesion ¥\md and the Structural Funds and that combined Cohesion Fund and other Community aid for a project may not exceed 90% of total expenditure thereon. This does not rule out separate contributions to a large project from several instruments provided that expenditure on the individual stages can be clearly identified in terms of either time or the nature ofthe stages. The purpose is to allow financing in tandem, with the ERDF in particular, of large projects comprising several stages. Such coordination of the available Community financial instruments helps increase the impact of assistance, particularly where trans-European transport networks are concerned, and so accelerates their establishment. Separation into project stages requires close coordination between financial instruments and both physical and financial monitoring. Aid for environment and trans- European transport infrastructure projects can in fact be granted from the Structural Funds, mainly the ERDF but also, to a lesser extent, the EAGGF. Action is therefore taken to prevent double financing. This involves in the first place organizational arrangements for coordinated financing. When the CSFs were being drawn up, the Commission mounted a general coordination exercise to implement the doubling in real terms of commitment appropriations for Objective 1 regions in the countries benefitting from the Cohesion Fund as envisaged by the Edinburgh European Council. The CSF financing plans accordingly explicitly mention the resources allocated from the Cohesion Fund2. In the case of Spain for example, where only some regions are eligible under Objective 1, ECU 7. 95 billion from the Cohesion Fund for the period 1993-99 was entered in the Objective 1 CSF. This amount was determined on the basis of the Edinburgh target. Under the principles of subsidiarity and partnership, the submission of suitable projects to achieve the doubling in real terms of Structural Fund appropriations in the less prosperous parts of Spain is the responsibility of the national government and the Objective 1 CSF Monitoring Committee. As a "non-regional" fund, the Cohesion Fund does not normally collect regionalized data. In the second place, even closer attention has to be paid to coordinating the projects themselves given that Structural Fund assistance is principally for programmes whereas the Cohesion Fund finances individual projects or groups of projects. Coordination procedures were introduced when the cohesion 1 Council Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994, OJ No L 130, 25. 5. 1994. 2 See 1994 Annual Report. 208 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) financial instrument, which preceded the Cohesion Fund, came into operation in order to ensure that project or project stages submitted had not already been presented for Structural Fund assistance. The departments responsible for Structural Fund management have to be consulted before the Commission takes a decision to grant assistance from the Cohesion Fund. Checking procedures were also introduced to ensure that no item of expenditure can be simultaneously financed from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. These procedures have so far functioned effectively. There has been neither disagreement between the departments responsible for managing the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund nor any case of double financing. In certain cases Member States have applied for financing from different instruments for various stages of a single project; this is in accordance with the rules. A major project in Portugal: The Cruz-Braga motorway was initially included in the 1994-99 CSF for ERDF financing. After the Cohesion Fund started to operate, it was considered that, as an element of the trans-European transport networks, it should be financed by the Cohesion Fund, so allowing more ERDF aid to be devoted to transport. The second stage of construction was therefore taken out ofthe ERDF OP and given Cohesion Fund financing at a higher rate under Article 7 of the Cohesion Fund Regulation. To prevent any overlapping of Community aid, Commission officials, in cooperation with the national authorities, identified two distinct stages of the project using physical indicators. Then, for financial management purposes, a date was set from which payment applications and supporting documents were to be sent to the Fund. The Commission also stepped up monitoring at the time when aid was transferred from the ERDF to the Cohesion Fund, two inspections visits being made in four months. Obviously, the administrative burden of managing projects in several stages is lighter if stages are clearly separate. The Commission is examining how the four Member States concerned (Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal) could be more closely involved in this coordination, given that under the OPs selection of individual projects is generally done at regional programming level. 2. EIB The EIB confirmed in 1995 that economic and social cohesion remains its priority, an objective in any case assigned to it by the Treaty on European Union. In 4995 out of a total of ECU 21. 4 billion in loans granted (a 7. 5% increase on 1994, which' itself represented an increase of 1. 6% on 1993), ECU 18 782 million was granted in the Community (a 5. 2% increase on 1994 compared with a fall of 2%> from 1993). A total of ECU 12 144 million was granted to regions lagging behind in development or suffering from industrial decline. Table 127: EIB - Financing for regional development (ECU million) Total activity in the EU (1) Regional development Objective 1 Countries eligible u n d e r t he Cohesion Fund 1995 1994 1993 18. 782 12. 144 68% 5. 881 48% 4648 38% 17. 682 12. 035 72% 5. 748 48% 4. 746 39% 16. 779 12. 462 74% 7. 228 58% 6. 142 34% (1) Amount of finance granted, i. e. individual loans signed and appropriations allocated for current global loans. The concentration of financing in favour of investment located in regional development zones, which had eased in 1993 (72% in 1994 against 74% in 1993), again lessened in 1995 (68%). In contrast to the upward trend ofthe period 1989-93, the bank's activity in promoting regional development, although 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 209 greater in absolute terms, is in relative terms lower than the level attained in 1992. Despite this slackening, economic and social cohesion remains the EIB's priority. In the regions where development is lagging behind (Objective 1), EIB loans amounted to ECU 5 881 million, i. e. 48% ofthe total for regional development (48% in 1994, 58% in 1993), again a lower proportion than in 1993 or for the period 1989-93. Assistance in the four Cohesion Fund countries (Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal) amounted to ECU 4 648 million, 26% of total financing in the Community (28%) in 1994, 37%o in 1993) and 38% of total regional development financing (39% in 1994). Table 128: EIB - Breakdown by sector of financing for regional development (ECU million) R e g i o n al development : Energy Transport Telecommunications Environment and other infrastructure Industry, agriculture and services I T O T AL I 2TÏÏÏÏ9" 4. 385 885 1. 614 3. 251 12. 144 Vo \^S% 36,1% 7,3% 13,3% 26,8% ÎWW T O T A L| The breakdown between individual and global loans confirms the upswing in global loans (sharply down in 1993). Individual loans were slightly down. 3. ECSC Under Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty, the Commission has at its disposal a loan instrument for conversion investment to create jobs in areas affected by the reduction of activity and employment in the coal and steel sector. These can be accompanied by interest-rate subsidies (calculated on the number of jobs to be created) of up to 3% for five years. The regional orientation of these loans and their coordination with the Structural Funds have been progressively strengthened by operational provisions adopted by the Commission since 19903 which have increased their concentration in zones eligible under the regional objectives ofthe CSFs and the Community Rechar and Résider Initiatives. The total volume of new ECSC conversion loans approved by the Commission in 1995 and given Council assent in February 1996 was ECU 394. 4 million with the number of jobs to be created around 27 000. The sum of ECU 11. 45 million was committed under the ECSC budget for 1995 for interest-rate subsidies on current loans. During 1995 the Commission made 102 conversion loans, 95 global loans totalling ECU 196 million and seven direct loans totalling ECU 64. 2 million. 4. European Investment Fund The purpose ofthe Fund, established in June 1994, is to support medium and long-term investment by providing long-term guarantees for loans taken out for investment in trans-European networks and SMEs. The loan volume guaranteed in 1995 was ECU 686. 8 million, of which ECU 116. 46 million was for transactions actually signed. Trans-European network projects amounted to 94% of the total volume signed: 17% in transport, 26% in telecommunications and 51% in energy. SMEs projects accounted for 6% of operations. 3 O J N oC 188/9, 28. 7. 1990, OJ No C 59/4, 6. 3. 1992, Commission Decision E/l967/94 of 12 December 1994. 210 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 5. The financial mechanism ofthe European Economic Area The Agreement on the European Economic Area provided for a financial mechanism, paid for by the EFTA countries and managed by the EIB, to help promote economic and social cohesion in the Community. Its scope is defined in Protocol 38 to the Agreement: grants totalling ECU 500 million between 1994 and 1998 and 10-year interest-rate subsidies of 2% on a total loan volume of ECU 1. 5 billion. Assistance is given for projects in Greece, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Portugal and, for 1989-93, the Spanish Objective 1 regions. Following enlargement, the contributions of Austria, Finland and Sweden have been taken over by the Community budget and the Commission is accordingly represented on the Financial Mechanism Committee, which approves projects. In 1995 the Committee approved interest-rate subsidies on ECU 302. 4 million in loans for seven projects in Spain and one in Greece and ECU 68 million in grants for four projects in Greece and three in Spain. These were in the three eligible sectors: transport, environment and education and training. Piraeus container terminal, an example of assistance from the Community instruments: The port of Piraeus is the principal cargo entry point to Attica, the region which is home to some 50% ofthe population of Greece, a country where sea transport has recently grown in importance, more than 90% of goods arriving by sea. Piraeus is one ofthe two Greek ports to have a specialized container terminal. One of its three sections, Ikonion, already has a teiminal and a second, Ikonion II, is partly complete. Under the EEA Financial Mechanism, ECU 12. 1 million has been granted to complete the second terminal, which will substantially increase the port's container traffic capacity. A loan of ECU 42. 9 million from the EIB has also been granted plus an interest-rate subsidy of 2% a year for ten years. The Cohesion Fund is also contributing ECU 15 million for completion ofthe quay wall and purchase of cranes, tractors and other specific equipment. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 211 D. COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES Introduction Endeavours to achieve the complementarity between structural measures and other sector-specific Community policies required under the regulations on the Structural Funds (Article 7 ofthe Framework Regulation), which is a matter for this Annual Report, were stepped up in 1995. Selecting the environment as the theme for this Report illustrates those endeavours, which are evident in various ways and at various levels. In terms of legislation and regulations, attention to coordination and forecasting continued to increase in 1995 with a view to preventing and penalizing infringements of the rules on competition and public procurement, particularly in environmental fields. In terms of financial support, the Structural Funds supplement Community Initiatives in certain sectors, like equal opportunities, support for SMEs, trans-European networks, and research and technological development. Within the Commission, a start has been made on assessing possible ways of enhancing synergy between the various Community policies and the Structural Funds. The Commission also urges the Member States and authorities responsible for implementing programmes to take account of these guidelines at their level. Complementarity between Community policies must apply both in the drawing- up of programmes, guaranteed since the review of the Regulations in 1993, and in their practical implementation. The Commission therefore urges the Member States to make a special effort, at all administrative levels and stages of implementation (in particular within the Monitoring Committees and when awarding public contracts or applying aid schemes), to reduce the risks of infringing Community rules. In 1995 the Commission also gave consideration to the drafting of recommendations incorporating certain concerns stemming from other Community policies in the current programming ofthe Structural Funds. This consideration gave rise to several Commission communications on cohesion policy and the environment, the integrated management of coastal zones1, structural assistance and employment2 and encouraging local development and employment initiatives, while further communications were being prepared, in particular on incorporating equal opportunities in Community policies. As the environment is touched on throughout this Report, this section will not deal with the topic. Complementarity with employment policy With more specific reference to employment, the Structural Funds are, as already stressed in this Report, the Community's prime weapon in the fight against unemployment. Of the five priority measures advocated by the Essen European Council, three, improved vocational training, a more effective employment market and measures to facilitate the integration into the labour market of groups particularly affected by unemployment, are the direct concern ofthe Structural Funds. The priority to be given to these measures was confirmed by the European Councils in Cannes and Madrid, which also supported the Commission's proposals on local development and employment initiatives. The Structural Funds are the main instrument used for these ends, particularly under Objectives 3 and 4 for the ESF but also under the regional Objectives (Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b)) for all the Funds. During the year, the Commission tabled a series of documents containing suggestions on how to implement the employment priorities of the European Councils. In June 1995 it adopted a communication on a European strategy to encourage local development and employment initiatives, which includes a strategy to support this process and distribute the results through the Monitoring Committees for the Structural Funds. Its October communication on the European employment strategy has the Structural Funds at its 1 For these two communications see Chapter I. A. 1. 2. Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor and Chapter I. B. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 2 Communication first presented at the informal ministerial meeting in Madrid (30 November-1 December 1995) and subsequently published in 1996 (COM(96) 109 final of 30 March 1996) - See Introduction. C. Employment, a major challenge for the Union. 212 7 th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) centre and this is spelt out in detail in the communication Employment" referred to above. "Community Structural Policies and However, the very nature ofthe operations, which are directly aimed at making the employment market more effective (e. g. support for vocational training), makes any attempt at quantification difficult. Nevertheless, the Structural Funds have made a considerable effort to adapt themselves to the situations which the Essen summit identified as priorities. 1. The Structural Funds, equal opportunities and combatting social exclusion Combatting social exclusion and promoting equal opportunities are among the Community policy priorities set in Essen and endorsed in Cannes and Madrid. In this area the ESF intervenes mainly with regard to Objective 3, but also, albeit less identifiably, with regard to the regionalized objectives (Objectives 1,2 and 5(b)). The Structural Funds and combatting social exclusion Combatting social exclusion is a clear Objective 3 priority ofthe ESF, with ECU 5. 6 billion to be spent on achieving the goal in 1994-99. At variance with past practice, the approach adopted will involve tackling the phenomenon of social exclusion in an integrated fashion and not as an appendage to other policies. Priority will thus be given to facilitating the return to the labour market and consequently to training measures. For the first time, the ESF regards setting up integration pathways to employment as eligible, whether they target employment or social integration. In this respect Community funding supports both social accompanying measures and training measures proper. The Structural Funds and equal opportunities The amendments to the regulations governing Structural Fund assistance in 1993 extend the obligation to observe the principle of equal opportunities to all assistance from the Funds. In decisions approving programmes, a standard clause has been specially inserted to ensure compliance with this new obligation. Two approaches have been adopted in programmes, varying according to the Member States. Some Member States (the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain) have adopted specific measures targeting women while others have preferred a broader approach, which entails checking the impact of the equal opportunities policy by means of precise assessment indicators. This is the case in particular in France. The Objective 1 and Objective 3 appropriations allocated to this priority are estimated at at least 2% ofthe total, or ECU 785 million for the period 1994-99. In Objective 5(b) measures relating to rural society, there is increasing emphasis on equal opportunities for men and women, given the fact that in many regions over 40%> of farm income comes from activities outside the holding, which are almost always carried out by women. Such activity creates wealth and employment and contributes towards maintaining and developing a dynamic economy. The NOW programme (1991-93) was renewed and strengthened within the framework ofthe EMPLOYMENT Community Initiative (1994-99). With ESF funds amounting to ECU 361 million, NOW focuses on devising, testing and implementing new training and employment ideas for women3. One of the priority objectives of EMPLOYMENT-NOW is the uptake of positive results from projects financed under the CSFs. In 1995 a working GROUP on equal opportunities comprising Members ofthe Commission was set up under the chairmanship of Mr Santer and an interdepartmental working party prepared a draft communication from the Commission to Parliament and the Council entitled "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities". The document contains a section on the Structural Funds, the main financial instrument able to play a part in implementing this Union priority. Considerations covering indicators and ways of measuring the degree to which the See Chapter I. B. I Community initiatives, analysis of programmes in the Member States. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 213 principle of equality is taken into account in current programming must nevertheless be pursued. The document proposes the establishment of basic indicators for certain types of positive measures in the field of equal opportunities with a view to defining criteria to be applied by programme Monitoring Committees in selecting projects. A cross-sector assessment study has been undertaken to throw light on the way this aspect is actually implemented by the Structural Funds. The Commission is also to draw up methodological guidelines for the Monitoring Committees. Work carried out to date supports the view that cohesion and the complementarity between various types of Community assistance should be enhanced. 2. The Structural funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development The Structural Funds and the common agricultural policy Since agriculture is still one of the main activities for many regions of the Community, most of the programmes for 1994-99 include measures relating to the sector. It is therefore essential, on the one hand, to ensure that the measures proposed by the Member States in development plans for rural areas under Objective 1 or Objective 5(b) are compatible with the guidelines of the CAP and, on the other hand, to take into consideration the contribution which agricultural measures make to the development of economic activity. With regard to the more specific case of Objective 5(b), measures relating to agriculture in the SPDs were devised with an eye to the necessary complementarity between the reform of the CAP and rural development. Those measures take account of the diversity of agriculture in Objective 5(b) areas (in terms of structures, forms of collective organization, traditions and know-how, geographical situation, and relative distance from markets). Matching this diversity in structures is a variety of solutions to allow each agricultural holding to adapt to the market and extend the range of products or services offered (farm tourism, environment), while endeavouring to control production costs. The measures planned allow a sufficient number of farmers to stay in farming to contribute towards the socio-economic development of rural areas and the Commission has ensured that certain guarantees are forthcoming. Generally speaking, each time a national aid scheme is proposed, a check is made to ensure that it is compatible with the existing rules of the CAP and those on State aid. The measures given priority have included the application of new technologies, energy saving and quality promotion. In the case of irrigation, for example, priority has been given to measures to improve existing structures to avoid water losses (through evaporation, leaks, etc. ) without affecting the area irrigated. If it was found that new areas were being irrigated, the Commission placed severe restrictions on the extension and asked to be informed ofthe crops which it was intended to grow there. The same approach was followed under Objective 5(a) with regard to structures for both production and marketing. In order to maintain market balance in certain products, investment aid which would have increased production was banned (pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat). Restrictions were imposed on beef/veal. For the processing and marketing of agricultural products, the Commission laid down selection criteria following the guidelines set by Community policies, and in particular the CAP. In some sectors, investment aid was prohibited or authorized subject to strict limits and an accompanying reduction in existing capacity, the aim being to modernize and rationalize the sectors concerned (beef/veal, pigmeat, etc. , and some processed fruit and vegetables). The challenges facing rural society More generally, since the 1988 reform ofthe Structural Funds, the Commission has introduced a specific policy for rural areas. Rural society is undergoing far-reaching changes and is increasingly subject to pressures which threaten an already delicate balance. Predominantly rural areas account for more than 80%o of Community territory and over one quarter of its population. The prosperity and environment of rural communities are increasingly threatened while agriculture, the main activity in a large number of rural areas, is going through a crisis which calls into question the very basis of their existence. Economic 214 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) decline, an ageing population, the drift of young people to the towns, the disappearance of services vital for the quality of life due to a lack of sufficient population, and desertification are some of the risks facing certain rural areas. In order to strengthen economic and social cohesion, Article 130a ofthe Treaty on European Union provides that the Community should reduce "disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including rural areas. " To assist rural areas, their advantages should be turned to account, taking all aspects of economic and social life into consideration by giving thought to agriculture and all other aspects of rural society which are vital for an integrated and viable rural economy and satisfactory "quality of life". Maintaining agriculture in some rural areas is often a condition of their survival and calls for the coordination of various measures, such as the common organization of markets, diversification of production, improving product quality, and implementing policies relating to plant health and research. At the same time, efforts to modernize and adapt agricultural structures must be pursued in order to make agricultural holdings competitive and to preserve the natural environment through an appropriate protection policy. However, for many years jobs in agriculture have constantly declined. Agriculture now accounts for only 5. 5% ofthe total working population whereas this figure stood at over 20% in the early 1960s. The drift to large conurbations holds no solution since, on the one hand, persistent unemployment curbs the recruitment of labour and aggravates existing problems and, on the other hand, the flight from the land is likely to lead to its abandonment, thereby jeopardizing the overall equilibrium of the territory of the Union. A Community policy for multi-sector rural development must therefore help to preserve the social fabric and develop viable rural communities. Accordingly, alternative solutions must be found to keep the population in the countryside, wherever possible, by creating new jobs outside agriculture in sectors like tourism, craft trades, SMEs, farm relief services, the renovation of villages, and maintaining the residential environment and the historic heritage. This development policy for rural areas must be put into effect throughout the Community. The financial measures under Objective 5(a) play a part in achieving this, as do the ineasures accompanying the reform ofthe CAP. However, efforts must focus as a priority on regions economically most affected or least developed. Accordingly, appropriations must be concentrated on Objective 1 and 6 regions and Objective 5(b) areas within both the CSFs/SPDs and the Community Initiatives, in particular LEADER. For the period 1989-93, approximately ECU 15 billion has been allocated to rural development. That figure is expected to double in 1994-99. 3. The Structural Funds and the common fisheries policy Since 1994, the year marking the incorporation of the CFP into the Structural Fund mechanisms, the instruments mobilized to assist fisheries structures (both the CSFs/SPDs and the PESCA Initiative) have a dual purpose in so far as they seek to ensure the survival and sustainable development of the policy by helping the fishing effort to adapt to dwindling stocks. These instruments also help strengthen economic and social cohesion through aid to reinforce structures in the fishing industry as a whole - the fleet, aquaculture, processing and marketing of products and port facilities. Furthermore, measures financed by the FIFG in relation to the fishing fleet must comply with the objectives ofthe Multiannual Guidance Programmes (MGPs), which place restrictions on the fishing effort of each Member State. In particular, aid for the construction of new fishing vessels is authorized only where the annual intermediate objectives ofthe MGP, and subsequently the final objectives, are observed. 4. The Structural Funds and SMEs As far as assistance to SMEs and the craft sector is concerned, the OPs adopted for 1994-99 reflect the importance which the Community attaches to SMEs. Thus an average of 10% ofthe ERDF's resources is 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 215 allocated specifically to measures for SMEs4. Furthermore, the SME Community Initiative helps raise the level of know-how in small firms while ADAPT promotes employment and the adaptation of the labour force to industrial change and should also benefit small firms. During 1995, most of the programmes relating to the SME Community Initiative (ECU 1 billion, including ECU 800 million for Objective 1 regions) were adopted. Through the Monitoring Committees, the Commission will ensure that the economic and social partners invited to take part in the implementation ofthe programmes include representatives of SMEs so they are more closely associated with the Community programmes, as recommended in the report which the Commission sent to the Madrid European Council,5 which stressed the importance of SMEs as a dynamic source of the employment, growth and competitiveness in the European Union. It should be noted that Commission staff responsible for enterprise policy attend Monitoring Committee meetings for programmes relating more specifically to SMEs, like those on industry and services, particularly in the Objective 1 countries (Ireland, Portugal and Greece), and those ofthe SME Initiative. EUROPARTENARIAT - events fostering contacts between European firms: Two EUROPARTENARIAT events were organized in Germany and Portugal in 1995. They were intended to stimulate cooperation and foster contacts between firms in eligible regions (Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6) and those in other Member States or non-member countries. EUROPARTENARIAT North Rhineland-Westphalia (Dortmund, 20 and 21 March 1995) drew around 5 000 visitors from 54 countries. The 357 Gennan firms had around 10 000 business meetings with the 2 000 visiting SMEs, 200 of which came from countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States. EUROPARTENARIAT Portugal (Lisbon, 24 and 25 November 1995) was also a great success. The 406 Portuguese firms established contact with around 2 000 SMEs in the course of 13 000 meetings. The Commission also supports participation in such events by firms from the central and eastern European countries, the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Mediterranean. 5. The Structural Funds, research and technological development Measures undertaken since 1993 in connection with the Commission Communication on Cohesion and RTD Policy6 were continued in 1995. In the wake ofthe Communication, greater account was taken from 1994 on of economic and social cohesion in the Fourth Framework Programme for Research and of research and technological development in the Structural Funds. In particular, spending on actions relating to RTD financed by the Structural Funds increased substantially in absolute terms (partly owing to the fact that global funding for the Structural Funds almost doubled for 1994-99) and as a percentage compared with the previous period7. For the record, those measures account for nearly 5% of the Community contribution under Objective 1 and 12% under Objective 2. In addition, the revised ESF Regulation provides for the Fund to support, under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), measures covering training in research, science and technology. In 1995 most ofthe programmes under the SME and ADAPT Community Initiatives were launched. The SME Initiative provides for financing to promote cooperation for RTD between SMEs themselves and between SMEs and research centres, technology transfer centres, universities and training centres. The ADAPT Initiative (ECU 1. 5 billion, including ECU 400 million for Objective 1 regions) encourages 4 See 1994 Annual Report. 5 Commission Report on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A dynamic source of employment, growth and competitiveness in the European Union (SEC(95) 2087). 6 COM(93) 203 of 12 May 1993. 7 See 1994 Annual Report. 216 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) inter alia cooperation and exchanges between firms and research in technology transfer to firms and vocational training bodies. Added to this are innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, for which calls for proposals were issued in the second half of 1995 covering the development of innovative regional strategies, regional strategies for the development ofthe information society and inter-regional networks for the development of specific applications concerning the information society8. Funds set aside for these measures in 1995-99 amount to ECU 20 million for the information society and ECU 15 million for cooperation measures to encourage innovation and technology transfer. Furthermore, in accordance with the 1993 Communication, the Fourth Framework Research Programme takes account of economic and social cohesion, mainly under the third activity (disseminating research results and turning them to account) and fourth activity (training and mobility of research workers). Within the former, 18 innovation centres (of a total of 52) are currently operating in Objective 1 regions and one in an Objective 6 region. Most ofthe Objective 2 and 5(b) areas are covered by the network of innovation centres. The measure for research workers offers them many opportunities in less-favoured regions, and in particular in Objective 1 and 6 regions, through additional one-year grants to encourage researchers to return to their laboratories of origin; grants for high-level scientists to spend time in those regions; facilities for networks linking less-favoured regions and more prosperous regions; the selection of applications for access to major installations taking account of the impact on the scientific and technical potential of less-favoured regions; encouragement for less-favoured regions to participate in Euroconferences and regular assessment of the progress of the programme in the field of cohesion (a working party responsible for monitoring was set up to that end in 1995). 6. The Structural Funds and trans-European networks Generally speaking, the Structural Funds continue to devote a large part of their budget to financing the series of trans-European networks9. With the establishment of a "progress chart" for monitoring financial assistance from the various Community instruments and a procedure for multiannual programming for the TENs for transport, better coordination and cohesion could be established between the various instruments. More specifically, the salient fact in 1995 as regards the implementation ofthe TENs was the adoption ofthe financial Regulation10, which lays down the conditions and procedures for the grant of Community financial assistance to projects of common interest within the framework ofthe TENs for transport, telecommunications and energy. That Regulation provides for a budget of ECU 2 345 million for the period 1995-99. Trans-European transport networks The development of trans-European transport networks, which should make up for some shortcomings in outlying regions in terms of infrastructures and connections with the central regions of the Community, is bound up closely with the common transport policy11. The Community's contribution in this area takes the form of guidelines to help to achieve two fundamental objectives, namely the internal market and economic and social cohesion. The main purpose ofthe networks is to link isolated, island and peripheral regions with the centre ofthe Community. In accordance with the Treaty provisions on the subject (Articles 129b, 129c and 129d), the guidelines define the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged. They are also to identify projects of common interest. All these proposals are included in the Community guidelines for the development ofthe trans-European transport network 8 See Chapter l. B. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 9 See 1994 Annual Report. 10 Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995. "This is set out in the Commission communication "The future development ofthe common transport policy" (COM(92) 494). Its chief points are the trans-European network policy and the need to take account of environmental protection in transport policy. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 217 to which Parliament gave a second reading in December 1995. These consider multimodal transport as one of the solutions to be adopted to strengthen environmental protection and also identify the various components ofthe trans-European transport networks: • • the road network (75 000 km): 20 000 km of road is to be built or improved in the next ten years and around 40%> ofthe work will be carried out in outlying regions; the railway network (73 000 km by the year 2010), where the objective is to eliminate bottlenecks in the central regions and improve the quality of the network in peripheral regions (plant and equipment, electrification, new access lines, etc. ); • ports, which are vital for the outlying Member States, as is the information and management network for shipping, the future development of which (improved safety and efficiency plus greater environmental protection in ecologically sensitive areas) directly concerns outlying countries; the airport network, which acts more specifically as a gateway, in particular in outlying areas, and the progressive introduction of an air traffic management network, the current lack of which is a real handicap in certain outlying areas. • The Community provides financial assistance through the financial Regulation mentioned above. Such assistance involves part-financing feasibility studies, loan guarantees and interest-rate subsidies and, in duly justified cases, direct grants for investment to supplement resources committed by the Member States. The financial perspective approved includes ECU 1. 8 billion to finance transport projects, in particular the 14 projects given priority at the Essen European Council12. ECU 240 million was allocated in 1995. To optimize the effectiveness of Community assistance, the Commission proposed an indicative multiannual programme for 1996-99. The budget for the TENs for transport supplements financing under the Structural Funds (in particular under the CSFs), which funds some sections ofthe TENs for transport (in Spain, Ireland and Italy), and the Cohesion Fund, which also funds sections of TENs in the eligible Member States. These measures are moulded into a coherent whole through inter-departmental consultation procedures within the Commission. The ERDF and the Cohesion Fund contribute very substantially to the implementation of projects of common interest within the trans-European transport networks, thereby helping to make up for shortcomings in infrastructure, which constitute one of the barriers to the free movement of persons and goods towards or from the outlying regions. The ERDF also part-finances work covering access to the TENs. By their efforts to support projects relating to various modes of transport, the two Funds are one ofthe Community's main instruments for developing the trans-European network and achieving its objective, namely lasting mobility in line with the Community policy on the environment. Trans-European energy networks The guidelines on the TEN for gas and electricity were given a second reading by Parliament on 26 October 1995, as were the specific measures relating to the TENs for energy. Through the CSFs/SPDs and also INTERREG II, the Structural Funds contribute substantially to the development ofthe trans- European energy networks. In 1995 the Commission granted a substantial contribution under INTERREG (REGEN) for the development of gas networks in Greece and the Iberian peninsula13. These projects form part of the ten energy projects given priority by the Essen European Council in December 1994. Furthermore, one ofthe fundamental objectives ofthe policy on the TENs for energy (Article 129b ofthe Treaty) is to contribute towards economic and social cohesion and in particular to linking the outlying regions with the central regions ofthe Community. To implement that policy, in 1995 the Commission granted ECU 12. 2 million from the budget heading for trans-European networks to part-finance studies on energy networks, including ECU 6. 5 million (53%) for projects in regions whose development is lagging behind. 12 See 1994 Annual Report. 13 See Chapter I. B. I. Community initiatives. 218 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Trans-European telecommunications networks Lastly, in the telecommunications field, the guidelines for the ISDN TENs were adopted on 19 October 1995 and set out a general framework for the financing of Community measures relating to the ISDN. 7. The Structural Funds and the transparency of public contracts Observance of the Community rules on the award of public contracts is one of the requirements explicitly mentioned in Article 7 of the Framework Regulation on the Structural Funds. The Commission monitors compliance with the provisions applicable on the subject by two means, firstly when part-financing applications are made and secondly when it acts to oversee the Funds and verify compliance with those provisions. In the former case, and in particular by virtue of the principle of partnership and programming, observance ofthe provisions applicable to public procurement (Treaty and directives) is verified beforehand solely in respect of major projects of a value in excess of ECU 25 million. During the implementation ofthe programmes, the Commission may verify compliance with the rules on public contracts through the Monitoring Committees. However, given the large number of projects concerned, the Commission's checks are not comprehensive. It is the task first and foremost of the authorities responsible in the Member States systematically to verify compliance with the rules on public procurement when public contracts are awarded in connection with the implementation of programmes. During each on-the-spot inspection visit14, compliance with the rules on public contracts is one ofthe points verified systematically. Furthermore, when disputes arising from infringements ofthe rules on public procurement are investigated, the Commission takes action where Community part- financing is concerned. Thus in 1995 some major cases of dispute showed that Community financing was involved. Despite these various sources of information, chance still remains a significant factor and the risks of discrimination are high. The way the system works, by part-financing programmes and not projects, implies that verification of compliance with the rules on public procurement is essentially the task ofthe national authorities responsible for implementing the programmes and selecting the projects. Nonetheless the Commission is giving thought to improving the situation. This involves ensuring firstly that national legislation to implement Community directives is properly adopted. Furthermore, a solution which should be considered and discussed in partnership with the Member States could entail issuing a certificate of compliance with the rules on public procurement to the awarding authorities, setting up a body to verify observance ofthe provisions applicable on the subject and increasing the responsibility of the authority awarding contracts part-financed by the Community. It would be based on subsidiarity and partnership. At all events further progress must be made to improve the system of controls so that the situation regarding public contracts is clearer and there are controls which lay more stress on prevention and less on penalization after the event. 8. The Structural Funds and competition policy Under Articles 92 and 93 ofthe Treaty, the Commission keeps under review public aid to firms in so far as it distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. Among its criteria for assessing aid, the Commission gives prominence to economic and social cohesion, as the general texts adopted in 1995 show. Thus the Guidelines on aid to employment15 state that the Commission will be favourably disposed towards aid to create new jobs in less-favoured regions. Similarly, the Community Framework for State aid for research and development16 provides for higher rates where subsidized projects are carried out in an assisted region. Conversely, it is important for the Commission to ensure that its 14 See Chapter II. B. Checks and financial management. ,5OJNoC334, 12. 12. 1995. 16OJNoC45, 17. 2. 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 219 structural policy is consistent with competition policy as aid to firms accounts for a considerable part of structural intervention. To ensure such consistency, the Commission examines aid measures set out in programming documents and verifies in particular that national payments to Community part-financed projects fall within the framework of schemes approved by the Commission in accordance with Articles 92 and 93 ofthe Treaty. In 1995, the efforts begun in 199417 to improve consistency between competition policy and structural policy continued. Firstly, the revision of maps of regions eligible for regional aid at national level in Spain and Belgium was completed. Apart from the fact that such maps meet the timetable for programming of the various Structural Fund Objectives, they improve consistency between regions assisted nationally and those eligible under the Structural Funds. Secondly, the list of schemes part- financed by the Community was forwarded to the Commission by the three new Member States (Austria, Finland and Sweden). Some ofthose schemes were accepted as such as they had been adopted in 1994 under the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Others, which had been implemented before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, were adjusted in accordance with the Community rules on competition. The maps relating to regional aid in the new Member States were thus adopted in 1995. The fact that there remain some areas eligible under Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6 but not included by a Member State in its regional aid map is not incompatible with part-financing by the Structural Funds of schemes for aid to firms. The aid schemes which are authorized in such eligible areas must comply with the provisions on aid to SMEs or the de minimis aid rules, or else should fall under horizontal aid schemes for the environment or aid for research and development. Lastly, better coordination of decision-making procedures covering, on the one hand, the granting of assistance from the Structural Funds and, on the other hand, State aids continues to bear fruit in so far as it has enabled decisions on the granting of Structural Fund assistance to be approved more quickly. 9. Structural policy and education and training 1995 was the first year ofthe new generation of Community action programmes in the field of education and vocational training. These new action programmes, namely SOCRATES^ and LEONARDO DA VINCI19 have been adopted by the Council on the basis of Articles 126 and 127 of the Treaty on European Union. Both programmes call for a consistent or complementary implementation with other Community programmes and initiatives. In addition, Art. 8 ofthe Council Decision establishing LEONARDO DA VINCI stipulates that "in the context of their responsibility for implementing Community support frameworks, the Member States shall be free to establish consistency between this programme and the Structural Funds". This emphasis on consistency and complementarity is evident against the background of the development after the European Council in Essen, that put education and training on the top of the political agenda as keys to employment and competitiveness. It is necessary that the results of innovative education and training projects are transferred into mainstream funding ofthe Structural Funds. Practical steps has been taken to ensure complementarity between the Community Initiatives ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and the LEONARDO DA VINCI programme. Commission services responsible in March 1995 which for these programmes issued a framework paper on complementarity demonstrated the scope for measures to be taken. These ineasures aimed to avoid double funding on 17 See 1994 Annual Report. 18 Decision 819/95/EC ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the Community action programme "Socrates". 19 Council Decision 94/819/EC of 6 December 1994 establishing an action programme for the implementation of a European Community vocational training policy. 220 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) the on hand and to benefit from a complementary implementation of both sets of programmes on the other hand. ^ a aa ÇHAFTERffl INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE, REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP, DIALOGUE WITH THE SOCIAL PARTNERS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 223 A. INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE Implementation of the Structural Funds entails a constant and wide-ranging dialogue between the Commission and the other Community institutions. Both the number of partners involved and the subjects under discussion are constantly growing. The form of these discussions ranges from the now systematic exchange of information between the Commission, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to the adoption of official texts addressed to the other institutions in the form of communications from the Commission and opinions and resolutions from the other institutions. These exchanges take the fonn principally of meetings, whether formal (e. g. meetings of Parliament or its Committees, ministerial meetings) or informal (seminars or joint working parties) at political or technical level (inter-departmental or within the Structural Funds committees). These varied contacts naturally cover a very wide range of subjects. During 1995, these included the main topics which affected the Structural Funds and economic and social cohesion during the year: the adoption ofthe programmes for the new Member States and the new PEACE Initiative for reconciliation and peace in Northern Ireland, preparation ofthe Commission Decision on the allocation ofthe reserve for the Community Initiatives and the consultations which that entailed, preparation of the second phase of programmes under Objective 2 for 1997-99 and responses to the Fifth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions in the Community, which was adopted in 1994. They also embraced topics relating to the implementation ofthe Structural Funds such as their effectiveness and assessment, progress in implementing operational programmes and the finance they involve and the inclusion of the economic and social partners. Other topics discussed include subjects relating to the context of the Structural Funds such as their links with the development of a spatial planning policy on a European scale or the contribution of the Structural Funds to promoting job- creation. 1. Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee 1. 1. The European Parliament The Commission and Parliament maintained a continuous and fruitful dialogue during 1995. Pursuant to the code of conduct signed by the two bodies in July 1993, all programming documents concerning structural measures are sent to Parliament. The dialogue between the Commission and Parliament takes the fonn of the adoption of resolutions and opinions on structural policies proposed by Parliament's specialist committees and regular attendance by Commission representatives at meetings of those committees. During the year, Parliament issued opinions on a number of operations by the Structural Funds: financial assistance to Portugal for a specific programme to modernize the textiles and clothing industry,1 the special programme of aid for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland (PEACE Initiative)2, the Commission's proposal on emergency Community aid for the reconstruction ofthe areas devastated by the hurricane which hit Madeira in October 1993 and the proposal for a Decision on the reduced rate of excise duties on traditional rum produced in the overseas departments. Parliament also issued an opinion on the Fifth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions in the Community. It noted that, despite a general improvement in the situation in the regions ofthe Community, economic and social disparities were still considerable and asked for the factors which have a negative impact and help increase imbalances to be identified, for an assessment to be made of structural and financial assistance and for further measures to be taken and 1 Originally adopted in 1993 as the Textiles and Clothing in Portugal Initiative and then transferred to Heading 3 of the Financial Perspective (see 1994 Annual Report and Chapter I. B. I - Community Initiatives - of this Report). 2 See Chapter I. B. 1 Community Initiatives. 224 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) penalties introduced to prevent poor utilization of appropriations. It also asked for a study on the criteria for eligibility under the Structural Funds to ensure greater effectiveness and for consideration to be given to future enlargement ofthe Union. Parliament also adopted a resolution on "Europe 2000+" in which it asked the Inter-governmental Conference beginning in 1996 to incorporate in the Union Treaty the basis of a Europe-wide policy on spatial planning, including the adoption of common guidelines to ensure the coherence and complementarity of the various Community policies, the strengthening of the trans- European networks and a legal framework to facilitate cross-border and inter-regional cooperation. The Commission demonstrated complete willingness to keep the Committee on Regional Policy informed about developments in the implementation of the structural policies. Mrs Wulf-Mathies, the Member with special responsibility for regional policy and cohesion, presented the regional aspects of the 1995 work programme and informed members of Parliament about the follow up to the informal ministerial meeting in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March3 and the Commission's proposal on the allocation ofthe reserve for the Community Initiatives. 4 In addition, she covered cross-border cooperation and the link between economic and social cohesion and economic and monetary union, a topic also dealt with by Mr de Silguy, the Member with special responsibility for economic and monetary matters. Before the end of the year, Mrs Wulf-Mathies presented the Commission's work programme for 1996, the guidelines for assistance to Objective 2 areas for 1997-99 and the communication on "Cohesion policy and the environment. "5 The Director-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion presented the work of the cohesion financial instrument, the predecessor to the Cohesion Fund, in 1993 and 1994 and the communication on the new regional programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 ofthe Structural Funds. With more specific reference to the ESF, the working party set up at the end of 1994 with members from Parliament's Committee on Social Affairs and the ESF continued its work throughout 1995. This flexible structure comprises five members of the Committee on Social Affairs and the Director and Heads of Division responsible for the ESF. On average, it met once a month during 1995 and dealt with horizontal matters, such as implementation of the budget, implementation of the OPs, assessment and the Community Initiatives, and more specific topics, such as innovative ineasures under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation, the information society, the report of the Court of Auditors, etc. The working party also went to Italy to take an on-the-spot look at measures part-financed by the ESF. Turning to agriculture and rural development, as part ofthe preparation of an opinion on the Fifth Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1993), a discussion was held on implementation of a rural development policy in the European Union under the various Objectives concerned (1, 5(a) and 5(b)) and the Leader Community Initiative. Topics included the maintenance of jobs in rural areas, the diversification of economic activity both in agriculture and in other sectors, the problems of protecting the countryside and the defence of the environment as well as more administrative matters such as payment channels and the participation ofthe economic and social partners. Opinions were also issued on the definition in the three new Member States of mountain and less-favoured agricultural areas pursuant to Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas. Opinions were issued on the implementation ofthe Community Initiatives in the three new Member States and in particular on the allocation of appropriations between the Initiatives and the allocation ofthe reserve for the twelve original Member States. Dialogue between the Commission and Parliament's Committee on Fisheries was also continuous. Parliament had requested socio-economic measures for fishermen and gave a very warm welcome to their adoption during the year. 6 Mrs Bonino, the Member with special responsibility for Fisheries, explained the Commission's point of view on this matter to Parliament's September 1995 part-session. Dialogue between the Commission and Parliament's Committee on Fisheries continued in 1995 with 3 See Chapter III. A. 3 Informal meetings ofthe ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning. 4 See Chapter I. B. I Community Initiatives. 5 See Chapter I. A. I. 2 Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor. 6 See Chapter I. A. 5. 2. Objective 5(a) for Fisheries. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 225 subject-based seminars, one of which was devoted to structural policy in the sector (Santiago de Compostela, 2-3 October 1995). 1. 2. The Economic and Social Committee The Commission follows the work ofthe Economic and Social Committee attentively and makes policy and technical contributions at all levels. In 1995 contacts continued and the Commission considered all the opinions issued by the Committee. These included three opinions on Commission reports: the Fifth Report on the Implementation ofthe Structural Funds (1993), the Fifth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development ofthe Regions in the Community and the Annual Report on the cohesion financial instrument (1993-94). In each case, the Commission took note ofthe Committee's remarks and suggestions and gave its reactions. The Committee also adopted an opinion on the PEACE Initiative. The Committee chose to deliver an own-initiative opinion on "the future of cohesion" with reference to further enlargement. On local development initiatives, it stressed their advantages from the economic, spatial and social points of view. In the case of planning, it issued an opinion on "Europe 2000+" and on "Spatial planning and inter-regional cooperation in the Mediterranean area" with a view to greater economic and social cohesion. The Committee broadly shared the points of view expressed by the Commission in "Europe 2000+" and stressed the need for a Community view on spatial planning. It therefore supported vigorously the development of cross-border cooperation under the revised INTERREG II Initiative7 and the work of the Committee on Spatial Development in drawing up the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The Committee also expressed the desire to see planning policy brought within the scope ofthe Union Treaty. At the same time, the dialogue on the ESF continued in 1995 with Commission representatives contributing to the work ofthe Committee on aspects ofthe labour market and the implementation ofthe Structural Funds. This was also true of fisheries, where the Committee unanimously adopted two further opinions8 on two amendments to the FIFG Regulation (changing the unit of tonnage and socio-economic ineasures for sea fishermen). 2. Relations with the Committee ofthe Regions During 1995 the Commission laid the basis for an intensive dialogue with the Committee ofthe Regions by proposing wide-ranging cooperation based on an annual programme of consultations extending beyond the five areas laid down in the Treaty and concerning both proposals for legislation and the preliminary consultation process. When she addressed the Committee's September meeting, Mrs Wulf- Mathies expressed her views on the information society as a means of increasing cohesion within the Community and stressed the role to be played by the Member States and local authorities to ensure equitable participation in all the regions. The Committee also expressed its views on a number of current topics which influence regional policy and cohesion directly or indirectly. These included the PEACE Initiative, urban development, innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation and the Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund (1994). In its own-initiative "Opinion on the role of regional and local authorities in the partnership principle of the structural funds," the Committee noted that progress had been made in this field but asked for the local authorities to be more closely associated with the implementation of structural measures. It asked 7 See Chapter I. B. I Community Initiatives. 8 See Chapter I. A. 5. 2. Objective 5(a) for Fisheries. 226 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) for Article 4 ofthe Structural Funds Regulation to be amended so that regional and local authorities are expressly included in the partnership. 9 The Committee of the Regions also issued a reasoned opinion on the Commission's "Europe 2000+" communication, which it welcomed warmly. The Committee agreed with the main conclusions and came out in favour of a Community policy on spatial planning, to be expressed first of all in the ESDP. It confirmed the proposal it had already made in its opinion on the revision of the Treaty on European Union, that spatial planning, like inter-regional, cross-border and trans-national cooperation, should be included in the treaty. Two ofthe opinions directly concerned rural society. One, on the development of rural tourism, called for "greater consistency in Community intervention and a harmonization ofthe different Member States' policies. " The second concerned the European Charter on Mountain Areas drawn up by the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, to which the Committee recommended that the European Union and the Member States should accede. Other opinions, particularly those on "Europe 2000+" and on "Measures to combat the socio-economic and environmental impact of drought in southern Europe" dealt with the problem ofthe countryside. 3. Informal meetings ofthe ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning The ministers responsible for regional policy and spatial planning held two informal meetings in 1995, one in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March under the French Presidency and one in Madrid on 30 November and 1 December under the Spanish Presidency. The Strasbourg meeting considered the implementation of regional policies between 1994 and 1999, specifically the results of work in 1994 on drawing up the programmes under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) and the conditions required for the successful implementation of assistance from the Structural Funds in the years to come. Agreement was reached on a number of points: the priority to be given to promoting lasting jobs, which should involve all the partners and sectors concerned, the general need to concentrate assistance on a number of major priorities which took full account ofthe Union's policy guidelines, and the over-riding need to ensure the effectiveness of Structural Fund expenditure, whether through rigorous monitoring, the most exhaustive possible independent assessment or more rigorous financial controls. Greater effectiveness ofthe Structural Funds was a matter for both the Member States and the Commission. It was agreed at Strasbourg to hold a further meeting to consider how the Structural Funds could have a greater impact on employment. Further consideration would also be given to improving and strengthening the partnership so as to give still greater priority to employment. At their meeting on 30 November and 1 December in Madrid, the Ministers discussed preparation ofthe new Objective 2 programmes for 1997-99. 10 Most ofthe ministers favoured an approach constituting a continuation ofthe first phase (1994-96). However, they acknowledged that efforts needed to be made to improve the effectiveness ofthe Structural Funds by concentrating resources on areas where the need is greatest. The ministers and the Commission also agreed that measures part-financed by the Structural Funds should make a significant contribution to promoting employment in Objective 2 areas. They considered that the new Objective 2 programmes should cover research and development, the protection ofthe environment and the promotion of equal opportunities while also taking account ofthe specific situations and needs of each area. 9 See Chapter III. B Regional partnership. 10 Under Article 9 ofthe Structural Funds Framework Regulation, Objective 2 is programmed in two consecutive three-year phases (1994-96 and 1997-99). At the end ofthe first phase, the Commission, in close consultation with the Member States, will propose a revised list ofthe eligible areas. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 227 These meetings continued the consideration of spatial planning matters begun in earlier years. 11 They concentrated on three major and related aspects: preparation of the ESDP, the launch of trans-national cooperation projects concerned with planning and the scope which a European planning strategy should have. Trend scenarios for Europe were presented at the Strasbourg meeting comprising maps setting out likely future developments if policies remained unchanged. Further consideration was given to this point at Madrid. The initial policy options suggested by the Member States were presented as a prelude to the application on their territories ofthe principles agreed at the Leipzig meeting in 1994. The minsters also agreed to consider a first official draft ofthe ESDP in 1997. On the question of cross-border cooperation on planning the minsters agreed at both meetings on the importance they attached to the new strand C of the INTERREG II Initiative. 12 Mrs Wulf-Mathies presented two documents setting out considerations on the future of spatial planning policy at Community level, one based on the policy and institutional perspectives for the planning of the European territory and the other on the European dimension of planning. 4. Committee opinions The five Committees which assist the Commission in implementing the Structural Funds13 continued to have a heavy work load in 1995. This took two main forms: the adoption of programming for the new Member States and the implementation ofthe Structural Funds. The Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions met three times, was consulted by written procedure twice and issued a total of 16 opinions, three of them by written procedure and all unanimously favourable. They concerned the programmes for the new Member States, firstly, the list of areas eligible under Objective 2 and then the SPDs as such for Objectives 1, 2 and 6. As regards the implementation ofthe Structural Funds, the Commission informed the Committee of its guidelines for launching activities under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation,14 following which a guide to innovative measures was distributed to the members of the Committee. European planning perspectives were discussed with particular reference to the conclusions ofthe informal meetings ofthe ministers responsible15. There were useful discussions on various matters relating to the implementation of principles and programmes such as the assessment of regional policies, the verification of additionality, internal Commission procedures for the approval of programmes, financial irregularities in the management of the Structural Funds and the implementation of the provisions on information and publicity. These discussions enabled the Commission and the Member States to make each other aware of their aims and the challenges they faced and so to identify better the points requiring improvement if assistance, particularly from the ERDF, was to be implemented effectively. The ESF Committee was also very busy during 1995. Since its members' three-year term of office expired, its composition was renewed in October by a Council Decision. It held five meetings at which, in accordance with the rules, it issued opinions on the draft Commission Decisions on the CSFs/SPDs, mainly for the new Member States. Like the Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions, the ESF Committee considered in partnership matters of a horizontal nature relating to the implementation of the Structural Funds, including budgetary implementation, irregularities notified by the Member States and the identification of final beneficiaries. Other, more forward-looking, discussions covered the PEACE. Community Initiative, progress on the Community Initiatives, the guidelines for employment aid and the implementation of social dialogue measures and innovative measures under 1 ] See in particular the Corfu and Leipzig meetings in 1994 referred to in the 6th Annual Report (1994). 12 See Chapter I. B. I Community Initiatives. 13 Pursuant to Article 17 ofthe Framework Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended). 14 See Chapter I. B. 2 Innovative measures and technical assistance. 15 See paragraph 3 above. 228 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation. The Committee also branched out in a new direction when it considered drawing up a work programme for 1996. In order to encourage more active participation by its members, it began to discuss setting up an ad hoc working party to contribute to work arising from the conclusions ofthe Essen European Council and action plans for employment. The Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development (STAR Committee) also met frequently in 1995 and considered all the structural measures in the sector. It issued 180 favourable opinions. The Committee was closely associated with work on the new phase of Objective 5(b) and each meeting included a specific agenda item to report progress on the SPDs under that Objective. The Committee also issued unanimously favourable opinions on all the summary programme documents for Objective 5(b) submitted in 1995 and on the draft decisions approving them. It issued many other opinions on measures concerning Objective 5(a) including the new programmes on the processing and marketing of agricultural products and measures to accompany the reform ofthe CAP (particularly those with reference to the environment). The Standing Management Committee on Fisheries Structures met six times in 1995 and considered all the structural ineasures in the sector. It issued a total of six favourable opinions, five unanimously on the SPDs for Objective 5(a) fisheries and Objective 6 in the new Member States and one on the new regulation on the implementation of assistance from the FIFG. 16 The Management Committee for Community Initiatives met at the end of 1995 to hold an initial discussion on the allocation of the reserve for the Community Initiatives and amendments to the guidelines for INTERREG II, URBAN, EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT. This was a discussion for guidance prior to Parliament issuing its opinion early in 1996, after which the Committee adopted its formal opinion. The meeting provided an opportunity for the Commission to set out the priorities on which it had based its proposal to allocate appropriations from the reserve17 and for the Member States to give their reactions, which the Commission undertook to take into account as far as possible. At that meeting, the Commission explained to the Member States its guidelines for the part-financing of national networks under LEADER II. 16 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1796/95 of 25 July 1995, OJ No L 174, 26. 7. 1995. 17 See Chapter I. B. I. Community Initiatives. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 229 B. REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 1. Overview With the actual physical commencement ofthe programmes in 1995, the monitoring of assistance in partnership at regional level entered its active phase (in the case of Objective 5(b), for example, 86 meetings of regional Monitoring Committees were held in 1995). It was accordingly felt appropriate to report here how the partnership and programme monitoring are organized at regional level. The information on the preparation of the new programmes presented in the previous Annual Report illustrates how greatly the administrative structures ofthe regions and States ofthe European Union and their operation differ from one to another. The effective operation of the regional partnership in the context of the Structural Funds is influenced of course by this institutional and political diversity. The information currently available on the establishment of bodies to manage and monitor assistance testifies first and foremost to a broad level of participation by the regional authorities. This is an improvement on the previous programming period. The situation is more complex as regards the other regional, especially local, partners, depending on their institutional and financial responsibilities. However, in some cases, these bodies bring together or represent local authorities involved in monitoring assistance. Participation of the environmental authorities: The review of the Structural Funds Regulation in 1993 made participation by the environmental authorities in preparing and implementing the programmes compulsory. Their role is particularly important in ensuring compliance with the Community rules on the environment. In particular, the rules governing their involvement must be laid down in the programming documents. The Commission communication on "Cohesion Policy and the Environment"^ also stressed the importance of the environmental authorities when implementing structural assistance. This stems in particular from the provisions making the environmental authorities members of the Monitoring Committees for various programmes, especially where they include measures with an environmental impact. In the implementation of structural assistance, the Monitoring Committees are the principal mechanism for conducting the partnership at national, regional or even subregional level. The Committees, which meet at least twice a year for each form of assistance (SPD, OP, global grant, etc), are functioning well in general and their operating procedure allows the various regional and local partners to be fully involved. However, it must be acknowledged that a certain amount of complexity in national and Community procedures is one ofthe regulatory constraints under which the partnership has to develop (various levels of co-operation, time limits, a multiplicity of sectors aided, etc). This complexity can sometimes discourage the full and active participation of all the partners concerned. The Commission believes that the management ofthe Structural Funds can be simplified. However, the requirement to use the Structural Fund appropriations properly warrants procedures that ensure both effectiveness and supervision. A large part ofthe work of these Committees usually involves financial monitoring and following the physical implementation of assistance. The general analyses of the strategies, the results and the impact ofthe assistance should-also be improved. Moreover, the working procedures of the Committees, given their highlyoperational task, do not always lend themselves to promoting the new guidelines or suggested new departures that might be adopted by the Community institutions during the lifetime of the programmes (for example, the communications on employment, the environment, equal opportunities). The review ofthe regional partnership2 and the opinion expressed on it by the Committee ofthe Regions support this analysis in the main. The Committee notes in particular that "with a few exceptions local and regional authorities are more involved at present than in the last programme period" (point 17). It 1 See Chapter I. A. I. 2. Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor. 2 Own-initiative Opinion No 234/95 of 20 July 1995 on the role of regional and local authorities in the partnership principle ofthe Structural Funds. 230 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) stresses that the partnership needs a "political will" to be in place beforehand and points to the "benefits flowing from the close involvement ofthe partners" (point 36). However, it also feels that the rules on the Structural Funds should be less complicated (point 23). Ofthe Committee's proposals, the following merit particular mention: • • • the programming documents should be jointly signed by the various partners concerned (State, region, Commission). This was the practice formerly with the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes and is obviously of particular political interest, but it would prove rather hard to implement; the "current partnership provisions in the Structural Funds Regulations are vague" and this needs to be remedied. This interesting proposal may not be immediately applicable, perhaps, but the Commission recognizes its cogency. Indeed, a certain regulatory lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibilities when implementing assistance is likely in some instances to harm both its visibility and its proper implementation on the ground; the formal inclusion in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88, as amended, of the local and regional authorities "since they are the ones with the democratic legitimacy to represent the regional and local need and priorities. " Article 4 already mentions the "competent authorities and bodies [. ] designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level". While sharing this concern to improve the operation of the regional partnership, the Commission is aware ofthe limits placed on it by considerations of subsidiarity and the institutional, legal or financial responsibilities of each partner. 2. Implementation ofthe regional partnership in the Member States3 Belgium: Under the federal structure of this country, programmes are managed, implemented and monitored by both the Walloon and Flemish Regions. The Monitoring Committees meet under the presidency ofthe federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The projects, their conformity to the eligibility criteria and compliance with Community rules are examined by the technical committees. The Commission can be present and, while unable to vote, it can make technical comments. In the case of Wallonia alone, Commission participation in these technical committees is laid down in the provisions for implementing the programmes. A preliminary choice of projects is done by another body, the selection committee, on which the Commission is not represented. The technical committees, which meet twice a year before the meetings of the Monitoring Committees, act on the basis of this initial selection. Both the Flemish and Walloon regions are represented on the Objective 5(b) fisheries Monitoring Committee. Denmark: Like Belgium, Denmark organizes technical committees alongside the Monitoring Committees. The technical committees met seven times in 1995. The Commission can attend - although it has not yet done so - but only as an observer. Germany: For the new Lander and Eastern Berlin (Objective 1), the CSF is implemented by an inter regional, multifund Monitoring Committee, by horizontal monitoring sub-committees, and in each Land by a multifund monitoring sub-committee. The inter-regional, multifund Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995 to discuss general topics concerning the implementation of the CSF. It set up the sub-committees for each Land and adopted guidelines on the technical assistance measures. The Lander sub-committees met in all the Lander in 1995 and in June of that year the Commission organized an information seminar at which certain aspects of practical and financial implementation were discussed, as were measures to ensure that Community policies were taken into account more fully. 3 It should be noted that in the case ofthe fisheries sector under Objective 5(a), which is not regionalized, regional representatives are full members ofthe relevant Monitoring Committees in several Member States. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 231 Specific arrangements were also made for Objective 2. Beside the Monitoring Committee at federal level, which covers all the Lander and all the Funds, the Commission proposed awarding responsibility for programmes receiving more than ECU 40 million in Community aid to sub-committees in each Land. These will ensure effective regional monitoring of these programmes and are in line with the principle of partnership. Negotiations with the national authorities on this subject were still ongoing at the end of 1995. It should be noted that the Objective 2 Monitoring Committee and the sub-committees (where involved) are responsible for the Objective 2 programmes and for those under the Community Initiatives (except for the INTERREG programmes, for which specific Monitoring Committees were set up, given their particular aim). In the individual case of Berlin, a single sub-committee, which met at the end of 1995, is responsible for the Objective 2 (Western Berlin) programmes and the Objective 1 (Eastern Berlin) programmes, including the Community Initiatives which concern Berlin. Lastly, the responsibility for implementing each Objective 5(b) programme was given to the Lander. The Lander are represented on both Monitoring Committees dealing with fisheries aid, i. e. nine Lander are represented on the Objective 5(a) Committee and six Lander plus Eastern Berlin are on the Objective 1 committee. Spain: Two regional Monitoring Committee meetings took place in each region in 1995 for the Objective 1 programmes and one meeting in each for the Objective 2 and 5(b) programmes. The regional authorities took part in preparing the CSF priorities for Objectives 1 and 2 and in drawing up the regional OPs. The amount of Structural Fund assistance allocated to them differs depending on their responsibilities, the Structural Finds involved and the types of ineasures implemented. A more limited share ofthe Community aid is also allocated to the local authorities, even though they were not involved in preparing the CSFs. Thus, as regards assistance approved and/or planned under Objective 1, measures for which the Autonomous Communities or the local authorities are responsible account for respectively 35% and 10% of total ERDF assistance in the CSF, percentages which reach 48% and 16% respectively in the case of Objective 2 assistance. The regional authorities are also represented on the multifund regional Monitoring Committees for Objectives 1 and 2. On the other hand, the local authorities are not always represented, except for the Objective 2 Basque Country programme (the three Diputaciones F or ales sit on it) and the Balearic Islands programme (three members represent all eleven beneficiary municipalities) and on the Monitoring Committees for the Objective 1 "local environment" and "local development" OPs. The desire to involve the local authorities in the implementation ofthe Objective 5(b) programmes also resulted in certain regions in the full involvement of the* district councils and mountain and hill farming associations in the programming process. Lastly, where fisheries measures are concerned, each Autonomous Community is represented either on the Objective 5(a) Monitoring Committee (six Communities) or on the Objective 1 Monitoring Committee for the fisheries programme (eleven Communities). France: The Monitoring Committees for Objectives 1 and 2 are chaired by the regional prefect and include representatives of the local authorities (regional Council, general Council, municipality), the national departments in the region and the Commission. All these Committees (five for Objective 1, 19 for Objective 2) were established and met in 1995. Responsibility for implementing the Objective 5(b) programmes was given to the regional representatives of the State, but the local authorities and the economic and social partners are also represented on each Monitoring Committee. To take account of the great internal heterogeneity of certain regions which cover an extensive area eligible under Objective 5(b), some programmes include ineasures (or sub-measures) that are programmed on an sub-regional (department) level, the aim being to increase local authority involvement. Lastly, all the coastal regions are full members ofthe Pesca Monitoring Committee. Ireland: Ireland is regarded as a single "region" for the purposes of managing and administering the Structural Funds. However, the eight regional authorities have responsibility for monitoring Structural Fund expenditure in their respective regions. To this end, meetings are regularly organized between them and the national administration to discuss progress. They will also be involved in the mid-term 232 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) review ofthe CSF, which must take place in 1996. The regional authorities also attend a special meeting that takes place after the ordinary meetings of the CSF Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee at regional level includes elected local representatives, and representatives of voluntary organizations, local authorities, the public authorities and the social partners. Italy: The Italian regional authorities play an important role in the implementation of the operations part-funded by the Structural Funds, especially as regards Objective 1 (the Mezzogiorno), since they are the organizations mainly responsible for carrying out the OP. Approximately half the Community funds provided for under the Objective 1 CSF are managed by the regional administrations. Regions also take part in centrally-managed programmes. Similarly, the regions are responsible for implementing Objective 2 programmes, while for Objective 5(b) both the regions and the autonomous provinces are responsible. With regard to fisheries aid under the FIFG, six regions (Abruzzi, Basilicata, Calabria, Apulia, Sicily, Sardinia) sit on the Objective 1 FIFG Monitoring Committee, while the autonomous province of Trento takes part in the Objective 5(a) Monitoring Committee. The dialogue between the Commission, the State and the regions has developed satisfactorily in general. The quality of the information provided by the regional authorities responsible for the implementation of the programmes is on the whole good, and the Monitoring Committees are appropriately consulted. Moreover, considerable efforts have been made to improve the organization of the regional bodies implementing the aid, in line with the agreement negotiated between the Commission and the Italian Government in July 19954. Thus, regional coordinating units ("cabine di regia") to liaise with the national coordinating unit ^ cabine di regia") were established in each region, at both political and administrative level, to coordinate the various departments involved in implementing the priorities or specific measures under the various programmes. These coordinating units were established quicker in the Objective 2 areas than elsewhere. Netherlands: The programmes for all the eligible Objective 1 and 2 areas are administered and monitored by the national agency for the development of trade and industry, a body that operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. This agency issues final approval to the projects part-funded by the ERDF in particular. The projects are selected in advance by a technical Committee which the Commission can attend as an observer. At the meetings ofthe Monitoring Committees, which it does attend, the Commission is informed in particular of the projects which were selected for part- fuliding- and those which were rejected through a document listing both categories and the financial impact. By contrast, responsibility for implementing Objective 5(b) programmes was given to the regions. Austria: The regional partnership in Austria continued to prepare the new programmes in 1995. The Objective 1 and 2 programmes were prepared by a partnership comprising the national, regional and local authorities. An extended partnership including the Commission and the social partners will subsequently operate in the SPD Monitoring Committees. Portugal: In the case of this Member State, which is entirely eligible for Objective 1 but in which there is little regional ization, the Commission stressed to the Portuguese authorities the great importance that. it attaches to the implementation of the partnership with the regional authorities. With the creation in 1995 of regional advisory subcommittees whose task it is to monitor the implementation of regional OPs, the situation should now improve. It should be noted that representatives of the autonomous regions ofthe Azores and Madeira attend meetings ofthe Monitoring Committee for the Fisheries OP, as observers. Finland: A very extensive partnership has developed in Finland for the preparation of the new programming documents. A pyramidal approach was adopted to the preparation and implementation of the SPDs for Objectives 2 and 6. The first stage was the preparation ofthe programmes in each ofthe 4 See Chapter I. A. 2. Objective 1 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 233 regions concerned. The central authorities then gathered the regional projects into a single programme adopted by the Commission in the form of an SPD for each Objective covering the entire country and including estimated allocations ofthe appropriations between the activities and various regions. The two SPDs are monitored by a Monitoring Committee made up of representatives of all the regions, the funding ministries, the Commission and the social partners. Management ofthe programme is entrusted in each region to a management Committee comprising representatives ofthe region, the local offices of the national ministries and the social partners. The regional management Committee draws up its own plan for implementing the programme in its region based on the plan initially submitted to the central authorities. Project funding is to a large extent decided by the local offices ofthe central ministries or by the ministries themselves, but the regional management Committee examines and must adopt all the projects, thereby giving it control over implementation and enabling it to decide to a very large extent on how the SPD is implemented in its region. Implementation ofthe programmes under Objectives 3 and 4 is similarly very decentralized. The Finnish Ministry of Employment coordinates the assistance relating to human resources for all the Objectives and is also responsible for implementing most of the horizontal ESF programmes. Other Ministries, Education and Trade and Industry in particular, also assume responsibilities, while the municipal authorities, social partners and non-governmental organizations take part in carrying out the ESF measures at regional and local level. At project level, the adoption ofthe budget and national legislation ensure that the decision-making procedures on the projects part-funded by the ESF are widely shared. Under the horizontal programmes, the decision-making process is decentralized within the Ministry of Employment and within the other Ministries concerned (Trade and Industry, Agriculture). At regional level, the advisory committees for the employment areas and the regional management committees ensure that the activities are integrated by scrutinizing all the projects in the regional aid programmes before the competent authorities take the final decision. Lastly, the ESF lays stress on the need to ensure practical cooperation between the administrators in the interest groups, the regions, the municipalities, the universities and other educational establishments, the employment agencies and the representatives of trade and industry. Most ofthe projects in the programmes are therefore carried out in partnership. Sweden: The Swedish regional partners were fully involved in the preparation of the programmes submitted to the Commission. They include representatives of local and regional government, county councils, the employers, the trade unions, the financial organizations, the agricultural and environmental lobby and local or other associations. They will be represented on the SPD Monitoring Committees alongside the national government and the Commission. In addition, most of the programme budget (80%) will be implemented by the regional management committees that derive from the local and regional structures in place. Some measures, those under Objective 5(a) for example, will be managed by central agencies, while the Sami people will receive a global grant. the main in particular interested partners, United Kingdom: The regional partnership was strengthened in the programmes adopted in 1994. For each Objective 1, Objective 2 or Objective 5(b) SPD a Monitoring Committee was established at regional level, chaired by the regional manager of the relevant Government Office, including the Ministries concerned representatives of all (Environment, Trade and Industry, Transport, Education, Employment and Agriculture) and the Commission. The local authorities, the training, education and private sectors are also represented on the Monitoring Committees. The number of Monitoring Committee members range in number from five or six (Gibraltar) to close on forty in other regions (East Midlands for example). The local authorities are heavily represented. They usually account for about a third of the seats on the Committees and are ordinarily represented by officials, although elected representatives also sit in certain cases. More specifically, in the case of the Objective 2 programmes, the Commission made strong representations to the United Kingdom authorities that the lack of participation by elected members (participating in four ofthe sixteen Objective 1 and 2 Monitoring Committees) and by the economic and social partners, whose involvement ran into central government resistance, should be remedied. This expanded partnership was able to play a modest role in a number of cases, thanks to ad hoc meetings organized by the chairmen ofthe Monitoring Committees. 234 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) The urban development associations and the regional and local development offices are also represented. Mention should also be made ofthe lesser role played by collective and environmental bodies (e. g. the National Rivers Authority or Scottish Natural Heritage) and sometimes major local companies. The private sector is often asked to participate through the involvement of the Chambers of Commerce or other bodies like Railtrack, Training and Enterprise Councils (which play a major role in England and Wales) and Local Enterprise Councils (the competent authorities in Scotland). The involvement of local higher education establishments (universities) and the post secondary schooling (over 16 years) sector was also ensured. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 235 C. DIALOGUE WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 1. The socio-economic partnership in monitoring structural assistance In monitoring the Structural Fund programmes, and most notably at meetings of the Monitoring Committees, the Commission stresses the importance of greater participation by the socio-economic partners, who, since they too are working towards social and economic development, can usefully contribute to the implementation of the programmes in their regions. The involvement of the social partners varies from one Member State to the next depending on the institutional, legal or financial responsibilities delegated to them. This involvement also varies depending on the Objectives of the Structural Funds. 1. 1. Overview In 1995, the Commission concluded its analyses ofthe involvement ofthe economic and social partners in implementing and monitoring structural measures. In general, four scenarios can be distinguished: • • • the social and economic partners are directly involved in the Monitoring Committees. Only a small amount of Community assistance is dealt with in this manner, but almost all ESF assistance under Objectives 3 and 4 is monitored with social partner participation; the socio-economic partners are not directly involved in the Monitoring Committees but are represented, for example, through national or regional economic and social councils; the economic and social partners are not directly or indirectly involved in the Monitoring Committees. However, additional activities (information sessions, advisory committees, seminars, etc. ) are provided for, sometimes on a regular basis, to keep them informed about implementation and to allow them to voice their concerns and put forward suggestions; • no particular provision has been made to involve the economic and social partners in implementing and monitoring structural assistance. A significant amount of Community assistance falls into this category. Recent trends indicate that the authorities responsible for implementing structural assistance are now more willing to involve a greater number of partners and actors in monitoring Community structural ineasures. To this end, the Commission supports all the additional information, consultative or cooperative activities organized by the competent authorities that allow the various partners to be involved as effectively as possible, with due regard to their real responsibilities and their technical and operating capabilities. 1. 2. Implementation ofthe socio-economic partnership in the Member States A description ofthe different situations in the Member States, broken down by region-based Structural Fund Objectives and then the non-regional Objectives, is useful for illustrating the above. Region-based programming (Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) ) Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark: Provision is made in these four Member States to supply the social partners (trade unions and representatives of employers' associations in particular) with information on the progress of the programmes. The social partners are full members of the SPD and Community Initiative Monitoring Committees and their presence is a necessary condition. For example, for Objective 5(b) in Belgium and Denmark, the representatives ofthe social partners number four, there are two employers' representatives and two workers' representatives in Belgium while in Denmark there 236 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) are two union representatives, one employers' representative and one representing the Chamber of Agriculture. In the Netherlands they are five in number: one employers' representative, three workus' representatives and one agriculture representative. Germany: The social partners are involved in different ways depending on the Objectives. In the case of Objective 1 (the new Lander), meetings of the horizontal Monitoring Committees1 are preceded by preparatory meetings with the economic and social partners. In the case of Objective 2, the economic and social partners should be involved in the Land subcommittees proposed by the Commission for the programmes in receipt of the most significant funding, but discussions in this regard were still continuing at the end of 1995. As for Objective 5(b), the economic and social partners (local chambers and organizations party to collective agreements) are informed at meetings held before and after the Monitoring Committee. Spain: The social partners are not members of the Monitoring Committees for the Objective 1 and 2 CSFs and OPs. They are instead informed of the progress of the CSF, the programmes, projects and related global grants through the Spanish Economic and Social Committee after each CSF Monitoring Committee. The Commission has for the first time persuaded the Spanish authorities to hold a meeting with the social partners within the Economic and Social Committee (ESC). One purpose ofthe meeting was to inform the ESC ofthe conclusions ofthe Committee monitoring the Objective 1 CSF for the second half of the year. By contrast, the involvement ofthe social partners in Objective 5(b) differs more widely from region to region. Two regional Monitoring Committees include trades union and Economic and Social Committee representatives, the other regions organize only specific information meetings. France: The economic and social partners' involvement in programme monitoring, which is quite extensive in terms of the number of interests represented, varies depending on the Objective and the region. In the case of Objective 1 programmes, the social partners are represented on Monitoring Committees by a representative ofthe regional Economic and Social Council in the case of Corsica and Nord Pas-de-Calais, while in the overseas departments (Réunion, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique) the local chambers (chambers of trade and industry, agriculture and trades) are formally involved in the Monitoring Committees, although the arrangements vaiy. They are either members of the actual Monitoring Committee or are invited to information meetings held after the Committee meets. Furthermore, when the SPDs were adopted for the overseas departments, formal meetings including not only the local chambers but also employers' or professional groiups and trades union representatives were held with all representatives ofthe social partners in each region. It should also be noted that, when Commission officials undertake missions to each region, they regularly meet the local chambers to discuss aspects of programme implementation. In the case of Objective 2 and all these SPDs, the social partners are represented in the Monitoring Committees by a representative ofthe regional Economic and Social Council. By contrast, the Objective 5(b) Monitoring Committees include, in addition to the local partners, representatives of the regional chambers of agriculture, trades, commerce and industry, as well as members ofthe regional Economic and Social Council. Some Monitoring Committees also include representatives of environmental protection associations. Ireland: The social partners have been fully involved in the management of Structural Fund expenditure since the reform ofthe Funds in 1989. Their representatives are full members ofthe OP Monitoring Committees and take part in the decision-making process on Structural Fund assistance. This involvement is highly regarded and provides very important sectoral experience at the various Monitoring Committee meetings. Furthermore, the social partners are represented on each of the regional Monitoring Committees2. Lastly, the social partners attend a special meeting organized after 1 See Chapter II1. B. Regional partnership. 2 See Chapter III. B. Regional partnership. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 237 each ordinary meeting of the CSF Monitoring Committee. They are thus fully integrated into the Structural Funds management structure in Ireland. Italy: The enlargement of the partnership to include the economic and social partners was a genuine innovation compared to the previous period. Representatives of the main trades union and employers' organizations contribute to the work of the Objective 1 Monitoring Committees in a regular manner through attendance at technical meetings preparatory to the Monitoring Committees and at an information meeting on the decisions taken there. Objective 2 saw a more complete approach in that the economic and social partners participated in the drawing up of the conversion plans and in the SPD negotiations in 1994 and this participation gained formal recognition through their full membership of the Objective 2 SPD Monitoring Committees, made up of one trades union representative, one representative of the employers' associations and one representative of the local authorities. The socio-economic partners were also represented on all the Monitoring Committees for Objective 5(b), but only in an advisory capacity. Austria: The social partners (employers' organizations, trades unions, chambers of commerce and, in the case of Objective 1, farming organizations) are represented on the Monitoring Committees. Their precise role in these committees was still being discussed at the beginning of 1996, however. Portugal: As in the case of the regional partnership, the Commission attaches great importance to implementing the partnership with the socio-economic partners in Portugal and it has stressed this fact to the Portuguese authorities. The Commission has ensured that the national Economic and Social Committee is informed about four times a year of progress in implementing the Objective 1 CSF. Finland and Sweden: The representatives of the social partners (employers' organizations, trades unions, chambers of commerce and, in the case of Objective 6, representatives of the farming organizations) are full members of the Monitoring Committees in Finland and Sweden. These organizations are also consulted when decisions are being taken on important projects. It should be noted that efforts have been made to extend the partnership to include in the Monitoring Committees other organizations representing the local residents (for example, the popular movements in Sweden). United Kingdom: The social dialogue in the UK programmes is not as well developed as in the other Member States. No single programme fully involves all the social partners in assuming responsibility for its regional implementation. The social partners are sometimes included as part of an enlarged regional partnership, but not in the Monitoring Committees. They are given information on the programmes but how this information is communicated to them varies from region to region. The chairman of the Monitoring Committee sometimes provides reports after the event to the social partners involved (in the case of Objective 5(b), specific information meetings are held after the Monitoring Committee meetings for the local authorities and associated bodies). In other instances, the social partners are informed in so far as this is deemed useful. There is no regular advance consultation ofthe social partners in any region. Non-regional programming (Objectives 3, 4 and 5(a)) In the case of Objective 3, the social and economic partners are represented on the Monitoring Committees of all Member States, except for the United Kingdom. The situation is virtually the same for the Objective 4 Monitoring Committees where the social partners are full members. It differs, however, in that the economic partners (the local chambers, for example) are more often represented than is the case under other Objectives. Thus, in Germany, the Objective 4 Monitoring Committees include in an advisory capacity the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHT) and the Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (ZdH - German union of craft industries). This is equally true of Finland, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Italy. In the case of structural measures in the fisheries sector (Objective 5(a)), the economic and social partners (fishing and/or aquaculture enterprises, those employed in the industry, fishing organizations) take a direct part in the Monitoring Committees in six Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, 238 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Greece, Ireland, Sweden), while in two others (France and the Netherlands) their involvement is only indirect, i. e. prior to meetings ofthe committee. 2. The economic and social partners at Community level The Commission has consolidated the statutory practice of consulting annually the social partners organized at Community level. The working group proposed by the Commission at the December 1994 meeting was established in 1995. This group made it possible to by-pass the strictly annual nature of this consultation procedure and turn it into an on-going cooperative process. Two meetings ofthe group in 1995 helped to improve the preparation ofthe formal annual consultation procedure which, for technical reasons, took place at the beginning of 1996. During this procedure, the Commission presented the Sixth Annual Report on the Implementation ofthe Structural Funds in 1994. It also gave an early progress report on Structural Funds activities in 1995 and described the work under way on the first three-yearly report on economic and social cohesion. Notable among the social partners' comments were: • • • their desire, shared by the Commission, to demonstrate the results and impact of the structural measures and in particular their contribution to economic and social cohesion. To this end, the social partners showed a marked interest in preparing the three-yearly report on cohesion. They felt that this report should also identify the first steps to be taken in redirecting structural policies after 1999 with a view to increasing their effectiveness; the concerns of certain sectors: the on-going problems in the agriculture and fisheries sectors, the desire of bodies such as the chambers of commerce and industry to participate actively in structural operations, the difficulties of SMEs in gaining access to Community aid; the desire to see the Commission analyse practical issues such as the participation ofthe social and economic partners in monitoring the implementation ofthe aid measures in greater detail in future reports; • while acknowledging a gradual improvement, the need to make significant progress in involving the social partners in monitoring the implementation of the structural measures. The social partners do however recognize the technical difficulties inherent in their participation when this involves, for example, evaluating or estimating the potential impact ofthe projects in creating dynamic regional development or even in job creation. As a result, they also wish to see targeted technical assistance measures to strengthen their technical and operational capabilities. The Commission echoes most of the social partners' wishes. It is aware that their participation can be effective only where the partners involved have the necessary technical and operational capabilities. For this reason, the ERDF funded 15 seminars in 1995 organized by the ESC to prepare regional and national representatives of its member confederations for attendance at the Objective 1 Monitoring Committees. An introductory seminar was held in Luxembourg, with Commission participation, to establish the aims, policies and working methods. The results, conclusions and proposals of each ofthe 15 seminars organized in the regions whose development is lagging behind in the Member States were submitted to a joint session at Lisbon, from which the ESC was able to produce a general progress report and submit its conclusions to the Commission. The ESC notes that trades union participation in the Monitoring Committees is rather limited and feels that its member organizations should continue to insist on participating in the Committees to ensure that the programmes and projects create dynamic regional development that in turn creates jobs. The ESC has noted that the technical capabilities needed to monitor structural operations are lacking. The Committee feels that the technical assistance provided for under the Structural Funds Regulations should be used to improve these capabilities. With this in mind, the ESC would favour the establishment of a network of regional experts to assist the monitoring activities of union officials. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 239 The relationship between the ESF and certain categories of social partner mainly takes the form of funding for training. Such training, provided for under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation3, is likely to strengthen the training measures in the Objective 4 programming documents and the ADAPT Initiative, both of which provide for the active participation of the social partners in implementing the programmes. At the end of 1994, the Commission drew up, in collaboration with the social partners concerned, guidelines for measures funded in this regard, and it submitted them to the ESF Committee. These guidelines concerned first and foremost the Community's economic and instititutional framework within which other types of ineasures develop, secondly the new methods of production and organization of work and thirdly, a series of themes linking issues of industrial change with the labour market. Thus, in accordance with the guidelines, in 1995 the ESF funded training ineasures for the social partners at Community level4. In the case ofthe Economic and Social Committee, this involved 14 training courses in which the 15 Member States participated, covering the impact of new technologies on employment in various sectors, such as high-speed trains, telecommunications, air transport and the environment. Furthermore, various training sessions were organized for employers' representatives under the programmes submitted by UNICE-CONPRI. The action programme submitted for the first time by the CEEP sought to provide a response to the prospects for managing equal representation between the social partners. The Fondazione Régionale Pietro Seveso set in motion an action programme on the prospects for developing and evaluating industrial relations models in Europe. The ESF funded sectoral studies alongside the appropriate social partners which looked at the difficulties inherent in the effects of industrial change on working practices (vocational qualifications, new skills and trades in particular). These sectoral studies involved the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, among others. Lastly, as a result ofthe reflection process started at the end of 19945, the groundwork was done on producing a mechanism to associate the social and economic partners with the effects of industrial change. New structures better adapted to future social dialogue were introduced. In this context, the accent will be placed on the need to integrate in the process of European social dialogue all organizations that can contribute significantly to industrial relations. A Commission communication in 1996 should further clarify this issue. As regards rural issues, the Advisory Committee on Questions of Agricultural Structure Policy is the body most consulted by the Commission. It met on two occasions in 1995, and at these meetings a wide- ranging discussion ofthe problems of rural development policy took place. Specific problems relating to the Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming, aid for the installation of young farmers and the introduction ofthe LEADER II initiative were also discussed. The Commission also informed its partners about progress on the CSFs/SPDs and the OPs for Objectives 1, 5(b) and 6, progress with the LEADER II Initiative, and the ineasures accompanying the reform of the CAP6. Lastly, the role, workings and future ofthe advisory Committee on Agricultural Structures were also discussed. Similarly, in the fisheries sector, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries is the body through with the industry engages in a dialogue with the Commission. It received on several occasions information and explanations concerning the implementation of the FIFG, measures under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation7 and the PESCA Initiative. In March 1995, Mrs Bonino, the Member ofthe Commission with responsibility for fisheries, attended a meeting ofthe committee that dealt with, inter alia, structural assistance for the industry and socio-economic ineasures for deep-sea fishermen. In addition, the Commission worked with the Joint Committee on Social Problems in Sea Fishing, established as part of 3 See Chapter I. B. 2. Innovative actions and technical assistance. 4 These measures continue those undertaken in the preceding period. In this regard, a comprehensive ex post evaluation ofthe AFETT and CONPRI 1 measures should be undertaken in 1996. Such an exercise is obviously of great importance both for the ESF, which funds the measures, and for the beneficiaries. 5 See the 1994 Annual Report. 6 Regulations (EEC) Nos 2078/92, 2079/92 and 2080/92. 7 See Chapter l. B. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 240 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) the European social dialogue. Furthermore, the industry was represented at some sessions of the thematic seminars organised by the Commission for Members of the European Parliament8: the first seminar (Ancona, 22-23 June 1995) related to the preservation offish stocks, the second (Santiago de Compostela, 2-3 October 1995) dealt with structural policies for aquaculture and fisheries. 8 See Chapter III. A. l. Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 241 D. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION OF BEST PRACTICE 1. Information and communication Provisions concerning the Member States The duties ofthe Member States with regard to information and publicity are laid down by Article 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended and the Commission Decision of 31 May 1994,1 in which the Commission undertook to provide the authorities concerned in the Member States with a practical manual to facilitate implementation. The manual was published in 1995 and sent to those responsible for structural policies in the national administrations, who were also invited to consider this matter and ensure that it was considered by the Monitoring Committees. The obligation to provide information also forms part of the standard clauses attached to the decisions adopting the SDPs and the Monitoring Committees strive constantly to apply the Community rules. The Commission representatives drew the attention ofthe Monitoring Committees to this matter at meetings during 1995. As part ofthe implementation ofthe OPs, a number of Monitoring Committees have also adopted communications plans financed by technical assistance. Commission information activities Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation permits the Commission to take certain technical assistance measures on its own initiative. It has part-financed attendance at major events, the organization of seminars and other one-off measures. During 1995, the Commission had stands at 40 events which it was part- financing and provided documentation and information for 17 000 visitors. Particular attention was paid to media coverage of these events and the provision of specific information for the press. The Commission also produces various types of publications which are distributed mainly through a regional database of some 30 000 addresses. This now includes the new Member States. The publications already produced and made available to the public include almost all the programming documents for the Objective 1 regions (full and summary CSFs) and the Objective 2 areas (summaries only). News on regional policy is contained in a monthly newsletter and an Internet site for regional and cohesion policy has been created. 2 ''The environment and the regions: towards sustainable development" This is the title of an information booklet published by the Commission for the general public. It reviews the state ofthe environment in the regions and sets out the main lines of Community policy on the environment - particularly the Fifth action programme on the environment - and the measures taken in the various regions ofthe Community. It covers measures under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and includes examples of projects carried out since 1989. Following its adoption of a revised communications strategy in March 1995, the Commission continued its efforts to extend its contacts and objectives. A pilot project which had begun successfully in France was extended in cooperation with Commission offices in the Member States to Spain, the United Kingdom and Germany. This extension of the media plan enhanced knowledge and so extended coverage of regional policy issues by national and regional press and television. As part of this strategy, the Commission broadened the scope of its video image bank, which is used frequently by television stations, and is developing a picture library for the same purpose. 1 Commission Decision concerning information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) - OJ No L 152, 18. 6. 1994 (see also the 1994 Annual Report). 2 Server Europa: http. //www. cec. lu. 242 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Making the ESF better known, to the general public in particular, and making its working more transparent led to the preparation and coordination of a communications plan and related measures. The first meeting with representatives of each Member State was organized in 1995 and two seminars will be held in 1996. This contact led to an exchange of views on information, communications and knowledge of the ESF in the Member States. A general information booklet on the ESF was produced and distributed in nine languages and over 160 000 copies to meet a real need for information. A number of publications on the EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT Community Initiatives and Objective 4 were also produced and the ESF took part in a number of events to increase the exchange of experience and knowledge, including those held in Opio and Seville. In the case of the EAGGF Guidance Section, this desire for information took the fonn of active participation in the preparation of regional booklets for the Madrid European Council. The Commission intends to step up its policy of information on rural development in the future. The FIFG did not lag behind in terms ofthe production of documentation nor the organization of events. The publications produced in 1994 on structural measures for fisheries3 were distributed in all the Member States. They were supplemented by 15 booklets for the general public financed under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation4 on FIFG assistance in each Member State and a publication entitled "Aquaculture and the environment in the European Community. " The Commission organized a seminar on structural policy on fisheries and aquaculture at Santiago de Compostela (Spain) attended by a number of Members of the European Parliament and representatives of those working in the sector. It also organized in Brussels a round table on the conversion of areas dependent on fisheries, to provide better knowledge of and analyse experience in this area in Europe. 2. Measures to disseminate good practice The Commission's measures to provide information on the Structural Funds cover not only the programmes and their implementation but also innovative measures, so that these can later be disseminated on a larger scale. The spread of good practice takes various forms, mainly networking and major events organized by the Commission. In the case of innovative measures and inter-regional cooperation under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, dissemination takes three main forms: • first of all, in view of their operation through networks, RECITE (internal cooperation) and ECOS- OUVERTURE (external cooperation) pilot projects, which contribute to the exchange of experiences leading rapidly to the transfer of knowledge among their members. This transfer concerns innovative practices on subjects of common interest to the network, e. g. mechanisms for the control and prevention of pollution in the case of ENVIRONET, vine-growing techniques in the case of DYONISOS, instruments for computer calculation in the case ofthe network of scientific centres. At an earlier stage, the PACTE/Exchange of experiences programme for smaller networks seeks to raise initial awareness of inter-regional cooperation through the exchange of information and experience on matters of common interest relating to regional development; • for all these networks the Commission organizes launch days so that their members can meet. They also attend review days to summarize good practice and extend it on a regional level. These days result in the production of documents which are widely distributed; 3 "The European Community and the fishing industry. Practical guide to structural aid". "The common fisheries policy," information file including the structural aspect. "The new common fisheries policy," an information booklet containing a chapter on structural assistance. 4 See Chapter I. B. 2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 243 - Q UU • the Directoria events organized by the Commission each year in Brussels (twice in 1995) enable the delegations of some 500 local authorities representing 1 200 participants to meet and be informed about programmes of innovative measures and inter-regional cooperation which concern them, to receive through case studies methodological support on development techniques and good practice and, most important, to begin cooperation projects through a pool of appointments based on calls for proposals. Most of the Community Initiatives make provision for cross-border measures, principally the establishment of networks for the exchange of information and meetings between participants in partnerships, all of which are designed to disseminate good practice and stimulate cross-border cooperation. Hence, for the new period ofthe Community Initiatives, appropriations to finance networks are available under LEADER (ECU 34 million), SME (ECU 25 million) and PESCA (ECU 5 million) and are incorporated in the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT programmes. Since some of the programmes were adopted in 1995, most activities relating to the exchange of information remained at a preparatory stage and will be implemented in 1996. In the case of PESCA, calls for tenders and proposals were prepared for publication in 1996 to encourage innovative cross-border projects and disseminate good practice through publications, conferences, partnership meetings, the creation of networks, etc. It is intended to publish guides to good practice under the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT Initiatives. The LEADER network has, however, continued to operate strongly thanks to the experience acquired through LEADER I. The European Observatory for Innovation and Rural Development organizes the European rural development network, which includes the whole of LEADER II. The Observatory's activities include the publication of a number of journals and the organization of various meetings and events. The INFO-LEADER monthly information bulletin is a useful means to encouraging the European rural development network because it offers a forum for all those concerned by LEADER II to publish news and seek partners, cooperation or exchanges likely to be of interest to all those involved in the Initiative. In particular, a number of national or international meetings attended by several LEADER groups took place in 1995; in March the Murcia LEADER group organized a meeting on the restoration of buildings for rural tourism, in the spring ten local action groups in Portugal, France and Wales took part in a seminar in Poland to present the LEADER Initiative, in July there was a national meeting of local action groups in Paris organized by the CNASEA (Centre national pour l'aménagement des structures des exploitations agricoles - national centre for improving the structures of agricultural holdings) and in Spain a national network for rural development was established to federate the local action groups. In October, a seminar to launch the LEADER Initiative was organized by Carinthia and the local action group for the Norische region. Also in October, the tenth meeting of members of the Greek LEADER network was held at Mirina on Lemnos. ^WÇ^Hé CHAPTER IV FURTHER REVIEW OF THE 1989-93 PERIOD 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 247 Introduction The very nature of programming means that evaluation ofthe entire first period, 1989-93, is an ongoing process. The programmes were adopted throughout the period (some in 1993) with their physical execution taking place as late as 1995, and many programmes were extended, as was their financial implementation (for although expenditure commitments were not possible after the end of 1993, payments to beneficiaries by the Member States and to the Member States by the Commission were authorized until 1995, or even 1996). That continuing situation explains why evaluation ofthe entire period is also a gradual process. Although initial work by the Commission started in 19941, it was often preliminary in nature and in any case related only to certain measures. The successive annual reports, from 1993 onwards, sought to present the results as they became available to the Commission. This report continues that work for the evaluations carried out in 1995. However, this type of framework, a report prepared annually to set out the activities ofthe previous year, does not easily lend itself to an overall summary of an entire programming period without becoming excessively long or failing to meet legislative requirements. Nevertheless, under the 1993 revision ofthe rules (Article 16 ofthe Framework Regulation), the Commission must prepare every three years a report on economic and social cohesion taking into account all financial instruments and Community policies (first and foremost the Structural Funds) to analyse of their contribution to the achievement of cohesion. The first such report was prepared in 1996. A. EX POST EVALUATION OF ADDITIONALITY Because structural measures provide part-financing for national programmes, the principle of additionality is particularly important when gauging the true economic impact of those ineasures. The Commission has to ensure that Member States maintain their public or similar structural expenditure over the relevant programming period at at least the same level as during the previous period. There was therefore intensive work in 1995 on verifying additionality for the 1989-93 period, because it is not until a year after the legal end of the financial commitments, while national and Community payments are still being made, that such work can reliably be undertaken. The work on some Member States and some Objectives has been concluded, but it often proved difficult. 1. Objectives 1 and 2 The ex post additionality evaluation started in 1995 for these Objectives. The situation varies substantially between the Member States. The information presented at the end of 1995 by Belgium (Wallonia), Denmark, Spain, Ireland and the Netherlands was satisfactory, demonstrating that additionality had been observed in 1989-93. In contrast, the information forwarded by Germany, Belgium (Flanders) and Greece was incomplete and did not permit a proper evaluation. Lastly, by the end of 1995 France, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal had not submitted any figures at all. 2. Objectives 3 and 4 As in the case of Objectives 1 and 2, the verification exercise is useful and effective if the Member State agrees to cooperate. Thus, a reliable conclusion was reached for the Member States which applied the Commission's methodology rigorously: Luxembourg, France, Germany, Denmark (although the exercise was based on an unrepresentative sample) and Portugal, where additionality was clearly respected. In two cases, additionality was verified without the Commission receiving figures which were sufficiently detailed (the Netherlands) or representative (Italy). Greece supplied figures only for 1990-91, while See the 1993 and 1994 Annual Reports. 2 48. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) conclusions for other Member States (Belgium and the United Kingdom, where additionality could not be verified), which looked at the entire national budget, were not reliable. Lastly, two Member States raised an objection of principle: Ireland felt that additionality could not be measured for Objectives 3 and 4 as the whole country was eligible under Objective 1, and Spain held that the sources of the information supplied to the Commission did not have to be revealed. In conclusion, the evaluation exercise demonstrated that additionality had been respected in France, Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal. On the basis ofthe findings, the same can be said of Italy and the Netherlands. On the other hand, the evaluation exercise could not be completed in 1995 for Belgium, Spain, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom. B. EX POST EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES Work on ex post evaluations ofthe various Objectives started in 1994 and was pursued intensively in 1995. The reader is asked to refer to the previous Annual Report for Objective 1, whose results and impact were presented in detail, and for Objective 2, the preliminary results of which were also presented there. With regard to the latter Objective, the in-depth analysis by the assessors was still under way in 1995. Preliminary results for Objectives 3, 4 and 5(b) were given in the previous report and are confirmed here by the work done in 1995. Results for Objective 5(a) were available for presentation only in this Report. 1. Objectives 3 and 4 1995 saw the final ization ofthe expost evaluation reports for the former Objectives 3 and 4 for 1989-93. Despite the delay in the submission of reports by some Member States, the summary ofthe results was completed by the end ofthe year and should be distributed in 1996. This will permit coordination ofthe approaches ofthe Commission and the Member States and will help preparation ofthe policy guidelines for the ESF, particularly with regard to ensuring appropriate rules for assistance and the effect on target groups. The final conclusions do not differ from the preliminary results already described in the 1994 Annual Report. It is worthwhile giving some details on the implementing conditions for the programmes. The summary report stresses two key elements of the 1988 reform, multiannual programming and evaluation. Multiannual programming produced changes in the way the national administrations operated but it helped to create a true continuous development and assistance strategy. In addition, a new evaluation culture gradually developed at Community level and in each Member State. Another fundamental principle ofthe 1988 reform was the strengthening of partnership, and this led to the increased involvement of regional actors and social partners. While in countries with a decentralized structure the report notes a growing convergence and even a movement of resources to the most appropriate level, the involvement ofthe social partners remained modest in most cases between 1989 and 1993. Neither the bodies responsible for the actual monitoring of beneficiaries nor those involved in business training have anything other than a purely formal role in partnership. 2. Objective 5(ai The method of evaluating Objective 5(a) agriculture is quite different from those for the other forms of assistance, mainly because it falls under two Regulations: Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2328/91 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures and 866/90 on improving the conditions for the processing and marketing of products. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 24Q Measures under Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (production structures): These measures have long been an important element ofthe common agricultural policy. Ex post evaluation concentrates on their application, using questionnaires drawn up by the Commission and sent by the Member States every year with information on: • • investments on holdings; the number of holdings targeted by the programme broken down by region, the income bands of beneficiary farmers, cultivated area, production type; • a breakdown by category of investment, the main purpose ofthe investments and their total amount, the planned amount of aid; • start-up aid for young farmers and additional aid intended to facilitate their investments; • compensatory allowances, with the number of farms per region and by size, areas benefiting and the amounts granted in different regions. The overall impact of those measures on the development of agricultural structures has not been systematically analysed. However, there have been studies on certain measures in some Member States while aid to young farmers was the subject of a Commission report which had not been completed by the end of 1995. Measures under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 (processing and marketing of products): Only since 1991 have ineasures to improve the processing and marketing of products been the subject of a programming procedure under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90; before then the Commission selected projects submitted under Regulation (EEC) No 355/77. Member States were obliged to inform the Commission ofthe results ofthe various projects in the form of final reports on each project drawn up after completion. Now, under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90, monitoring and evaluation are governed by Articles 25 and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (as amended) coordinating the Structural Funds, which provide for the setting up of Monitoring Committees and the establishment of physical and financial indicators to determine the progress of ineasures. The Monitoring Committees established to evaluate application of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 are now in place in all Member States, and appropriate monitoring and evaluation programmes have been prepared. It is they who will be organizing expost evaluation for the period 1989-93. 3. Objective 5(b» Numerous environmental initiatives: Assistance for the environment represented a significant part of the operational programmes. For 1989-93 the percentage ofthe Community contribution for environmental protection is the same as for 1994-99: 11. 4% and 11. 7%. Depending on the region, measures might relate to the reduction and prevention of agricultural or agri-food industry pollution, the management of natural resources (water, flora and fauna), the reintroduction of rare or endangered species, waste disposal in rural areas, and rehabilitation and development of the cultural heritage, for example, by means of protected sites or nature reserves. The success of this aspect of the programmes undoubtedly stems from greater environmental awareness. Furthermore, environmental rules, particularly concerning the disposal of waste, require substantial public investments which are a heavy burden on the budgets of rural authorities. Community grants have often been decisive in providing the facilities required. In the case of private systems of waste disposal and treatment of effluent, measures must be financed with regard to the general guidelines on environmental aid. Many rural areas are now seeking not simply to protect but to build on the environment by developing new forms of tourist activity based on the discovery of nature. Measures of this type are easily implemented because the investment required is often slight: a reception centre, the marking of paths, observation points in remote areas, etc. Initiatives of this type have succeeded and are increasing in number. The links between protection and use of the environment should be encouraged as a way of turning what may appear to be cm obligation (application ofthe rules) into new and profitable activities suitable for rural areas. 250 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) The expost evaluation of Objective 5(b) for 1989-93 was completed during 1995 with the finalization of the coordination report for the 21 regions covered. The final results ofthe exercise do not differ from the interim results presented in the 1994 Annual Report, which the reader should consult, remembering always that the evaluation was carried out only in a limited number of regions. It should, however, be noted that many problems were encountered in establishing quantified and comparable data permitting measurement of trends in income, job creation and the deceleration of rural population decline. The report does establish a more systematic summary of physical implementation (agricultural and forestry investments, renovation of villages, SMEs1 aided, industrial and tourist infrastructure, environmental initiatives, etc. ). During 1989-93 the Objective 5(b) areas covered 17%> ofthe Community's territory and 5. 1%) of its population (16. 3 million inhabitants). The total amount of Community aid was ECU 3 000 million, or about 5%> ofthe total available Structural Funds appropriations. C. EX POST EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES In 1989 the Commission launched a series of Community Initiatives under Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. These Initiatives are the special financial instruments of structural policy which the Commission proposes to the Member States on its own initiative to support ineasures which will help solve problems having a particular impact at European level, and which are not covered by the Member States' development plans. The Community Initiatives were intended to provide flexibility and to offer special possibilities for cooperation and innovation, for example by encompassing ineasures which extended beyond national borders, by bringing a genuine Community dimension or by experimenting with new approaches. In total, the contribution of Community funds to carrying out the Initiatives amounted to ECU 5 300 million, representing almost 10% ofthe overall total allocated to the Structural Funds. In 1995, the Commission undertook an ex post evaluation of all the Initiatives, grouping the evaluation work according to the three main types of Initiative: regional development Initiatives, human resource Initiatives and LEADER, the rural development Initiative. Consideration ofthe environment between 1991 and 1993: Many of the Community Initiatives in the period 1989-93 included measures for the environment, in various kinds of region: mining (RECHAR), coal and steel (RESIDER), border regions (INTERREG) and via various types of measure - research and development, product quality, etc. Of those Initiatives, ENVIREG, launched in 1990, was specifically aimed at protecting the environment in the least- developed coastal regions (see below). In rural areas LEADER aided the implementation of many environmental protection measures. That Initiative particularly encouraged the development of innovative ecological products and processes in less-favoured rural areas. For example, in Greece (Lefkada island) the use of olive stones as an energy source has been encouraged; in Italy (Umbria), a system to recycle waste from a potter's studio has been developed; in France (Haut-Jura), low- pollution burners fed by smallwoodfrom forestry activities have been installed. 1. Regional development Initiatives. Regional development Initiatives Evaluation of the regional development Initiatives covered ten Community Initiatives based on four main themes: • integration of the least-developed regions into the internal market: STRIDE, to reinforce the capacity for innovation and technological development in certain regions assisted under Objectives 1 and 2; TELEMATIQUE, for the promotion of the use of advanced telecommunications services in the Objective 1 regions; PRISMA, aimed at improving the infrastructure and services for enterprises in the Objective 1 regions in terms of policies of quality and access to public procurement markets; • protection of the environment: ENVIREG, to improve and protect the environment and to encourage economic development, mainly in the coastal areas ofthe Objective 1 regions; 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 251 • cooperation and cross-border networks: INTERREG, to help frontier regions to prepare for the Internal Market, principally by improving cross-border cooperation; • diversification of the activities of industrial areas dependent on sectors in crisis: RESIDER, for iron and steel areas; RENAVAL for naval shipyard areas; RECHAR for coal-mining areas. Table 129: Community Initiatives 1989-93 - Assistance by Initiative and Member State (ECU million) INTERREG/ REG EM RESIDER RENAVAL STRIDE TELEMATIQUE 6? 12,4 37,3 Belgium Denmark TTZ TO" 30,4 171,2 89,9 25,3 52,4 84,0 139,2 16,1 (I) 17,7 32,2 5,2 (2) 9,4 22,6 Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal United K i n g d om Community (4) T o t al (1) Includes ECU 12 060 000 for Objective 1 regions (2) Includes Prisma-Telematique. (3) ENVIREG-STRIDE (4) This figure represents the value of Interreg forEUR-12, and includes ECU 82 390 000 for Article 10 ERDF appropriations. 27,6 24,0 87,3 1 077. 2 1. 369,7 101,8 17,7 3,4 184,2 23,0 8,7 18,2 65,3 52,4 58,8 17,5 5,7 299,1 82,2 118,4 2,0 ~TS— 2,2 4,3 59,3 155,9 16,4 (. 1) 13,1 94,9 2,1 4,6 54,1 30,2 441,6 —57? 14,6 222,4 292,2 498,7 215,9 182,3 398,9 10,8 32,2 323,6 335,2 1. 077,2 3. 661,2 41,3 75,5 1,7 11,0 64,7 35,6 5,4 235,2 The general value ofthe Community Initiatives lies in the development of cross-border cooperation, the visibility ofthe Community action and its demonstration effect, and the innovation which the flexibility ofthe programmes can permit. It must be said that despite the positive effects ofthe programmes, there were certain factors which reduced the potential effectiveness ofthe actions: • • the breadth of the objectives which gave the advantage of flexibility also led to a reduction of the specific nature of the Initiatives, so that they sometimes appeared to be merely an extension of existing national policies; the administrative arrangements for the programmes were often complex, and the lack of coherence between the Member States in both content and timing meant that some of the potential for cross- border cooperation was lost. However, the socio-economic actors involved regarded the Initiatives favourably since their "bottom- up" approach enabled them to demonstrate capacity for innovative action. STRIDE, PRISMA, TELEMATIQUE These three Community Initiatives provided a crucial connection between cohesion and integration. Their aim was to assist the less-favoured regions in developing the technical and human capital infrastructure needed to give firms in those regions access to the wider benefits of the internal market. The three programmes were linked by their emphasis on technological development and innovation: • STRIDE was aimed mainly at stimulating the R &D capacity of the Objective 1 regions, although certain measures in Objective 2 regions were also eligible for funding. It provided funds to Objective 1 regions to assist investment in basic R&D infrastructure through regional technological studies, new investments and project running costs to start up R&D activities and R&D centres preparing for and participating in EC-funded research. It also supported links and networks between research centres and industry in both Objective 1 and 2 regions, covering a wide range of consortia and technology transfer methods. The area which received the most funding was research activities including R&D centres, R&D and equipment grants (57%); • TELEMATIQUE concentrated on supporting the use of advanced telecommunications services, rather than just increasing access to them, and emphasizing the role of SMEs. The programme supported a wide range of projects covering data communications (including database and network development), 252 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) support for service users, development of advanced services for SMEs and marketing, promotion and training activities. Data communications received the greatest proportion of funding (42%); PRISMA aimed at helping firms in the Objective 1 regions to benefit from the completion of the internal market, placing particular emphasis on meeting quality standards in private and public markets. The majority (75%>) of the funding was used for projects in calibration and metrology, which included both laboratory infrastructure and associated quality system projects. STRIDE, PRISMA, TELEMATIQUE: Breakdown by Member State (ECU million) B PRISMA • TELEMATIQUE m STRIDE I L N P UK B DK D EL E. m 4 •J3. F IRL The value added by STRIDE, TELEMATIQUE and PRISMA The key areas examined were innovation, the demonstration effects of the programmes, the degree of internationalization, any links to other programmes and the level of additionality (the extent to which the actions would have taken place if the programmes had not existed). STRIDE: There was quite a high degree of innovation. The programme concept itself was novel, and the programme design led to significant new links between universities and local firms (especially in Portugal and Greece). There was a substantial impact on the rate and level of technological innovation in support of research leading to product development, and in the provision of support services. Overall, several hundred new products and processes were developed with STRIDE support, and it facilitated the introduction of a rich variety of research techniques into certain regions and countries for the first time. Where the beneficiaries has been involved closely in the design and implementation ofthe projects, the demonstration aspect was quite successful. Internationalization was a specific objective ofthe programme, and it helped to foster the development of a large number of trans-national links. However, very few projects involved contractors from other Member States. The main success came from encouraging research organizations and firms to participate in the Framework Research Programmes, and from building links to help the mobility of research workers, which meant that large numbers of beneficiaries could be reached with a relatively small budget. Formal collaboration between projects was difficult due to a lack of knowledge of the content of other STRIDE programmes, differences in timescales and delays in implementation. However, there were examples of informal collaboration. Links to other programmes occurred mainly through Framework Programmes, and in a few cases through a contribution of current expenditure to ERDF- funded capital projects. There was little collaboration with other programmes, even those apparently of interest such as SPRINT or COMETT. Generally the additionality of the Initiative was good in that it brought forward a large number of projects which would not otherwise have been funded, and in some cases developed whole lines of action at a regional level which did not previously exist. An area of concern was a few projects in Italy 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 253 where large finns, particularly multi-nationals, had received large grants, and also aid to major public sector schemes and laboratories where the programme was being used to fund activities which would in all likelihood have been carried out anyway. The STRIDE Initiative was an extremely successful experiment in introducing a technological dimension to Community regional policy. It had profound effects on the pattern of expenditure within the wider CSFs and stimulated interest in a number of other regional technology initiatives. Some ofthe key outputs from STRIDE: • 68 new research centres and 100 others equipped or developed in the less favoured regions; • approximately 300 new products and processes and 46 new patents; • 4 400 jobs directly or indirectly created. TELEMATIQUE: This Initiative had an advantage enjoyed by no other Community Initiative at the time in that the national administrations already had experience of a similar programme - the STAR programme. However, the budget of the programme at just under ECU 220 million was a tiny fraction of what is spent on telecommunications in the less developed regions in one year. As already stated, the aim ofthe programme was less to develop innovative services than to support the use of advanced services. Innovation tended to lie in the application of existing technologies to new situations. A key objective was the opening up to SMEs ofthe opportunities offered by advanced telecommunications services and the information society. The demonstration effect ofthe programme was most effective in terms of illustrating success and thus encouraging new users. This tended to be indirect, rather than the result of specific demonstration or promotional ineasures. The degree of internationalization within the programme was limited. Opportunities for cross-border collaboration, providing access to services in other Member States and exchanging experience between projects were missed. However, it should not be assumed that internationalization is in all cases desirable. Where only expertise is required from another Member State, there is not necessarily a need for formalized involvement, and indeed the problems of obtaining and justifying matching funding may be insurmountable. There was usually a degree of deadweight in that projects would probably have gone ahead at a later date or in a less ambitious form. However, in a fast-moving field such as telecommunications, this advance can have in itself a significant impact. Some ofthe key outputs from TELEMATIQUE : • 17 000 SMEs using advanced telecommunications services • 32 000 new users of advanced services PRISMA: The value added by PRISMA lay in the fields of innovation, demonstration and additionality. The programme itself was innovative, especially the idea of solving the problems of SMEs in less- favoured areas through the introduction of service-support infrastructures such as calibration and metrology laboratories. From a local perspective, the technology employed was also innovative as these technologies had not previously been transferred to these areas. There were also examples of innovative project design. These projects tended to have a high demonstration effect since firms can see the quantifiable benefits of calibration and quality certification. The public procurement projects were less successful, but this is a more difficult area for SMEs and the level of resistance was that much higher. Levels of deadweight were generally low, particularly for the calibration and metrology service since private companies do not tend to invest in facilities which offer this service to other SMEs because of low returns and significant risks, and because this is not an area in which government agencies traditionally invest. 254 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) In general, this reinforcing of standardization and quality assurance made a real contribution to the completion ofthe Internal Market. Some ofthe key outputs from PRISMA : • 300 projects in the field of calibrations and standards • 4 500 participant organizations benefiting from the services. ENVIREG The ENVIREG Initiative had four very specific objectives: • to reduce pollution in coastal areas whose economy depends significantly on tourism, with priority given to areas experiencing rapid economic growth and with serious environmental problems; to promote land-use planning in coastal areas so as to preserve natural ecosystems and check the deterioration of coastal habitats; to contribute to the development of systems and infrastructure to manage toxic and hazardous wastes; to strengthen technical expertise relating to the design and management of pollution control and treatment infrastructure and technologies. • • • The Initiative covered the coastal zones of Objective 1, 2 and 5(b) areas around the Mediterranean and other coastal locations in Southern Europe, with a hinterland up to 10 km. In the case of toxic waste and technical assistance, the entire relevant Objective 1 regions were eligible. The value added by ENVIREG ENVIREG was able to help finance a number of projects which were of significance because of their innovative content and which might otherwise not have gone ahead. Funds were also often used to support projects focusing on responding to specific directives, including the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Toxic Waste Management Directive, which posed serious challenges to many of the Objective 1 regions. In particular ENVIREG made a contribution to environmental improvements in Objective 1 regions by: • allowing individual regions to carry out investment in waste water and waste management • • infrastructure; carrying out technical assessments of issues, or feasibility studies which helped improve designs and environmental benefits; focusing attention on coastal zone management issues; targeting coastal biotopes - an innovative approach; adding emphasis to water resource management and the reuse of treated effluent; acting as a catalyst which encouraged other projects building on or enhancing the ENVIREG projects. In addition, AMBER, a technical assistance structure, was created to organize exchanges of experience and the dissemination of good practice between those involved in environmental projects. This Initiative led to a significant change in Community structural policies through better integration of the environmental dimension into the new generation of CSFs and OPs. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 255 Some ofthe key outputs from ENVIREG: • over 800 projects were financed; • a significant impact was made on the level of collection, treatment and disposal of urban waste and waste water, making a decisive contribution to reducing the gap with the rest of Europe. Almost two thirds of the funds were devoted to waste water treatment installations in Objective 1 coastal regions, mainly in Spain, southern Italy and Greece. In Portugal Envireg part-financed major clearing and prevention measures (waste compacter at Matosinhos, tannery waste recycling at Alviela, floating barriers, pump vessels, purgers and holding dams to control petroleum and chemical pollution in Madeira and the Azores), integrated approach combining preservation of both within an ecosystems and countryside of importance for tourism, and here local planning efforts the environment were particularly important. to manage RESIDER, RENAVAL, RECHAR These three Community Initiatives seek the diversification of areas affected by industrial decline and together account for Community expenditure totalling ECU 943. 9 million. The RESIDER programme concerns areas adversely affected by the decline of the steel industry and which subsequently require restructuring. The programme covers 18 regions in eight Member States. RENAVAL centres on areas dependent on shipbuilding, ship conversion and repair where there have been similar employment losses and covers 26 regions in nine Member States. RECHAR assists those areas hit particularly hard by the rapid decline of coal mining and threatened by consequent job losses. It covers 26 coal mining regions in six Member States. Four Member States (France, Germany, Spain and the UK) received over 80%> ofthe funding, with the UK being the largest recipient. EC funding was not made available to directly support the industries in decline, but to encourage the creation of employment, the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of existing firms in the areas affected. This was to be achieved by: investing in infrastructure projects; • • directly assisting capital investment in SMEs; • indirect assistance (e. g. through intermediaries) to SMEs by the provision of technical assistance such as research and development, marketing, etc. ; in the case of RECHAR, providing vocational training and aid for redeployment. • Clearly the programmes were too small to deal entirely with the problems caused by the decline ofthe industries they were supposed to support. The programmes were, therefore, only a starting point for stimulating and encouraging new activities. The value added by RESIDER, RENA VAL andRECHAR Evaluation puts the level of full dependency on the programmes as relatively high: 45% of RECHAR and 3 3% of RENAVAL and RESIDER projects were entirely dependent on Community assistance; only 5% or less of projects (and none at all for RECHAR) would have gone ahead in the absence ofthe programmes. Thus it can be said that the programmes had a positive effect on the implementation ofthe projects. The level of leverage of these projects from the private and public sector was also relatively high at 2. 66%. One ofthe most significant outcomes was the level of private sector investment pulled in to areas which had suffered from a progressive lack of investment as they were considered so unattractive. Measures funded included both "hardware" type investment such as infrastructure or environmental improvements 256 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) or direct aid to SMEs, and "software" type investment, such as indirect aid to SMEs and, in the case of RECHAR, aid for tourism, vocational training and economic conversion bodies. Generally, between 67%> and 80%> of funding was spent on "hardware" type projects. The study highlighted a number of projects where cross-border cooperation occurred through European networks and between projects situated close to national borders. There were also examples of complementary linkages between ERDF and ESF projects under Rechar which are regarded as examples of good practice. Some ofthe key outputs from RESIDER, RENA VAL andRECHAR: • 904 projects under RESIDER; • 1 771 projects funded under RENAVAL; • 2 220 projects supported under RECHAR; • ECU 2 000 million of non-EC funds attracted to the programmes; • a large number of jobs directly or indirectly supported by the three Initiatives. INTERREG I INTERREG seeks to stimulate cross-border cooperation with the double objectives of: • accelerating the process of Community development, particularly in terms of the completion of the internal market, by acting on the areas where Member States meet - the frontier zones; • overcoming specific development problems resulting from geographical or economic handicaps. Thirty-one operational programmes were approved of which nine related to external frontiers, and 22 to the internal borders ofthe Community. ECU 1 077 million from Community funds was allocated to this Initiative, and was divided among 2 500 projects. Approximately half of the expenditure on INTERREG went to communication and energy infrastructure, this focus being particularly marked in the Objective 1 regions. However, two other sectors which proved to be effective in promoting cross-border cooperation were tourism and the environment. The value added by INTERREG I The very open objectives of the programme, which put the emphasis as much on socio-economic development of the frontier regions as on actual cross-border cooperation, led to a high level of integration of Community, national and regional policies. One ofthe key effects ofthe programme was its ability to reinforce local policies. Two thirds of the projects could not have operated without the support of the programme, and a further 20% were significantly enhanced in scale or timescale. The cross-border nature of the programme led to the development of many innovative implementation and management mechanisms and new forms of partnership both at an international level and within the Member States. In a third of the frontier areas there were more ambitious forms of support for cross- border cooperation which stimulated other forms of cooperation between the semi-public and private sectors. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 257 Table 130: Interreg I: Breakdown of projects by sector Sector No. of projects % of projects % of expenditure SME Tourism Environment Rural development Employment and training Research and higher education Communication infrastructure Cross-border organizations Cross-border development plans 278 659 187 182 160 142 464 229 174 11,1 26,4 7,5 7,3 6,4 5,7 18,6 9,2 7,0 7,5 16,4 8,9 5,3 3,7 2,7 49,3 3,8 2,5 The programme also exerted a strong demonstration effect by giving credibility to the concept of cross- border working: a third of projects led in turn to other cross-border projects. At a cultural level, the objectives of the project were not, in general, to promote uniformity but rather to add value to local customs and practices so that the experience of both parties could be exchanged and developed, enhancing the richness of both sides. This was particularly the case for projects in the tourism sector, where regions were able to develop an appreciation of their own heritage as part of the process of exchanging experience with others. In terms of the contribution to innovation and excellence, the key elements of INTERREG I were in the fields of circulation of information, exchange of experience, transfers of know-how and technology and the creation of new dynamics of economic and cultural exchange. Some ofthe key outputs from INTERREG I: Because ofthe extremely diverse nature ofthe projects involved, it is hard to list a series of concrete outputs. However, in the short term, INTERREG has contributed to: • • increasing the level of qualification through training; improving the accessibility of regions and their services through improved communications links; • making regions more attractive through tourism and cultural projects; • creating employment through the work financed by the projects. In the longer term, Interreg will have contributed to an improvement in the standard of living in these regions through: • the development of human resources which should reduce the fragility of the regions when faced by economic change; the opening up and internationalization of relationships between local SMEs; • • concrete measures to follow up the preparatory studies carried out; • the effect ofthe environmental improvement actions. 2. Human resources Initiatives: NOW. HORIZON and EUROFORM These three Community Initiatives were the subject of expost evaluations by independent assessors. The main aims of this exercise were to estimate the coherence and effectiveness of implementation at programme and project levels and to evaluate the value added by the Community, i. e. cross-border working, harmonization and circulation of information. The study was carried out between August 1994 and July 1995 and the final report was presented in December 1995. That timetable allowed the study's conclusions and recommendations to be used for the preparation and launch of the EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT Community Initiatives for the new programming period 1994-99. A total of 4 408 projects under the three Initiatives NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM were aided in the twelve Member States between 1991 and 1994, the majority of them, managed by public bodies, being targeted at local or regional problems. The eligible measures mainly involved improvements to the 258 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) training sector (which absorbed most of the aid), advisory services, services and aid systems for target groups and job creation. The results ofthe NOW Initiative, which targetted unemployed women, are positive in that trends on the labour market indicate an increase in jobs for women to which the Initiative seems to have contributed. However, there is still a grey area in that pay rates for men and women still differ and part of that increase in jobs for women is in unstable jobs. The major variations in employment rates and percentages of female employment throughout Europe must also be taken into account. Evaluation ofthe overall impact ofthe HORIZON Initiative, which was targeted at people suffering from incapacity or a specific handicap, raised a number of problems since there are no comparable statistics at Community level. However, it appears that, in general, HORIZON'S funding was relatively modest compared to the size of these groups and the amount of national aid. Results were therefore mixed, although its impact appears to have been more significant in the priority regions where it contributed ECU 295 per potential beneficiary. EUROFORM mainly benefited the jobless, with the training sector receiving most of the funding. The Community contribution to training activities undertaken within this Initiative was estimated at 10%> of the total commitments in the priority regions where ESF funding already accounts for the majority ofthe ineasures for training. The innovative aspects of EUROFORM above all (its trans-national nature, the type of measure, the beneficiary groups, the geographical targeting and the characteristics of the bodies responsible for implementing it) were more evident than for NOW and HORIZON. The value added by NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM The added value aspect was considered from the point of view of the Initiatives' innovative features, such as their trans-national nature, circulation of information and harmonization. For their trans-national nature, the study attempted to measure the degree of implementation. An analysis by project revealed that about 20% of the total resources was devoted to trans-national activities and that the average number of partners per project was slightly under three. More importantly, the trans-national aspect, which would have been absent had it not been for the Initiatives, was deemed to be the most innovative aspect ofthe Community Initiatives. The report also defined certain major constraints militating against improving this aspect, such as the tight timetable for the projects, poor coordination at programme level and difficulties in identifying partners at Community level. These factors must be taken into account for the new programming period. Other constraints related to language and cultural barriers. These conclusions were taken into consideration by the Commission in its definition of the new generation of Community Initiatives. To this end, common selection criteria and coordinated selection procedures were agreed with the Member States and technical assistance was granted to support structures. In addition, the approval rules now include a "trans-national cooperation agreement" between the partners participating in the projects covering the main aspects of project implementation. Lastly, the condition that at least three partners must participate was accepted as being best practice. With regard to circulation of information, the evaluation concluded that, despite good communication of information at national level, the impact ofthe results ofthe project and the media impact were modest. The two main weaknesses were insufficient product development by the public bodies (such as training manuals, computer systems, etc. ) and, more generally, the lack of a communication strategy at all levels, obstructing the proper dissemination of the results. To improve the circulation of information, the responsible bodies in the ESF, the Commission and the Member States agreed to launch a coherent communication strategy which should bring about the creation of a more systematic information base and produce skills at project level. The impact ofthe Initiatives on the content ofthe CSFs for the new programming period was considered poor. This is partly due to the inherent characteristics of the Initiatives (trans-national nature and many small projects), which are difficult to integrate into the CSFs. Better coordination at Commission and national levels is needed. The study found that the impact on local, regional and national policies was particularly great at local level, where cooperation between 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 259 oL(>0 existing bodies increased markedly, as did the ability to participate in trans-national activities. Nevertheless, the overall impact on national measures and policies was deemed slight, with a few exceptions. This can also be explained by the basic characteristics ofthe Initiatives, which restrict their impact on national programmes with rather larger funding. The main recommendations of the study for the next programming period were, firstly, that a clear strategy is needed to demonstrate the potential impact of the Initiatives and improve the coherence of their trans-national dimension. Secondly, even though the demand for training is higher than in other sectors, the Initiatives should be restricted to those which are more innovative in the labour market. Lastly, priority must be given to better coordination with the main ESF programmes so as to create synergies, including developing monitoring and evaluation systems. 3. The rural development Initiative: LEADER I A public invitation to tender was launched in 1995 to select assessors for LEADER I. The analysis must cover the 217 local action groups created in the twelve Member States and their activities, along with those ofthe coordination unit for 1990-94. The first stage must be the definition of a working method and will have to include an analysis ofthe impact ofthe Initiative, the added value achieved compared to other operational programmes, the effectiveness of the use of funds and the establishment of implementing rules. The study must be carried out in 1996 and 1997. fo/ \m$mm am ANNEX I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 265 Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 Table 1: Objective 1 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again 1,9? 0,00 7,00 0,00 8,97 921,90 606,05 482,60 12,00 2. 022,55 1. 812,99 368,56 452,19 19,30 2. 653,04 3. 202,10 837,75 571,12 167,93 4. 778,90 96,22 115,64 9,50 1,11 222,47 498,13 295,13 154,76 6,19 954,21 1. 558,98 223,39 411,69 34,57 2. 228,63 10,00 5,00 0,00 2,20 17,20 19,96 5,04 3,80 0,00 28,80 709,83 370,86 275,10 23. 93 1. 379,72 128,71 58,87 27,42 3,60 218,60 Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again 1,97 0,00 7,00 0,00 8,97 921,90 606,05 482,60 12,00 2. 022,55 1. 812,99 368,56 452,19 19,30 2. 653,04 3. 202,10 837,75 571,12 167,93 4. 778,90 96,22 115,64 9,50 1,11 222,47 498,13 295,13 154,76 6,19 954,21 1. 558,98 223,39 411,69 34,57 2. 228,63 10,00 5,00 0,00 2,20 17,20 19,96 5,04 3,80 0,00 28,80 709,83 370,86 275,10 23,93 1. 379,72 128,71 58,87 27,42 3. 6C 218,60 Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again 20,77 0,00 1,39 0,00 22,16 452,44 476,56 314,87 8,10 1. 251,97 1. 131,50 253,46 315,50 5,34 1. 705,79 2. 517,66 765,90 454,79 40,96 3. 779,30 37,65 66,94 6,12 0,87 111. 56 391. 45 293,80 167,06 4,00 856,30 875,35 66,54 216,99 0. 00 1. 158. 89 4. 29 3. 46 0. 53 1,28 9,56 9,98 2,52 1,90 0,00 14,40 1. 123,93 411,86 86,53 19,09 1. 641,42 83. 14 53,27 25. 75 1,64 163,81 ECU million Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again 20,77 7,41 1,39 0,00 29,57 452,44 476,56 314,87 8,10 1. 251,97 1. 131,50 253,46 315,50 5,34 1. 705,79 2. 517,66 765,90 454,79 40,96 3. 779,30 37,65 95,74 6,12 0,87 140,37 391. 45 293,97 167,06 4,00 856,47 878,35 80,79 216,99 0,00 1. 176,13 4,29 3,46 0. 53 1,28 9,56 9,98 2,52 1,90 0,00 14,40 1. 123,93 437,67 86,53 19,09 1. 667,23 83,14 53,27 25,75 1,64 163,81 14. 513,10 14. 513,10 10. 715,16 10. 794,61 8. 960,80 2. 886,29 2. 395,18 270,83 8. 960,80 2. 886,29 2. 395,18 270,83 6. 648,15 2. 394,31 1. 591,42 81,27 6. 651,15 2. 470,76 1. 591,42 81,27 feËLCluM GERMANY GREECE SPAIN FRANCE IRELAND ITALY NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA PORTUGAL UNITED KINGDOM ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Budget headings B2-1000, B2-1100, B2-1200, B2-1300. 266 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 Table 2: Objective 2 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM overs and appropriations made available again 0,00 0,00 0,00 6,00 0,00 6,00 20,33 17,68 38,01 545,10 114,11 659,21 261,90 51,19 313,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09 9,06 9,15 38,91 15,24 54,15 24,80 6,30 31,10 83,22 22,56 105,78 352,26 165,99 518,25 1. 734,74 1. 332,61 402,13 and appropriations made available again Ô,ÔÔ 4,63 4,63 6,00 0,00 6,00 20,33 17,68 38,01 545,10 114,11 659,21 261,90 51,19 313,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09 9,06 9,15 38,91 15,24 54,15 24,80 6,30 31,10 83,22 22,56 105,78 352,26 165,99 518,25 1. 739,37 1. 332,61 406,76 overs and appropriations made available again 9,43 0,00 9,43 8,35 0,00 8,35 15,63 10,30 25,92 395,86 52,10 447,96 98,97 43,15 142,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7,77 4,53 12,30 13,80 7,62 21,42 12,40 3,15 15,55 26,78 11,28 38. 06 22,03 123,40 145,43 866,54 611,01 255,53 ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL TOTAL ERDF ESF ECU million Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again 9,43 2,32 11,75 8,35 0,00 8,35 15,63 16,89 32,52 395,86 52,10 447,96 98,97 46,09 145,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,77 4,53 12,30 13,80 7,62 21,42 12,40 3,15 15,55 26,78 11,28 38,06 22,03 130,93 152,96 885,91 611,01 274,90 Budget headings B2-1201, B2-1301. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 267 Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 Table 3: Objective 3 - CSF M e m b er S t a te Fund C o m m i t m e n ts (1994-99) P a y m e n ts (1994-99) ECU million Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations and appropriations overs and appropriations and appropriations made available again made available again made available again made available again 33,39 33,39 34,24 42,33 41,00 41,00 12,30 39,04 48,22 48,22 96,49 104,48 206,97 206,97 169,65 169,65 396,80 396,80 312,88 3 1 2 , 88 0,00 3,29 0,00 3,29 0. 00 3,51 0,00 4,00 143,83 143,83 142. 57 142,57 64,06 64,06 32,03 32,03 60,33 60,33 73,00 73,00 30. 17 36. 50 30,17 36,50 497,00 497,00 436. 17 436,17 1. 567,90 1. 567,90 1. 306,51 1. 349,82 ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF B E L G I UM D E N M A RK G E R M A NY S P A IN F R A N CE I T A LY L U X E M B O U RG N E T H E R L A N DS A U S T R IA F I N L A ND S W E D EN U N I T ED K I N G D OM T O T AL Budget heading B2-1302. 268 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * Table 4: Objective 4 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) ECU million Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations and appropriations overs and appropriations made available again made available again made available again and appropriations made available again 0,00 5,00 0,00 0,00 5,00 0,00 0,00 2,50 0,00 0,00 2,50 0,00 62,70 62,70 38,13 38,13 0,00 0,00 0,27 0,00 11,70 14,83 0,00 94,50 0,00 0,00 0,27 0,00 11,70 14,83 0,00 94,50 0,00 0,00 0,21 0. 00 5,85 7. 42 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21 0,00 5,85 7,42 0,00 54,11 54,11 ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN TOTAL Budget heading B2-1303. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 269 Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * Table 5: Objective 5(a) agriculture - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations and appropriations overs and appropriations made available again made available again made available again and appropriations made available again BELGIUM DENMARK EAGGF EAGGF 30,23 16,73 30,23 16,73 12,74 16,49 12,74 16,49 ECU million GERMANY EAGGF 165,13 165,13 160,90 160,90 SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN EAGGF 21,10 21,10 27,64 27,64 EAGGF 252,08 252,08 242,14 242,14 EAGGF EAGGF EAGGF EAGGF EAGGF EAGGF 0,00 5,47 4,89 61,50 61,42 13,72 22,80 0,00 5,47 4,89 61,50 61,42 13,72 22,80 0,00 2,01 1,96 30,75 30,71 6,86 22,43 0,00 2,01 1,96 30,75 30,71 6,86 22,43 UNITED KINGDOM EAGGF TOTAL EAGGF 655,07 655,07 554,63 554,63 Budget headings B2-1001, B2-1002. 270 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * Table 6: Objective 5(a) fisheries- CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again ECU million BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG 0,00 23,28 12,46 19,90 31,62 22,37 0,89 1,40 2,00 23,00 40,00 0,11 0,00 23,28 12,46 19,90 31,62 22,37 0,89 1,40 2,00 23,00 40,00 o,n TOTAL FIFG 177,02 177,02 1,29 18,63 9,93 0,00 1,29 18,63 9,93 0,00 25,31 25,31 0. 00 0,00 2. 33 0,20 6,90 12,00 4,43 81,02 0,00 0,00 2,33 0,20 6,90 12,00 4,43 81,02 Budget heading B2-1101. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 271 Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * Table 7: Objective 5(b) - CSF Member State Fund BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND UNITED KINGDOM ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF TOTAL TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF ECU million Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations made available again 4,82 1,55 2,79 and appropriations made available again 4,82 1,55 2,79 overs and appropriations made available again 2,41 0,77 1,40 and appropriations made available again 2,41 0,77 1,40 9,16 3,36 0,00 0,00 3,36 49,48 5,10 81,19 135,77 25,22 5,30 58,06 88,58 45,02 29,73 35,70 110,46 12,41 3,27 15,83 31,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,94 0,92 4,45 7,31 33,34 13,68 31,30 78,33 16,03 5,18 11,60 32,81 36,78 29,24 8,57 74,59 571,86 228,39 93,97 249,50 9,16 3,36 0,00 0,00 3,36 49,48 5,10 81,19 135,77 25,22 5,30 58,06 88,58 45,02 29,73 35,70 110,46 12,41 3,27 15,83 31,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,94 0,92 4,45 7,31 33,34 13,68 31,30 78,33 16,03 5,18 11,60 32,81 36,78 29,24 8,57 74,59 571,86 228,39 93,97 249,50 4,58 2,45 0,00 0,00 2,45 15,54 4,26 51,41 71,21 26,00 3,21 52,48 81,69 27,77 18,21 30,59 76,57 6,20 1,64 7,91 15,75 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,21 7,40 0,46 1,59 9. 45 16,67 6,84 15,65 39,16 7,78 2,59 5,56 15. 94 22,68 19,42 4. 29 46,39 363,41 135,13 57,40 170,89 4,58 2,45 0,00 0,00 2,45 15,54 4,26 51,41 71,21 26,00 3,21 52,48 81,69 27,77 18,21 30,59 76,57 6,20 1,64 7,91 15,75 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,21 7,40 0. 46 1,59 9,45 16,67 6,84 15,65 39,16 7,78 2. 59 5,56 15,94 22,68 19,42 4,29 46,39 363,41 135,13 57,40 170,89 Budget headings B2-1003, B2-1202, B2-1304. 272 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * Table 8: Objective 6 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) ECU million Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again 22,40 21,10 36,80 0,70 Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again 22,40 21,10 36,80 0,70 Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again 11,20 10,55 18,40 0,35 Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again 11,20 10,55 18,40 0,35 81,00 21,86 11,39 10,94 0,73 44,92 125,92 44,26 32,49 47,74 1,43 81,00 21,86 11,39 10,94 0,73 44,92 125,92 44,26 32,49 47,74 1,43 40,50 10,93 5,70 5,47 0,37 22,46 62,96 22,13 16,25 23,87 0,72 40,50 10,93 5,70 5,47 0,37 22,46 62,96 22,13 16,25 23,87 0,72 ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL TOTAL FEDER FSE FEOGA IFOP FINLAND SWEDEN Budget headings B2-1004, B2-1 102, B2-I203, B2-1305. w. a^H ANNEX II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 275 Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * Table 1: Objective 1 - CSF Member State Fund ECU million C o m m i t m e n ts (1994-99) P a y m e n ts (1994-99) Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations and appropriations overs and appropriations made available again made available again made available again and appropriations made available again BELGIUM GERMANY GREECE SPAIN FRANCE IRELAND ITALY NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA PORTUGAL UNITED KINGDOM ERDF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF FIFG T O T AL T O T AL ERDF ESF E A G GF FIFG 67,93 24,70 14,00 0,37 107,00 1. 844,97 1. 166,51 861,60 19,00 3. 892,08 3. 151,22 684,71 699,19 37,10 4. 572,22 5. 367,19 1. 666,10 979,67 304,46 8. 317,41 236,69 185,46 69,21 6,30 497,67 748,60 619,31 332,56 9,19 1. 709,66 2. 018,14 462,35 477,78 66,54 3. 024,80 24,30 8,20 1,90 2,80 37,20 19,96 5. 04 3,80 0,00 28,80 2. 925,37 795,89 776. 14 52,01 4. 549,40 301,24 162,11 59,91 9,06 532,32 67,93 24,70 14,00 0,37 107,00 1. 844,97 1. 166,51 861,60 19,00 3. 892,08 3. 151,22 684,71 699,19 37,10 4. 572,22 5. 367,19 1. 666,10 979,67 304,46 8. 317,41 236,69 185,46 69,21 6,30 497,67 748,60 619,31 332,56 9,19 1. 709,66 2. 018,14 462,35 477,78 66,54 3. 024. 80 24,30 8,20 1,90 2,80 37,20 19,96 5,04 3,80 0,00 28,80 2. 925,37 795,89 776,14 52,01 4. 549,40 301,24 162,11 59,91 9,06 532,32 53,75 12,35 6,08 0,19 72,36 1. 027,06 852,73 578,67 11,60 2. 470,05 1. 847,77 4 1 1 , 53 518,12 14,24 2. 791,66 3. 582,35 1. 166,94 668,62 109,22 5. 527,13 107,89 101,85 37,65 3,46 250,86 568,45 539,59 285,46 5,50 1. 398,99 1. 087,57 186,02 251,65 15,99 1. 541,22 11,44 5,06 1,55 1,58 19. 63 9,98 2,52 1,90 0,00 14,40 2. 161,09 624. 37 419,63 33,14 3. 238,23 169,41 104,89 52. 69 4,37 331,36 53,75 19,76 6,08 0,19 79,77 1. 027,06 852,73 578,67 11,60 2. 470,05 1. 847,77 4 1 1 , 53 518,12 14,24 2. 791,66 3. 582,35 1. 166,94 6 9 1 , 08 109,22 5. 549,60 107,89 130,65 37,65 3,46 279,66 568,45 539,76 285,46 5,50 1. 399,16 1. 087,57 200,27 251,65 15,99 1. 555,47 11,44 5,06 1,55 1,58 19,63 9,98 2,52 1,90 0,00 14,40 2. 161,09 650,18 419,63 33,14 3. 264,05 169,41 104,89 52,69 4,37 331,36 27. 268,56 27. 268,56 17. 655,89 17. 754,80 16. 705,60 5. 780,37 4. 275,75 506,84 16. 705,60 5. 780,37 4. 275,75 506,84 10. 626,76 4. 007,85 2. 822,01 199,28 10. 626,76 4. 084,30 2. 844,47 199,28 Budget headings B2-1000, B2-1100, B2-1200, B2-1300, 276 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 Table 2: Objective 2 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-96) Payments (1994-96) ECU million BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations made available again 49,12 8,41 and approp ialions made available again 49,12 13,04 overs and appropriations made available again 24,39 2,61 and appropriations made available again 24,39 4,93 57,53 24,84 5,45 30,29 198,05 88,80 286,85 545,10 114,11 659,21 751,68 152,71 904,39 239,29 60,66 299,95 6,03 1,94 7,97 66,95 38,07 105,02 38,91 15,24. 54,15 24,80 6,30 31,10 83,22 22,56 105,78 903,52 346,53 1. 250,05 3. 792,28 2. 931,52 860,76 62,16 24,84 5,45 30,29 198,05 88,80 286,85 545,10 114,11 659,21 751,68 152,71 904,39 239,29 60,66 299,95 6,03 1,94 7,97 66,95 38,07 105,02 38,91 15,24 54,15 24,80 6,30 31,10 83,22 22,56 105,78 903,52 346,53 1. 250,05 3. 796,91 2. 931,52 865,39 27,00 17,77 2,23 19,99 104,49 45,85 150,34 395,86 52,10 447,96 326,44 93,91 420. 35 119,65 30,33 149,97 3. 01 0,97 3,99 33,48 19,03 52,51 13,80 7,62 21,42 12,40 3,15 15,55 26,78 11,28 38,06 297,66 213,67 511,33 1. 858,47 1. 375,72 482,75 29,31 17,77 2,23 19,99 104,49 52,45 156,94 395,86 52,10 447,96 326,44 96,85 423,29 119,65 30. 33 149,97 3,01 0,97 3,99 33,48 19,03 52,51 13,80 7,62 21,42 12,40 3,15 15,55 26,78 11,28 38,06 297,66 221,20 518,85 1. 877,84 1. 375,72 502,13 ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL FEDER FSE TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL ERDF ESF TOTAL TOTAL ERDF ESF Budget headings B2-1201, B2-1301. 7th Annual Report on the Structural unds (1995) 277 Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * Table 3: Objective 3 - CSF Member State Fund BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM TOTAL ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ECU million C o m m i t m e n ts (1994-99) P a y m e n ts (1994-99) Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations and appropriations overs and appropriations made available again made available again made available atain and appropriations made available again 97,76 97,76 85,00 85,00 66,42 47,50 74,51 74,24 307,77 307,77 226,27 234,26 426,59 426,59 244,54 778,40 778,40 503,68 244,54 503,68 200,47 200,47 100,23 100,23 6,46 6,46 5,09 5,59 282,27 282,27 253. 32 253,32 64,06 64,06 32,03 32,03 60,33 60,33 30,17 30,17 73,00 73,00 36,50 36,50 975,00 975,00 818,57 818,57 3. 357,11 3. 357,11 2. 364,33 2. 407,64 Budget heading B2-1302. 278 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * Table 4: Objective 4 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again ECU million BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAWN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN TOTAL ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF ESF 4,63 6,00 4,63 6,00 29,61 29,61 118,10 118,10 95,39 60,61 0,53 22,23 11,70 14,83 0,00 95,39 60,61 0,53 22,23 11,70 14,83 0,00 2,32 3,00 14,81 65,83 47,70 30,31 0. 34 11,12 5,85 7,42 0,00 2,32 3,00 14,81 65,83 47,70 30,31 0,34 11,12 5,85 7,42 0,00 363,63 363,63 188,68 188,68 Budget heading B2-1303. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 279 Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 Table 5: Objective 5(a) agriculture - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again BELGIUM DENMARK EAGGF EAGGF 53,03 38,67 53,03 38,67 16,51 19,19 16,51 19,19 ECU million GERMANY EAGGF 322,72 322,72 209,82 209,82 SPAIN FRANCE ITALY EAGGF 77,41 77,41 55,81 55,81 EAGGF 518,73 518,73 242,97 242,97 EAGGF 117,47 117,47 LUXEMBOURG EAGGF NETHERLANDS EAGGF AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN EAGGF EAGGF EAGGF UNITED KINGDOM EAGGF 12,22 25,27 61,50 61,42 13,72 85,16 12,22 25,27 61,50 61,42 13,72 85,16 58,73 5,37 12. 15 30,75 30,71 6. 86 41,73 58,73 5,37 12,15 30,75 30,71 6,86 41,73 TOTAL EAGGF 1. 387,32 1. 387,32 730,60 730,60 Budget headings B2-1001, B2-1002 (not including budget heading B2-1000-Structural actions directly linked to markets policy (only in 1994 - ECU 43. 65 million in commitments and in payments) and reimbursements under reg. (EEC) No 2328/91 corresponding to the year 1993 (ECU 356. 6 million in commitments and ECU 417. 02 million in payments). 280 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * Table 6: Objective 5(a) fisheries- CSF Member State Fund ECU million Commitments (1994-99) Payments (1994-99) Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again Not including carry overs and appropriations made available again Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM FIFG FIFG FIFG FffG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG FIFG 4,08 46,59 24,87 39,83 63,27 44,77 1,10 9,16 2,00 23,00 40,00 14,78 4,08 46,59 24,87 39,83 63,27 44,77 1,10 9,16 2,00 23,00 40,00 14,78 3,33 30,29 16,13 9,97 41,13 11,20 0,11 6,21 0. 20 6,90 12,00 11. 82 3,33 30,29 16,13 9,97 41,13 11,20 0,11 6,21 0,20 6,90 12,00 11,82 TOTAL FIFG 313,45 313,45 149,28 149,28 Budget heading B2-1101. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 281 Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * Table 7: Objective 5(b) - CSF Member State Fund ECU million C o m m i t m e n ts (1994-99) P a y m e n ts (1994-99) Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations and appropriations overs and appropriations made available again made available again made available again and appropriations made available again BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY SPAIN FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA FINLAND UNITED KINGDOM ERDF ESF EAGGF T O T AL ERDF ESF E A G GF T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF T O T AL ERDF ESF E A G GF T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF T O T AL ERDF ESF E A G GF T O T AL ERDF ESF E A G GF T O T AL E R DF ESF EAGGF T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF T O T AL T O T AL E R DF ESF E A G GF Budget headings B2-1003, B2-1202, B2-1304. 4,82 1,55 2,79 9,16 5,93 1,29 2,57 9,79 99,04 27,46 135,24 261,74 44,65 13,29 104,15 162,09 157,11 64,71 151,36 373,18 43,86 14,35 48,78 107,00 0,43 0,11 0,30 0,84 14,02 2,22 9,37 25,61 33,34 13,68 31,30 78,33 16,03 5,18 11,60 32,81 66,36 36,47 17,87 4,82 1,55 2,79 9,16 5,93 1,29 2,57 9,79 99,04 27,46 135,24 261,74 44,65 13,29 104,15 162,09 157,11 64,71 151,36 373,18 43,86 14,35 48,78 107,00 0,43 0,11 0,30 0,84 14,02 2,22 9,37 25,61 33,34 13,68 31,30 78,33 16,03 5,18 11,60 32,81 66,36 36,47 17,87 120,70 120,70 1. 181,25 1. 181,25 485,60 180,31 515,34 485,60 180,31 515,34 2,41 0,77 1,40 4,58 3,74 0,64 1,29 5,66 40,32 15,44 78,44 134,20 35,72 7,21 75,52 118,44 83,81 35,70 88,42 207,93 21,93 7,18 24. 39 53. 50 0,21 0,05 0,15 0,42 7,40 1,11 4,05 12,56 16,67 6,84 15,65 39. 16 7,78 2. 59 5,56 15,94 37,48 23,04 8,93 69,45 661,85 257,48 100,57 303,81 2,41 0,77 1,40 4,58 3,74 0,64 1,29 5,66 40,32 15,44 78,44 134,20 35,72 7,21 75,52 118,44 83,81 35,70 88,42 207,93 21,93 7,18 24,39 53,50 0,21 0,05 0,15 0,42 7,40 1,11 4,05 12,56 16,67 6,84 15,65 39,16 7,78 2,59 5,56 15,94 37,48 23,04 8,93 69,45 6 6 1 , 85 257,48 100,57 303,81 282 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 Table 8: Objective 6 - CSF Member State Fund Commitments (1995-99) Payments (1995-99) ECU million Not including carry Including carry-overs Not including carry Including carry-overs overs and appropriations made available again 22,40 21,10 36,80 0,70 and appropriations made available again 22,40 21,10 36,80 0,70 overs and appropriations made available again 11,20 10,55 18,40 0,35 and appropriations made available again 11,20 10,55 18,40 0,35 81,00 21,86 11,39 10,94 0,73 44,92 125,92 44,26 32,49 47,74 1,43 81,00 21,86 11,39 10,94 0,73 44,92 125,92 44,26 32,49 47,74 1,43 40,50 10,93 5,70 5,47 0,37 22,46 62,96 22,13 16,25 23,87 0,72 40,50 10,93 5,70 5,47 0,37 22,46 62,96 22,13 16,25 23,87 0,72 ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG FINLAND SWEDEN Budget headings B2-1004, B2-1102, B2-1203, B2-1305. *y^ ^«- ANNEX III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 285 Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative Community Initiatives (number of CIPs) Total cost SF Commitments assistance 0) 1994-95 (2) % <2V(0 Payments 1994-95 0) % (3)/(2) ADAPT (17) Belgium Wallonia Flanders Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom Great Britain Northern Ireland EMPLOYMENT (17) Belgium Wallonia Flanders Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom Great Britain Northern Ireland LEADER (68) * Germany lladen- Wurttemberg Bavaria Eastern Berlin Brandenburg Hesse Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Thuringla 3. 010,89 1. 444,87 307,66 91,95 51,29 40,65 65,68 480,43 44,59 403,24 622,51 28,27 360,49 0,80 142,80 25,75 29,17 42,90 21,72 650,60 64 5,H 3 4. 77 2. 738,67 70,19 43,53 26,66 20,68 297,53 83,15 576,75 384,42 99,49 589,08 0,60 90,86 49,37 55,55 66,25 39,89 314,85 296, "o m,09 3. 092,11 382,40 14,26 113,45 0,40 33,67 21,29 29,31 40. 09 H,'6 25. 4H 4,20 35,45 26. 34 29,69 31,20 16,24 14,96 29,50 228,80 30,10 256,40 249,70 21,20 190,00 0,30 57,55 11,57 21,00 19,70 11,25 286,60 283,50 3. 10 1. 524,15 32,10 19,89 12. 21 10,56 156,80 64,40 386,60 146,50 76,10 348,70 0,30 42,44 23,01 40,30 29,15 20,69 146,50 134,60 11,90 1. 242,44 169,79 5,68 43,05 0,24 18,83 6,20 15,56 18,84 3,54 8,55 1,82 18,01 15,56 13,92 5,69 3,04 2,66 5,31 42,92 7,14 48,10 46,94 3,90 36,10 0,05 11,51 11,57 3,99 19,70 11,25 53,49 53,18 0,31 308,87 21,69 19,89 1. 80 1,61 23,14 8,04 58,63 22,27 7,61 51,47 0,30 4,24 23,01 5,67 29,15 20,69 31,36 20. 47 10,89 468,76 124,57 5,67 6,08 0,24 l'. 2l 5,61 15. 25 18. 21 3. 54 8. 55 1,21 18. 10 11,63 13. 26 2 1% 18% 19% 18% 18% 19% 24% 19% 19% 18% 19% 18% 20% 100% 19% 100% 100% 19% 19% 10% 20% 68% 100% 15% 15% 15% 12% 15% 15% 10% 15% 100% 10% 100% 14% 100% 100% 2 1% 15% 91%, 38% 73% 100% 14% 100% 91% 90% 98% 9'% 100%, 100% 6'%, 100%, '5%, 95% 152,62 2,85 1. 52 1. 33 2,66 21,46 3,57 24,05 23,47 1,95 18,05 0,03 5,76 5,79 2,00 8,64 5,63 26,75 26. 59 0. 16 154,23 10,85 9. 95 0. 90 0,80 11,57 4,02 29,31 11,13 3,61 25,73 0,15 2,12 11,51 2,83 14,58 10,35 15,68 10. 24 5. 44 132,71 38,82 l. 'O 3. 04 0. 0- 5. 22 1. 68 4. 59 5. 46 1. 06 2. 5 ~ 0. 36 5. 45 3. 62 4. 00 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 44% 5 0 %, 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%, 50%, 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 47% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 28% 3 1% 30% 50% 30% 30% 30% 30%, 30%, 30%, 30%, 30%, 30% 31%, 30% 'Including networks (commitments; ECU 3,7 million; payments; ECU 2,9 million) 286 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd. ) Community Initiatives (number of CIPs) Total cost SF Commitments assistance 0) 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1994-95 (3) ECU million % (3V(2) Greece Spain Andalusia Aragon Asturias Balearic Islands Canary Islands Cantabria Castile-La Mancha Castile-Leon Catalonia Extremadura Galicia Rioja Madrid Murcia Navarre Basque Country Valencia France Aquitaine Auvergne Lower Normandy Burgundy Brittany Corsica Franche-Comté Languedoc-Roussillon Limousin l'oitou-Charentes l'rovence-Alpes-Côle d'Azur Ireland Italy Abruzzi Basilicata Bolzano ( 'ulabria ( 'ampania Emilia-Romagna l-riuli-Venezia Giulia Apulia Sardinia Tuscany Umbria Valle d'Aosta Luxembourg Netherlands Drenthe Flevoland Nottlmest Friesland/Norlhwest (ironingen Northwest Fries/and Austria - Burgenland Portugal • ' 263,60 1. 161,93 249. 29 137. 40 35. 53 11. 27 30. 81 19,89 142,63 122,88 68,10 56,14 119. 4' 18,40 14,15 24. 26 21. 47 12. 63 77. 62 318,97 38. 51 31. 19 23. 81 21. 19 28. 52 -. 16 11. 55 33. -1 40. 94 58. 2' 24. 12 165,58 435,96 30. 33 39. 10 19,20 4-. -I 51. 32 20. 61 14. 54 53. 20 -3. 86 53. 11 31. 15 1. 83 4,85 35,17 2. 84 4. 43 14. 43 13. 4- 6,50 148,00 354,81 68,81 27,48 13,00 3,13 12,33 6,41 41,00 53,50 13,62 24,00 43. 82 3,68 3,60 9,52 4,81 2,47 23,63 122,89 17,23 12,78 10. 13 8. 53 14. 09 3. 05 5. -8 14. 39 15. 04 9. 83 12. 06 67,92 183,20 15. 9' 19. 55 4,80 23. 15 25. 82 6. 35 4. 90 26. 60 32. 3' 14,81 8,41 0. 47 1,01 8,46 1. 05 2. 11 2. 64 2,65 2,57 156,80 117,59 22,56 112,10 9. 8 S 24,18 12,52 3,07 1,85 0. 97 4. 47 9,60 2,12 22,44 2,90 3,43 3,36 I. -4 4. 17 2. 31 3. 12 95,56 15. 06 11,96 9. 12 ',48 4,26 3,05 4,9- 12. 96 14. 50 8,01 4,22 7,50 28,62 6,03 1,~2 4,26 5,96 2. " 0. 69 0,30 6,04 O. 5- 0,00 0,00 0. 28. 1,01 8,18 1,05 2. 02 2. 50 2. 61 2,01 6,74| 1 5% 32% 14% 88%, 96%, 98% 15% 15% 11% 18% 16% 94%, '% 93%, 93% 18% 8'% 94% 13%, 78% 8'% 94%, 90%, 88% 30%, 100%, 86%, 9(1%, 96'% 81%, 35%, 1 1% 16% 38% 9% 89%, 26%, 11%, 11%, (,%, :%, 0%, (1%, "* 100% 97% 100% 96% 95% 98% 78% 6%| 11,28 34,86 4. 93 4. 51 2. 45 1. 22 0. 92 0. 48 2,24 4,80 1. 06 4,39 1,45 1. 03 1. 01 0,87 1. 25 0,69 1,56 15,53 1,25 2,13 0,50 1,52 1,28 0,54 1,49 0,90 3,12 1. 53 1. 2- 3,75 14,00 3. 02 0,86 1. 8' 2. 98 1,38 0. 34 0,15 3. 02 0. 29 0. 00 0. 00 0. 08 0,41 2,45 0. 32 0. 60 0. '5 0. '8 0,33 3,59 5 0% 3 1% 50% 19% 20% 40% 50%, 50% 50% 50% 50% 20%, 50% 30% 30% 50%, 30% 30% 50% 16% 8% 18%, 5% 20% 30% 18% 30% '%, 22%, 19% 30%, 5 0% 49% 50% 50%, 44%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 30% 4 0% 30% 30%, 30%, 30%, 30%, 1 6% 5 3% 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex III: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd. ) Community Initiatives (number of CIPs) Total cost SF Commitments assistance d) 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1994-95 (3) United Kingdom England Highlands and Islands Northern Ireland Wales Scotland Networks PESCA (11) Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom SME (21) Belgium - Wallonia Germany Bavaria Berlin Bremen Hesse Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania North Rhine- Westphalia Saxony Saxony-Anhalt 'Ihuringia Greece France Corsica Hainaut Objective 2 and 5(b) areas Ireland Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom Highlands Northern Ireland Scotland Wales RECHAR (26) Belgium Châtelet Limburg Germany Lower Saxony- North Rhine- Westphalia 160,37 57,78 27,91 31,47 18,83 24,38 66,20 25,85 11,96 11,35 8. 62 8,41 605,89 252,99 4,25 48,64 62,00 54,63 95,66 81,33 12,18 81,19 34,18 47,17 84,65 1. 025,51 14,22 356,25 19,68 36. 20 8,94 3,40 35,38 31,64 99,6~ 63,89 57,45 156,86 139,22 15,75 25. 14 98,33 53,20 26,86 235,90 42,99 6,96 11,10 19,-1 5,22 900,17 58,05 1,86 56,19 400,81 3,30 280,41 2,00 16,40 23,00 27,10 41,50 28,30 6,70 34,17 10,80 25,60 37,42 491,25 9,41 156,83 6,97 14,61 0,9- 1,16 18,30 ",92 42,80 35,10 29,00 83,33 58,49 3,04 6,29 49,1- 28,79 10,34 123,98 20,09 3. 04 6,20 8. 52 2. 33 328,02 15,68 0. 93 14,-5 128,38 1,65 66,45 56,16 22,40 8,84 9,-0 7,58 7,64 3,75 53,11 0,33 2,73 3,83 4,51 6,91 18,78 1,11 4,42 1,15 4,26 5,07 203,53 7,49 101,20 6,9' 14,61 0,9' 1. 16 14. 65 7. 92 4. 39 21,52 29,00 10,45 15,41 2,60 6,29 6. 53 26,49 9,54 13,22 19,74 3,04 6. 20 8,52 1. 98 172,52 15,68 0. 93 14,'5 55,88 1. 65 7,-4 85% 87% -4% 85% 88%, 91% 2 1% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 66% 17% 13% 1 1% 17% 14% 4 1% 80% 65% 100% 100% 100%, 100%, 80%, 100% 10% 61%, 100%, 13% 26% 85%, 100%, 13%, 91'A 92% t l% 98% 100%, 100%, 100%, 85%, 5 3% 100% 100%, 100% 44% 100%, 12% 4,82 1. 47 1. 14 0. -7 0,81 0,63 2,88 17,16 0,17 1,37 1,92 2,26 3,46 0,00 0,56 2,21 0,58 2,13 2,54 67,71 2,25 30,85 2,09 4,48 0,49 0. 35 4. 65 3. 96 2. 20 2. 98 9. 65 5,23 4,62 0. -8 1. 89 1. 96 7,95 2,86 6,61 7,34 0. 96 3. 10 2. 69 0. 59 75,60 7,84 0,4' '. 38 26,80 0,83 3,87 287 ECU million % (3y<2) 9% 7% 13% 8% 11% 8% 11% 32% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 3 3% 30% 30% 30% 31%, 50% 30%, 32% 50%, 50% 14% 33% 50% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 50% 37% 31% 50%, 32%, 30% 44% 50% 50%, 50% 48% 50% 50%, 288 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd. ) Community Initiatives (number of CIPs) SF Commitments Total cost assistance (D 1994-95 (2) % wo) Payments 1994-95 (3) ECU million % (3)'(2) Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Ihuringia Greece France Burgundy iMnguedoc-Roussillon Ijirraine Midi-Pyrénées Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Rhône-Alpes Italy Sardinia Tuscany Portugal United Kingdom Exist Midlands Eastern Scotland North East England North West England Wales West Midlands Western Scotland Yorkshire REGIS (3) Spain France - Réunion Portugal KONVER (37) Belgium Brussels Flanders Wallonia Denmark Germany Bavaria Berlin Bremen Hamburg Hesse Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Saxony-Anhalt Schleswig-Holslein 'Ihuringia Greece France Alsace Aquitaine 4,56 19,81 l',12 5,00 1,37 15,49 1,54 0. 81 10,08 1. 03 1,01 1,01 1,68 0,78 0. 90 0,86 81,57 4,24 10. 00 23. 46 5. 88 20. 46 10. 13 3. 04 4,36 58,83 28,01 8,76 22,05 238,22 11,45 l,"3 4,80 4. 92 2,38 22. 86 53. 63 30,60 10,00 2,03 39,42 3,08 2,74 25,11 4,44 2,02 2,02 34,13 1,56 32. 5' 1,15 6,26 29. 80 19,22 5,00 1,52 16,66 1,54 1,01 10. 93 1,15 1,01 1,01 1,68 0. 78 0,90 0,86 364,59 163,25 42,15 10,00 23,46 6,90 20,46 12,66 3,04 4',57 456,50 216,93 115,56 124,00 352,13 11,45 1. -3 4,80 4,92 2,38 *~ 99,28 21. 89 51. 15 15. 28 46,44 2'. 86 6,50 96,19 751,47 385,49 209,17 156,81 883,69 30,43 5, '5 J 1. 80 12,88 5,33 342,33 28. 95 18. 6' 21. 54 2. 48 49. S 33. 03 36. 34 34. 35 2 ~. 8 2 4. 58 r. ()4 29,-9 38. 01 20,27 244,06 19,98 64,44 144,54 130,61 12,67 11. '6 4. 47 1,24 12,42 19. 45 12,92 14,90 13,91 1. 24 11,16 8,94 19. 45 12,91 71,02 4,25 13,16 8,45 10. 26 4,4- 1,24 12,42 19. 45 12,92 14. 90 9,04 0. 65 11. 16 6. 19 19. 45 11,48 64,42 4,04 11,86 ~3% 66% 89%, 100%, 90% 93% 100%, 80%, 92% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100% 50% 10%, 100%, 100% 85% 100% 80%, 100% 10% 13% 13% 8% 18% 68% 100% 100%, 100% 100%, 100% 90% 6~%, 8'%, 100%, 100% 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 65%, 52%, 100%, r. w, 100%, 89% 9 1% 95%, 90%, 1,15 9. 91 8,56 2,50 0,68 1,78 0. 77 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,51 0. 51 0,39 0,39 0,00 0,26 37,85 2,12 5,00 11. -3 0. 00 10,23 5,ir 1. 52 2. 18 22,02 0,00 4,38 17,64 87,33 5,73 0,86 2. 40 2. 46 1,19 38,74 4,22 3. 90 2. 24 0. 00 0,93 0,00 6,45 -. 45 1. 35 0. 04 0. 61 1. 83 9. "2 5,74 31,99 2. 02 5. 93 25% 50% 50% 50% 50% 12% 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 23% 50% 0% 30% 46% 50% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 37% 0% 50% 80% 37% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 30% 50%, 38%, 50% 0%, 8%, 0%, 50% 50% 15%, 6%, 5% 30%, 50%, 50% 50% 50% 50%, 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 289 Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd. ) Community Initiatives (number of CIPs) SF Com litmeiits assistance (1) 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1994-95 (3) (3)/(2) Auvergne Lower Normandy Brittany Centre Champagne-Ardenne lle-de-France iMnguedoc-Roussillon Limousin Lorraine Midi-Pyrénées Nord Pas-de-Calais Provence-Alpes-Côle d'Azur Picardy Poitou-Charentes Rhône-Alpes P o r t u g al U n i t ed K i n g d o m - G i b r a l t ar R E S I D ER ( 2 0) B e l g i um Charleroi Liège G e r m a ny Bavaria Bremen Lower Saxony North Rhine- Westphalia Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Ihuringia G r e e ce F r a n ce Burgundy Lorraine Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Picardy Rhône-Alpes N e t h e r l a n ds P o r t u g al U n i t ed K i n g d om Wales Western Scotland R E T EX ( 1 8) B e l g i um - W a l l o n ia G e r m a ny Baden- Wiirllemberg * Bavaria * Hesse' Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia * Saxony Ihuringia 3,78 7,42 10,40 22,02 5,49 18,83 10. 06 21. 95 2. 23 12,45 2,23 11,-4 20, -0 3. 12 '. 23 10,66 2 3 0 , 61 840,61 52,89 24. 48 28,42 558,30 12,09 6. 55 4-. 5 2 39~,40 4-, 58 30,29 -. 69 9. 19 8,94 105,75 3. 68 -3. 52 15,26 -. 22 6,06 51,50 10,77 52,46 28,54 23. 93 1. 756,22 6,00 284,34 24,45 129,39 6,'0 4. 93 3. '3 90. 14 25. 01 1,52 2,33 5. 16 4,15 2. 43 5,52 3. 14 4,05 I. U 4,0i 1. 11 5,87 9,42 1. 52 2. 23 7,90 101,94 2 8 4. 20 24,43 11. 90 12,53 164,27 5,39 3,28 14,81 101,89 12,90 14,88 5,00 6,12 4,69 42,62 1. 84 31. 11 5. 18 2,31 2. 18 18,10 6,91 23,18 12,96 10,23 592,70 3,00 65,87 0. 80 8,88 1,40 1. 81 1. 5- 41. 85 9. 56 1. 22 2. 02 4. 4' 3,92 1,96 4,'4 2. '6 4. 05 1,11 3. 65 1. 11 5. 3' 8. 40 1,52 2,23 7,90 9,99 177,10 23,68 11. 15 12. 53 62,49 5. 39 3. 28 14. 81 8,39 9,9 10,12 5,00 6,12 4,12 38,61 1,84 2'. 5 3 5. 18 2. 31 l. ~4 18,10 6,91 23,18 12. 96 10,23 244,56 3,00 22,87 0. 23 8. 81 0. 55 1. 21 o. r 3. 6' 8. 24 80%, 8'% 8'%, 94%, 81%, 86%, 88%, 100%, 100% 90%, 100%, 91%, 89% 100%, 100%, 9 9% 1 0% 6 2% 9 7% 94%, 100%, 3 8% 100%, 100%, 100%, 8%, ". !% 68% 100% 100% 8 8% 91 % 100%, 88%, 100%, 100%, 80%, 1 0 0% 1 0 0% 1 0 0% 100%, 100%, 4 1% 1 0 0% 3 5% 28%, 99%, 39%, 6'% 11%, 9% 86%, 0,61 1. 01 2. 23 1. 96 0. 98 2. 3' 1. 38 2,02 0,33 1,82 0,56 2,69 4. 20 0,-6 1. 11 3,95 0,00 7 8 , 30 5,58 5. 58 0,00 3 1 , 25 2. '<> 1. 64 '. 40 4. 19 4. 69 5. 06 2,50 3,06 2,06 17. 55 0,92 13. " 1. 55 0,~9 0,52 7,35 2,93 11,59 6,48 5. 11 144,10 1,50 8. 11 0. 1 J 1. 00 0,36 0. 60 0,08 1,83 4. 12 50% 50% 50%o 50%, 50%, 50% 50% 50%, 30%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50% 50% 50% 5 0% 0% 4 4% 2 4% 50%, 0%, 5 0% 50% 50%, 50% 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50% 5 0% 4 5% 50%, 50%, 30%, 34%, 50%, 41 % 4 2% 5 0% 50% 50%, 5 9% 5 0% 3 5% 50%, 11%, 65%, 50% 50%, 50%, 50%, * CIP adopted in 1993. Total cost and assistance 1993-97, Commitments and payments 1993-95 290 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd. ) Community Initiatives (number of CIPs) SF Commitments assistance (1) 1994-95 (2) % (2V(I) Payments 1994-95 (3) ECU million % (3V(2) Greece* Spain* France* Irelnnd* Italy Régions objectif 1 * Régions objectifs 2 et 5h* Netherlands • Twente Portugal* United Kingdom Northern Ireland Great Britain URBAN (19) Belgium Anvers Charleroi Denmark Germany Berlin Bremen ( 'hemnitz Duishurg Erfurt Magdebourg Rostock Brandenburg Greece Spain Luxembourg Netherlands Amsterdam IM Haye Austria - Vienne Portugal United Kingdom - Northern Ireland 145,33 361,13 79,27 22,46 249,20 '8,39 170,82 3,50 526,84 78,15 8,40 69. S 822,93 26,56 15. 24 11,33 3,04 270,07 31,05 16. 31 141. 31 18. 65 r. 18 19. 94 16,02 9,61 67,17 248,68 1,03 87,91 19,68 68. 23 31,93 62,02 24,52 87,52 90,39 28,89 11,43 78,99 39,37 39,62 1,01 189,00 36,60 4,20 32,40 384,76 8,25 2,58 5,66 1,52 86,37 16,10 8. 00 9. 20 • 8,10 12,89 12,88 12,00 ~,20 45,20 162,60 0,51 9,30 4,65 4,65 9,77 44,30 16,95 11,80 38,53 7,04 6,93 12,05 7,90 4,16 1,01 111,37 29,96 3. 75 26. 21 157,37 8,25 2,58 5,66 1,34 79,00 16. 10 8,00 9. 20 6,81 12,89 8,92 9,88 7,20 4,52 22,85 0,51 7,89 3. 6- 4. 22 6,84 9,22 16,95 1 3% 4 3% 24% 6 1% 15% 20% 10% 100% 59% 82% 89% 81% 4 1% 100% 100% 100% 88% 9 1% 100% 100% 100% 84% 100% 69% 82% 100%, 10% 14% 100% 85% '9%, 91%, 70% 2 1% 100% 9,14 34,16 3,42 4,06 6,03 3,95 2,OH 0,51 63,06 14,10 1,88 12,23 58,13 4,12 1,29 2,83 0,40 23,19 l. 'O 0. 74 2. 99 2,04 3,91 4,46 4,94 2,41 1,70 11. 42 0,04 2,37 1,10 1. 2- 3,42 4,61 6,85 78% 89% 49% 59% 50% 50% 50% 50% 57% 47% 50% 4'% 37% 50% 50% 50% 30% 29% 11% 9% 33% 30% 30% 50%, 50% 34% 38% 50% 8% 30% 30% 30% 50% 50% 40% * CIP adopted in 1993; Total cost and assistance 1993-97, Commitments and payments 1993-95 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 2: Presentation by Member State Member State (number of CIPs) SF Commitments Assistance (1) 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1994-95 (3) BELGIUM ADAPT (2) EMPLOYMENT (2) PESCA (1) S M E ( l) RECHAR (2) KONVER (3) RESIDER (2) RETEX (1) URBAN (2) Total (16) 1NTERREG/REGEN (3) DENMARK ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) PESCA (1) KONVER (1) URBAN (1) Total (5) 1NTERREG/REGEN (4) GERMANY ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (13) PESCA (1) SME (9) RECHAR (6) KONVER (13) RESIDER (8) RETEX (7)' URBAN (8) Total (67) INTERIŒG/REGEN (17) GREECE ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (1) PESCA (1) S M E ( l) RECHAR (1) KONVER (1) RESIDER (1) RETEX (1) URBAN (1) Total (10) 1NTERREG/REGEN (3) 1993-95 "1993-1995 91,95 70,19 4,25 14,22 58,05 30,43 52,89 6,00 26,56 31,20 32,10 2,00 9,41 15,68 11,45 24,43 3,00 8,25 354,54 137,52 65,68 20,68 48,64 5,33 3,04 143,37 480,43 297,53 382,40 62,00| 356,25| 400,81| 342,33! 558,30! 284,34 270,07 29,50 10,56 16,40 2,38 1,52 60,36 228,80 156,80 169,79 23,00 156,83 128,38 144,54 164,27 65,87 86,37 3. 434,47 1. 324,64 44,59 83,15 263,60 54,63 156,86 2,03 20,27 8,94 145. 33J 67,171 846,56 30,10 64,40 148,00 27,10 83,33 1,52 12,91 4,69 87,52 45. 2C 504,76 5,69 21,69 0,33 7,49 15,68 11,45 23,68 3,00 8,25 97,26 5,31 1,61 2,73 2,38 1,34 13,37 42,92 23,14 124,57 3,83 101,20 55,88 130,61 62,49 22,87 79,00 646,51 7,14 8,04 22,56 4,51 10,45 1,37 11,48 4,12 11,80 4,52 85. 9J 18% 68% 17% 80% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 7 1% 18% 15% 17% 100% 88% 22% 19% 15% 73% 17% 65% 44% 90% 38% 35% 9 1% 2,85 10,85 0,17 2,25 7,84 5,73 5,58 1,50 4,12 40,87 2,66 0,80 1,37 1,19 0,40 6,41 21,46 11,57 38,82 1,92 30,85 26,80 38,74 31,25 8,11 23,19 4 9 %| 232,71 24% i :% 1 5% 1 7% 13% 90% 89% 88% 13% 10°/. 17"/i 3,57 4,02 11,28 2,26 5. 23 0,68 5,74 2,06 9,14 l,7C 45,68 291 ECU million % (3)/(2) 50% 50% 50% 30% 50% 50% 24% 50% 50% 42% 50% 50% 50% 50% 30% 4 8% 50% 50% 31% 50% 30% 48% 30% 50% 35% 29% 36% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 78% 38% 5 3% 292 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 2: Presentation by Member State (ctd. ) Member State (number of CIPs) SF Commitments T o t al cost Assistance (1) 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(D Payments 1994-95 (3) ECU million % (3)/(2) SPAIN ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (17) PESCA (1) REGIS (1) RETEX (1)* URBAN (1) Total (23) 1NTERREG/REGEN (2) i FRANCE ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (11) PESCA (1) SME (3) RECHAR (6) REGIS (1) KONVER (17) RESIDER (5) RETEX (1)* Total (47) INTERIŒG/REGEN (5) IRELAND ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (1) PESCA (1) S M E ( l) RETEX (1)* Total (6) INTERRJXl'REGEN (2) PEACE (1) ITALY ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (12) PESCA (1) RECHAR (2) RETEX (2)* Total (19) INTERIŒG/REGEN (2) LUXEMBOURG ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (1) URBAN (1) Total (4) LVl ERREG/REGEN (1) 403,24 576,75 1 161,93 95,66 385,49 361,13 248,68 256,40 386,60 354,81 41,50 216,93 90,39 162,60 3. 232,88 1. 509,23 622,51 384,42 318,97 81,33 139,22 39,42 209,17 244,06 105,75 79,27! 2. 224,121 28,27 99,49; 165,58| 12,18; 53,20j 22,46i 381,17 360,49; 589,08! 435,96| 81,19 34,13 249,20 1. 750,04 0,80 0,60 4,85j 1,03 7,28| 249,70 146,50 122,89 28,30 58,49 16,66 115,56 71,02 42,62 28,89 880,63 21,20 76,10 67,92 6,70 28,79 11,43 212,14 190,00 348,70 183,20 34,17 1,68 78,99 836,74 0,30 0,30 1,01 0,51 2,12 48,10 58,63 112,10 6,91 28,01 38,53 22,85 315,12 46,94 22,27 95,56 18,78 15. 41 15,49 8,76 64,42 38,61 7,04| 333,291 3,90 7,61 7,50 1,11 26,49 6,93 53,54 36,10 51,47 28,62 4,42 1,68 12,05 134,35 0,05 0,30 1,01 0,51 1,87 19% 15% 32% 17% 13% 43% 14% 2 1% 19% 15% 78% 66% 26% 93% 8% 91% 9 1% 24% 3 8% 18% 10% 11% 17% 92% 6 1% 25% 19% 15% 16% 13% 100% 1 5% 16% 18% 100% 100% 100% 88% 24,05 29,31 34,86 3,46 0,00 34,16 11,42 137,26 23,47 11,13 15,53 0,00 4,62 1,78 4,38 31,99 17,55 3,42 113,88 1,95 3,61 3,75 0,56 7,95 4,06 21,87 18,05 25,73 14,00 2,21 0,39 6,03 66,41 0,03 0,15 0,41 0,04 0,62 50% 50% 3 1% 50% 0% 89% 50% 44% 50% 50% 16% 0% 30% 12% 50% 50% 45% 49% 3 4% 50% 47% 50% 50% 30% 59% 4 1% 50% 50% 49% 50% 23% 50% 49% 50% 50% 40% 8% 3 3% 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 293 aSH Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 Table 2: Presentation by Member State (ctd. ) Member State (number of CIPs) Total cost SF Commitments Assistance 0) 1994-95 (2) % (2)/(l) Payments 1994-95 (3) ECU million (3)/(2) NETHERLANDS ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (4) PESCA (1) S M E ( l) RESIDER (1) RETEX (1) URBAN (2) Total (12) 1NTERREG/REGEN (7) AUSTRIA ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (1) URBAN (1) Total (4) INTERREG/REG EN (4) PORTUGAL ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) LEADER (1) PESCA (1) SME(l) RECHAR (1) REGIS (1) KONVER (1) RESIDER (1) RETEX (1)* URBAN (1) Total (11) INTERIŒG/REGEN (2) FINLAND ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) Total (2) SWEDEN ADAPT (1) EMPLOYMENT (1) Total (2) UNITED KINGDOM ADAPT (2) EMPLOYMENT (2) LEADER (5) PESCA (1) SME (4) RECHAR (8) KONVER (1) RESIDER (2) RETEX (2) URBAN (1) Total (28) INTERIŒG/REGEN (3) PEACE (1) 142,80 90,86 35,17 34,18 26,86 51,50 3,50 87,91 472,77 25,75 49,37 6,50 31,93 113,55 29,17 55,55j 156,80! 47,17! 1 235,901 1,15j 156,81 10,66! 10,77 526. 84J 62. 02J 1. 292,85| 42,90 66,25| 109,151 21,72! 39,89| 61,60| 650,60 314,85 160,3 7 j 84,65) 42,99' 364,59! 230,61 i 52,46| 78,15i 24,52; 2. 003,79! 57,55 42,44 8,46 10,80 10,34 18,10 1,01 9,30 158,00 11,57 23,01 2,57 9,77 46,92 21,00 40,30 117,59 25,60 123,98 0,86 124,00 7,90 6,91 189,00 44,30 701,43 19,70 29,15 48,85 11,25 20,69 31,94 286,60 146,50 66,20 37,42 20,09 163,25 101,94 23,18 36,60 1-6,95 898,73 11,51 4,24 8,18 1,15 9,54 18,10 1,01 7,89 61,63 11,57 23,01 2,01 6,84 43,43 3,99 5,67 6,74 4,26 13,22 0,86 22,05 7,90 6,91 111,37 9,22 192,18 19,70 29,15 48,85 11,25 20,69 31,94 53,49 31,36 56,16 5,07 19,74 81,57 9,99 23,18 29,96 16,95 327,47 20% 10% 97% 11% 92% 100% 100% 85% 3 9% 100% 100% 78% 70% 9 3% 19% 14% 6% 17% 11% 100% 18% 99% 100% 59% 21% 27% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 9% 21% 85% 14% 98% 50% 10% 100% 82% 100% 36% 5,76 2,12 2,45 0,58 2,86 7,35 0,51 2,37 23,99 5,79 11,51 0,33 3,42 21,04 2,00 2. 83 3,59 2,13 6,61 0,26 17,64 3. 95 2,93 63,06 4,61 109,60 8,64 14,58 23,21 5,63 10,35 15,97 26,75 15,68 4,82 2. 54 7,34 37. 85 0,00 11,59 14,10 6,85 127,52 50% 50% 30% 50% 30% 4 1% 50% 30% 39% 50% 50% 16% 50% 48% 50% 50% 53% 50% 50% 30% 80% 50% 42% 57% 50% 57% 44% 50% 48% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 9% 50% 37% 46% 0% 50% 47% 40% 39% < & $ •* ANNEX IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 297 Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * Table 1: Implementation in 1995 Member State / Fund Commitments Payments ECU million BELGIUM ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG DENMARK ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG GERMANY ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG GREECE ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG SPAIN ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG FRANCE ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG IRELAND ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ITALY ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG LUXEMBOURG ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG 25,05 0,00 24,99 0,00 0^06 L25 0,00 1,10 0,00 ÇU6 MO 0,90 5,30 0,00 O^ 2^ 0,01 1,63 0,02 U£ 4^40 0,00 0,52 0,00 M i __ 3/73 0,00 2,38 0,01 U33 4^96 0,00 4,16 0,01 0J50 13,89 0,00 2,06 10,30 U54 0^95 0,00 0,95 0,00 0. 00 20,02 2,46 16,80 0,58 0,18 2,85 1,10 0,67 0,01 1,06 13,24 8,21 4,66 0,15 0,22 9,47 0,00 3,19 4,98 1,30 15,52 2,28 7,44 3,08 2,72 18,44 1,51 7,46 8,40 1,07 lfi\_ 0,00 4,87 2,63 0,31 36,85 12,83 1,79 20. 63 1,59 (K58 0,00 0,58 0,00 0 _^ - * Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again. 298 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * Table 1: Implementation in 1995 (ctd. ) Member State / Fund Commitments Payments ECU million NETHERLANDS ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG AUSTRIA ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG PORTUGAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG FINLAND ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG SWEDEN ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG UNITED KINGDOM ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG COMMUNITY » ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG 2,67 [ 0,00 1,74 0,00 0^ 0^26 0,00 0,24 0,01 0£0 Iflf^ 0,00 7,44 0,00 0^42 0^29 0,00 0,28 0,01 0£0 0^57 0,00 0,22 0,02 0^34 6^54 0,00 3,71 0,27 2^56 30,30 30,08 0,00 0,21 0,01 111,92 30,98 56,70 10,87 13. 37 % Zfij 1,48 0,76 0,02 0,79 0^15 0,00 0,14 0,01 0,00 25,02 18,00 5,34 0,21 1,46 ( Ul 0,00 0,10 0,00 0,00 0^10 0,00 0,10 0,00 0,00 6^14 0,97 1,75 1,35 2,07 34,50 33,48 1,02 0,00 0,00 193,85 82,32 56,69 42,06 12,77 Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and approprialions made available again. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 299 Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * Table 2: Implementation in 1994-95 Member State / Fund Commitments Payments ECU million BELGIUM ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG DENMARK ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG GERMANY ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG GREECE ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG SPAIN ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG FRANCE ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG IRELAND ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG ITALY ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG LUXEMBOURG ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG __ 49,13 0,00 45,34 3,20 (^59 3/79 0,00 1,75 0,00 2__ 10,11 1,27 6,63 1,33 __%_ 33,68 2,11 29,20 0,02 2__ 68,00 55,00 1,60 5,55 S___ 11,38 0,00 3,65 4,71 3£2 M2 0,00 4,87 0,57 ___ 32,19 0,00 8,81 20,97 1,12 0,00 1,12 0,00 OfJO 56,29 6,61 48,52 0,80 0,35 5,13 2,40 1,20 0,21 1,31 32,12 24,88 5,59 1,01 0,64 33,20 7,59 18,22 5,47 1^2 52,54 32,97 8,65 6,83 4,10 53,89 23,26 8,34 20,12 2,17 12,19 0,88 5,68 5,22 0,41 95,45 32,39 12,28 47,69 3,08 0,64 0,00 0,63 0,00 0__ Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again. 300 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures Table 2: Implementation in 1994-95 (ctd. ) Member State / Fund Commitments Payments ECU million NETHERLANDS ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG AUSTRIA ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG PORTUGAL ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG FINLAND ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG SWEDEN ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG UNITED KINGDOM ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG COMMUNITY ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG TOTAL ERDF ESF EAGQF FIFG 4,471 0,00 1,95 0,00 2__ 0^26 0,00 0,24 0,01 76,39 59,01 7,99 6,33 3^06 0^29 0,00 0,28 0,01 ___ 0,00 0,22 0,02 ___ 11,96 0,00 5,26 0,27 46,66 46,28 0,01 0,21 | ' 356,31 163,67 118,92 43,20 30,52 " 1LQ4 8,29 1,25 0,44 1,07 0,15 0,00 0,14 0,01 0,00 66,58 52,51 5,72 6,44 1,91 _Y_ 0,00 0,10 0,00 0,00 __ 0,00 0,10 0,00 0,00 16,12 2,88 8,08 2,59 2,57 78,04 76,01 2,03 0,00 0,00 513,57 270,68 126,54 96,82 19,54 Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again. 3o/ 3>â ANNEX V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 303 Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 Member Stale / Region ' I * I 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) j 5(a) (Hsh. ) | Sb | 6 Objective BELGIUM Brussels Flanders Wallonia Multi-regional DENMARK 0st for Storebaelt Vest for Storebaelt Multi-regional GERMANY Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt Saxony Thuringia Berlin Schleswig-Holstein Hamburg Lower Saxony Bremen North Rhine-Westphalia Hesse Rhineland-Palatinate Baden-Wurttemberg Bavaria Saarland Multi-regional GREECE Eastern Central and Islands(l) Central and Western Macedonia Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr. (2) Thessaly Crete Epirus (3) Thrace (4) Eastern Aegean Islands (S) Multi-regional SPAIN Galicia Asturias Cantabria Basque Country Navarre Rioja Aragon Madrid Castile-Leôn Castile-La Mancha Extremadura Catalonia Valencia Balearic Islands 8,97 - 8,97 - - - - - 2. 022,55 370,40 272,79 338,53 461,58 297,82 109,98 - - - - " - - - - 171,46 2. 653,04 195,86 118,41 140,50 55,24 84,20 82,46 72,66 9 !,25 1. 812,45 4. 778,90 589,88 224,68 106,55 " - - - - 296,07 240,09 155,20 - 589,60 - 4,63 - 0,00 4,63 - 6,00 0,00 6,00 - 38,01 - - - - - 13,10 0,00 - 6,49 2,61 5,37 1,20 3,10 0,00 6,14 - - - - - - - - - 659,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,00 - - 5,00 0,00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0,00 - - -1 -1 *! - - - 62,70 33,40 1,90 0,00 25,95 5,55 41,00 - - 41,00 48,22 - - - - - 8,09 6,12 0,00 0,00 6,28 0,00 7,90 5,04 8,34| 0,00| 6,45 0,00 ' 1 - - - - - - 206,97 I "1 "1 • '! 192,43 20. 66J 22,83 11,87 13,86 79,13 - 288,98 10,37 6,78 0,00 0,00 18. 41 j i "I 15,561 '1 0,00 '! 30,23 0,27 12,31 5,90 11,75 16,73 - - 16,73 165,13 - - - - - - 0,49 0,68 4,74 0,11 0,00 3,33 0,00 3,50 13,56 0,50 138,23 - - - - - 21,10 - - - - - - - • - 0,00 - - 0,00 23,28 - 23,28 12,46 - - - - - - - - - 12,46 - - - - - 19,90 - - - - • 9,16 - 4,31 4,86 3,36 - - 3,36 135,77 - - - - - - 10,69 15,60 5,49 14,05 7,97 8,79 70,36 2,82 - - - - - - - - 88,58 - - - 3,78 10,11 1,94 40,95 6,52 - 17,05 8,21 (1) Including the OP for Attica (2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse (3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands (4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia (5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean CI 92,19 1,73 24,79 65,68 0,00 9,03 0,00 0,00 9,03 617,61 59,24 24,41 75,35 65,28 93,96 41,22 6,19 1,24 48,79 16,72 49,30 19,47 17,59 5,67 34,44 15,81 42,92 61,64 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 61,64 239,54 2,90 12,52 0,97 2,31 4,17 3,43 24,18 3,36 9,60 4,47 22,44 2,12 3 j2 3,07 - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " 178,59 3,89 41,4i 115,99 17,30 104,40 0,00 6,00 98,40 3. 039,76 429,63 297,20 413,88 526,86 391,78 172,38 23,49 1,92 75,62 25,72 60,16 45,95 33,70 26,30 118,36 31,72 365,07 2. 714,68 195,86 118,41 140,50 55,24 84,20 82,46 72,66 91,25 1. 874,09 6. 076,89 592,78 237,20 107,52 219,18 43,89 17,24 78,99 107,42 305,66 244,56 177,64 323,71 592,72 21,65 304 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 (ctd. ) Member State / Region Objective | 5(a) (agr. )" 5(a) (fish. ) Andalusia Murcia Ceuta and Melilla Canary Islands Multi-regional FRANCE Ile-de-France Upper Normandy Lower Normandy Picardy Champagne-Ardenne Burgundy Centre Nord-Pas-de-Calais Brittany Loire Region Poitou-Charentes Lorraine Alsace Franche-Comté Limousin Aquitaine Midi-Pyrénées Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Languedoc-Roussillon Proven ce-Al pes-Côte d'Azur Corsica Martinique Guadeloupe French Guiana Réunion Multi-regional IRELAND Multi-regional ITALY Piedmont Valle d'Aosta Lombardy Trentino Veneto Friuli-Venezia Giulia Liguria Emilia-Romagna Tuscany Umbria Marche Lazio Abruzzi Molise Campania Apulia Basilicata Calabria Sicily Sardinia Multi-regional 700,29 169,37 25,42 307,57 1. 374,18 222,44 - - - - - - 9,40 - - - - - - - - - - 14,25 24,45 54,03 8,12 112,20 954,21 954,21 2. 228,59 - - - - - - - 134,37 26,75 124,02 203,67 51,65 117,17 189,39 50,95 1. 330,62 - - - - 39,75 313,09 - 45,19 17,08 37,58 0,00 13,91 0,00 12,02 0,00 41,94 17,10 39,96 0,00 2,10 3,82 13,63 19,25 0,00 19,86 29,64. - - - - - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 - - - - - - - - 62,70 0,00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71 • • - - 0,00 - - 0,00 - - - - - - - - -. - - - - 145,56 396,80 - - - - - - - - - - - "I "j - - - 1 -1 - - - 396,80 - - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 - 0,00 0,0C - - - - 21,10 252,08 " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 252,08 - 0,00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0,00 1 - - 110,46 - 0,00 12,80 - 0,00 20,35 1,12 - 0,00 12,52 3,75 1,40 0,21 6,86 14,01 2,84 4,89 25,68 1,56 0. 00 0,32 2,14 - 31,50 9,78 0,00 0. 00 0. 00 0,00 5,22 4. 19 3. 39 0,00 0,00 8,93 0,00 - - - - - 19,90 31,62 - - - - - - - - - " - " - - - - - " 31,62 - 22,37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22,37 ECU million Total 710,14 171,11 25,42 337,42 1. 762,61 1. 633,61 4,74 45,19 41,02 48,29 1,96 45,12 5,04 28,82 8,72, 54,47 30,38 80,09 4,25 13,93 32,55 33,58 23,21 58,11 6,54 36,39 45,74 19,90 24,45 54,03 8,12 120,96 758,04 996,85 996,85 2. 353. 29 9,78 0,28 0,00 4,26 0,00 5,52 4,19 4,08 0,90 0. 00 8,93 0,00 140,40 26,75 126,78 209,71 53,37 123,13 189,39 52,30 9,85 1,74 0,00 29,86 99,43 307,12 4,74 0,00 11,13 10,71 1,96 10,86 3,92 7,40 8,72 0. 00 9,52 38,73 4,04 4,97 18,54 26,92 4,68 13,17 4,98 16,53 15,79 5,65 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,76 75,39 42,64 42,64 70,83 0,00 0,28 0,00 4,26 0,00 0,30 0,00 0,69 0,90 0,00 0,00 0,00 6,03 0,00 2,77 6,04 1,72 5,96 0,00 1,35 40,52 1. 393,52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - • 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 305 Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 (ctd. ) Member State / Region « 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) | 5(a) (fish. ) | 5b | 6 Objective LUXEMBOURG Multi-regional NETHERLANDS North Netherlands East Netherlands West Netherlands South Netherlands Multi-regional AUSTRIA East Austria South Austria West Austria Multi-regional PORTUGAL North Centre Lisbon and the Tagus valley Alentejo Algarve Azores Madeira Multi-regional FINLAND Continental Finland Islands Multi-regional SWEDEN South Sweden West Sweden Central Norrland Upper Norrl and Multi-regional UNITED KINGDOM North Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands East Anglia South East South West West Midlands North East England North West Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Gibraltar Multi-regional COMMUNITY TOTAL - - 17,20 " 17,20 - - - 28,80 28,80 - - - 1. 379,72 97,80 59,99 93,98 57,69 24,88 84,70 82,35 878,33 - - - - - - - 218,60 - •> - - - • - 50,17 39,14 129,29 \ 0,00 0,00 9,15 9,15 0,00 - 0,00 • 54,15 22,41 11,12 20,62 - - - - - - - - - 31,10 - - 31,10 105,78 15,00 24,00 18,00 48,78 - 518,25 0,00 103,79 6,55 " 6,13 0,00 122,96 95,65 32,70 15,58 134,89 0,00 3,29 3,29 143,83 1 " - - 143,83 64,06 - - - 64,06 - - - - - - - - 60,33 - - 60,33 73,00 - - - 73,00 497,00 " - 1 J - - - - - " 0,27 0,27 0,00 - - 0,00 11,70 - - - 11,70 - - - - * - - - 14,83 - 14,83 -! 1 -! • "! -j - "! -I "I - -! - 14. 513,03 - 1. 739,37 497,00 - 1. 567,91 - 94,50 5,47 5,47 4,89 - - - - 4,89 61,50 - - - 61,50 - - - - - - 61,42 - - 61,42 13,72 13,72 22,80 - - - 22,80 - 655,08 0,00 0,00 7,31 4,50 1,42 1,40 0,00 78,33 21,18 27,21 29,94 " - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "1 32. 81 30. 48 2. 33 - -1 1 - - 74,59 -1 1 7,51 1. 39 5. 11 2,16 27. 6S 23. 77 81,00 - 81,00 44,92 44,92 - - ^ 0,89 0,89 1,40 - - - 1,40 2,00 - - - 2,00 - - - - - - - - 23,00 - - 23,00 40,00 - - - 40,00 0,00 - - - - - ECU million CI Total 1,83 1. 83 5 73 6,16 3,03 7,89 0,00 40,30 43,43 8,85 0,00 0,00 34,58 147,98 0,00 0,00 9,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,75 11,75 241,16 19,80 21,65 9,29 0,00 190,42 343,97 81,24 38,33 50,56 173,84 1. 527,70 97,80 59,99 103,20 57,69 24,88 84,70 82,35 138,76 1. 017,09 48,85 0,00 0,00 48,85 31,94 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 31,94 305,86 0,00 4,36 4,24 0,00 0,00 0,00 10,13 23,46 5,88 42,98 51,30 46,62 0,00 116,89 588,78 35334 30,48 2,33 320,53 30936 15,00 24,00 18,00 48,78 203,58 1. 637,10 0,00 108,16 18,29 1,39 6,13 5,11 133,09 121,27 88,75 85,64 249,11 175,91 0,00 644,26 588,78 0,00 - 176,92 7. 57 - 571,86 125,92 2. 666,65 22. 111,23 306 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95 Member State / Region I 2 j 3 1 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) [ 5(a) (fish. ) | 5b | 6 Objective BELGIUM Brussels Flanders Wallonia Multi-regional DENMARK 0st for Storebœlt Vest for Storebaelt Multi-regional GERMANY Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt Saxony Thuringia Berlin Schleswig-Holstein Hamburg Lower Saxony Bremen North Rhine-Westphalia Hesse Rhineland-Palatinate Baden-Wiirttemberg Bavaria Saarland Multi-regional GREECE Eastern Central and Islands(l) Central and Western Macedonia Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr. (2) Thessaly Crete Ëpirus (3) Thrace (4) Eastern Aegean Islands (5) Multi-regional SPAIN Galicia Asturias Cantabria Basque Country Navarre Rioja Aragon Madrid Castile-Leôn Castile-La Mancha Extremadura Catalonia Valencia Balearic Islands 107,00 - - 107,00 - - - - - 3. 892,08 625,34 568,39 673,61 916,10 571,53 211,42 - - - - - - - 325,70 4. 544,89 298,72 239,23 284,40 111,61 131,00 143,54 146,81 156,40 3. 033,18 8. 372,41 937,94 338,64 155,98 537,87 407. 0C 284. 9C 886,02 62,16 - 38,32 23,84 - 30,29 9,52 20,77 - 286,85 - - - - - 49,19 15,39 - 13,52 14,94 115,00 21,26 23,46 13,64 20,46 - - - - 97,77 3,73 30,40 52,73 10,91 85,00 - - 85,00 307,77 - - - - 15,88 12,20 5,99 18,58 12,33 43,02 15,50 10,17 16,37 8,66 13,01 136,05 - - - - - - 4,63 0,29 3,45 0,27 0,62 6,00 - - 6,00 29,61 - - - -1 - - - -j j -j -I -i -| -i 53,03 C. 27 16,10 9,63 27,03 38,67 - - 38,67 322,72 - - - - 0,49 0,68 4,74 0,11 4,85 3,02 3,50 13,56 0,50 29,61 287,95 "i. 1 1 i -i •I J 4,08 - - - 4,08 46,59 - - 46,59 24,87 - - - - - - - - - - 24,87 - - ; - 9,16| -! 4,31! 4,86! 1 9,79 - - 9,79 26I,74| -i -i 20,91! •! 44,41 j -! 5,49; 23,66! 20,17: 8,79 ! Ï35~i49 2,82 -; -, 659,21 426,59 118,10 101,86 39,83 162,09i 192,43 22,83 11,87 13, se 79,13 41,32 13,44 4,34 20,04 36,7* 288,9! 31,i: 10,3 ? 12,9 "i -i -! 1 •! - - ----- 'j ----- — -i 6,43; 16. 43; 6,20! 78,83 11,32, - Wfib] 8,2 1 -! -! -: -, -j -! -| -| -j -| - - - - -i -| -j -i -! - -! - -! - -! -j -i -! -; "! -j -! -i -j -; - " -i ECU million CI Total 97,26 1,73 26,59 68,61 0,33 13,37 0,00 0,00 13,37 646,51 59,24 24,41 75,35 65,28 93,96 41,22 6,19 ' '24 48,79 16,72 49,47 19,74 17. 59 5,90 35,70 i5,8i 69,90 85,98 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 85,98 315,12 2,90 12,52 0,97 2,31 4,17 3,43 24,18 3,36 9,6C 4,4" 22,44 2,1: 3,11 3,07| 435,09 6,02 119,17 266,94 42,97 229,70 9,52 20,77 199,41 5. 772,15 684,58 592,81 748,96 981,38 665,49 317,71 55,18 7,92 130,05 44,09 217,82 83,49 74,40 34,56 207,04 52,61 874,08 4. 630,87 298,72 239,23 284,40 111,61 131,00 143,54 146,81 156,40 3. 119,17 10. 195,22 940,84 351,16 156,95 242,50 56,87 25,83 136,91 130,57 547. 46 411,47 307,41 356. 88 889,14 3 4 - 6o (1) Including the OP for Attica (2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse (3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands (4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia (5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 307 Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95(ctd. ) Member State / Region 1 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) | 5(a) (fish. ) j 5b ] 6 Objective ECU million CI Total Andalusia Murcia Ceuta and Melilla Canary Islands Multi-regional FRANCE Ile-de-France Upper Normandy Lower Normandy Picardy Champagne-Ardenne Burgundy Centre Nord-Pas-de-Calais Brittany Loire Region Poitou-Charentes Lorraine Alsace Franche-Comté Limousin Aquitaine Midi-Pyrénées Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Languedoc-Roussillon Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Corsica Martinique Guadeloupe French Guiana Réunion Multi-regional IRELAND Multi-regional ITALY Piedmont Valle d'Aosta Lombardy Trent i no Veneto Friuli-Venezia Giulia Liguria Emilia-Romagna Tuscany Umbria Marche Lazio Abruzzi Molise Campania Apulia Basilicata Calabria Sicily Sardinia Multi-regional 1 337,33 263,91 44,19 453,00 2. 725,59 497,61 - - - - 69,87 - " - - - - 48,49 57,57 100,61 26,87 194,21 1. 680,13 1 680,13 3. 024,71 - - - - - - - - 150,90 37,74 177,22 203,67 98,05 189,15 189,39 170,58 1. 808,01 - - - - 118,10 95,39 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -! - "i -! - - - - 95,39 - "I 60,61 1 * - - - - - - - - - - "i - - - - 266,62 778,40 - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - 778,40 - - - - 39,75 904,39 - 91,59 35,45 76,49 24,64 29,61 24,20 114,06 28,52 85,14 34,04 80,44 19,60 17,30 37,86 27,17 38,68 31,69 42,27 65,65 - - - -1 -! -j 299,95 65,15 200,47 18,32 6,00 23,00 - 22,57 24,00 30,53 12,00 40,36 35,00 21,00 20,34 1,86 26,25 7,90 16,23 8,00 6,33 27,64 9,84 4,57 5,51 18,30 - - - 49,71 60,61 - - - - 101,86 678,61 - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - 678,61 - - - - - 39,83 63,27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - 63,27 - 117,47 44,77 - - " - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - 117,47 - - - - - 373,18 - 1,09 31,54 - 4,12 29,69 5,09 - 26,19 27,78 20,85 10,20 6,75| 13,92 32,02! 34,391 33,89! 44,88 24,91 11,65 12,09 -i -i -i ! -j 2,14; -! -I 107,00 ! 9. 78J 0,59, 4,79s 6,23 17,30! 5,22| 4. 19} 6,78! I 15. 79 10. 75! 8,93 16,66 t -j "I " -j 44,7" - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - - - - -| -| -i -! -! -| -j -1 l - -! i -j -j - -j - -j - - -. - -j. - -| 9,85 1,74 0,00 29,86 175,01 333,29 4,74 0,00 11,13 10,71 1,96 10,86 3,92 7,40 8,72 0,00 9,52 38,73 4,04 4,97 18,54 26,92 4,68 13,17 4,98 16,53 15,79 5,65 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,76 101,56 53,54 53,54 134,35 0,00 0,28 0,00 4. 26 0,00 0,30 0,00 0,69 0,90 o,00 0,00 0,00 6,03 0,00 2,77 6,04 1,72 5,96 0,00 1,35 104,04 1. 347,18 265,65 44,19 482,86 3. 466,76 3. 724,14 4,74 92,68 78,13 87,20 30,72 70,16 33,21 191,33 63,44 112,91 64,42 129,36 30,39 36,18 50,57 99,16 65,75 96,72 61,58 70,45 93,52 54,13 57,57 100,61 26,87 202,97 1. 719,37 1. 733,67 1. 733,67 3. 989,32 93,25 8,73 54,04 18,39 56,09 37,52 41,05 47,11 66,89 50,32 35,44 55,31 156,93 37,74 179,99 209,71 99,77 195,11 189,39 171,93 2. 184,61 308 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95(ctd. ) Member State / Region Objective | 5(a) (agr. ) \ S(a)(fish. )" LUXEMBOURG Multi-regional NETHERLANDS North Netherlands East Netherlands West Netherlands South Netherlands Multi-regional AUSTRIA East Austria South Austria West Austria Multi-regional PORTUGAL North Centre Lisbon and the Tagus valley Alentejo Algarve Azores Madeira Multi-regional FINLAND Continental Finland Islands Multi-regional SWEDEN South Sweden West Sweden Central Norrland Upper Norrland Multi-regional UNITED KINGDOM North Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands East Anglia South East South West West Midlands North East England North West Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Gibraltar Multi-regional COMMUNITY TOTAL - - 37,20 - 37,20 - - 28,80 28,80 - - 4. 548,75 210,00 126,00 124,54 78,62 28,48 216,21 148,65 3. 616,26 - - - - 532,32 - 162,13 - 81,89 288,30 - 7,97 7,97 105,02 33,38 36,48 - 35,16 - 54,15 22,41 11,12 20,62 - - - - 31,10 - 31,10 105,78 15,00 24,00 18,00 48,78 1. 250,05 25,00 204,44 31,66 43. 65 29,00 240,88 193,55 137,26 75,34 264,27 5,00 6,46 6,46 282,27 - - - 282,27 64,06 " - - 64,06 - - - - • " 60,33 - 60,33 73,00 73,00 975,00 - : - - 0,53 0,53 22,23 - - - - 22,23 11,70 - - "! !1,70J -! i •i 1 -1 "i -! 1 14,83 i 12,21 12,21 25,27 - - - 25,27 61,50 61,50 1,10 1,10 9,16 - - - 9,16 2,00 - 2,00 - - —_ 0,84* 0,84| 25,61 16,86! 3,28j 3,18: 2,29; -: 78,33 21,18; 27,21, 29,94i -: - - -| -\ - -| -! -| -; - -j -: -\. ! ""' 7 61,42 23,00 14. 83] -i 61,42 13,72 23,00 40,00 13,72 85,16 40,00 14,78 - - -': -! -i -j -j -' i -j -i "i -; "i 32,81 30,48 2. 33 - -;; -; 120,70' 7,51: 8,59 31. 17 15. 01 27,08; 81. 00 - - 81,00: •". 92; -: T * 44,92: -! -; - -, -, - -: -, -' •] -| 23. 77! " -'--"~: -i -! 7,57. -! ECU million 1,87 1,87 61,63 6,16 3,03 7,89 0,00 44,54 43,43 8,85 0,00 0,00 34,58 192,18 o,oo 0,00 9,22 o,oo o. oo 0,00 0,00 [82795 4 8( 85 0,00 0,00 48,85 31,94 0,00 oToo 0,00 0,00 31,94 327,47 0,00 4,36 4,24 0,00 0,00 0,00 10,7 3 23,46 5,88 42,98 5Y. 3Ô 47,79 0,00 30,98 30,98 568,38 56,40 79,99 11,07 37,45 383,47 343,97 81,24 38,33 50,56 173. 84 4. 740,93 210,00 126,00 133,76 78,62 28,48 216,21 148,65 3 799. 22 353,34 30,48 2. 33 320,53 309,36 15,00 24,00 18,00 48,78 203,58 3. 305,48 25,00 208,81 43. 40 8,59 43,65 60,17 251,01 232,02 305. 27 145,40 421,23 336,09 5,00 137,33 1 219,84 589,06 589,06 - 27. 265,911 - 3. 796,91 975,00 - 3. 357,12 85,16 -1 363,63 1. 571,64 14,78 - 313,45 1. 181,25. 125,92 2. 975,84 40. 951,67 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 309 Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 Member State / Region • 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) | 5(a) (fish. ) | 5b | 6 Objective ECU million CI Total BELGIUM Brussels Flanders Wallonia Multi-regional DENMARK 0st for Storeba:lt Vest for Storeba:lt Multi-regional GERMANY Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt Saxony Thuringia Berlin Schleswig-Holstein Hamburg Lower Saxony Bremen North Rhine-Westphalia Hesse Rhineland-Palatinate Baden-Wiirttemberg Bavaria Saarland Multi-regional GREECE Eastern Central and Islands(l) Central and Western Macedonia Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr. (2) Thessaly Crete Epirus (3) Thrace (4) Eastern Aegean Islands (5) Multi-regional SPAIN Galicia Asturias Cantabria Basque Country Navarre Rioja Aragon Madrid Castile-Leôn Castile-La Mancha Extremadura Catalonia Valencia Balearic Islands 1,22 - - - 1,22 18,63 - - 18,63 9,93 - " " - - - - - " - - - - " 9,93 - - - - - - - - 0,00 12,75 0,13 8,21 4,40 0,00 16,49 - - 16,49 160,90 - - - " - - 0,24 0,34 2,37 0,05 1,45 1,67 0,91 1,75 6,78 0,25 145,09 - - - - - 27,65 - " - 29,57 - - 29,57 - - - - 1. 251,97 247,43 228,36 165,63 298,53 129,16 47,19 - - - " - - " - - - 135,67 1. 705,79 106,54 124,56 119,65 59,56 49,68 50,41 74,40 59,42 1. 061,57 3. 772,23 390,88 132,54 42,03 300,55 252,77 147,46 429,69 11,75 - 0,00 11,75 - 8,35 0,00 8,35 - 32,52 - - - - - 11,90 0,00 - 3,25 4,22 2,68 0,60 1,55 " 2,55 5,77 - - - - - - - " - - 447,96 " 148,42 16,72 5,93 6,93 29,46 4233 1,49 9,39 26,00 5,45 39,04 - - 39,04 104,48 " " - - 8,81 6,72 1,80 0,00 6,84 12,91 6,23 4,06 6,58 2,60 7,13 40,82 - -; - - - - - - - 169,65 15,54 6,72 0,62 2,10 13,45 220. 4C 18,5 5,18 0,0C 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,50 - - 2,50 0,00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0,00 - - - - - - - "i 38,13 - - - - - - 4,581 "I 2,15| 2,43| "1 2,451 'I ' -I 2. 45] 71,21 i -! -j -i "i "; 1,84; •\ 11,30, -: 2,75, 7,99( 6,37; 4,39 34,86 1,72 -; -, -: -. 81,69 - - 3. 23; 10,92 1,82, 37,83, 5. 37 -, -, 15,75! -> 6,76! " -j -\ • -j -! -! -1 -| -! -| 3833 0,86 12,39 25,08 0,00 4,25 0,00 0,00 4,25 218,18 14,18 7,63 22,73 27,43 36,96 10,15 1,83 0,00 20,75 5,10 22,58 3,10 3,92 1,70 12,43 6,24 21,46 30,26 0,00 0,00 o. oo 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 30,26 94,42 1,45 2,45 0,48 0,69 1,25 1,03 4,51 1,01 4,8C 2,24 4,35 i. oe l,5f. 1,2: 140,54 2,48 32,15 99,23 6,68 91,70 0,00 8,35 83,36 1. 849,20 261,62 235,99 188,37 325,96 166,12 78,04 10,63 2,14 37,66 16,21 42,37 19,58 16,80 14,42 59,22 21,11 352,97 1. 736,05 106,54 124,56 119,65 59,56 49,68 50,41 74,40 59,42 1. 091,83 4. 631,72 392,33 134,99 42,52 167,87 35,61 9,41 51,36 49,28 305,35 255,00 151,85 255,72 431,25 13,16 (1 ) Including the OP for Attica (2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse (3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands (4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia (5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean 310 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 (ctd. ) Member State / Region 1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) | 5(a) (fish. ) | 5b | 6 Objective ECU million CI Total - - - - 112,72 312,88 - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -j - - - 312,88 - - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 - Andalusia Murcia Ceuta and Melilla Canary Islands Multi-regional FRANCE Ile de France Upper Normandy Lower Normandy Picardy Champagne-Ardenne Burgundy Centre Nord-Pas-de-Calais Brittany Loire Region Poitou-Charentes Lorraine Alsace Franche-Comté Limousin Aquitaine Midi-Pyrénées Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Languedoc-Roussi 1 Ion Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Corsica Martinique Guadeloupe French Guiana Réunion Multi-regional IRELAND Multi-regional ITALY Piedmont Valle d'Aosta Lombardy Trentino Veneto Friuli-Venezia Giulia Liguria Emilia-Romagna Tuscany Umbria Marche Lazio Abruzzi Molise Campania Apulia Basilicata Calabria Sicily Sardinia Multi-regional 638,23 101,59 22,33 254,35 1. 059,82 147,44 " - " - - - 8,94 - - - - - - - - - - " - 10,45 21,89 32,40 7,60 66,16 - 856,47 856,47 1. 176,10 - - • - - - - - - - 68,22 15,52 63,21 92,91 29,20 60,93 74,06 25,47 746,59 - - - " 14,92 145,06 - 18,49 12,15 30,47 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,74 0,00 22,85 6,74 15,48 0,00 1,10 - 2,59 2,11 15,62 0,00 5,71 0,00 - - - - - - - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0. 00 - - " - - - - 0,00 25,31 " - - - 27,65 242,14 - - - - - - - - 242,14 25,31 1 - - 38,13 0,00 ! -1 - - -! -1 -j "! "! 1 -! -; -; -: -! •; - -' -i -: 0,00 -i 0,00 ; o. oo 0,00 -; -! -: "I ; : - - ^ - •; - - 0,00 •I "i -1 -! "i 76,57! - 7 0,00| 7. 77J -j 0,00; 9,40! 0,5 lj ": 3,08; 4. 16! 2. 57 K 23: 0,00 4,80 12,46; 3,42 3,65 18,98 K55 o. oo; 1,92, "-' 1. 07 15,75 4,89; 0,00; 0,00 0. 00; ~Ô7Ô0;~ 2. 61; 2,09' 1,6') 0,00 0,00, 4,46 0. 00. • ' ". ' • "' -; -' -; -: -i -j 4,93 0,87 0,00 0,92 59,56 100,79 2,37 0,00 1,51 4,99 0,98 3'21 1,96 2,44 3,51 0,00 2,29 -1 - " - -; -! -i -! " - • Ï47ÎÔ -; -! J -j - -, "-: -! 7 - -] -; -: -! -, j - -! -; -| - -i -j -j -" " """". ; -I -' - -j - -j 2,02 1,49 5,14 7,18 1,82 2,74 2. Ï4" 2,28 6,01 1,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 4778 26,90 16,42 16,42 34,65 0,00 0,08 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,15 0,00 0,34 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,02 o_oo 1-:'8 3. 02 0,80 2,98 o. oo 0. 68 20,26 643,15 102,46 22,33 255,28 1. 312,80 1. 050,19 2,37 18,49 21,43 35,45 0,98 12,60 2,47 23,12 6,59 27,01 11,60 30,81 2,02 7,38 17,61 13. 19 7,59 37,34 3,69 8,00 7,93 11,78 21. 89 32,40 7,60 70,55 608,30 872,89 872,89 1. 226,50 4. S9 0,08 0,00 1,87 0,00 2,76 2,09 2,04 0,00 0. 00 4,46 0,00 71,23 15,52 64,59 95,93 30,06 63,91 74,06 26,15 766,85 0,00 0,00, 0,00 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 311 Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 (ctd. ) Member State / Region 1 I 2 1 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) | 5(a) (fish. ) | 5b | 6 Objective ECU million CI Total LUXEMBOURG Multi-regional NETHERLANDS North Netherlands East Netherlands West Netherlands South Netherlands Multi-regional AUSTRIA East Austria South Austria West Austria Multi-regional PORTUGAL North Centre Lisbon and the Tagus valley Alentejo Algarve Azores Madeira Multi-regional FINLAND Continental Finland Islands Multi-regional SWEDEN South Sweden West Sweden Central Norrland Upper Norrland Multi-regional UNITED KINGDOM North Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands East Anglia South East South West West Midlands North East England North West Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Gibraltar Multi-regional COMMUNITY TOTAL - - 9,56 - 9,56 - - - 14,40 14,40 - - 1. 667,01 77,75 47,03 65,08 27,04 15,90 96,87 74,80 1. 262,54 - - 7 163,81 : 44,47 16,55 102,78 - 10. 794,35J 0,00 0,00 12,30 12,30 0,00 - 0,00 - 21,42 7,62 5,56 8,24 - - - - " - - - 15,55 15,55 38,06 5,04 8. 20 6,16 18,66 - 152,96 0,00 19,31 5,85 4,37 0,00 Ï9J6 37,38 27,54 14,33 25,09 - 0,00 - - 885,91 4,00 4,00 142,57 - - - 142,57 32,03 - "1 32,03) - 1 - -; -! -! "! 30,17! ": -i 30,17, 36,50! -! i 36,50! 436,17; -1 -;' -! 1 "1 ~i •I 0,06 0,06 2,33 - - - 2,33 0,20 - - 0,20 - - - - 2,00 2,00 1,96 - - - 1,96 30,75 - - 30,75 - - 0,21 0,21 0,00 - - - 0,00 5,85 - 5,85 - i -1 7,42 30,71 6,90 1 -| 7,42! -,' j "l -1 -; - -J "j "j "I -! "i. ! "! -i -! -; 30,71 6,86 6,90 12,00 - 12,00 4,43 6,86 22,43 - - - 0,211 0,21 j 9,451 5,78; 1,24 2. 00J 0,43 -| 39,16! 10,59! 13,60! 14,97; -| -: -! -i -! 15. 94 15,24 0,70 46,39 3. 97^ 0. 96 S. 79 1,67 7 15. 26 11. 66 "i 436,17; -1 1. 349,83 i 1 -j 1 -| 54,11 22,43 554,64 " 4,43 - 81,02 4. 09 -: 363,41 0,60 0,60 21,87 1,85 1. 11 2,37 0,00 16,54 21,04 3,75 0,00 0,00 17,29 79,35 0,00 0,00 4,61 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 74,74 23,21 0,00 0,00 23,21 ,5,97 0,00 o. oo 0,00 0,00 15,97 116,71 0,00 2,18 2,12 0. 00 0,00 0,00 5,07 11,73 °^ôo 18,11 17,06 17,61 0,00 42,84 244,31 7,10 7,10 200,04 19,93 11,91 4,37 0,43 163,40 164,85 36,36 19. 16 23,21 86,12 1. 74636 77,75 47,03 69,70 27,04 15,90 96,87 74,80 1. 337,28 170,39 15,24 0,70 154,45 131,85 5,04 8,20 6,16 18,66 93,79 942,91 0,00 21,49 11. 94 0,96 4,37 8,79 24,17 50,77 72,01 47,70 70,36 120,39 0,00 509,97 244,31 1. 060,37 15. 206,61 - - "j - - -| " -! 1 -; - -j -I -j -j 4°. S0 -! -| 40,50; " - «j -, -! -; -! 22. 46J "j -! - - - 7 -i -; -1 -, -| 6 2'9 6! 312 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 Member State / Region Objective | 5(a) (agr,) | 5(a) (fish. ) \ 5b | BELGIUM Brussels Flanders Wallonia Multi-regional DENMARK 0st for Storebarlt Vest for Storebaîlt Multi-regional GERMANY Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt Saxony Thuringia Berlin Schleswig-Holstein Hamburg Lower Saxony Bremen North Rhine-Westphalia Hesse Rhineland-Palatinate Baden-Wurttemberg Bavaria Saarland Multi-regional GREECE Eastern Central and Islands(l) Central and Western Macedonia Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr (2) Thessaly Crete. " Epirus (3) Thrace (4) Eastern Aegean Islands (5) Multi-regional SPAIN Galicia Asturias Cantabria Basque Country Navarre Rioja Aragon Madrid Castile-Leon Castile-La Mancha Extremadura Catalonia Valencia Balearic Islands 2931 - 17,56 11,75 - 19,99 4,26 15,73 " 156,94 - - - 29,94 7,70 - 6,76 10,38 57,50 10,63 11. 73 9,37 12,93 - - - 447,96 148,42 16,72 5,93 6,93 29,46 232 0,15 1,73 0,13 0,31 3,00 - 3,00 14,81 - - - - - " - 74,52 2,40 24,59 39,39 8,13 74,24 - - 74,24 234,26 - - - 12,71 9,76 4,80 9,29 9,87 34,41 10,03 6,62 10,60 6,93 10,41 108,84 14,81 -1 "I " -! 1 " -! - 244,54 - j "1 25,87; 10,05| 0,62; 2,58| 22,62] "I 79,77 - 79,77 - - - - - 2. 470,05 402,99 422,32 355,83 618,89 306,05 107,01 - -j - - - -! 1 256,96| 2. 760,70 157,97 184,97 191,60 87,741 73,08| 80,95 111,47 92,00 1. 780,92 5. 570,03 561,98) 188,19! 66,75! -! - -i 421,46 335,25 212,34 - 570,72 (1 ) Including the OP for Attica (2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse (3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands (4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia (5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands o f t he Aegean 16,51 0,13 10,11 6,27 0,00 19,19 - - 19,19 209,83 - - - 0,24 0,34! 2,37j 0. 05| 3. 88 l,67j 2,411 1,75; 6,78 0,25 -i 190,08 -! •i T 1 -1 -1 - - 3,26 - - - 3,26 30,29 - - 30,29 16,13 4,58 - 2,15 2,43 5,66 ' " - 5,66 134,20 - — —; - - - 6,95 - 25,71 2,75 12,79 12. 47 4,39 67,43 1. 72 - : — —: : 16. 13 - - - - - " - - - - - - ; " - - - - - 7 - - - - - 40,87 0,86 13,29 26,54 0,17 6,41 0,00 0,00 6,41 232,71 14,18 7,63 22,73 27,43 36,96 10,15 1,83 0,00 20,75 5,10 22,66 3,32 3,92 1,81 13,05 6. 24 34,95| 45,68 0,00 0,00 o7oo 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0. 00 45. 68 137,26 1,45 2,45 0,48 0,69 1,25 1. 03 4,51 1,01 4,80 2. 24 4,39 1,06 251,14 3,55 69,44 166,28 11,87 158,78 4,26 15,73 138,79 3. 468,92 417,18 429,95 378,57 646,32 343,01 159,80 26,48 5,14 64,87 25,40 121,20 38,44 37. 15 18,55 103,56 31,55 6 2 1,77 2. 806,38 157,97 184,97 191,60 87,74 73,08 80,95 111,47 92,00 1. 826,60 6. 674,27 563,43 190,64 67,23 179,53 42,10 11,54 70,78 60,86 426,25 337,49 216,73 269,04 572,28 14,19 65,83 80,25 9,97 118,44 -! 1 " -; "i "I -: -, "! :• -; - "! 4. 55 14. 08 3. 95 56,77 7,77 - 24. 56 6,76 : 220,40 23,03 - -| 5. 18 -! 1,02; ~ ~T,56 1,22 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 313 Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 (ctd. ) Member State / Region Objective 5(a) (agr. ) I 5(a) (fish. ) - - " - 65,83 47,70 - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - 47,70 - " 3031 " - - - - " " - - - 80,25 402,85 " - - - - - - - - - - - " - - -j - - - - - - 9,97 41,13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 402,85 - - 58,73 - 41,13 - 11,20 1 - - - - - - - - - 14,92 423,29 - 41,69 21,34 49,92 12,32 7,85 12,10 62,76 14,26 27,03 15,21 35,72 9,80 8,69 - 19,61 8,88 25,33 15,85 16,92 18,01 149,97 32,57 3,00 11,50 - 11,28 12,00 15,27 6,00 20,18 17,50 10,50 10,17 - - - - 158,75 503,68 - - - - " " - - " " - - - - - -! -1 - - •i "1 - 503,68 - - 100,23 9,16 0,93 13,12 3,95 8,11 4,00 3,16 13,82 4,92 2,29 2,75 9,15 - - - - 207,93 - 0,54 17,14 - 2,06 14,06 2,50 16,18 11,79 11,12 5,63 3. 27 S. 33 21. 47 19. 19 IS. 15 2S. 57 13. 23 5. 83 7. SI - 1. 07 - - 53,50 4. S9 0,30 2. 39 3,11 S. 65 2. 61 2. 09 3. 39 7. 90 5. 37 4. 4C S. 33 Andalusia Murcia Ceuta and Melilla Canary Islands Multi -regional FRANCE Ile de France Upper Normandy Lower Normandy Picardy Champagne-Ardenne Burgundy Centre Nord-Pas-de-Cal ais Brittany Loire Region Poitou-Charentes Lorraine Alsace Franche-Comté Limousin Aquitaine Midi-Pyrénées Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Languedoc-Roussillon Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Corsica Martinique Guadeloupe French Guiana Réunion Multi-regional IRELAND Multi-regional ITALY Piedmont Valle d'Aosta Lombardy Trentino Veneto Friuli-Venezia Giulia Liguria Emilia-Romagna Tuscany Umbria Marche Lazio Abruzzi Molise Campania Apulia Basilicata Calabria Sicily Sardinia Multi-regional 956,74 148,12 31,71 327,07 1. 749,70 286,71 - - - " - - " 40,02 - - - - -j -i -1 27. 36J 38,45 55,99 17,00! 107,87| "1 1. 369,631 1. 369,63 1. 555,41 - -| -1 -! 76,48 19,32 89,8 92,9 52. 4C 78. 2c 74,0( 86,9( ' 985,28 - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - 7 - - - 7 " ECU million 4,93 0,87 0,00 0,92 102,40 113,88 2,37 0,00 1,51 4,99 0,98 3,21 1,96 2,44 3,51 0,00 2,29 14,10 2,02 1,49 5,14 7,18 1,82 2,74 2,14 2,28 6,01 1,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,38 39,99 21,87 21,87 66,41 0,00 0,08 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,15 0,00 0,34 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,02 0,00 1,38 3,02 0,8C 2,9S 0,0C Ô761 961,67 148,99 31,71 327,99 2. 181,82 2. 027,17 2,37 42,24 39,99 54,90 15,36 25,12 16,56 105,23 33,95 38,82 28,62 55,45 15,09 18,51 26,61 45,98 28,86 56,65 31,21 25,03 31,83 28,69 38,45 55,99 17,00 112,25 1 036,41 1. 391,50 1. 391,50 2. 025,77 46,62 4,31 27,02 8,94 28,05 18,76 20,52 23,55 33,00 25,16 17,72 27,65 79,50 19,32 91,19 95,93 53,26 81,24 74,06 87,57 24,8c 30,3 58,7: Il,2C 52,0: 1. 162,40 314 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 (ctd. ) Member State / Region 1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr. ) | 5(a) (fish. ) | 5b | 6 Objective LUXEMBOURG Multi-regional NETHERLANDS North Netherlands East Netherlands West Netherlands South Netherlands Multi-regional AUSTRIA East Austria South Austria West Austria Multi-regional PORTUGAL North Centre Lisbon and the Tagus valley Alentejo Algarve Azores Madeira Multi-regional FINLAND Continental Finland Islands Multi-regional SWEDEN South Sweden West Sweden Central Norrland Upper Norrland Multi-regional UNITED KINGDOM North Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands East Anglia South East South West West Midlands North East England North West Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Gibraltar Multi-regional COMMUNITY TOTAL 3,99 3,99 52,51 16,69 18,24 - 17,58 21,42 7,62 5,56 8,24 - - - - - 15,55 15,55 38,06 5,04 8,20 6,16 18,66 518,85 12,50 69,63 18,40 23,13 14,50 78,06 86,33 79,82 44,21 89,78 2. 5C - - 19,63 - 19,63 - - - 14,40 14,40 - - 3. 263,42 148,28 88,34 89,53 43,78 18,78! 181,16 123,80 2. 569,75) -f "I "i -| - -', -! -! 331. 36J -j -; -j -| 100,46 40,65 190,211 1 -1 5,59 5,59 253,32 j 034 0,34 11,12 "I 11,12 5,85 5,85 - 1 "1 253,32) 32,031 i "! •! 32,03! - - "! "i "' 1 -! 30,17! "! 7,42 30,17! 7,42 36,501 -! -! 36,50| 818,57 j "; -; 1 -1 -i -i -! -! 818,57) -1 17. 721,101 1. 877,84 2. 407,651 188,68 5,37 5,37 12,15 - - - 12,15 30,75 - - " 30,75 - ' -! 1 - - - - 30,711 Ï - 30,71 6,86 - - - 6,86 41,73 "i -1 I •! 41,73) -1 914,931 0,17 0,17 6,21 - - - 6,21 0,20 - - 0,20 - - " - 6,90 - 6,90 12,00 - 12,00 11,82 - - - - 0,42 0,42 12,56 7,27 1,64 2,50 1,15 39,16 10. 59 13,60 14,97 - - - - - 15,94 15,24 0,70 - 69,45 3,97 4. 56 2Î. 82 S. 09 15,26 11,66 11,82 4,0? - - - - - - - - - - - " - - 40,50 40,50 22,46 - 22,46 : : ECU million CI Total 0,62 0,62 23,99 1,85 1,11 2,37 0,00 18,66 21,04 3,75 0,00 0,00 17,29 16,50 16,50 391,48 25,81 40,61 4,87 18,73 301,46 164,85 36,36 19,16 23,21 86,12 109,60 0,00 3. 373,01 148,28, 0,00 4,61 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 104,98 23,21 0,00 0,00 23,21 15,97 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 15,97 127,52 0,00 2,18 2,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,07 11,73 0,00 18,11 17,06 18,19 0,0C 53,06 244,31 88,34 94,14 43,78 18,78 181,16 123,80 2. 674,73 170,39 15,24 0,70 154,45 131,85 5,04 8,20 6,16 18,66 93,79 1. 919,31 12,50 71,82 24,49 4,56 23,13 36,32 83,13 106,15 180,27 77,58 159,18 208,40 2,50 929,28 244,31 149,28 661. 85 62,9« 1. 231,34 25. 215,63 3/i^<> ANNEX VI: Major projects adopted in 1995 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 317 --hW Annex VI: Major projects adopted in 1995 Obj. Total cost ERDF assistance (1) National public contribution Private contribution Commitments 1995 % (2)/(l) (2) Payments 1995 (3) ECU million % (3V(2) IRELAND Tallaght Hospital (Dublin) ITALY Gioia Tauro Port (Calabria) 1 1 131,24 39,37 91,87 0,00 39,37 100% 31,50 80% 120,00 40,00 0,00 80,00 40,00 100% 0,00 0% Major projects within the meaning of Article 16(2) ofthe Coordination Regulation. 3ci ^ào ANNEX VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 321 Annex VII: Distribution of ESF Unancing by measure, theme, benefîciaries4 Table 1: EUR15 Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 75% 3% 2% 20% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 50% 62% 57% 47% 51% 20. 008,9 820,0 482,4 5. 403,5 26. 714,8 74% 6% 5% 15% 100% 19% 20% 11% 3% 10% 19% 2% 12% 0% 3% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 13,9 14,5 7,3 1,9 8,9 11,7 0,7 11,5 1,7 1,3 73,4 % 19% 20% 10% 3% 12% 16% 1% 16% 2% 2% 100% Situation mid 1996. 322 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, benefîciaries' Table 2: Belgium Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 86% 5% 3% 5% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 38% 35% 44% 43% 39% 371,5 23,6 11,4 23,2 429,7 80% 4% 6% 9% 100% 24% 14% 20% 4% 10% 8% 5% 9% 0% 7% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 16,1 8,2 4,8 1,0 5,2 4,0 1,3 1,8 0,0 1,1 43,5 % 37% 19% 11% 2% 12% 9% 3% 4% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 323 Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' Table 3: Denmark Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 97% 2% 1% 0% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 47% 50% 49% 0% 47% 56,5 1,4 0,4 0,0 58,4 93% 3% 4% 0% 100% 41% 17% 19% 1% 10% 7% 0% 1% 0% 4% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 4,4 2,1 2,0 0,1 U 1,6 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 11,5 % 38% 18% 17% 1% 10% 14% 0% 1% 0% 1% 100% Situation mid 1996. 324 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries4 Table 4: Germany Distribution of ESF financing by measure ESF Finance Beneficiaries Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3 a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total %. 79% 1% 5% 15% 100% % 16% 16% 6% 6% 2% 43% 2% 3% 0% 4% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 3,2 2,3 1,2 1,4 1,3 8,1 0,3 0,7 0,0 0,0 18,5 % of total costs 1000 pers 48% 52% 58% 58% 50% 1. 214,1 9,3 0,0 275,0 1. 498,5 % 81% 1% 0% 18% 100% % 17% 12% 6% 8% 7% 44% 2% 4% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 325 Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* Table 5: Greece Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/M ultipurpose Total % 91% 0% 0% 9% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 66% 0% 76% 74% 68%. 1. 050,3 0,0 3,0 98,1 1. 151,4 79% 0% 2% 19% 100% 4% 3% 10% 2% 15% 8% 1% 54% 2% 0% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 4,9 4,6 11,7 2,5 27,3 8,1 0,4 31,7 19,2 0,3 110,7 % 4% 4% 11% 2% 25% 7% 0% 29% 17% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 326 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* Table 6: Spain % Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total % 85% 6% 6% 3% 100% ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers % 61% 69% 64% 62% 63% 6. 630,6 496,4 433,8 213,9 7. 774,8 67% 21% 6% 6% 100% 26% 24% 10% 3% 10% 9% 3% 15% 0% 0% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 29,0 28,0 10,8 5,1 38,5. 22,1 3,8 58,2 2,7 11,1 209,3 % 14% 13% 5% 2% 18% 11% 2% 28% 1% 5% 100% Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting eoual opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) i ll Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" Table 7: France Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 35% 0% 0% 6 5% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 33% 0% 52% 43% 39% 2. 264,3 0,0 0. 2 4. 155,1 6. 419,6 36% 0% 5% 58% 100% 15% 25% 18% 1% 20% 14% 0% 0% 0% 7% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 27,3 42,9 16,8 0,8 8,9 14,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 111,0 % 25% 39% 15% 1% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 328 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' Table 8: Ireland Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 90% 0% 0% 10% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 44% 75% 80% 63% 46% 897,6 3,7 0,0 95,1 996,4 89% 1% 1% 9% 100% 12% 44% 22% 1% 4% 13% 0% 4% 0% 0% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 22,8 74,0 82,5 10,7 43,5 45,0 0,0 4,2 0,0 0,0 282,7 % 8% 26% 29% 4% 15% 16% 0% 1% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 329 Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" Table 9: Italy Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 98% 0% 0% 2% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 57% 0% 51% 61% 56% 1. 856,4 0,0 5,9 37,3 1. 899,6 90% 0% 6% 3% 100% 19% 27% 8% 5% 11% 11% 5% 7% 2% 6% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 7,8 8,2 1,4 1,1 2,4 3,7 0,7 5,6 2,4 0,1 33,4 % 23% 25% 4% 3% 7% 11% 2% 17% 7% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 330 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" Table 10: Luxemburg Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 86% 14% 0% 0% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 8,6 1,4 0,0 0,0 10,0 82% 12% 5% 0% 100% 22% 12% 40% 5% 4% 8% 0% 6% 0% 4% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 2,9 2,7 3,6 2,5 3,6 9,5 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 26,0 % 11% 10% 14% 10% 14% 37% 0% 5% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 331 Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" Table 11: Netherlands % 8 1% 0% 0% 19% 100% ESF Finance Beneficiaries "A, % of total costs 1000 pers 41% 45% 46% 42% 42% 292,7 1,0 0,0 66,9 360,6 62% 0% 5% 33% 100% 42% 27% 3% 1% 17% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 10,9 0,1 0,3 0,1 8,1 4,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 23,5 % 46% 0% 1% 0% 34% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment % Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of perçons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Situation mid 1996. 332 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, benefîciaries" Table 12: Austria Distribution of ESF financing by measure ESF Finance Beneficiaries Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total %. 63% 13% 5% 18% 100% % 20% 4% 17% 11% 17% 23% 1% 0% 0% 6% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 3,9 0,9 1,5 1,4 7,1 4,9 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 20,0 % of total costs 1000 pers 41% 44% 48% 42% 42% 128,7 17,2 0,0 12,7 158,7 % 81% 11% 0% 8% 100% % 20% 5% 8% 7% 36% 25% 2% 0% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 333 Annex VTI: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' Table 13: Portugal Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total %. 82% 3% 0% 16% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 74% 74% 76% 75% 74% 1. 917,1 60,0 0,3 362,8 2. 340,2 82% 4% 3% 11% 100% 14% 9% 7% 0% 2% 15% 5% 46% 1% 1% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 35,7 7,8 10,6 0,0 2,7 34,7 0,5 125,0 20,8 0,0 237,8 % 15% 3% 4% 0% 1% 15% 0% 53% 9% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 334 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* Table 14: Finland Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability "" b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 66% 2% 0% 31% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 31% 48% 49% 31% 31% 132,7 4,9 0,0 63,0 200,6 56% 6% 2% 36% 100% 33% 19% 5% 1% 22% 12% 3% 4% 0% 1% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 11,4 10,4 1,2 0,4 64,6 5,7 1,4 0,9 0,0 0,0 96,0 % 12% 11% 1% 0% 67% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 335 Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' Table 15: Sweden Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 93% 0% 7% 0% 100% 37% 0% 50% 0% 37% 281,3 0,0 3,5 0,0 284,7 % 99% 0% 1% 0% 100% %. 26% 16% 12% 1% 27% 7% 6% 2% 0% 4% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 9,0 5,2 3,4 0,1 60,5 1,6 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,4 80,5 %. 11% 6% 4% 0% 75% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Situation mid 1996. 336 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" Table 16: United Kingdom Distribution of ESF financing by measure Training Employment support Technical assistance Other support measures Total Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems b. Training of public officials Technical assistance/Multipurpose Total % 93% 6% 1% 0% 100% % % ESF Finance Beneficiaries % of total costs 1000 pers 41% 43% 51% 71% 42%, 2. 906,5 200,9 23,7 0,5 3. 131,6 89% 5% 3% 2% 100% 16% 14% 15% 4% 9% 38% 1% 0% 0% 4% 100% Bfc/1000 pers 12,4 9,5 8,7 3,0 2,8 17,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,4 54,1 % 23% 18% 16% 6% 5% 32% 0% 0% 0% 1% 100% Situation mid 1996. 3 2 ?. ^ ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 339 ADAPT AFETT CAP CEEP CES CI CIP CSF EAGGF ECOS-OUVERTURE ECSC EFTA EIB EIF EMPLOYMENT ENVIREG ERDF ESDP ESF EUROCHAMBRES EUROFORM EUROPARTENARIAT FIFG Forcem GG HORIZON INTERREG ISDN KONVER LEADER NOW OP PACTE PEACE PERIFRA PESCA PHARE PRISMA RECHAR RECITE REGEN Community Initiative for the adaptation of workers to industrial change Association for European training of workers in new technologies Common agricultural policy Centre européen de l'entreprise publique (European Centre for Public Enterprise) European confederation of trade unions Community Initiative Community Initiative programme Community support framework European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Cooperation network with central and eastern European cities European Coal and Steel Community European Free Trade Association European Investment Bank European Investment Fund Community Initiative for the development of human resources Community Initiative for the environment European Regional Development Fund European Spatial Development Perspective European Social Fund Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry Community Initiative to develop new qualifications Events to promote contacts between businesses in regions eligible under the Structural Funds and businesses elsewhere in the Community and/or non- member countries Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance Foundation for continuing training (Spain) Global grant Community Initiative for the occupational integration of handicapped and disadvantaged persons Community Initiative for the promotion of cross-border and inter-regional cooperation Integrated Services Digital Network Community Initiative for the conversion of regions dependent on the defence sector Community Initiative for rural development projects Community Initiative for the occupational integration of women Operational programme Programme for sharing of experience among local and regional authorities of Europe Community Initiative for reconciliation and peace in Northern Ireland and in the border counties of Ireland Action programme for the remoter regions and declining activities Community Initiative for the fishing industry Programme of aid for the economic conversion of central and eastern European countries Community Initiative to prepare for the single market Community Initiative for the conversion of coal-mining areas Programme to create networks among the regions and cities of Europe Community Initiative for energy networks 340. *>4 1 REGIS RESIDER RETEX RTD SME SME(s) SPD STRIDE TELEMATIQUE TEN(s) UCLAF UNICE-CONPRI URBAN YOUTHSTART 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) Community Initiative for the most remote regions Community Initiative for the conversion of steel-making areas Community Initiative for the diversification of economic activities in regions heavily dependent on the textiles and clothing industry Research and technological development Community Initiative for the adjustment of SMEs to the Single Market Small and medium-sized firm(s) Single programming document Community Initiative on science and technology for regional innovation and development Community Initiative to promote the use of advanced telecommunications services in the least-favoured regions Trans-European network(s) Unité de coordination de Commission) Union des industries de la Communauté européenne - employers' federation for industrial relations Community Initiative to assist declining urban areas Community Initiative for the occupational integration of young people (anti-fraud unit at lutte anti-fraude the la <#a ISSN 0254-1475 COM(96) 502 final DOCUMENTS EN 13 03 05 Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-557-EN-C ISBN 92-78-10829-4 Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg