Category Archives: O

Online access to Europe’s cultural heritage

Leave a reply

Online access to Europe’s cultural heritage

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Online access to Europe’s cultural heritage

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Audiovisual and media

Online access to Europe’s cultural heritage

Europeana, the European digital library, which will provide the public with a single access point to Europe’s cultural heritage. The main issues addressed concern digitisation, online accessibility and digital preservation of cultural material.

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 August 2008 – Europe’s cultural heritage at the click of a mouse: Progress on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation across the EU [COM(2008) 513 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

This Communication sets out the progress achieved thus far and the steps that still need to be taken in order to develop Europeana, the European digital library. Particular emphasis is on the actions carried out by Member States to implement the Commission Recommendation 2006/585/EC of 24 August 2006 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation, which was endorsed in the Council Conclusions of 20 November 2008.

Europeana will be a common multilingual point of access to digitised European material. In 2007, its development received new impetus, especially through the creation of the European Digital Library Foundation that brings together different cultural sectors. The demo site of Europeana was published in February 2008 with the aim that the prototype will be launched in November of the same year. This prototype is to be developed into a fully operational service within the following two years.

The issues yet to be addressed in the development of Europeana include the:

  • incorporation of in-copyright material;
  • provision of multilingual search and retrieval functions;
  • integration of collaborative tools;
  • promotion of Europeana to the wider public.

On the basis of the above-mentioned Recommendation, Member States have progressed on the following:

  • digitisation – Most Member States have established overviews of digitisation activities, as well as strategies and plans for digitisation. However, the overviews are not used in any systematic manner and the strategies and plans do not provide quantitative targets. Further efforts are needed in these areas, as well as in financial planning. While some of the Member States have provided substantial amounts of resources to digitisation, additional funding is needed. This could be achieved through public-private partnerships or through private sponsoring. It is also essential that the output of digitisation continues to rise. To this end, many Member States have established digitisation centres;
  • online accessibility – Many of the Member States have either established or are establishing national portals, which may act as aggregators for Europeana. Most are also working on the standards that are essential for interoperability in Europe. In order to make the availability of in-copyright material possible, some Member States have begun to involve private content holders in their work. With regard to orphan works though, progress seems to be limited. In this regard, some Member States expressed their wish for a European level solution. Similarly, little progress has been made in connection with clearing rights for digitising and making available online works that are out of print or distribution, or to barriers to the use of public domain works. More attention should be given in particular to the latter issue, as it is imperative to continue providing access to such works;
  • digital preservation – Most Member States have begun to formulate digital preservation strategies and some have already established specific preservation plans; yet, the follow-up and financial backing to these remain limited. Multiple copying for preservation purposes is already allowed in most of the Member States, and even the remaining Member States are contemplating the necessary legislative actions. Similarly, the legal deposit legislation is already updated in most Member States, but the differences in materials covered and the deposit criteria are substantial. Many of the Member States have also implemented legislation relating to web harvesting by specified institutions (usually the national library). Otherwise, access to web-harvested material remains restricted due to intellectual property and privacy rights.

Even though Member States have progressed considerably in making cultural information available online, further action needs to be taken in particular with regard to:

  • funding of and quantitative targets for digitisation;
  • support for Europeana;
  • legislative actions and other measures to enable the digitisation and accessibility of orphan works and works that are out of print or distribution;
  • financial and organisational measures relating to digital preservation.

The High Level Expert Group on Digital Libraries, set up in 2006, has given practical assistance to Member States in implementing the above Recommendation. The Group’s work focuses in particular on public-private partnerships, scientific information and copyright issues.

In order to develop the services provided by Europeana, advancements in technical issues are needed, especially to achieve cheaper and better quality digitisation and preservation techniques. The Commission has supported this progress through the Framework Programmes for Research and Development and the eContentplus programme. It has asserted its commitment to continue providing support through policy initiatives and funding programmes for the development of Europeana and other projects that improve the accessibility and preservation of digital cultural material.

Related Acts

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – “Europeana: next steps” [COM(2009) 440 final – Not published in the Official Journal.
This Communication sets out the challenges to come concerning the implementation of Europeana.
Europeana’s results are positive, in that it gives access to more than 4.6 million digitised books, newspapers, film clips, maps, photographs and documents and receives contributions from more than 1,000 cultural institutions.
However, the Communication notes several problems connected with:

  • an imbalance between Member States in terms of the provision of cultural material. France has contributed 47% of the digitised objects, while other Member States such as Poland and Hungary have contributed mainly books;
  • copyright, in that recent works enjoy protection which limits access to them, unlike works from before 1900. It is important to establish collaboration with rightholders in order to improve access to protected works. Another challenge lies in the legal consequences of digitisation;
  • the financing and governance of Europeana.

Further efforts are therefore necessary in order to ensure that citizens can enjoy the services of Europeana fully.

Council conclusions of 20 November 2008 on the European digital library Europeana [Official Journal C 319 of 13.12.2008].
In its conclusions the Council of the European Union expressed satisfaction with the gradual establishment of the Europeana European library and the commitment of Member States to this project. In order for the project to be a success, the Council invites Member States to:

  • continue their strategy of implementation of their national objectives;
  • promote synergies between them in the process of digitisation and increasing online accessibility of cultural material;
  • incorporate digital cultural material in Europeana;
  • facilitate digitisation and online access to orphan works.

The European Commission is invited to encourage the development of Europeana and to promote it in Europe and the world, as well as to encourage the establishment of public-private partnerships to develop it.

This summary is for information only. It is not designed to interpret or replace the reference document, which remains the only binding legal text.

Own resources mechanism

Leave a reply

Own resources mechanism

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Own resources mechanism

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Budget

Own resources mechanism

The 1970 decision on own resources set the Communities apart from other international organisations, which all rely for funding on contributions from their members.

Towards financial autonomy for the EU: the national contributions to own resources

Under the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 the European Economic Community was to be financed by national contributions for a transitional period before changing over to a system of own resources. The principle was set down in Article 201 of the Treaty, which stated: “Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.” Own resources can be taken to mean a source of finance separate and independent of the Member States, some kind of revenue assigned once and for all to the Community to fund its budget and due to it by right without the need for any subsequent decision by the national authorities. The Member States, then, would be required to make payments available to the Community for its budget.

In 1965 a first attempt to transfer customs duties and agricultural levies – the “natural” own resources deriving from Community policies (the customs union and the common agricultural policy) – foundered in the face of French opposition, which prompted the Luxembourg compromise. But the 1966 target date for the changeover to a system of financing that would guarantee the Community some measure of independence was not kept. It was not until the Hague summit in 1969 that the Heads of State or Government, in an effort to revive the Community after some years of difficulty, finally took the decision to go ahead with the change. On 21 April 1970 the Council adopted a decision assigning to the Communities (with a single budget following the Merger Treaty of 8 April 1965) own resources to cover all their expenditure. The Decision marked the end of national contributions, through which the Member States had enjoyed some scope for controlling the policies undertaken by the Communities, and the beginning of an independent system of financing by “traditional” own resources (agricultural levies and customs duties) and a resource based on value added tax (VAT).

Where do own resources come from?

Traditional own resources are considered as the “natural” own resources, since they are revenue collected by virtue of Community policies rather than revenue obtained from the Member States as national contributions. Own resources currently come from customs duties, agricultural levies, sugar contributions, a fixed-rate portion of value-added tax (VAT) receipts and a fixed-rate levy on gross national income (GNI).

  • Customs duties are levied at external frontiers on imports under the common customs tariff that was introduced in 1968 (two years ahead of schedule). The Treaty of Rome had earmarked customs duties as the principal resource to be assigned to the European Economic Community (EEC) to finance its expenditure. European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) customs duties have been included since 1988.
  • Agricultural resources: the most important of these are the agricultural duties earlier known as levies. They were introduced in 1962 and assigned to the Community by the Decision of 21 April 1970. Originally they were charges in amounts varying according to price levels on the world and European markets. Following transposal of the multilateral trade agreements (Uruguay Round, April 1994) into Community law, there is no longer any difference between agricultural duties and customs duties. Agricultural duties are nothing more than import duties charged on agricultural products imported from non-member countries.

Besides agricultural duties, there are also levies on the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup. But unlike the levies on agricultural imports, they are charged on Community sugar producers. The 2000 own-resources decision that is currently in operation allows Member States to retain 25% of traditional own resources to cover collection costs.

  • Value added tax (VAT). VAT resources were introduced by the 1970 Decision because the traditional own resources were not sufficient to finance the Community budget. But the need to harmonise the VAT base meant more delay, with the result that this complex resource did not come into use until 1980. It is obtained by applying a given rate to a base determined in a uniform manner. From 1988 to 1994 the base could not exceed 55% of the Member States’ gross national product (GNP). After 1995 the limit was lowered to 50% of GNP for Member States with a per capita GNP below 90% of the Community average. Between 1995 and 1999 the new limit was gradually extended and now applies to all the Member States.

The 1970 Decision limited the maximum call-in rate of VAT to 1% of the base. The second own resources Decision of 7 May 1985 raised the ceiling to 1.4% from 1 January 1986 to coincide with the accession of Spain and Portugal. This increase was designed to meet the costs of enlargement. The 2000 own-resources decision finally cut the maximum call-in rate to the current level of 0.5% of the harmonised and capped VAT base.

  • Gross national income (GNI). In 1988 the Council decided to introduce a fourth own resource based at the time on gross national product (GNP), which was meant to replace VAT as the resource for balancing the budget. The decision of 24 June 1988 also set the ceiling for own resources as a percentage of GNP. The figure was 1.14% for 1988 and 1.27% for 1999. The current own-resources decision extends the application of the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95) to the EU budget. In ESA95, the concept of gross national product has been replaced by gross national income, and the reference to GNP has accordingly been replaced by GNI in the own-resources decision. But to leave the amount of own resources made available to the Communities unchanged, the ceiling on own resources as a percentage of EU GNI has been adapted, the new ceiling being 1.24%.

The GNI-based resource is obtained by applying a rate fixed each year under the budget procedure to a base representing the sum of the gross national incomes at market prices. It is calculated by reference to the difference between expenditure and the yield of all the other own resources. It is the “key” resource, not only because it finances the bulk of the budget but also determines the cap on the VAT base, how the cost of the UK rebate is shared out, and the ceiling on total resources that the Community can receive.

Own resources are collected by the Member States and made available to the Community every month, being credited to an “own resources” account opened by the Commission at each national treasury or national bank. Traditional own resources are credited each month as they are collected. VAT own resources and the GNI-based resource, on the other hand, are made available to the Commission on the first working day of each month at the rate of one twelfth of the estimate entered in the Community budget. Given the specific needs involved in payment of agricultural expenditure, the Commission sometimes calls on the Member States to pay VAT and GNI resources a month or two in advance in the first quarter of the year.

Other revenue. The budget is not financed entirely from own resources but also by taxes and deductions from staff remuneration, bank interest, third-country contributions to certain Community programmes (research, for instance), reimbursement of Community grants not used, interest on late payments and balances from previous years.

The exceptional measure for the UK

In 1984 the Fontainebleau European Council decided to introduce a correction for the United Kingdom. This mechanism gives the United Kingdom a rebate equivalent to 0.66% of its negative net balance. The cost of financing the UK rebate is shared between the other Member States according to their share of GNI (except in the case of Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, whose share is reduced by three quarters). The cost is spread over the other twenty-two Member States.

 

Other substances: protection of groundwater

Leave a reply

Other substances: protection of groundwater

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Other substances: protection of groundwater

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Environment > Water protection and management

Other substances: protection of groundwater

Document or Iniciative

Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances [See amending acts].

Summary

The purpose of this Directive is to prevent the discharge of certain toxic, persistent and bioaccumulable substances into groundwater.

The following are not covered:

  • discharges of domestic effluents from isolated dwellings;
  • discharges containing substances listed in Directive 80/68/EEC in very small quantities and concentrations;
  • discharges of matter containing radioactive substances.

There are two lists of dangerous substances drawn up for the protection of groundwater:

  • direct discharge of substances in List I is prohibited. This list includes organohalogen, organophosphorus and organotin compounds, mercury and cadmium and their compounds, and hydrocarbons and cyanides;
  • discharge of substances in List II must be limited. This list includes certain metals such as copper, zinc, lead and arsenic, and other substances such as fluorides, toxic or persistent organic compounds of silicon, and biocides and their derivatives not appearing in List I.

All indirect discharges of substances in List I and all direct or indirect discharges of substances in List II are subject to prior authorisation. Such authorisation:

  • is granted after an investigation into the receiving environment;
  • is granted for a limited period and subject to regular review;
  • lays down the conditions that have to be met for discharges. If they have not been or cannot be met, the authorisation is withdrawn or refused.

Monitoring of compliance with these conditions and of the effects of discharges on groundwater is the responsibility of the competent authorities of the Member States.

The Directive provides for exceptions, under certain conditions, to the ban on discharges of substances in List I.

It also lays down special rules for artificial recharges of groundwater intended for public water supplies.

The competent authorities of the Member States must keep an inventory of authorisations:

  • of discharges of substances in List I;
  • of direct discharges of substances in List II;
  • of artificial recharges for the purpose of groundwater management.

The Member States concerned must inform one another in the event of discharges into transboundary groundwater.

Member States may introduce more stringent measures than those laid down in this Directive.

Every three years, reports by the Member States on the implementation of Directive 80/68/EEC and other relevant Directives, drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 91/692/EEC. The Commission is responsible for publishing a report on the basis of this information.

References

Act Entry into force – Date of expiry Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Directive 80/68/EEC 19.12.1979 19.12.1983 OJ L 20 of 26.01.1980
Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Directive 91/692/EEC 23.12.1991 01.01.1993 OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991

Related Acts

of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy [Official Journal L 327 of 22.12.2000].
This Directive repeals Directive 80/68/EC as of 21 December 2013.

Commission Decision 92/446/EEC of 27 July 1992 concerning questionnaires relating to Directives in the water sector [Official Journal L 247 of 27.08.1992].

This Decision draws up the outlines of questionnaires needed to monitor the implementation of and compliance with the provisions of all Directives in the water sector, including Directive 80/68/EEC.

 

Official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption

Leave a reply

Official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Food safety > Veterinary checks animal health rules food hygiene

Official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption

Document or Iniciative

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption [See amending acts].

Summary

Community establishments and imports are subject to the controls laid down by this Regulation.

COMMUNITY ESTABLISHMENTS

The competent authorities approve establishments that comply with Community regulations on hygiene of food.

Food business operators must provide the competent authority with all the assistance needed in carrying out the control, notably as regards access to premises and the presentation of documentation or records.

The official controls include audits of good hygiene practices and HACCP principles (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points), as well as specific controls whose requirements are determined by sector (fresh meat, bivalve molluscs, fishery products, milk and dairy products).

FRESH MEAT

Official veterinarian

Appointed and authorised by the competent authority, the official veterinarian will have solid professional qualifications, recognised by having passed an aptitude test covering all the subjects for which he is competent. He will audit:

  • the permanent application of good hygiene practice (maintenance of plant structure and equipment, plant hygiene, staff hygiene, training, processing of animal by-products not intended for human consumption, etc.);
  • the procedures based on the HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) system, notably in the following areas: compliance of products of animal origin with microbiological criteria, absence of excessive quantities of prohibited substances, contaminants or chemical residues, absence of physical hazards, such as foreign bodies, absence of patho-physiological abnormalities or changes, absence of contamination.

The inspection tasks of the official veterinarian concern the following aspects:

  • food chain information giving health data concerning animals which have been sent or will be sent for slaughter.
  • ante-mortem inspections (except for wild game). Within 24 hours of arrival at the slaughterhouse and less than 24 hours before slaughter, all animals must undergo ante-mortem inspections. The official veterinarian verifies the existence of any sign indicating that the welfare of the animals has been compromised or signs of any condition which might adversely affect human or animal health.
  • animal welfare during transport and during slaughter.
  • post-mortem inspections. Carcases and offal of slaughtered animals are subjected to visual inspection and mandatory incisions. With a view to a definitive diagnosis, or to detect the presence of an animal disease or other factors rendering the meat unfit for consumption, the official veterinarian may conduct an additional examination and take samples for scientific analysis in the laboratory. Adequate precautions must be taken to avoid contamination during examination.
  • specified Risk Material. In compliance with Community legislation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs), specified risk material is sampled, separated and, where appropriate, marked.
  • laboratory testing. The official veterinarian takes samples to detect the possible presence of zoonoses, TSE, other diseases or unauthorised substances.
  • health marking for stock cattle, and large farmed and wild game. After completion of the post-mortem inspection, meat fit for consumption must be health-marked in ink or by hot branding. This mark is oval, legible, indelible, and readily visible to the controlling authorities, showing the name of the consigning country and the approval number of the establishment. The nature and content of this marking must follow specific provisions, depending on the type of meat and the type of packaging.

The results of inspections must be recorded in writing and incorporated in the relevant databases. Whenever a problem is identified, this information must be communicated to the operator of the meat establishment, the competent authority and the persons responsible for supervising the holding of provenance of the animals. The official veterinarian shall take all necessary measures and precautions to prevent the possible spread of the infectious agent.

Decisions following controls

Where controls reveal deficiencies or irregularities, appropriate measures must be taken. These include:

  • decisions concerning food chain information. The animals are not accepted for slaughter intended for human consumption in the following cases: they come from a region which is subject to a movement prohibition, rules on the use of veterinary medical products have not been complied with, or there is a risk for human or animal health. When the information on the animals provided by the operator does not correspond with the true situation, the competent authority may take action against the operator such as extra controls at the operator’s expense.
  • decisions concerning live animals. When the animals’ identity is not ascertainable, they must be killed separately and declared unfit for human consumption. The same applies to animals presenting a transmissible pathological risk; these must undergo detailed ante-mortem examination. In addition, the veterinary official supervises the slaughter of animals in the framework of specific disease eradication schemes (TSE, brucellosis tuberculosis, salmonella).
  • decisions concerning animal welfare. The official veterinarian will make sure the rules concerning animal welfare during transport and slaughter are complied with and, if necessary, take the necessary corrective measures.
  • decisions concerning meat. All meat which may constitute a danger to human health shall be declared unfit for human consumption. This includes meat from animals which have not undergone ante-mortem inspection (excluding wild game), meat from animals whose offal has not undergone post-mortem inspection, meat from animals which were dead before slaughter, stillborn, unborn or slaughtered under the age of seven days, meat from animals affected by a notifiable animal disease, meat not in conformity with the biological and radioactivity criteria, meat containing specified risk materials, chemical residues or veterinary medicinal products in excess of the permitted limits. In addition, the veterinarian may impose requirements concerning the use of meat derived from animals having undergone emergency slaughter outside the slaughterhouse.

Responsibilities and frequency of controls

The national authority shall guarantee appropriate official supervision in meat establishments. The nature and intensity of the official supervision shall be based on a regular assessment of the risks to human and animal health and the animal welfare aspects. At least one official veterinarian should be present throughout both the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections, although some flexibility may be applied in the case of some establishments slaughtering or processing game.

In order to carry out official inspections, a certain number of professional qualifications are required. The veterinarian must also pass a test organised by the competent authority, confirming candidates’ knowledge in all the areas relating to their work (in particular national and Community legislation on health, good hygiene and farming practices, HACCP principles, and relevant aspects as regards epidemiology and TSEs). Moreover, each veterinarian must have 200 hours of practical training before being allowed to work on their own.

When carrying out inspections, the official veterinarian may be assisted by official auxiliaries placed under his authority. Auxiliaries, whose tasks are clearly defined, must first have received training (at least 500 hours of theoretical training and 400 hours of practical training) which must be approved by an aptitude test covering all the subjects for which they are competent.

Moreover, Member States may authorise staff of poultry and rabbit slaughterhouses to carry out certain inspection activities normally carried out by official auxiliaries. The staff in question must have received specific prior training.

LIVE BIVALVE MOLLUSCS

The competent authority must fix the location and the boundaries of production areas for bivalve molluscs. The production areas from which harvesting of bivalve molluscs is authorised are divided into three classes:

  • Class A areas: areas from which molluscs may be collected for direct human consumption;
  • Class B areas: areas from which molluscs may be collected but may be placed on the market for human consumption only after treatment in a purification centre or after relaying;
  • Class C areas: areas from which molluscs may be collected but may be placed on the market only after relaying over a long period (at least two months), whether or not combined with purification.

In order to enable production areas to be classified the competent authority must make an inventory of the sources of pollution from human or animal origin and examine the quantities of organic pollutants released during the different periods of the year and their circulation characteristics. It must establish a sampling programme to verify the microbiological quality of the bivalve molluscs and check for the presence of toxin-producing plankton and chemical contaminants. This programme is based on sampling plans that determine the frequency of these controls.

Where the results of sampling reveal non-compliance with the essential health standards, the harvesting of molluscs shall be prohibited within the production area concerned. The production area may not be re-opened until two consecutive analyses separated by at least 48 hours produce satisfactory results.

In addition to the monitoring of relaying and production zones, a control system including laboratory tests must be set up in order to verify compliance with the requirements applicable to the end products.

FISHERY PRODUCTS

In addition to the common control requirements, specific official controls on fishery products shall be carried out at the time of landing or before first sale at an auction or wholesale market. The official controls shall include:

  • organoleptic surveillance testing;
  • total volatile basic nitrogen tests;
  • histamine testing;
  • surveillance testing for contaminants;
  • microbiological checks;
  • parasite screening tests;
  • checks for the possible presence of poisonous fish species or fish containing biotoxins.

Fishery products shall be declared unfit for human consumption if organoleptic, chemical or microbiological checks on such products reveal the presence in excessive quantities of substances dangerous to human health.

MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS

In addition to the common control requirements, specific official controls shall include:

  • Inspection of holdings. Animals must undergo regular veterinary inspections to ensure compliance with the health requirements for raw milk production (health status of the animals, use of veterinary medicinal products).
  • Control of raw milk upon collection. The competent authority shall organise control schemes in order to ensure compliance with the standards that apply to raw milk. When the raw milk fails to meet mandatory food safety criteria the competent authority may suspend the delivering of the milk in question and ask the farmer to take the necessary measures.

IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN FROM NON-EU MEMBER COUNTRIES

List of Non-EU Member Countries

The Commission, assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain, draws up lists of third countries or parts of third countries from which the importation of products of animal origin is authorised. A third country may only be listed if the country in question provides the appropriate guarantees and after a Community inspection has been carried out in the country.

Furthermore, the Commission draws up a list of establishments from which products of animal origin may be imported or dispatched. An establishment may only be listed if the competent authority in the third country of origin guarantees that the said establishment complies with the relevant Community requirements. Regular Community inspections are carried out in order to check these guarantees.

CONTEXT

This Regulation forms part of the ‘hygiene package’ – a body of law laying down hygiene rules for foodstuffs, which, in addition to this Regulation, includes the following acts:

  • Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 defining the food safety objectives to be achieved, leaving the food operators responsible for adopting the safety measures to be implemented in order to guarantee food safety;
  • Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin in order to guarantee a high level of food safety and public health.

The following acts supplement Community legislation on the hygiene of foodstuffs:

  • Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 containing general principles of food law, which explains food safety procedures and establishes the European Food Safety Authority;
  • Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 reorganising official controls on foodstuffs and feedingstuffs so as to integrate controls at all stages of production and in all sectors;
  • Directive 2002/99/EC laying down the conditions for placing products of animal origin on the market and the restrictions applicable to products from non-EU countries or regions of non-EU countries subject to animal health restrictions.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004

20.05.2004

–

OJ L 139 of 30.4.2004
Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004

20.05.2004

–

OJ L 165 of 30.4.2004

Regulation (EC) No 219/2009

20.4.2009

–

OJ L 87 of 31.3.2009

Successive amendments and corrections to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 have been incorporated in the basic text. This consolidated versionhas a purely documentary value”.

AMENDMENT OF ANNEXES

Annexe I – Fresh meat:

Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 [Official Journal L 338 of 22.12.2005];
Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 [Official Journal L 338 of 22.12.2005];
Regulation (EC) No 1663/2006 [Official Journal L 320 of 18.11.2006];
Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 [Official Journal L 636 of 20.12.2006];
Regulation (EC) No 1021/2008 [Official Journal L 277 of 18.10.2008].

Annexe II – Live bivalve molluscs:

Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 [Official Journal L 338 of 22.12.2005];
Regulation (EC) No 1021/2008 [Official Journal L 277 of 18.10.2008];
Regulation (EU) No 505/2010 [Official Journal L 149 of 15.6.2010].

Annexe III – Fishery products:
Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 [Official Journal L 338 of 22.12.2005];
Regulation (EC) No 1021/2008 [Official Journal L 277 of 18.10.2008].

Annexe IV – Raw milk, colustrum, dairy products and colostrum based products
Regulation (EC) No 1663/2006 [Official Journal L 320 of 18.11.2006].

Annexe VI – Requirements regarding certificates accompanying imports
Regulation (EC) No 1663/2006 [Official Journal L 320 of 18.11.2006].

Related Acts

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience gained from the application of the hygiene Regulations (EC) No 852/2004, (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on they hygiene of foodstuffs [COM(2009) 403 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
The Commission reviews the experience gained from the application of the aforementioned regulations. It presents the progress achieved and the difficulties encountered by all the interested actors in the implementation of the 2006 – 2008 hygiene package. It concludes that overall Member States have taken the necessary administrative and control steps to ensure compliance, but that there is still room for improvement in relation to implementation. The main difficulties identified are in relation to:

  • certain exemptions from the scope of the hygiene Regulations;
  • certain definitions laid down in these Regulations;
  • certain practical aspects concerning the approval of establishments handling foods of animal origin and the marking of such foods;
  • the import regime for certain foods;
  • the implementation of HACCP-based procedures in certain food businesses; and
  • the implementation of official controls in certain sectors.

This report does not suggest any detailed solutions. However, on the basis of the difficulties identified, the Commission will consider the need for any proposals to improve the food hygiene package.

Official feed and food controls

Leave a reply

Official feed and food controls

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Official feed and food controls

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Food safety > Animal nutrition

Official feed and food controls

Document or Iniciative

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. [See Amending Acts].

Summary

This Regulation is designed to fill in the loopholes in the existing legislation concerning the official control of food and feed thanks to a harmonised Community approach to the design and implementation of national control systems.

The purpose of this Regulation is:

  • to prevent or eliminate risks which may arise, either directly or via the environment, for human beings and animals, or reduce these risks to an acceptable level;
  • to guarantee fair practices as regards trade in food and feed and the protection of consumers’ interests, including labelling of food and feed and any other form of information intended for consumers.

Official controls are defined as “any form of control performed by the competent authority or by the Community for the verification of compliance with feed and food law, as well as animal health and animal welfare rules”.

This Regulation does not apply to official controls for the verification of compliance with the rules on common market organisations agricultural products.

OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO OFFICIAL CONTROLS

The basic principles related to responsibilities of the Member States’ authorities are already laid down in the Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, which lays down the general principles of food law. The present regulation describes in more detail how these principles must be interpreted and implemented.

The official controls carried out by the Member States must enable them to verify and ensure compliance with national and Community rules on feed and food. To this end, official controls must in principle be carried out at any stage of production, processing and distribution of feed and food. These controls are defined as a function of the identified risks, the experience and knowledge gained from previous controls, the reliability of the controls already carried out by the business operators concerned, and a suspicion of possible non-compliance.

Competent authorities

The Member States designate the competent authorities responsible for performing the official controls. These authorities must satisfy the operational criteria ensuring their effectiveness and their impartiality. They must also have the necessary equipment and suitably qualified staff (areas specified in Annex II) and have contingency pans. Internal or external audits may be carried out to ensure that the competent authorities are achieving the objectives of the Regulation.

When some of the controls are delegated to regional or local authorities, it is necessary to ensure effective cooperation between the central authority and these authorities.

The competent authority may delegate certain control tasks to non-governmental bodies provided these bodies meet the strictly defined conditions set out in this Regulation. Hence a procedure is therefore provided to define the tasks that can (or cannot) be delegated to such bodies. The adoption of coercive measures may not be delegated. The competent authority may proceed to audit or inspect the bodies to which the tasks have been delegated.

Transparency and confidentiality

The competent authorities must ensure that relevant information they hold is made available to the public, notably when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that food or feed may present a risk for human or animal health.

The staff of the competent authorities are required not to disclose information acquired when carrying out their control duties which by its nature is covered by professional secrecy.

Sampling and analysis

The methods of sampling and analysis used within the context of official controls must be fully validated in accordance with Community legislation or with internationally accepted protocols. These analysis methods must take into account the criteria set out in Annex III and must be implemented by laboratories approved to this end in compliance with the standards laid down by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

Intervention plans

Contingency plans must be prepared which set out the measures to be implemented in the event of an emergency where feed or food have been found to pose a serious risk to humans or animals either directly or through the environment. These contingency plans specify the administrative authorities to be engaged together with their powers and responsibilities.

Controls on products from Non-EU Member Countries

This regulation supplements the provisions set out in Directive 97/78/EC concerning controls applicable to feed and food of animal origin. For example, it introduces the following principles for feed and food of non-animal origin:

  • regular official controls by the Member States of feed and food of non-animal origin imported into the European Union (EU). These controls can take place at any point of the distribution of the goods: before release for free circulation or afterwards, e.g. at the importer’s premises, during processing or at the point of retail sale. There shall in any way be a close co-operation between the customs services and the competent authority;
  • at Community level, a list of at-risk feed and food must be established and updated. Such feed and food must be presented at specially designated and equipped inspection posts for the carrying out of the necessary checks. These controls must be carried out at the point of entry in the EU before the goods are released for free circulation.
  • the possibility of carrying out official controls on feed and food originating in Non-EU Member Countries which enter into free zones and free warehouses or is placed in transit, customs warehousing, inward processing, processing under customs control or temporary admission.

The abovementioned controls include at least a documentary control, an identity control and, where relevant, a physical control.

In the case that non-compliance with the legislation is ascertained, the products may be seized or confiscated, and shall be destroyed, submitted to a special treatment, or re-dispatched outside the Community; the operator responsible for the consignment in question shall be liable for the costs incurred.

Specific pre-export checks performed by a Non-EU Member Country may be approved provided they satisfy the requirements of the Community or requirements which are at least equivalent. If such an approval is granted, the frequency of the controls carried out by the Member States may be adapted.

Financing of official controls

Member States must ensure that adequate financial resources are made available for official controls.

Inspection fees are imposed on feed and food business operators, common principles must be observed for setting the level of such fees and the methods and data used for the calculation of the fees must be published or otherwise made available to the public.

When official controls reveal non-compliance with feed and food law, the extra costs that result from more intensive controls must be borne by the feed and food business operator concerned.

Certification

This proposal provides for a procedure making it possible to specify the cases and conditions in which official certification must be granted.

Reference laboratories

A number of Community Reference Laboratories (CRLs) have been established (Annex VII) under Community legislation in force. They may be entitled to EU financial support and are responsible for:

  • providing national reference laboratories with details of analytical methods;
  • organising comparative testing, coordinating within their area of competence the practical and scientific activities necessary for developing new analytical methods;
  • conducting training courses;
  • providing scientific and technical assistance to the Commission.

For each CRL, Member States must ensure that one or more national reference laboratories are designated. These function as the point of communication between the CRL and all the official laboratories in the Member States.

ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES

Assistance and cooperation

When the official controls require action by more than one Member State, the competent authorities must afford each other administrative assistance. This assistance may involve active cooperation, including participation in on-the-spot controls carried out by experts from one Member State in another Member State.

Each Member State must designate a single liaison body whose role is to assist and coordinate the communication, transmission and reception of requests for assistance. Where it receives a reasoned request (existence of a serious risk), the liaison body contacts the authorities concerned and ensures that the requesting authority is provided with all necessary information and documents enabling the latter to verify compliance with the law.

When the competent authority of a Member State receives information from a Non-EU Member Country, that authority must pass that information on to the competent authorities of the Member State which might be interested in it.

Administrative assistance applies to the exchange of all information, except that which cannot be released because of it being the subject of legal proceedings or because it may adversely affect the commercial interests of natural or legal persons.

National Control Plans

The Member States must prepare an integrated multi-annual national control plan. This plan, whose implementation must begin by 1 January 2007 at the latest, sets out the national control system and activities in a global and comprehensive way. The plan will have to be developed along the lines that are contained in guidelines to be established by the Commission in consultation with the Member States.

One year after starting the implementation of the national control plans, and subsequently every year, the Member States must submit to the Commission a report indicating an update of their initial control plan. The Commission must establish a general report on the overall operation of the official control systems on the basis of the national reports and the results of the audits which it has carried out. It passes this report on to the European Parliament and the Council and publishes it.

Community controls in the Member States

Until now, Community controls in the Member States were organised in function of the mandates the Commission has in the different sectoral Directives.. The creation of a single legal basis with this Regulation and the establishment of control plans will allow the EU control services to perform a general audit of the Member States’ control systems globally. If needed, these inspections and national audits performed by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) can be supplemented by more specific audits and inspections for a particular sector or problem. For each control carried out, the Commission establishes a report on its findings and, where appropriate, this report contains recommendations which must be followed up by the Member States.

This Regulation also provides that Commission experts may carry out controls in Non-EU Member Countries and require that these countries have control plans comparable with those of the Member States in respect of the products they export to the European Union. These plans must be technically and economically feasible taking account of specific situation of the Non-EU Member Country as well as the nature of the products exported to the Community.

Non-EU Member Country controls in Member States

Non-EU Member Countries which wish to export goods to the EU must provide the Commission with information on the organisation and general management of their health surveillance systems. If this information is not satisfactory, provisional measures may be taken by the Commission after consulting the country concerned.

The Commission must take account of the lists drawn up pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. For other types of products the Commission may eventually draw up comparable lists or adopt other measures (certificates, special import conditions, etc.).

Training of control officials

There must be a Community framework for training control staff in the Member States in order to ensure a uniform level of the decisions taken by such staff Hence the Commission may organise training courses relating to legislation, control measures and techniques, the manufacture, processing and marketing of food and feed.

Non-EU Member Country controls in the Member States

The authorities of Non-EU Member Countries may organise controls in the Member States, accompanied where appropriate by representatives of the FVO, who can assist Member States by providing information and data that are available at Community level and that may be useful in the context of the Non-EU Member Country control carried out.

National enforcement measures

Where non-compliance is ascertained during official controls, the competent authority concerned must take appropriate measures taking into account the nature of the non-compliance and that operator’s past record with regard to non-compliance. This may involve administrative measures (withdrawal from the market or destruction of a product, closure of a business or suspension of an establishment’s approved status, etc.) or penalties. These penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Community enforcement measures

This regulation adds a new dimension to the safeguard measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, hence allowing the Commission to take measures when there is proof that a Member State’s control system is inadequate. These may include the suspension of the placing on the market of certain feed or foodstuffs or the laying down of special conditions for certain feed or foodstuffs. These measures are taken if Community controls have shown non-compliance with Community legislation and the Member State concerned has failed to correct the situation upon request and within the time limit set by the Commission.

BACKGROUND

In January 2000 the Commission presented a complete overhaul of the legislation concerning food hygiene and veterinary issues. The overhaul contained four proposals, on the following subjects:

  • food hygiene;
  • the rules related to hygiene for food of animal origin;
  • official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption;
  • animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption ;
  • official controls of food and feed, which are the subject of this information sheet.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004

20.05.2004

–

OJ L 165 of 30.04.2004

Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 [Official Journal L 314 of 1.12.2009].
Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 grants additional time to laboratories located in slaughterhouses carrying out official testing for Trichinella to obtain full accreditation. The granting of the exception is subject to compliance with certain conditions. In particular, the laboratories in question must demonstrate that they have taken steps in view of their accreditation and offer satisfactory guarantees regarding the quality of the analyses they carry out.

Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Regulation (EC) No 1029/2008

10.11.2008

–

OJ L 278 of 21.10.2008
Regulation (EC) No

596/2009

7.8.2009

–

OJ L 188 of 18.7.2009

The successive amendments and corrections to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 have been incorporated into the original text. This consolidated versionis of documentary value only.

Related Acts

Commission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces [Official Journal L 296 of 12.11.2009].
See consolidated version

Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC [Official Journal L 194 of 25.7.2009].
See consolidated version

Organ donation and transplantation in the European Union

Leave a reply

Organ donation and transplantation in the European Union

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Organ donation and transplantation in the European Union

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Public health > Threats to health

Organ donation and transplantation in the European Union

Organ transplantation remains essential for the treatment of certain diseases. However, several factors must be taken into consideration where this therapeutic method is concerned: the risk of transmission of disease, the limited supply of organs and organ trafficking. This communication therefore aims to present the various potential options to ensure the quality and safety of organs, increase their availability and combat organ trafficking.

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 30 May 2007 entitled “Organ donation and transplantation: Policy actions at EU level” [COM(2007) 275 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

During the past decades, organ transplantation has increased and become widespread. It is a form of treatment that is indispensable for certain diseases, and the results in terms of life years gained and improvement in quality of life are often positive.

Nonetheless, organ donation and transplantation are sensitive topics, dealt with differently throughout the EU in accordance with the cultural values and legal, administrative and organisational issues of each Member State.

Moreover, these topics present three major obstacles that the Commission intends to deal with. These are the risk of transmission of disease, the limited supply of organs and organ trafficking.

The Commission therefore plans measures to improve the quality and safety of organs, increase their availability in the EU and combat organ trafficking.

Improving quality and safety

HIV, hepatitis B and C, bacteria, fungi, parasites and various types of cancer can be transmitted when an organ is transplanted. The transmission of disease by a donor organ can result in the death of the recipient.

It is therefore essential that measures be introduced into every stage of the transplant process in order to improve the quality and safety of organs. A risk-benefit analysis must be carried out so that the organs can be allocated to suitable recipients.

This entails defining the risks to which the recipient is exposed in view of his/her characteristics and the profile of the donor, and determining the consequences of not performing transplantation. Following this analysis, a rational decision will be taken concerning the transplantation.

There is also a need for effective transportation of organs to avoid their deterioration. While maintaining medical confidentiality, the organ container must be labelled and contain the necessary documentation.

It is important to ensure traceability from the donor to the recipient. Any transplantation system must also be able to highlight unexpected complications and detect serious or unexpected adverse events.

Given that an organ donor is often also a tissue donor, the quality and safety requirements for organs will be associated with the existing community system for tissues and cells.

It is essential to set up systems for the authorisation of establishments and programmes of organ donation based on common quality and safety criteria.

However, the legislation concerning quality and safety differs from one Member State to another. A high level of protection for patients must therefore be ensured throughout the EU.

Increasing the availability of organs

The Member States are facing a serious shortage of organ donors on the one hand and an increase in the demand for organs on the other.

Rates of donors differ from one Member State to another. These differences may stem from cultural, social and historical factors in each country, and the organisational characteristics of the donation system and certain aspects of their health service.

Furthermore, families are not always made aware of the possibility of making a donation, and many potential donors are lost because they are not registered as such. The establishment of an effective system making it possible to find people who can become donors after their death thus remains essential to increase the rate of donations. This system must ensure that the organs of people who wish to become donors will really be available.

Training and employing health professionals involved in organising the donation process and identifying people who could become donors after their death has resulted in an increase in organ donations in several Member States.

Another method of increasing the number of donors is to encourage donations from living donors. These have increased in recent years, particularly because the risk to donors is low and the results of the transplants have been positive.

Donors who are not ideal because of disease and a history of malignancy (“marginal donors”) can also be taken into consideration under certain circumstances.

Raising public awareness also has a role to play in increasing donations. Society still does not take a positive view of organ donations, and some families refuse to donate the organs of deceased relatives. However, messages can influence individuals’ decisions. Effective communication therefore needs to be established. The help of communication experts is important here, and the media and health professionals need to have a better knowledge of transplantation issues.

Another way of raising public awareness is the use of a European donor card stating whether the holder wishes to donate his/her organs or not.

Fighting organ trafficking

Criminal organisations have recognised the lucrative opportunity presented by the gap between the supply of and demand for organs. As a consequence, such organisations may induce poor people to sell their organs.

Several international and Community legal instruments condemn and outlaw organ trafficking, such as the European Charter on Fundamental Rights and the Oviedo Treaty on Human Rights and Biomedicine and its Additional Protocol on the Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin.

The Commission makes frequent reference to these instruments.

Follow-up actions

The Commission aims to make transplantation systems more efficient and more accessible. It is therefore necessary to identify the most efficient systems at EU level, promote best practice and help countries with less-developed systems to improve these.

It will also encourage the Member States to work together on establishing efficient systems aimed at identifying individuals who can become donors after their death, promoting training for professionals, encouraging donations from living donors and evaluating the use of organs from “marginal donors”.

The Commission proposes two mechanisms for action: an action plan on strengthened cooperation between Member States and a legal instrument on quality and safety of organ donation and transplantation.

The action plan will enable countries to increase organ donations and to provide fair access to transplantation, as well as exchanging expertise to improve organisational aspects.

As far as the legal instrument is concerned, a European directive setting standards of quality and safety for organs could be adopted. This instrument could, among other things, include quality and safety standards for the authorisation of establishments and programmes of organ donation, ensure a complete characterisation of the organ and establish authorisation structures.

Related Acts

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation [ – Not published in the Official Journal].

This Proposal for a Directive on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation lays down rules aiming to ensure high standards of quality and safety for organs intended for transplantation into the human body.

It applies to the:

  • donation;
  • procurement;
  • testing;
  • characterisation;
  • preservation;
  • transport;
  • and transplantation of organs.

To achieve that objective, the Proposal plans to rely on national quality programmes which ensure the traceability of organs at each stage in the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal.

Member States shall ensure that procurement of organs takes place in specialised procurement organisations and facilities. All organs must be characterised before transplantation.

Member States shall also attend to the conditions of transport of organs, ensuring traceability from donor to recipient. Their responsibility shall also extend to the personnel and the systems for the reporting of serious adverse effects and reactions.

It is also reiterated that organ donation must be voluntary and unpaid. Member States must provide donors with all the information necessary while guaranteeing their right to anonymity.

Member States shall designate the relevant competent authorities. The latter shall be responsible in particular for controlling the procurement organisations or transplantation centres and for supervising the exchanges of organs with other countries.

Codecision procedure ()

Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells [Official Journal L 102, 07.04.2004].

Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC [Official Journal L 33, 08.02.2003].

Overall strategic approach

Leave a reply

Overall strategic approach

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Overall strategic approach

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Fight against fraud > Protecting the European Union’s financial interests

Overall strategic approach

Document or Iniciative

Commission communication of 28 June 2000 – Protection of the Communities’ financial interests – The fight against fraud – For an overall strategic approach [COM (2000) 358 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

Given that the protection of the Community budget is the responsibility of the European institutions and the Member States, the Commission’s aim in this communication is to develop an overall strategic approach based on coordination, the key concept of Article 280 of the EC Treaty, with a view to affording effective and equivalent protection of financial interests Community-wide.

Since 1994, the Community approach to the fight against fraud has been pro-active and designed to develop a legislative framework covering all areas of protection of financial interests. This framework includes:

  • the convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (1995) and its Protocols of 1996 and 1997;
  • the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union (1997);
  • the Regulation relating to the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (1995) and the Regulation concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities’ financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (1996);
  • the establishment of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in 1999.

In addition, the Commission, in response to its White Paper on reform, has decentralised the financial control function, set up an internal audit service and established working groups involving OLAF and all Commission departments.

Enlargement, the area of freedom, security and justice referred to in the Treaty of Amsterdam and the gradual abolition of national borders call for an overall and integrated approach based on a strengthened culture of cooperation.

Strategic guidelines

As part of this overall approach, the Commission is proposing a multiannual strategy around four main strategic guidelines to meet the principal challenges.

The first of these relates to an overall legislative anti-fraud policy in four parts:

  • prevention by means of clear and easily applicable legislation and including sufficiently dissuasive provisions. The Commission also hopes to increase the accountability of officials and is proposing that OLAF, the national authorities and professional circles be involved in prevention;
  • 0detection by strengthening the means and legal instruments for detection, controls and sanctions. The Commission therefore recommends continuing the effort to define precisely irregular conduct and illegal activities with a view to facilitating cooperation and the effective application of penalties. At the same time, it advocates extending information exchanges and control measures, in particular in connected or especially vulnerable sectors such as money laundering, public procurement and the granting of subsidies. This is to be backed up by an extended system of administrative penalties;
  • follow-up by ensuring more effective management of administrative and financial follow-up in order inter alia to improve the recovery of unduly received or evaded amounts. The financial correction instruments at the Community’s disposal should also be applied with the aim of motivating Member States to put in place effective national control systems;
  • cooperation in order to establish a single legal basis for combating fraud with a view to simplifying and clarifying the rules on participation in national investigations. Provision also needs to be made for a cooperation and mutual assistance system to fight fraud that is similar to that which already exists in certain areas such as the agricultural and customs policies, while cooperation with applicant countries and non-member countries needs to be strengthened.

The second challenge is to create a new culture of operational cooperation. The Commission is attempting to become more pro-active in its activities on the ground. This involves having an overall view of the economic and criminal environment and enhancing the exploitation and analysis of intelligence. For that purpose, technology and the information sources available must be improved and, in particular, OLAF must serve as a crossroads for gathering and analysing information and as a Community platform of services. Strengthened cooperation with the applicant countries is mentioned again. Lastly, the Commission undertakes to pursue a policy of permanent evaluation of anti-fraud action in order to measure the progress made.

The third challenge is to adopt an inter-institutional approach to prevent and combat corruption. The credibility of Community policies must be strengthened by safeguarding the integrity of the European public service and of the members of the institutions. OLAF must:

  • cooperate closely on the basis of loyal cooperation and consistency of the duties of each of the participants in the fight against fraud;
  • contribute more to training measures focusing on training and awareness-raising activities involving all staff, in particular those responsible for procurement or grants and providing a system of values;
  • encourage transparency and the duty to communicate;
  • complement its task of conducting administrative investigations with fair and effective penalties. Office action will have to be geared to the objective of “zero tolerance” and compliance with information obligations will be crucial for its effectiveness.

The fourth and last challenge is to enhance the criminal judicial dimension. National criminal policies should be adapted to the new Treaty provisions and assistance sought from the European institutions to improve the cooperation function. The Community already possesses the legal instruments to improve the detection of offences and provide the national judicial authorities with the means to process cases of fraud under criminal law. However, they are often not used because of obstacles such as the non-compatibility of national legal systems or technical specifications.

Lastly, in order to resolve problems arising from the various national systems regarding criminal offences linked to fraud, the conditions under which judicial assistance operates must be improved. OLAF must therefore develop its liaison and expertise function in this area.

Related Acts

Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2007 – Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2006 [COM(2007) 390 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
This report, which has been produced by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States, presents the measures taken in 2006 to meet the obligations provided for in Article 280 of the EC Treaty. It contains statistics concerning irregularities reported by Member States and gives an account of the measures taken and results obtained in preventing and fighting fraud and in recovering amounts not collected or wrongly paid. In particular, the report covers four specific areas: risk analysis and management; debarment and early-warning databases; warning systems involving internal informers; and mechanisms for recovery by offsetting.

Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council of 12 July 2006 – Protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2005 [COM(2006) 378 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
In this report the European Commission evaluates its overall strategic approach for the protection of the Communities’ financial interests in the five years 2001-2005. Overall, implementation of the programmed objectives and actions was satisfactory. The report summarises the statistics on fraud and other irregularities notified by the Member States and records the measures taken by the Member States in 2005 and the Commission’s efforts to improve the effectiveness of OLAF. It also contains a section on improving the recovery of amounts not levied or wrongly paid out. The report also covers the issue of certifying the accounts.

Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council of 19 July 2005 – Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2004 [COM(2005) 323 final/2 – Not published in the Official Journal].
This report presents the activities of the European Community and its Member States in combating fraud. To make the report easier to read, Community and national measures are now set out in parallel by topic (rather than in two separate parts). The report covers the salient features of the year’s activities, such as enlargement of the EU and the reform of OLAF. It sums up the statistical situation regarding irregularities reported and the position as regards public information on the fight against fraud. Part of the report is devoted to mutual assistance in customs and agricultural matters. And the Commission presents measures to improve the recovery of sums not collected or paid unduly.

Objective 1

Leave a reply

Objective 1

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Objective 1

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Provisions and instruments of regional policy

Objective 1

The main goal of regional policy in the European Union is economic and social cohesion. This is based on financial solidarity, whereby more than 35 % of the Union’s budget is transferred to the less-favoured regions (EUR 213 billion in 2000-06). Those regions in the Union lagging behind in their development, undergoing restructuring or facing specific geographical, economic or social problems are to be put in a better position to cope with their difficulties and to benefit fully from the opportunities offered by the single market.

The amount of support that regions receive through the EU’s regional policy depends on their level of development and the type of difficulties they are facing. The Structural Fund regulations for 2000-06 provide, in particular, for three priority objectives:

  • Objective 1: to promote the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind;
  • Objective 2: to support the economic and social conversion of areas experiencing structural difficulties;
  • Objective 3: to support the adaptation and modernisation of education, training and employment policies and systems in regions not eligible under Objective 1.

This information sheet concerns Objective 1 only. The other Objectives are the subject of separate sheets.

GEOGRAPHICAL ELIGIBILITY

Objective 1 is “regionalised”, meaning that it applies to designated NUTS level II areas in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics developed by Eurostat. Of these geographical areas, only those with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) lower than 75 % of the Community average are eligible under Objective 1.

Objective 1 also covers specific categories of regions:

  • the seven “most remote regions”, whose position is unique within the Union due to their remoteness from the European continent and their modest demographic and economic importance. These regions are the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion, French Guiana, the Azores and Madeira.
  • the areas in Sweden and Finland eligible under the former Objective 6 during 1994-99, which specifically assisted regions with a very low population density. The areas concerned are in the regions of North-Central Sweden, Central Norrland and Upper Norrland in Sweden, and North, Central and East Finland.
  • Northern Ireland receives special Community assistance to promote reconciliation between the communities and the emergence of a stable and peaceful society. First set up as a Community Initiative in 1994-99, the Peace II operational programme (2000-04) is now an integral part of Objective 1 and receives financial assistance worth EUR 500 million.

In all, some 60 regions in 13 Member States are eligible under Objective 1 for 2000-06. There is also transitional support for regions which were eligible under Objective 1 in 1994-99 but are no longer eligible in 2000-06. Commission Decision 1999/502/EC of 1 July 1999 [OJ L194, 27.07.1999] lays down the list of eligible regions, valid for seven years from 1 January 2000.

Member State Regions eligible under Objective 1 or receiving transitional support
Germany Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia; transitional support: East Berlin
Austria Burgenland
Belgium Transitional support: Hainault
Spain Galicia, Asturias, Castile-Leon, Castile-La Mancha, Extramadura, Valencia, Andalusia, Murcia, Ceuta-Melilla, the Canary Islands; transitional support: Cantabria
Finland East Finland, (part of) Central Finland, (part of) North Finland
France Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion; transitional support: Corsica and the districts of Valenciennes, Douai and Avesnes
Greece East Macedonia, Thrace, Central Macedonia, West Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Ionian Islands, Western Greece, Continental Greece, Peloponnese, Attica, North Aegean, South Aegean, Crete (i.e. the entire country)
Ireland Border, Midlands and Western; transitional support: Southern, Eastern
Italy Campania, Apulia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicily, Sardinia
transitional support: Molise
Netherlands Transitional support: Flevoland
Portugal North, Centre, Alentejo, Algarve, Azores, Madeira;
transitional support: Lisbon and Tagus valley
United Kingdom South Yorkshire, West Wales & the Valleys, Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, Merseyside; transitional support: Northern Ireland, Highlands and Islands
Sweden (Parts of) North-Central Sweden, (parts of) Central Norrland, (parts of) Upper Norrland

PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS

Programming is an essential part of implementing EU regional policy. The first stage is for the Member States to present regional development plans. These include a precise description of the economic and social situation of the country by region, a description of the most appropriate strategy for achieving the stated development objectives and indications on the use and form of the financial contribution from the Structural Funds.

The Member States submit programming documents to the Commission, following its general guidelines. In the case of Objective 1, these programming documents generally take the form of:

  • Community support frameworks (CSFs) translated into Operational Programmes (OPs). CSFs and OPs are the programming documents recommended for Objective 1. They describe the socio-economic context of the country or regions concerned and set out the development priorities and goals to be achieved. They also lay down the arrangements for financial management, monitoring, evaluation and control. The OPs detail the various priorities of the CSF for a given region or development priority, such as transport, training, business support, etc.
    For Objective 1, Germany, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) have all opted to draw up a CSF and OPs.
    You can consult the CSFs and OPs of the regions eligible under Objective 1 or receiving transitional support on the Inforegio site of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy.
  • Single programming documents (SPDs). For the purposes of Objective 1, SPDs are used to programme spending of less than 1 billion. SPDs are single documents gathering together the data contained in a Community support framework and operational programme: the programme’s priorities, a short description of the proposed measures and an indicative financing plan.
    Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Sweden have opted for this formula for Objective 1.
    You can consult the SPDs of the regions eligible under Objective 1 and receiving transitional support on the Inforegio site of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy.

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Funding

213 billion will be available to finance structural assistance in the European Union in 2000-06. Of that amount, 195 billion are allocated to the Structural Funds. Since assistance must be concentrated on the regions with the greatest difficulties, Objective 1 has the largest allocation, accounting for approximately 70 % of Structural Fund appropriations, i.e. 137 billion over seven years.

All the Structural Funds (the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF Guidance Section and the FIFG) contribute to financing Objective 1.

The allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for Objective 1 of the Structural Funds and transitional support is set out in Commission Decision 1999/501/EC [Official Journal L194 of 27.7.1999]. The allocation is as follows:

Member State Objective 1
(in million)		 Transitional support
(in million)
Germany 19 229 729
Austria 261 0
Belgium 0 625
Spain 37 744 352
Finland 913 0
France 3 254 551
Greece 20 961 0
Ireland 1 315 1 773
Italy 21 935 187
Netherlands 0 123
Portugal 16 124 2 905
United Kingdom 5 085 1 166
Sweden 722 0

Contribution of the Funds

As a rule, the contribution of the Structural Funds under Objective 1 is subject to the following ceilings: no more than 75 % of the total eligible volume and, as a general rule, at least 50 % of eligible public expenditure. The rate can be increased to 80 % for regions situated in a Member State eligible for assistance from the Cohesion Fund (Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal). Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/2001 [OJ L198 of 21.7.2001] sets this ceiling even higher, at 85 %, for all the most remote regions and the smaller Greek islands in the Aegean.

In the case of investment in firms, the contribution of the Funds is subject to the ceilings on the rate of aid and on combinations of aid set in the field of state aids.

In cases where assistance involves financing investments that will generate income (such as bridges or toll motorways), the contribution of the Funds is determined in the light of the expected revenue. Under Objective 1, the contribution of the Funds is subject to the following ceilings:

  • In the case of investments in infrastructure generating substantial income, assistance may not exceed 40 % of the eligible total volume, increased by a further 10 % in the Member States eligible for assistance from the Cohesion Fund. These rates can be supplemented by forms of financing other than direct aid for up to 10 % of the total eligible total.
  • Contributions to investments in businesses may not exceed 35 % of the total eligible volume (50 % in the most remote regions and the smaller islands of the Aegean). In the case of investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), these rates can be increased by up to 10 % of the eligible total volume for indirect forms of financing.

Results of programming under Objective 1 for 2000-06

The results of programming under Objective 1 for 2000-06 are set out in the communication COM(2001) 378 final [not published in the Official Journal]. These results shed light on the following points:

  • Disparities between the eligible regions and the rest of the European Union remain considerable despite the progress achieved over the previous period, as described in the Second Report on economic and social cohesion. Assistance should enable the economies concerned to continue to catch up.
  • The indicative guidelines adopted by the Commission in July 1999 provided a useful basis on which to negotiate the plans and programmes with the Member States. There has been a greater effort to concentrate assistance on the four priority areas in the Objective 1 regions: infrastructure, research and innovation, the information society and the development of human resources.
  • The effectiveness of assistance is closely dependent on compliance with the rules on implementing and managing the programmes. The Member States in partnership with the Commission have made considerable progress in setting up systems for more rigorous monitoring, surveillance and evaluation.
  • The chief difficulties were: 1) the five-month period allowed for negotiating programming documents proved to be too short (average time taken estimated at eight months), and 2) the programming complement has sometimes been regarded as a separate phase of programming although its role is to clarify the content of the programme priorities.

Economic impact of assistance under Objective 1 in 2000-06

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy has produced a new study (pdf ) on the economic impact of the Structural Funds in the main areas eligible under Objective 1 (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, the Mezzogiorno in Italy and the east German Länder) for 2000-06. The main results of this analysis are as follows:

  • the Objective 1 programmes appear to have a significant impact on the level of GDP and fixed capital formation.
    Total GDP appears to be 3.5 % higher in Portugal and 2.4 % higher in Greece than it would be without EU assistance. This increase is 1.7 % in the Mezzogiorno and 1.6 % in the east German Länder.
  • Over the whole period and for all the regions covered by the study, almost 700 000 jobs are benefiting from Community support.
  • Community contributions should bring about additional annual growth in the GDP of just over 0.4 % in Portugal and just under 0.4 % in Greece.
  • A large share of transfers would appear to leave the beneficiary areas (leakage effect) as equipment, goods and services are brought in from outside.
    On average, for every 4 spent under Objective 1, more than 1 is spent on imports from other Member States, and 9 % of such imports come from non-member countries.
  • The Objective 1 programmes should help the economies of the six more backward regions covered by the study to catch up and restructure.
    Industrial production should increase in absolute terms, with the GDP share of agriculture and the processing of agricultural products falling and the share of services increasing.

Related Acts

Proposal of 14 July 2004 for a Council Regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund [COM(2004) 494 final – Not published in the Official Journal]
As part of the reform of regional policy, in July 2004 the Commission presented a package of proposals for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and the Cohesion Fund. The basic reference document containing the general provisions for these proposals sets a total budget of EUR 62.99 billion for the Cohesion Fund, accounting for 23.86 % of the total budget of EUR 264 billion for the “Convergence” objective, which replaces the former Objective 1. The Cohesion Fund will finance up to 85 % of public spending on projects under this new objective.

Objective 2

Leave a reply

Objective 2

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Objective 2

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Provisions and instruments of regional policy

Objective 2

The main goal of regional policy in the European Union is economic and social cohesion. This is based on financial solidarity, whereby more than 35 % of the Union’s budget is transferred to the less-favoured regions (EUR 213 billion in 2000-06 plus EUR 21.74 billion approved for the ten new Member States). Those regions in the Union lagging behind in their development, undergoing restructuring or facing specific geographical, economic or social problems are to be put in a better position to cope with their difficulties and to benefit fully from the opportunities offered by the single market.

The amount of support that regions receive through the EU’s regional policy depends on their level of development and the type of difficulties they are facing. The Structural Fund regulations for 2000-06 provide, in particular, for three priority objectives:

  • : to promote the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind;
  • Objective 2: to support the economic and social conversion of areas experiencing structural difficulties;
  • : to support the adaptation and modernisation of education, training and employment policies and systems in regions not eligible under Objective 1.

This information sheet concerns Objective 2 only. The other Objectives are the subject of separate sheets.

GEOGRAPHICAL ELIGIBILITY

The reform of the Structural Funds under Agenda 2000 recommends concentrating structural assistance on the most pressing development problems. The new Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for 2000-06 brings together the former Objectives 2 (conversion of declining industrial regions) and 5(b) (development of rural areas) from 1994-99.

Like Objective 1, Objective 2 is “regionalised”, meaning that it applies to areas defined according to specific statistical and socio-economic criteria. Since the regions covered by this Objective are facing structural difficulties, the Community assistance they receive is intended to support their economic and social conversion. Eligibility depends on a population ceiling, and on criteria specific to each area. An exhaustive list is then drawn up of the eligible regions.

Population ceiling

The population of all the areas eligible for Objective 2 of the Structural Funds may not be more than 18 % of the total population of the Community, i.e. no less than two thirds of the population previously covered by Objectives 2 and 5(b). Following enlargement, for the ten new Member States the ceiling is 31 % of the population of all the NUTS II regions covered by Objective 2 in each of those countries. Decision 1999/503/EC [Official Journal L 194 of 27.7.1999] of 1 July 1999 requires the Commission to set a ceiling in each Member State on the population eligible for Objective 2 in 2000-06. These ceilings are as follows:

Member State Population
(million inhabitants)		 % of the national population
Germany 10.30 13
Austria 1.99 25
Belgium 1.27 12
Denmark 0.54 10
Spain 8.81 22
Finland 1.58 31
France 18.77 31
Italy 7.4 13
Luxembourg 0.11 28
Netherlands 2.33 15
United Kingdom 13.84 24
Sweden 1.22 14
European Union 68.17 18

The Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the ten new Member States [OJ L 236, 23.9.2003] contains the ceilings for those countries for the period 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2006. Only three of those countries have population ceilings for obtaining aid under Objective 2. They are:

  • the Czech Republic: 0.37 million inhabitants
  • Slovakia: 0.19 million inhabitants
  • Cyprus: 0.21 million inhabitants

Criteria specific to each type of area

The areas eligible under Objective 2 are those undergoing socio-economic change in the industrial and service sectors, declining rural areas, urban areas in difficulty and depressed areas dependent on fisheries. The criteria for defining them are as follows.

Areas undergoing socio-economic change in the industrial and service sectors:

  • These areas must correspond to a NUTS level III territorial unit in the nomenclature developed by Eurostat.
  • Their average unemployment rate recorded over the three years before 1999 must have been higher than the Community average.
  • They must have a percentage share of industrial employment in total employment equal to or greater than the Community average in any reference year from 1985 onwards.
  • Industrial employment must have been falling constantly for several years.

Geographical areas whose population or area is significant, which meet the above criteria and are adjacent to an industrial area are also eligible.

These areas undergoing socio-economic change in the industrial and service sectors continue to suffer job losses, not only in the traditional industries (textiles, cars, coal and steel) but also in services. The development of new activities and retraining of workers are strongly encouraged.

Declining rural areas:

  • These areas must correspond to a NUTS level III territorial unit in the nomenclature developed by Eurostat.
  • They must have either a population density of less than 100 people per km², or a percentage share of agricultural employment in total employment which is at least double the Community average in any reference year from 1985 onwards.
  • They must have either an average unemployment rate recorded over the three years before 1999 that is above the Community average, or a decline in population since 1985.

Rural areas with serious socio-economic problems arising from the ageing of or decline in the agricultural working population may also be eligible.

Rural areas are undergoing radical change. Farming is no longer a major source of employment but continues to occupy most rural land. Revitalising these areas and maintaining the population there requires new competitive activities and closer links with urban centres.

Urban areas in difficulty are densely populated areas that meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • a rate of long-term unemployment higher than the Community average;
  • a high level of poverty, including poor housing conditions;
  • a particularly damaged environment;
  • a high rate of crime and antisocial behaviour;
  • low educational standards among the population.

The urban issue is at the heart of economic, social and territorial change. Towns and cities have a high degree of development potential and cooperate among themselves in networks. But they are also home to many disparities in development, as witnessed by the existence of depressed districts where social exclusion and poverty are rife. However, although our towns and cities exert high pressure on the environment, they nevertheless play a role as vectors of development for surrounding rural areas.

Depressed areas dependent on fisheries are coastal areas with a significant number of jobs in the fisheries industry as a percentage of total employment. They are also facing structural socio-economic problems relating to the restructuring of the fisheries sector, which has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of jobs in that sector.

Objective 2, therefore, concerns four types of geographical area. Areas facing or threatened by serious structural problems or a high level of unemployment arising from an ongoing or planned restructuring in agriculture, industry or the services sector are also eligible. Where there is a serious crisis in a region, the Commission may act on a proposal from a Member State to amend the list of areas during 2003, provided this does not increase the population covered within each region.

List of eligible regions

As a first step, each Member State draws up its own indicative list of significant areas, which it submits to the Commission together with the statistics and other information, at the most appropriate geographical level, needed to evaluate the proposals. The Commission, in close consultation with the Member States, then draws up the definitive list of areas eligible under Objective 2 for 2000-06 for each Member State of the European Union. The decisions containing these lists are available on the Inforegio website of the Directorate-General for regional policy:

Member State Decision Official Journal
Germany Decision 2000/201/EC OJ L66 of 14.3.2000
Austria Decision 2000/289/EC

(amended by Decision 2000/607/EC)		 OJ L99 of 19.04.2000
(Official Journal L 258 of 12.10.2000)
Belgium Decision 2000/119/EC OJ L39 of 14.02.2000
Denmark Decision 2000/121/EC OJ L39 of 14.02.2000
Spain Decision 2000/264/EC OJ L84 of 05.04.2000
Finland Decision 2000/120/EC OJ L39 of 14.02.2000
France Decision 2000/339/EC

(amended by Decision 2000/607/EC)

(amended by Decision 2003/679/EC)		 OJ L123 of 24.05.2000
(OJ L258 of 12.10.2000)
(Official Journal L 249 of 01.10.2003)
Italy Decision 2000/530/EC

(amended by Decision 2001/363/EC)		 OJ L223 of 04.09.2000
(OJ L129, 11.05.2001)
Luxembourg Decision 2000/277/EC OJ L87 of 08.04.2000
Netherlands Decision 2000/118/EC OJ L39 of 14.02.2000
United Kingdom Decision 2000/290/EC

(amended by Decision 2001/201/EC)		 OJ L99 of 19.04.2000
(OJ L78, 16.03.2001)
Sweden Decision 2000/220/EC OJ L69 of 17.03.2000

Greece, Ireland and Portugal are not concerned by Objective 2, since their entire territory is covered by Objective 1. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia are in the same situation.

Transitional support is also available for EU 15 regions which were eligible for the former Objectives 2 and 5(b) in 1994-99 but which do not qualify for Objective 2 in 2000-06. This transitional support, which decreases over time, is granted to prevent a sudden interruption in financial assistance from the Structural Funds and consolidate the progress achieved during the previous programming period. It is granted for six years, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005. The transitional support for these areas is provided by the ERDF. They may also receive assistance from the EAGGF Guarantee Section for rural development, from the FIFG under the common fisheries policy, or from the European Social Fund (ESF) under Objective 3 for structural conversion.

PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS

Programming is an essential part of implementing EU regional policy. The first stage is for the Member States to present regional development plans. These include a precise description of the economic and social situation of the country by region, a description of the most appropriate strategy for achieving the stated development objectives and indications on the use and form of the financial contribution from the Structural Funds.

The Member States then submit programming documents to the Commission, following its general guidelines. In the case of Objective 2, these programming documents take the form of single programming documents (SPDs).

. The Objective 2 SPDs coordinate all Community structural assistance, including rural development measures but not including assistance for human resources granted under Objective 3. These documents describe the strategy and priorities selected and provide a short description of the proposed measures and an indicative financing plan showing the eligible public/private financing. They also lay down the arrangements for financial management, monitoring, evaluation and control. In all, 96 regional programmes are being implemented in the 12 Member States covered by Objective 2. You can consult summaries of the SPDs on the Inforegio website of the Directorate-General for regional policy.

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Funding

For 2000-06, the allocation to the Structural Funds is EUR 195 billion, to which must be added EUR 14.1559 billion for the ten new Member States for the period from accession to 31 December 2006. The allocation for Objective 2 is EUR 22.5 billion over seven years (11.5 % of the total) for the old Member States and EUR 0.12 billion over two and a half years for the new Member States (0.86 % of the total allocated to those countries), shared between the ERDF and the ESF, with EUR 2.721 billion earmarked for transitional support.

The Cohesion Fund grants assistance only to Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain, i.e. the countries whose gross domestic product (GDP) is less than 90 % of the Community average. It finances operations in the fields of environment and transport. Since the whole of Greece, Portugal and Ireland are eligible under Objective 1, only certain regions of Spain eligible under Objective 2 (Aragon, the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Rioja, Madrid, Navarre and the Basque Country) also receive assistance from the Cohesion Fund.

Commission Decision 1999/504/EC of 1 July 1999 [Official Journal L 194 of 27.7.1999] fixes an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for 2000-06 as shown below:

Member State Objective 2
(million)		 Transitional support
(million)
Germany 2 984 526
Austria 578 102
Belgium 368 65
Denmark 156 27
Spain 2 553 98
Finland 459 30
France 5 437 613
Italy 2 145 377
Luxembourg 34 6
Netherlands 676 119
United Kingdom 3 989 706
Sweden 354 52
European Union 19 733 2 721

For the new Member States, the allocation for Objective 2 represents 0.86 % of the resources of the Structural Funds. The indicative allocation of commitment appropriations is the following:

  • Czech Republic: EUR 63.3 million
  • Slovakia: EUR 33 million
  • Cyprus: EUR 24. billion

Contribution of the Funds

As a general rule, the contribution of the Structural Funds under Objective 2 is subject to the following ceilings: no more than 50 % of the total eligible volume and at least 25 % of eligible public expenditure.

In the case of investment in firms, the contribution of the Funds is subject to the ceilings on the rate of aid and on combinations of aid laid down in the field of state aids.

In cases where assistance involves financing investments that will generate income (such as bridges or toll motorways), the expected revenue is taken into account when determining the contribution of the Funds. Under Objective 2, the contribution of the Funds is subject to the following ceilings:

  • In the case of investments in infrastructure generating substantial income, assistance may not exceed 25 % of the eligible total volume. These rates can be supplemented by forms of financing other than direct aid for up to 10 % of the total eligible total.
  • Contributions to investments in businesses may not exceed 15 % of the total eligible volume. In the case of investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), these rates can be increased by up to 10 % of the eligible total volume for indirect forms of financing.

Objective 3

Leave a reply

Objective 3

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Objective 3

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Provisions and instruments of regional policy

Objective 3

The main goal of regional policy in the European Union is economic and social cohesion. This is based on financial solidarity, whereby more than 35% of the Union’s budget is transferred to the less-favoured regions (EUR 213 billion in 2000-06 plus EUR 21.74 billion for the ten new Member States). Those regions in the Union lagging behind in their development, undergoing restructuring or facing specific geographical, economic or social problems are to be put in a better position to cope with their difficulties and to benefit fully from the opportunities offered by the single market.

The amount of support that regions receive through the EU’s regional policy depends on their level of development and the type of difficulties they are facing. The Structural Fund regulations for 2000-06 provide, in particular, for three priority objectives:

  • : to promote the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind;
  • : to support the economic and social conversion of areas experiencing structural difficulties;
  • Objective 3: to support the adaptation and modernisation of education, training and employment policies and systems in regions not eligible under Objective 1.

This information sheet concerns Objective 3 only. The other Objectives are the subject of separate sheets.

GEOGRAPHICAL ELIGIBILITY

The reform of the Structural Funds under Agenda 2000 concentrates structural assistance on the most pressing development problems. The new Objective 3 of the Structural Funds for 2000-06 thus brings together the former Objectives 3 (combating long-term unemployment, integration of young people into working life, integration of those threatened with exclusion from the labour market) and Objective 4 (adapting the workforce to changes in production). It is the reference framework for all the measures taken under the new Title on employment inserted in the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam and under the European employment strategy.

Objective 3 covers all activities relating to the development of human resources. Its goal is to modernise education and training policy and systems and promote employment.

All regions not covered by Objective 1 are eligible under Objective 3. Training and employment measures in Objective 1 regions are already included in programmes receiving assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) to that end.

PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS

Programming is an essential part of implementing EU regional policy. As a first step, the Member States submit development plans to the Commission. These include a precise description of the economic and social situation of the country by region, a description of the most appropriate strategy for achieving the stated development objectives and indications on the use and form of the financial contribution from the Structural Funds.

The plans submitted for financing under Objective 3 cover those parts a Member State not covered by Objective 1. They provide a framework for developing human resources throughout the country’s territory.

Next, the Member States submit their programming documents to the Commission. These documents cover the entire programming period (2000-06) and follow the Commission’s general guidelines. They can take the form of:

  • Community support frameworks (CSF) translated into Operational Programmes (OPs). Member States may use this formula for Objective 3 if they consider it necessary. CSFs and OPs describe the socio-economic context of the country and set out development priorities and goals to be achieved. They also lay down the arrangements for financial management, monitoring, evaluation and control. The OPs detail the various priorities of the CSF as they apply to a specific region or development priority. In the case of Objective 3, these priorities can relate to education and training, integration into working life, the spirit of enterprise, the health services and social exclusion.
    You can consult these documents on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs.
  • Single programming documents (SPDs). For Objective 3, the Commission recommends that the Member States draw up SPDs. These are single documents gathering together the data contained in a Community support framework and operational programme: the programme’s priorities, a short description of the proposed measures and an indicative financing plan.
    You can consult these single programming documents on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs.

In addition, in the context of the European employment strategy, the Member States also adopt annual employment guidelines setting out clear priorities and objectives for their employment policy in the coming year. Each Member State applies the guidelines through its national employment policy by means of national action plans (NAP). These national policies are the subject of ex-post checks and an annual evaluation by the Commission and the Member States.

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Funding

EUR 195 billion (commitments at 1999 prices) is allocated to the Structural Funds for 2000-06; in addition, EUR 14.15 billion is earmarked for the ten new Member States. The allocation for Objective 3 is EUR 24.05 billion over the seven years of the programming period (12.3% of the total) for the EU-15 plus EUR 110 million for the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2006 for the new Member States (0.79% of the total) and is the sole responsibility of the ESF.

Commission Decision 1999/505/EC [C(1999) 1774: Official Journal L 194 of 27.7.1999] and the act concerning the conditions of accession to the EU of the ten new Member States fix an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for Objective 3 of the Structural Funds for 2000-06 as shown below.

Member State Objective 3
(million)
Germany 4 581
Austria 528
Belgium 737
Denmark 365
Spain 2 140
Finland 403
France 4 540
Italy 3 744
Luxembourg 38
Netherlands 1 686
United Kingdom 4 568
Sweden 720
EU-15 24 050
Czech Republic 52 2
Cyprus 19 5
Slovakia 39 9

Since their entire territory is covered by Objective 1, the other Member States are not concerned by Objective 3.

Contribution of the Funds

As a general rule, the contribution of the Structural Funds under Objective 3 is subject to the following ceilings: no more than 50% of the total eligible volume and at least 25% of eligible public expenditure. As only the ESF contributes to financing Objective 3, its contribution rates may be higher inside Objective 2 areas than outside them.