Opinion of Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)'
C 156/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 Opinion of Committee of the Regions on: — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)’, — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes (CIPs) for which the Member States are invited to submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’, and — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ (2000/C 156/04) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down the guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European co-operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ COM(1999) 479 final; having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community Initiative for rural development (Leader+)’ COM(1999) 475 final; having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes for which the Member States are invited to submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’ COM(1999) 476 final; having regard to the Commission’s decision of 25 October 1999 to consult the Committee on this subject, in accordance with Article 265c (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 2 June 1999 to assign the preparation of an opinion to Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-Border and Inter-Regional Cooperation; having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism (Commission 5) (rapporteur: Mrs Sexton, Member of Longford County Council (IRL/ELDR); having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (Commission 2) (rapporteur: Mr Correia, President of Tavira Municipal Council, (P/EPP); having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 219/99 rev. 3) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999 (rapporteur: Mrs Storm Rasmussen, Mayor of the County of Copenhagen DK/PES), at its 32nd plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2000 (meeting of 17 February) adopted the following opinion. 1. Introduction 1. 1. In the light of the Commission’s Communication on the Community initiatives 2000-2006 (Commission work programme No 97/020) and the Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European co- operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg) (COM(1999) 479 final) the Committee of the Regions is drawing up an own-initiative opinion on the subject, as its contribution to the debate on the Interreg, Leader+ and Equal Community initiatives during the next Structural Fund period. The opinion does not cover the Urban initiative. The Committee calls on the Commission and the 1. 2. Member States’ representatives on the management com- mittees in charge of the individual Community initiatives to 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/19 ensure that regional and local interests are taken into account, as this opinion recommends. 2. General comments on the Community initiatives 2. 1. The Community initiatives are of key importance and interest to EU regional and local authorities, which often have the responsibility of managing programmes or implementing projects. The Committee therefore welcomes the increased emphasis on regional and local authority involvement in the Community initiatives under the new Structural Funds period. 2. 2. Bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, the Com- mittee would stress that both the framing and execution of plans and programmes primarily fall within the local and regional authorities’ remit. Basically the Committee agrees with the proposed 2. 3. concentration of support for Community initiatives, which are to be reduced from the current thirteen to four. The principle of continuity and current development trends are largely respected in the thrust of these initiatives. Interreg cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation intended to encourage harmoni- ous and balanced development in Europe; Leader+ development of rural areas; Equal Transnational cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimi- nation and inequalities in connection with the labour market, and Urban economic and social renewal in urban areas with acute problems. 2. 4. One welcome simplification is that each Community initiative is to be financed by only one of the Structural Funds. Interreg and Urban are financed under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Leader+ under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and Equal under the European Social Fund (ESF). Hence the scope of each Community initiative will also include measures covered by the other Funds. For instance, Interreg, under the ERDF, should also be able to support activities that normally belong under the ESF or EAGGF. In this way, action under each Community initiative will be more closely tailored to the problems to be tackled and to the needs of the authorities deploying the resources. That will reduce the administrative burden but also require a special effort on the part of the authorities responsible for the Structural Funds. 2. 5. The Community initiatives supplement the other Struc- tural Fund initiatives under the programmes for objectives 1, 2 and 3 regions. The Community initiative programmes must therefore be coordinated with the Member States’ programming documents and the operational programmes. The Committee is pleased to note that one of the key 2. 6. principles underpinning the new Community initiatives is a bottom-up approach, combined with regional and local responsibility and involvement (the partnership principle). The vital role played by regional and local authorities in connection implementation and assessment of pro- with the framing, grammes needs to be stressed. Since these authorities are closest to grassroots level, they are best placed to know how to tackle challenges. In this connection, the Committee would reiterate the need, when the Member State sets the programme in motion, for provision to be made for close partnership with bodies and associations representing the local and regional authorities which implement the programme. 2. 7. Administrative and assessment arrangements should be as simple and informal as possible, and approval procedures should be speeded up; accordingly, the administrative machin- ery should be streamlined. 2. 8. The purpose of the Community initiatives is to support initiatives of particular Community interest. Consequently Community initiative-related funding should not depend on whether or not the project concerned is to be carried out in an area designated under a Community objective. On the other hand, the task of structural policy is to help alleviate income discrepancies between the regions; the Community therefore designates eligible areas and regional programmes. In the Committee’s view, the partners in cooperation footing under Community 2. 9. must participate on an equal initiatives. 2. 10. On 1 July 1999 the Council decided that EUR 10,4 billion (in 1999 prices) should be earmarked for Community initiatives; to include EUR 4 875 million for Interreg, EUR 700 million for Urban, EUR 2 020 million for Leader+ and EUR 2 847 million for Equal. 2. 11. The Committee notes that support for the Com- munity initiatives is to be scaled down over the forthcoming period 2000-2006. Interreg 3. Comments on Interreg The purpose of the new Interreg initiative is to promote 3. 1. cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation so as to encourage balanced development in Europe. C 156/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 3. 2. The Committee is happy to observe that the proposals for Interreg III recognise the value of the regional and local authorities’ role. 3. 3. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this initiat- ive is founded on the experiences of the previous Interreg programmes; its inclusion of experiences from the innovative actions provided for in ERDF Article 10 is also welcomed. 3. 4. The Interreg initiative has three strands: Strand A Strand B Strand C Cross-border cooperation aiming to promote integrated regional development between bor- der regions, including external and maritime borders (Interreg III A); Transnational cooperation with a view to contributing to harmonious and sustainable development across large groups of European regions — macroregions (Interreg III B); Interregional cooperation to foster exchanges of experiences within regional development and cohesion policies and techniques, as well as promoting the networking within areas of regional policy (Interreg III C). 3. 5. In the Committee’s view, it is important that the A, B and C programmes should not overlap but be mutually complementary so as to facilitate a broad spectrum of partnership formulae and relations. As a result authorities which have played only a limited part to date in Interregional cooperation should have the possibility of participating along with more experienced regions and municipalities in Interreg cooperation. 3. 6. The Committee feels that the management of Interreg resources needs to be simplified substantially by in effect devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties concerned and by creating the right balance between simplification and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of funds. Hence the division of responsibility between the vertical and horizontal partnership must be clarified, redtape cut and monitoring, assessment and control tightened so as to place financial management on a sounder footing. 3. 7. The Commission attaches importance to establishing genuinely cross-border and transnational activities and admin- istrative units. Characteristic features of genuine cross-border cooperation include common decisionmaking procedures encompassing programme development, project selection and financing, as well as common administrative structures. 3. 8. The Committee is pleased to note that the Commission proposes to grant a ‘global grant’ directly to each Interreg III programme A and B region. Programmes are most effective when the bottom-up principle, is observed, i. e. when regional and local partners themselves take the initiative and projects are selected jointly by the regional, local and social partners. Hence joint decisions are taken on which activities are key the programme and should therefore be components of supported. The Committee welcomes the possibility of funding up 3. 9. to 100 % of the costs of establishing and developing joint programming, monitoring and programme management structures (technical assistance). 3. 10. Public sector structures and the definition of public tasks and resources differ from Member State to Member State. The Committee recommends that consideration be given — in the light of experiences from the current Interreg programmes and heeding the existing rules on competition — to allowing private funding in certain forms to co-finance EU support and placing such funding on an equal footing with public sector co-financing. Funders could include trade unions, NGOs or associations supporting more general aims. Co-financing should therefore be assessed on the basis of the purpose rather than the source of funding. 3. 11. The Committee observes that the Commission’s list of border areas eligible under Interreg II A and the geographical delimitation of Interreg II B macro-regions has been adjusted in the new Interreg guidelines. The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal 3. 12. to set up an observatory for cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation, provided that funding of Interreg programmes does not suffer as a result. A system for coordinat- ing, developing and disseminating experiences from Interre- gional cooperation is much needed. 4. Strand A — Cross-border cooperation (Interreg III A) 4. 1. Many of Europe’s national frontiers were fixed in the course of this century. It takes a long time for the discord and distrust generated by a change of border to give way to peaceful co-existence and fruitful cooperation. In particular, the regions adjoining the central and eastern European countries are all too aware that a border tends to divide two countries instead of serving as a meetingpoint. It is therefore most important to continue to prioritise support for cooper- ation across the EU’s external frontiers, including maritime frontiers. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/21 4. 2. Cross-border cooperation serves a valuable purpose in improving the populations’ mutual historical, cultural and political understanding and attempting to eliminate linguistic, cultural, political, administrative and other obstacles to cross- border cooperation. 4. 3. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the existing Interreg II A areas serve as basis for framing future programmes for cross-border cooperation. The Committee of the Regions is pleased to note that the guidelines also focus on the EU’s external borders. Interreg III A is a very important programme for levelling out regional differences in living standards, in particular along the long border between the EU and Russia. The Interreg III A programme helps the Baltic states which have applied for membership to embrace the EU’s development policy. 4. 4. Island or maritime regions depend on cross-sea com- munications and contacts. Maritime communication routes must be improved and developed, to give greater coherence to the Single Market’s cross-border labour market, industry and commerce, educational sector and cultural life. It is therefore advisable to introduce more flexible arrangements to enable islands to befit from Strand A, particularly for the most remote regions which are faced with the ending of the Community initiative Regis. 4. 5. The Committee is therefore pleased to see that some maritime borders continue to be under Interreg III A. The fact that existing viable, natural maritime partner-regions will continue to be eligible for aid will particularly benefit island communities and isolated and peripheral regions. 4. 6. There are a large number of examples of genuine cross-border Interreg administrative structures, including the ‘Euroregions’. Though the Euroregions are founded on decentralised, transnational political and administrative struc- tures, the Committee is opposed to the Euroregion concept being used as a criterion for eligibility to manage Interreg III A programmes and funds: it should however represent added value. The Commission proposes to frame one programme 4. 7. only per national border, with specific sub-programmes for smaller cross-border cooperation zones. In the Committee’s view, the Interreg III A regions in particular proceed on the basis of their own political priorities, which cannot be encapsulated in one central programme per national border. Further, is inconsistent with the bottom up principle to distance the administrative and financial decisionmaking process from the horizontal partnership between regional, local and social players in cross-border regions. The Committee therefore urges that all programmes concerning cooperation over the same national border should remain autonomous. it 4. 8. The Committee welcomes the broad range of cooper- ation zones proposed by the Commission for purposes of implementing cross-border development strategies. The cross- border programmes reflect the particular challenges facing each individual border region. It is therefore important for the list of spheres of cooperation to form a broad framework into which, for instance, local and regional cooperation in the media sphere could be incorporated. 4. 9. The Committee advocates greater flexibility in the inter-pro- Interreg programmes so as to improve internal gramme cooperation at four levels: programming, policymak- ing and administration, and the project itself. It should be possible for two or more programmes to pursue common goals, coordinate activities and support common projects. Where appropriate, flexibility should also make it possible for Interreg III A programmes to encompass regions in more than two countries, as in the case of the Belgium-France- Luxembourg border region. 4. 10. The Committee endorses the existing rule under which up to 20 % of cross-border programme funding can be allocated to support projects and activities in areas adjoining border regions. One condition for such aid is that the entire border area derives benefit from the funding, (e. g. greater mobility). 5. Strand B — Transnational cooperation (Interreg III B) One of the differences between strand B and strand A 5. 1. cooperation is the larger geographical area and number of partners (macro-regions). Action covers cooperation on spatial planning and regional development. Strand B allows for cooperation with adjoining regions in non-EU countries on projects aiming to develop and reinforce common strategies for the macro-regions. The range of activities eligible under Interreg III B 5. 2. should be broader than under the current Interreg II C programme. In addition to research and studies, it should be possible for projects with more visible impact, including smallscale (infrastructure) investments and pilot projects, to receive support. It will then be easier to evaluate the activities and their value. The spatial planning concept should also be extended so as to allow support for actual regional and business development (e. g. research and technological development, promotion of employment and education and training). For Interreg to make a positive contribution to the 5. 3. EU’s future spatial development policy, the Committee feels that the initiative’s operational programmes should, where C 156/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 possible, be consistent with the objectives of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Interreg III B and the ESDP should be mutually complementary so that the latter’s recommendations regarding a more balanced polycentric territorial area, sustainable development, a more balanced transport infrastructure and respect for the environment and cultural heritage are translated into practical projects. 5. 4. In the Committee’s view, the strand B macro-regions should extend to regions that can make a positive contribution to sustainable, harmonious and balanced development. Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with the macro-region should be able to participate under Interreg III B. The existing Interreg II C programme appears to be 5. 5. a nationally-dominated programme, from which regional authorities can also benefit. However, it is not rooted in the regional and local authorities’ development priorities for the geographical areas covered by the programme. Hence the wisdom of transposing existing Interreg II C programming and management structures to the new Interreg III B programmes should be carefully considered. The Committee believes that the Interreg III B cooper- 5. 6. ation areas should be defined with the full agreement of the regions and the regional groupings concerned, following an assessment of the relevance of the Interreg II C areas. This assessment must take account of the slowness in implementing operational programmes in certain Interreg II C. 6. Strand C — Interregional cooperation (Interreg III C) 6. 1. Interreg III C is to address cooperation between regions throughout Europe. Some regional and local authorities lack the geographical characteristics, experience, capacity or size to participate in strand A or B cross-border or transnational cooperation. The Committee therefore welcomes the new initiative and confirms that funding to promote the establish- ment of networks and smaller scale Interregional schemes for exchanging experiences can be put to good use. to draw up programmes that can span the entire EU and cover a broader range of subjects than in the case of strand B programmes. Strand C should be designed with the aim of ensuring 6. 3. that: — Interregional cooperation has its own qualitative content within Interreg III; — Interregional cooperation complements the other strands as a horizontal instrument for Community-wide dialogue and exchange of experiences on the involvement of local and regional authorities in implementing Community policies; — promotion of Interregional cooperation is implemented by an independent and decentralised programme adminis- tration in Europe. 6. 4. The Interreg III C programmes must have common geographical, thematic or other characteristics. In the Com- mittee’s opinion, strand C should be more innovative and specific in emphasis and support partnership models which are not eligible for support under strands A or B. 6. 5. Looking ahead to the enlargement of the EU, a number of geographical programmes focusing exclusively on territorial and local authorities could be introduced; these programmes, combined with Phare, Tacis and MEDA resources, would be anchored in common political priorities for development of the area concerned. This common network should be able to take decisions on support for projects involving partners from both EU and non-EU countries so as to ensure the initiatives’ relevance to the regional and local authorities’ actual needs and the regions’ priorities. 6. 6. The Committee is pleased to see that local authorities in less-favoured regions, islands and isolated and peripheral regions in particular will be able to participate under strand C. 7. Coordination with aid to non-EU countries The Committee does not agree with the idea that the 6. 2. strand B administrative units should draw up and manage strand C programmes. The strand B programmes are based on geographical macro-regions and relate to spatial planning and regional development. The strand C transnational programmes should be viewed from other angles, and the strand B administrative units intrinsically lack the relevant prerequisites Simplified, coherent procedures are needed in order to 7. 1. reinforce cooperation with the central and eastern European countries and the Mediterranean region and to integrate these countries into EU policies. The Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes as well as EU instruments to support non-Phare Balkan countries, therefore need to be better coordinated with Interreg III. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/23 Interregional cooperation is particularly necessary in 7. 2. the run-up to enlargement of the EU. Cooperation and exchanges of experiences make a key contribution in preparing the applicant countries for membership — and hence to European integration and cohesion. Coordination of aid raises a number of problems: Under the new guidelines, Phare CBC (cross-border 7. 3. cooperation) can only co-finance strand A whereas strand B can be co-financed by the instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) or Mainstream Phare. However, strand B projects are not large enough to qualify for them. (ISPA is restricted to aiding large projects over EUR 5 million in the transport and environment sectors, while Mainstream Phare only supports projects over EUR 2 million). 7. 4. The programmes’ procedures and budgets are not compatible. The Phare, ISPA and Tacis budgets operate on a yearly basis whereas Interreg budgets cover several years. Consequently the projects have to be executed within different time frames. 7. 5. The objectives and scope of the programmes differ. Interreg III B focuses on spatial planning while, for instance, the Phare programme concentrates on preparing the applicant countries for EU membership and Tacis facilitates transition in the former Soviet Union countries. The programmes’ different guidelines mean that several separate applications have to be made for the same project. Concurrently the amount of time it takes to approve an application under the respective programmes differs, thereby delaying projects unnecessarily. 7. 6. The Committee proposes that funds be earmarked for co-financing of Interreg III projects in the Phare, Tacis and MEDA budgets, to which the Interreg transnational manage- ment committees can address eligible projects. the overall appropriation earmarked for Community initiatives (EUR 4 875 million for the period 2000-2006). 8. 2. In connection with the adoption of Agenda 2000, the heads of state and government stressed that cross-border activities should be prioritised, in the run-up to EU enlarge- ment. 8. 3. The Committee also feels that it needs to be remem- bered that Interreg II C has only been allocated funding for 1997-1999 under the current Structural Funds period. Hence, in the light of the positive impact made by Interreg II C, the relative priority of transnational activities needs to be upgraded. 8. 4. The Committee therefore advocates a reasonable break- down of appropriations for Interreg III A and B which retains the present Interreg II A level for cross-border activities while at the same time in relative terms, taking account of the fact that Interreg II C transnational activities have only been allocated funding for half the current Structural Fund period. As a result a smaller share should be allocated for the new Interreg III C initiatives. 8. 5. The Committee therefore advocates a breakdown of appropriations for the Interreg III budget lines that reflects the breakdown decided by the heads of state and government in relation to Agenda 2000 and prioritises cross-border activities, especially with a view to enlargement. 8. 6. In order to prevent parts of the Interreg III B transna- tional areas contained with one country being underfunded in comparison with their neighbours, thereby undermining the expected synergies, the Committee of the Regions suggests that the European Commission ask Member States to comply with a principle for the distribution of their ERDF package which ensures internal solidarity within areas and real conti- nuity with Interreg II C. 7. 7. The Committee observes that the Commission paves the way, in the Interreg guidelines, for closer coordination between Interreg and aid to the EU’s neighbours in central and eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean region. 9. Recommendations for Interreg III The Committee calls for: 8. Financing 8. 1. The Committee welcomes the higher priority given to the Interreg initiative and the allocation to Interreg III of half (1) the local and regional authorities’ role in programming, implementation, selection and assessment to be stepped up in full application of the subsidiarity principle; (2) procedures to be streamlined significantly by in effect devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties con- cerned and creating the right balance between simplifi- cation and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of funds; C 156/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 (3) programmes to be drawn up in line with the partnership principle, with programming, financial and administrative decisions taken by the regional, local and social partners; (14) rejection of the idea that strand B transnational adminis- trative units are to frame and manage strand C pro- grammes; (4) the Interreg A, B and C programmes to be mutually complementary, allowing authorities which have only played a limited part to date in inter-regional cooperation to participate along with more experienced regions in Interreg action; (5) Interreg III programmes to be structured with sufficient flexibility to allow cooperation to span programming, policymaking and administration as well as the project levels; (6) Interreg III resources to be deployed flexibly and be accessible to regions which can make a positive contri- bution to harmonious, balanced development. Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with the Interreg area should be eligible to participate in Interreg III programmes; (7) uniform grants to be made to all assisted projects and partners, regardless of whether the partners are in an area designated as eligible for objective-related aid; (8) private sector funding to support general purposes to be placed on an equal footing with public sector financing; (9) the Euroregion concept not to serve as criterion for eligibility to act as programming and management body for Interreg III A programmes; (10) the introduction of more Interreg III A programmes across national borders; there are already several such programmes for the present period; (11) the list of areas of action under Interreg III A to serve as a broad framework allowing for cooperation within the relevant spheres; (12) the activities eligible for Interreg III B funding to be extended to cover e. g. smallscale (infrastructure) invest- ments and pilot projects; (13) careful consideration be given to the wisdom of transpos- ing the existing Interreg II C programming and adminis- trative structures to the new Interreg III B programmes; (15) Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes to be coordinated more effectively with the Interreg III programme, and (16) Interreg III A and B funding to be reasonably apportioned so as to retain cross-border activities while upgrading the relative priority of transnational activities and also allocating an adequate share to initiatives under the new Interreg III C. Equal 10. Comments on Equal 10. 1. The twin goals of optimum employment and social cohesion are major challenges for the European Union. Recognition of the role the Union has to play in combating social exclusion is affirmed in the Amsterdam Treaty. The Treaty explicitly refers to combating exclusion and discrimi- nation. Article 137 provides for ‘measures designed to encourage co-operation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences to combat social exclusion’. There are not only moral and ethical reasons for 10. 2. combating unemployment and social exclusion, but also economic reasons. The pace of modernisation and develop- ment of new technologies has forced a rapid re-appraisal of skills needs across the Union. For those who have access to training and education there are boundless opportunities to take advantage of the developing information society. How- ever, for those members of the labour force who are in low skilled jobs, or even worse, those who are placed outside the labour force, the divide between skilled and unskilled is only accentuated. By working towards opening up the labour market to all, and particularly the most disadvantaged, the Union can release a potential of human resource that might otherwise remain hidden and unused. It is not uncommon when employers are experiencing skills shortages to recruit employees from abroad rather than provide training and education to members of their own labour force who are in low skilled jobs or people from the ranks of the unemployed. 10. 3. The formulation of the European Employment Strat- egy and National Action Plans has prompted the reform of the In terms of objectives and European Social Fund (ESF). priorities, the future shape of the European Social Fund will be guided by the European Employment Strategy. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/25 the During programming 10. 4. period 1994-1999 important parts of the ESF activities are taking place within industrial two Community Initiatives: Adapt (adoption of change) and Employment (re-integration of unemployed target groups into the labour market). The latter is sub-divided into four strands: NOW, Horizon, Youthstart and Integra. 10. 5. These two Community Initiatives are important Com- munity instruments for the promotion of changes in policy areas related to employment and the labour market. Both Adapt and Employment have played important roles in setting the stage for future action in the area of innovation and innovative ways of delivering preventative and active measures. By transferring mainstreaming good practices and experiences to other organisations, programmes and projects across the Member States they have provided a basis for the spread of labour market policies. Also, through their transnational partnerships, they have accelerated the learning process. 10. 6. The newly devised Equal Initiative will build on the experiences and successes of Adapt and Employment. It is envisaged that the considerable potential of transnational co- operation, both between individual projects and between project managers and political decision-makers, will be further developed and the transfer of good practice will feed back into the European Employment Strategy. 10. 7. The Commission has correctly acknowledged that lessons can be learned from Adapt and Employment. The expertise that has been garnered must be built on and this is particularly the case in relation to the project promoters and those involved in managing the Initiatives. The value-added created in the final years of the current Community Initiatives must be retained and furthered. 11. Project Profile and Additionality 11. 1. Project Profile 11. 1. 1. The Commission’s proposal pertaining to the avoid- ance of dissipation of financial resources across too many small projects represents a change of direction. In contrast to the present programming period, the Commission’s view is that the number of projects in receipt of funding should be reduced, with the result that the successful projects would tend to be bigger in scale. The issue of whether or not it is viable for ‘small’ projects to develop transnational elements is most important. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that projects should not be judged or evaluated on the basis of size. It is often the case that small projects possess huge potential in terms of devising methods and transfer of best practice. It may be somewhat easier to demonstrate methods of best practice emanating from projects that are smaller in scale than large unwieldy projects. 11. 1. 2. The Commission may fear that the administrative burden placed on organisations, and indeed the Commission, participating in small-scale projects would not lead to a significant multiplier effect. However, the Committee of the Regions believes that if the administration of Equal was to be efficient and simplistic, then the rate of return would be higher and would prove to be a worthwhile exercise for all. 11. 2. Additionality The issue of additionality must also be addressed in 11. 2. 1. the new Equal Initiative. It has been the experience of Adapt and Employment that partners often struggle to raise the co- financing funds. In particular, this has been a problem for local and regional authorities that sign up to large transnational projects. By concentrating funding under the Equal Initiative on projects that are large in scale, some local and regional authorities may be excluded from participating in Equal projects by virtue of the fact that they cannot raise the is re-enforced that necessary co-finance. Thus the point ‘smaller’ type projects may have an important role to play in the Equal Initiative, as co-finance may be realisable for projects that have smaller budgets. 12. Measures 12. 1. measures to be launched under three main strands. It is envisaged that Equal will provide support for i) Strand A: transnational, integrated projects; ii) Strand B: national networking and dissemination; iii) Strand C: policy development. 12. 2. Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects 12. 2. 1. It is intended that projects under Strand A would combat discrimination and inequalities in relation to the labour market. Further to calls for proposals, projects would be selected and implemented on the basis of three criteria. These are: a) innovation — to be benchmarked against previous Com- munity Initiative experience; b) empowerment — the direct involvement of those most directly concerned with the fight against labour market discrimination and inequalities; c) integrated approach — successful projects should integrate a range of actions. 12. 2. 2. Under Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects, the Commission has recommended that there should be three project phases taking projects from a preparatory phase to an operational phase and finally an evaluation and dissemination phase. C 156/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 12. 2. 3. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that the Commission has recommended that the European Social Fund will be the only Structural Fund to finance these integrated project, as this will lead to greater simplification. 12. 2. 4. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it is most important that the terms innovation, empowerment and integrated approach be clearly defined from the outset of the Initiative. Once these terms are clearly defined in the context of Equal much of the confusion that was apparent with regard to Adapt and Employment should be avoided. 12. 3. Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination 12. 3. 1. It is envisaged by the Commission that Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination, would provide focus for a limited number of thematic areas to be funded by Equal in each Member State. The Committee of the Regions believes that local and regional interests should have an input into the decision making process with the Member State and the Commission in deciding upon relevant thematic areas. The Commission also recommends that each Member State pro- pose suitable mechanisms at national level for the networking of projects and the dissemination of good practice. In the Committee of the Regions view, local and regional interests should be actively involved in the establishment of the aforementioned mechanisms. 12. 4. Strand C: Policy Development 12. 4. 1. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the Commission that Strand C: Policy Development should involve the Commission and Member States working together to create the link between good practice emerging from projects and policy development in thematic areas agreed upon for Equal. The Committee of the Regions is particularly supportive of attempts to develop mechanisms for the benchmarking and dissemination of results. 13. Implementation of Equal 13. 1. In implementing Equal the Commission recommends that each Member State should prepare a national programme according to the themes agreed, in relation to the European Employment Strategy, by a co-ordination structure. Once these programmes are agreed, the Member States will be responsible for launching regular calls for projects and establishing national monitoring committees to oversee the implemen- tation of the Initiative. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it is at Member State level that the local and regional authorities can play a significant role in shaping the success of Equal. The Committee believes that regional and local interests should be represented on the National Monitoring Committees where they can bring their own local and regional experience to bear on the process. 14. Targeting Measures The Committee of the Regions is concerned that the 14. 1. Commission in setting out its initial position with regard to Equal has indicated that, unlike the present round of Com- munity Initiatives, there will be no ring fencing of funds for certain sectors of society. All organisations involved in combating marginalisation will be left to compete against each other for funding under the Equal Initiative. For example, those sections of society fighting against discrimination on the grounds of disability may have to compete against those attempting to progress equal opportunities for women in the work place. Whether this will result in the selection of the best and most deserving projects is questionable. The Committee of the Regions would encourage the Commission to consider the introduction of measures under the Equal Initiative that would specifically target the various marginalised sections of society. 15. General Remarks and Recommendations 15. 1. The Committee of the Regions recommends that a number of points be borne in mind when drafting the guidelines for Equal. (1) Equal, the newly proposed human resource Community Initiative, is designed to consolidate the achievements of the current Adapt and Employment initiatives. There is the to incorporate new programmes and need, however, measures into a new context, the European that of Employment Strategy. Equal should be shaped into an instrument that will aid community, local, regional and national agencies in their fight against social exclusion in the work place and beyond. (2) The administrative burden of submitting applications for funding should be kept as light as possible. It is often the case that the spectre of an overly bureaucratic process is offputting for potential applicants. (3) Clear definitions should be provided, where possible. The terms innovation, transnationality and mainstreaming need to be clearly defined in the context of Equal. (4) Monitoring activities will have to be developed which will allow for a comparison of project results and degrees of success. (5) It is of paramount importance that effective mainstreaming of successful Equal projects, at national, regional and local level, can only be achieved if a dissemination strategy is developed during the project cycle and not deferred to the very end of it. Leader+ 16. Comments on Leader+ The major innovation of the Leader+ Community 16. 1. initiative (I and II) was the approach adopted, which can be summarised as follows: 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/27 — integrated action — nearly all aspects of intervention — encouragement and technical support for develop- ment; The Committee therefore proposes that passages to this effect be deleted in the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States. This concerns the second half of the last sentence in point 9 and the whole of the last sentence in point 10. — training at various levels; — establishment/consolidation/modernisation of busi- ness units; 16. 3. Moreover, reference is made to the specificity and originality of the development strategy expected of each Local Action Plan in relation to the operations of mainstream programmes. — development of the use of local raw materials by means of small-scale processing; However, these very programmes are themselves hallmarked by, amongst other things, a sectoral or target group approach. — promotion and marketing of local products and ser- vices; — consolidation and diversification of rural tourism; — preservation and development of natural resources and cultural heritage. — intervention promoting integration — projects and activi- ties developed under the various aspects of the programme are organised into a single, coherent plan of action and do not merely comprise a series of separate projects; — local territorial approach — devised and implemented in line with the resources, potential and expectations of the area concerned; — a bottom-up approach — resulting from efforts to involve local bodies and population in the local development process; — decentralised management — under the responsibility of Local Action Groups who are granted considerable leeway in implementing the process with the flexibility required. 16. 2. The Commission’s document on Leader+ follows the guidelines of the previous programmes. However, a new feature is added, requiring the strategy of local action plans to be linked with one out of a series of specified themes. In the Committee’s view, action must focus on targeted problem areas. The subjects and target groups indicated by the Com- mission are appropriate for inclusion in an integrated develop- ment strategy. However, the Committee feels that the local action group should be able to choose more than just one theme or target group; it therefore urges the Member States to take advantage of the opportunity to amplify the list of possible themes and target groups. 16. 4. The real innovation introduced by the Leader+ pro- gramme is the approach which it has facilitated and encour- aged; it is precisely this advance in methodology which should be preserved and consolidated. 16. 5. Here we feel it important to mention that an action plan for the integrated development of a rural area cannot be comprised of innovative actions above. A plan of this type has to include a large number of initiatives and projects which provide a response to local problems and expectations, which have a local impact and which can consequently help to enhance local development dynamics. What is innovative is the plan as a whole; some non-innovative action can be necessary in order to secure viability, coherence and consist- ency in the overall process. 16. 6. One last point should be noted: the Leader+ approach requires there to be a Local Development Association respon- sible a) for devising and carrying out a Local Action Plan and, in parallel, b) for actively encouraging, mobilising and involving local people and organisations. Without a local dynamic and without encouraging the creation of a local development culture, Leader+ will not work. Thus it is vital that Leader+ continues to include a strong element of encouragement and technical support for develop- ment, allowing a wide range of activities and initiatives to be funded — including the establishment and operation of networks for stimulating development (each with its own nucleus, equipment and human resources), the publication of information and incentive instruments for the territory, and the organisation of events and festivals. The possibility of aiding the acquisition of knowhow and other technical assistance should — possibly on a lesser scale — also apply to rural areas where existing Leader+ groups are renewed. First, it must be recognised that the main point about Leader+ has always been that it can be applied in principle in all rural areas in the fifteen EU Member States and that this may not be thwarted by the guidelines governing the drawing up of plans. 16. 7. The Leader + programme is to place special emphasis on actions which favour an integrated approach, creating synergies and complementarity between the various instru- ments which contribute to the same objective. C 156/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 16. 8. gramme encourages small-scale local initiatives. One particularly important feature is that the pro- 16. 9. Leader+ should enhance the work of local develop- ment associations and agents. The direct involvement of Carrefour should be envisaged, to improve the implementation of outreach activities, Interregional cooperation and rural networks. 16. 10. Leader+ is to work in conjunction with other programmes having complementary objectives in the field of job creation, vocational training, craft industries and other social measures. 16. 11. With its constituency made up of many locally elected representatives from rural areas with specific structural problems, the COR welcomes the Leader+ programme with particular interest. 16. 12. Locally elected representatives are the prime movers in development processes in rural areas where bottlenecks occur. Local authorities are the bodies sustaining the main investment projects aimed at creating jobs and kick-starting the economy as a whole. It would therefore be counterpro- ductive if, rather than encouraging local planning, Leader+ were to be governed by a bureaucratic or dirigiste approach at European, national or regional level. 16. 13. The COR would like to see the regulations to make the programme operational implemented as soon as possible. Given the level of expectation created, it would be preferable if applications could be assessed in less than the five months mentioned. Local development agents have little experience of dealing with bureaucracies and will find it difficult to accept long delays. Steps must also be taken to prevent delays in programme implementation. Under the Commission’s proposal, the selec- tion of action groups can span a period of as much as two years after approval of the selection criteria. It should be possible to reduce this process to, for instance, six months. In Brussels, 17 February 2000. the light of experiences from the current programme period, the Committee feels that delays in getting the programmes off the ground would undermine the implementation and impact of action in new Leader areas, which must first build up knowhow. In reselected areas, the expertise accumulated could go to waste. Considering the three actions under the Leader+ 16. 14. programme, the COR feels that the bulk of funding should go on the first of these, namely integrated territorial rural development strategies of a pilot nature. The success of applications for funding should depend on whether a local strategy involving various partners actually exists. The COR would like to see infrastructure projects 16. 15. incorporated into the Leader+ programme, and if they are not eligible for this programme, they should be given priority by the assessors of other programmes. The fact is that any rural development strategy requires some basic infrastructure input otherwise the development process is not sustainable. The Commission’s call for cooperation not to be 16. 16. restricted purely to the exchange of experience is in the main endorsed. However, the exchange of experience should not be excluded from support as a separate form of cooperation. 16. 17. The provision under point 9 of the draft guidelines specifying that Community funding ‘will be granted to a limited number of rural territories only’ should be deleted. The provision whereby it is exclusively local action 16. 18. groups (LAGs) which qualify for financial assistance under Leader+ (point 12, first paragraph) should be deleted. The provision whereby ‘at the decision-making level not more than 50 % of a local partnership may be made up of government officials and elected office-holders’ (point 12, third paragraph) should also be abolished. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT