52001DC0782

State Aid Scoreboard, second edition

(presented by the Commission)

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Structure and Limitations of the Scoreboard

2.1. Structure

2.2. Limitations

3. Overview of State aid in the European Union

3.1. Stockholm indicator - Do Member States demonstrate a downward trend in granting aid-

3.2. Distribution of State aid among Member States and main areas of the economy

4. The need to redirect aid to horizontal, regional and cohesion objectives

4.1. Redirecting aid to horizontal objectives

4.2. State aid supporting regional development and cohesion

4.3. State aid to specific service sectors

5. Procedural performance in the European Union

5.1. Decision Process

5.2. Negative decisions and recovery of State aid

6. State Aid for R&D and the Internal Market

6.1. State aid for R&D

6.2. State aid for R&D as a part of Business Entreprise R&D expenditure

6.3. Venture capital helps high-tech start-up firms

6.4. State aid for R&D and innovation in the Internal Market

7. State aid fora

7.1. Member State Forum

7.2. European Parliament Forum

Graphs and Tables

1. Graph 1: The majority of Member States show a downward trend in State aid in relation to GDP between 1997 and 1999. 6

2. Graph 2: Highly variable distribution of State aid within the EU in 1999. 7

3. Graph 3: Most Member States redirected aid to horizontal objectives between 1997 and 1999. 9

4. Graph 4: A decreasing share of aid went to individual sectors between 1997 and 1999. 10

5. Table 1: Regional aid and regional development 11

6. Graph 5: Seven Member States reduced aid to specific service sectors. 12

7. Graph 6: Share of negative decisions by Member State. 14

8. Table 2: Recovery orders pending at 10.09.2001. 14

9. Graph 7: Pending recovery orders in the Member States. 15

10. Table 3: Recovery orders pending and amounts to be recovered by Member State. 15

11. Graph 8: State aid for R&D is relatively small compared to Business Enterprise R&D expenditure. 17

12. Graph 9: Early stage venture capital. 18

13. Table 4: State aid for R&D and selected innovation indicators. 19

14. 1.

Introduction

This second edition of the State aid Scoreboard intends to further increase transparency and to raise awareness for the need of State aid control. A control, that has been significantly tightened by the Commission in recent years, thus ensuring that Member States only award aid that really serves the common interest. Although each individual grant of aid is awarded under conditions accepted by the Commission, it is undeniable that the cumulative effect of still more than 79 Billion Euro in 1999 has a considerable distortive effect on competition in the Internal Market. This is recognised by the Member States and the European Parliament. In March 2001, the Stockholm European Council therefore asked Member States to demonstrate a downward trend in State aid in relation to GDP by 2003, taking into account the need to redirect aid towards horizontal objectives of common interest, including cohesion objectives. [1] In December 2001, the Energy and Industry Council reconfirmed these goals and emphasised the relevance and usefulness of the State aid Scoreboard.

[1] SN 100/01 point 20 and 21.

Whilst the Commission will continue to maintain a strict State aid control policy, to increase transparency and closely monitor the levels of aid, action has to be taken by Member States themselves in order to reduce State aid and redirect them towards horizontal objectives in particular the Lisbon conclusions which aim at making the European Union the most dynamic and competitive knowledge society of the world. Their action should be aimed at reviewing national aid policies, assessing whether the grant of State aid is always the most appropriate instrument to correct certain market failures and evaluating the effectiveness of the aid that is awarded and concentrate public support measures in areas where market failure has clearly been identified. With this second edition of the Scoreboard, the Commission aims at encouraging this re-evaluation process in the Member States.

Member States have already contributed to the Scoreboard and some of their comments and those of the European Parliament on the first edition of the Scoreboard have already been incorporated in this edition, other observations will be included in later editions. An integral part of the Scoreboard is the Member State Forum that already provides a tangible example of how Member States can exchange information on their support policies and their respective ex ante and ex post evaluation of the aid awarded. Member States are encouraged to continue their support of this initiative.

2. Structure and Limitations of the Scoreboard

2.1. Structure

The Scoreboard now contains five parts: The first part provides a general overview of the State aid situation in Member States. In the second part of the Scoreboard an analysis of horizontal, regional and sectorial aid is given that is, for the time being, limited to manufacturing and service sectors. The third part contains data on State aid control procedures of both, the Commission and the Member States. The fourth part attempts to situate State aid in the broader context of the Internal Market and the structural reforms undertaken by the Member States. In the light of the broader implications of State aid and beyond the mere respect of EC competition rules, Member States may wish to consider re-evaluating their State aid policies for reasons of economic effectiveness and efficiency. The fifth part, the State aid Forum, collects sources and Internet-links for supplementary information. Finally, a technical annex is added that presents the underlying data for each graphs and table contained in the Scoreboard. All data are in constant 1998 values.

Future editions will maintain this structure. The fourth part, dedicated to State aid in the broader context of the Internal Market will in subsequent editions focus on State aid within other selected policy frameworks such as environment, SME or regional development, with a view to measure, where possible, its effectiveness and efficiency.

In this second edition of the Scoreboard the first part shows the change of State aid as a percentage of GDP between 1997 and 1999 and the level of State aid as a percentage of GDP in 1999 in Member States broken down into main areas of the economy. The second part provides graphs and tables that show Member States' relative success in redirecting aid from specific sectors to horizontal and regional objectives. In the third part, data on the State aid control procedure, in particular the average length of certain procedures, is provided. In addition, information on the recovery of illegally granted State aid is included. The fourth part of the Scoreboard, dedicated to State aid as an economic instrument in the Internal Market, highlights in this edition the role of State aid in general R&D policy. The final part, the Forum, provides further information on activities of Member States and now in addition of the European Parliament.

2.2. Limitations

This second edition of the Scoreboard covers the period of 1997 to 1999 that predates the Stockholm European Council in 2001. The following data restraints have to be considered when the objectives set in Stockholm will be revisited in 2003. Data for the year 2000 will be available in early 2002. A full set of State aid data for the year 2003 will only be available in early 2005 as Member States, together with the Commission, require up to one year to collect and analyse State aid data.

State aid data collected for the Scoreboard are grouped according to primary objectives. It has to be noted that primary objectives cannot always give a completely accurate picture of the final beneficiaries: e.g. a part of regional aid is in fact paid to small and medium size enterprises, aid for R&D goes to particular sectors, and so on. Therefore, the Commission will continue to improve the detail of the data it collects.

Throughout the Scoreboard a series of indicators is presented. It has to be underlined that the purpose of these indicators is to highlight factual developments, without attempting to establish causal links. In this way, the Scoreboard does not make judgements but is offering factual data, which should encourage a debate without prejudging its outcome. It is important to keep this limitation in mind when using the Scoreboard data.

3. Overview of State aid in the European Union

The chapter gives an overview on the evolution of aid granted in the European Union from 1997 to 1999 and a breakdown of aid granted in 1999 according to main areas of the economy.

3.1. Stockholm indicator - Do Member States demonstrate a downward trend in granting aid-

The Stockholm European Council in 2001 asked Member States to demonstrate a downward trend in State aid in relation to GDP by 2003. Graph 1 provides for an indicator to verify the efforts that have been made by Member States to meet the demand of the Council. The 'Stockholm indicator' shows for each Member State reductions in State aid before the Stockholm Council between 1997 and 1999. The Commission will update this indicator annually. Using this indicator all Member States should be able to demonstrate a downward trend of State aid in relation to GDP by 2003.

Graph 1: The majority of Member States show a downward trend in State aid in relation to GDP between 1997 and 1999.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Percentage point change of State aid by Member State as a percentage of national GDP between 1997 and 1999. Source: DG Competition and Eurostat.

State aid as a percentage of GDP has been reduced in eleven Member States. In the remaining four Member States, State aid as a percentage of GDP increased. The increases of overall aid in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark are due to higher levels of aid granted to railway transport. The sharp increase of the aid level in Ireland is a result of the Commission considering since 1998 the reduced Irish Corporation Tax, which is now being phased out, as State aid.

3.2. Distribution of State aid among Member States and main areas of the economy

The EU level of overall State aid expressed as a percentage of GDP has been steadily decreasing since 1993. Between 1997 and 1999, it has fallen by over 30%. However, with the latest data of 1999 indicating an aid level of 1% of EU GDP, there may still be scope for further reductions in the future.

Moreover, significant disparities remain between Member States in their award of overall levels of aid. In addition, the extent to which main areas of the economy benefit from such aid varies widely among Member States. Graph 2 provides an overview of the distribution of aid among Member States and main areas of the economy.

Graph 2: Highly variable distribution of State aid within the EU in 1999.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Distribution of State aid to main areas of the economy by Member States in 1999 as a percentage of national GDP. State aid granted to specific service sectors includes airline and financial services, tourism, media and culture. Source: DG Competition and Eurostat.

Whilst in Ireland and Finland, State aid as a percentage of GDP exceeds 1.5% in 1999, in the United Kingdom State aid as a percentage of GDP is less than 0.5%. Together with the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece have also aid levels below the EU average.

The share of aid to manufacturing, coal and service sectors as a percentage of overall aid ranged from 16% in Luxembourg to 69% in Portugal. Aid to the agricultural and fisheries sectors accounted for only 7% of overall aid in Germany while in Finland agricultural aid was as high as 73%. The share of aid to the railway sector was highest in Luxembourg and lowest in Finland. Additional information on State aid per person employed is shown in the technical annex (see Table 0).

4. The need to redirect aid to horizontal, regional and cohesion objectives

At the Stockholm and the Lisbon European Council, Member States subscribed to the need to redirect aid from supporting individual companies or sectors to horizontal objectives of common interest, including cohesion objectives. The Scoreboard will therefore concentrate on these objectives.

The current edition focuses on the pursuit of these objectives in the context of the manufacturing, coal and service sectors. Large parts of the agricultural and fisheries sector traditionally receive substantial support from the Community budget. A separate analysis will be made in future editions of the Scoreboard. Financial support for railway transport is usually granted to undertakings as a compensation for public service obligations. Such compensation benefits from a legal exemption [2] from the obligatory State aid assessment requested by Article 88 EC Treaty. Aid to agriculture, fisheries and railway transport is therefore not included in this chapter.

[2] Article 17 of Council regulation 1191/69.

4.1. Redirecting aid to horizontal objectives

State aid for horizontal objectives, i.e. aid that is not targeted towards specific sectors or geographic areas, is usually considered as being less distortive than sectorial and ad hoc aid, such as aid for rescue and restructuring. Aid granted horizontally to all sectors is less selective than the other kinds of aid. Its positive effect in addressing market failures is therefore more likely to outweigh its negative impact on competition. Research and development, safeguarding the environment and energy saving and support to small and medium-sized enterprises are the most prominent horizontal objectives pursued with State aid.

Both the Stockholm and the Lisbon European Councils have asked for Member States to redirect aid away from sector specific and ad hoc aid towards these horizontal objectives of Community interest. Graph 3 indicates the degree to which Member States have redirected aid to horizontal objectives between 1997 and 1999. The Commission will update this indicator annually in order to follow the developments in Member States.

Graph 3: Most Member States redirected aid to horizontal objectives between 1997 and 1999.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Percentage point change of State aid for horizontal objectives (SME, R&D, environment and energy saving, commerce of SMEs, employment and training) in total aid less agriculture, fisheries and railway transport between 1997 and 1999. Source: DG Competition.

The relative share of aid granted for horizontal objectives in the EU, as opposed to regional or sectorial objectives, has increased by almost 12% from 1997 to 1999. In contrast, the relative share decreased in the Netherlands, Austria and Ireland.

Graph 4 shows that the share of aid granted to specific sectors in the EU, as opposed to regional or horizontal objectives, has decreased by 1.6% from 1997 to 1999, although this share increased in Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium.

Graph 4: A decreasing share of aid went to individual sectors between 1997 and 1999.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Percentage point change of State aid granted to coal mining and to individual manufacturing and service sectors in total aid (less agriculture, fisheries and railway transport) between 1997 and 1999. Source: DG Competition.

At EU level, the development over time is already going in the direction sought by the European Council. However, in 1999 aid for coal mining and to individual service and manufacturing sectors still accounted for over 30% of total aid. Increased efforts by Member States are therefore still needed if the desired reallocation of aid from sectorial to horizontal objectives is to be achieved.

4.2. State aid supporting regional development and cohesion

Both the Stockholm and the Lisbon European Councils also called upon Member States to shift emphasis towards regional development and cohesion objectives. This chapter shows, on the one hand, national regional aid granted under Article 87(3)a and direct support to companies granted under the Community's Regional fund (objective 1) and, on the other hand, the relative economic growth of assisted regions. Regional aid that is granted under Article 87(3)c is not included in Table 1.

Table 1: Regional aid and regional development

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: All data are 1996-1998 averages. A positive GDP growth differential (+) indicates that the national assisted regions grow faster than the national average, whereas a negative sign (-) indicates that growth in assisted regions is lower than the national average. (*) In the absence of any non-assisted regions in Portugal, Greece and Ireland the growth differential of national GDP to the EU average is indicated. The table contains regional aid that has been granted under Article 87(3)a and aid granted under the Regional fund (objective 1 interventions) in assisted regions. Assisted regions are regions within the meaning of Article 87(3)a valid until 31/12/1999. Source: DG Competition, DG Regional Policy and Eurostat.

Table 1 shows that during the period 1996 to 1998 national regional aid as a percentage of GDP of assisted regions is above the EU average in France, Germany and Italy. In addition, direct support to companies granted under the Regional fund as a percentage of the assisted regions' GDP is above EU average in Portugal, Greece and Spain. In Greece, France, Ireland, Italy and Portugal assisted regions grew faster than non-assisted regions between 1996 and 1998.

4.3. State aid to specific service sectors

Aid to support specific service sectors, in particular when it is granted as rescue and restructuring aid, is likely to distort competition to a larger degree than aid that is directed towards horizontal objectives. The bulk of aid that is directed towards specific service sectors, namely airline and financial services, tourism, media and culture [3], favours those areas of activity that continue to grow in importance, such as tourism or, sectors that have recently been liberalised such as air transport and financial services. Graph 5 presents the relative change of State aid granted specifically to service sectors in Member States in comparison to overall aid (excluding agriculture, fisheries and railway transport).

[3] As far as media and culture are concerned, it must however be noted that a significant part of support that is granted in these sectors is a compensation for public service obligations and State aid in support of cultural objectives as defined by Article 87 3 d) EC Treaty.

Graph 5: Seven Member States reduced aid to specific service sectors.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Percentage change of State aid granted specifically to airline services, tourism, financial services, media and culture in total aid less agriculture, fisheries and railway transport by Member State between 1997 and 1999. Source: DG Competition.

Between 1997 and 1999, seven Member States reduced their relative share of aid to specific service sectors whereas the other eight increased it. Since, however, the volume of the aid reduction, particular in Greece and France, outweighs the increase - although significant - in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the overall share in the European Union clearly decreases.

5. Procedural performance in the European Union

5.1. Decision Process

The Commission controls the Member States' granting of State aid by means of a formal and transparent procedure, Council regulation No 659/1999 [4]. Currently, the average time to approve notified aid cases is around four months. This duration is a result of the fact that in many cases relevant information is lacking during the first notification received from Member States and has subsequently to be requested explicitly by the Commission.

[4] See OJ 83/1 of 27.03.1999.

If the Commission has doubts whether an aid measure of Member States is compatible with the EC Treaty, it opens a formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2). At present, it takes on average nine months until the Commission opens such a formal investigation on notified aid.

The Commission is currently in a process of streamlining State aid rules and control procedures which will help to reduce these periods, particularly in providing Member States with improved and concise information on what they have to submit to the Commission. Improving the quality of Member States' notifications of aid cases will significantly accelerate the Commission's decision process. A further element that will reduce the evaluation periods for aid is the recent introduction of group exemption regulations for SME [5] and training aid [6]. Their effects will be analysed in future Scoreboards.

[5] Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises OJ L 010 , 13/01/2001 P. 0033 - 0042.

[6] Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid OJ L 010 , 13/01/2001 P. 0020 - 0029.

5.2. Negative decisions and recovery of State aid

When the Commission comes to the conclusion that an aid does not fulfil the criteria to be compatible with the EC Treaty, it takes a negative decision. Graph 6 gives a breakdown of the share of negative decisions by Member States during the period 1998- 2000.

Graph 6: Share of negative decisions by Member State.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: State aid decisions on all sectors except fisheries. Source: DG Agriculture, DG Competition and DG Transport and Energy.

In case of a negative decision the Commission orders, as a general rule, the Member State to recover aid from the beneficiary if the aid has been already awarded. Table 2 and Graph 7 give an overview of the present situation of these recovery orders.

Table 2: Recovery orders pending at 10.09.2001.

>TABLE POSITION>

Note: State aid recovery procedures in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport. Court procedures do not necessarily have a suspensive effect on recovery. Source: DG Competition.

Graph 7: Pending recovery orders in the Member States.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Number of State aid recovery procedures in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport pending at 10/09/2001 by Member State. Source: DG Competition.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the amounts of incompatible aid that have to be recovered in Member States. In some cases where the number of beneficiaries is high, it is not possible to specify the exact amount of incompatible aid before it has been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. About half of the amount to be recovered in Germany is attributed to one case that is pending before the European Court of Justice.

Table 3: Recovery orders pending and amounts to be recovered by Member State.

>TABLE POSITION>

Note: State aid recovery procedures in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport by Member State. Source: DG Competition.

6. State Aid for R&D and the Internal Market

6.1. State aid for R&D

Market forces alone may not ensure a socio-economic optimal level of research and development effort. The investment decisions of firms are above all determined by their own private benefits, but the total benefits to society of an R&D programme may be significantly greater than these private benefits because of spillover effects (externalities). These externalities can occur through a number of channels: conversations between employees of different firms, mobility of research personnel, technical publications and conferences, disclosure in patent documents and imitation. Furthermore, research results that do not lead directly to new products or processes can not be protected by patents. Even when the results can be patented, the period of validity of the patent may be shorter than the time needed to earn an adequate return on the investment. In addition, small firms in particular may have difficulty in finding external sources of finance for R&D projects, because of the high level of risk attached to them. The amount of R&D undertaken by a firm therefore tends to be limited by its internal financial resources. Thus, the impossibility for firms to reap the profit from the spilled over research results, which they nevertheless have to finance, and the financial limitation tend to lead firms to do less R&D than could be desirable.

Public support to lower the cost for business of carrying out R&D can therefore enhance total welfare. However, when this support has distortive effects on competition, it falls under State aid rules of the EC Treaty. The Commission has therefore to carefully control these effects. Although the Commission in accordance with the general policy objective to redirect aid to horizontal objectives, traditionally takes a favourable view on State aid to R&D, such aid can only be allowed if it serves as an incentive for firms to undertake R&D activities in addition to their normal day-to-day operations (additionality principle).

6.2. State aid for R&D as a part of overall Business enterprise R&D expenditure

Traditionally, an important part of R&D in the Community has been financed by enterprises. R&D aid is one means by which Member States can support the R&D activities of the business sector. Therefore, Graph 8 compares Business Enterprise R&D expenditure with the provision of R&D aid.

Graph 8: State aid for R&D is relatively small compared to Business Enterprise R&D expenditure.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: All data are 1997-1999 averages. State aid data on R&D are not collected within the regular guidelines and standards of R&D surveys (Frascati Manual) and any comparison might therefore contain inaccuracies. R&D aid that is given in the context of regional aid is not included. Data on Business enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD) for Austria and Luxembourg are not available. Data on R&D expenditure for some Member States are based on Eurostat estimates. Source: DG Competition and Eurostat (structural indicators).

State aid for R&D accounts for only 0.05% of GDP in the EU. Finland, Denmark and Austria have the highest shares..

6.3. Venture capital helps high-tech start-up firms

In certain cases, firms have difficulty in finding external sources of finance for business plans, because of the high level of risk attached to them. In particular, high-tech companies in their start-up and development stages [7] face these difficulties because of the higher uncertainty of their business success compared to well-established firms. Start-up firms that are engaged in high-tech and R&D face considerable difficulties in finding sufficient funding to master the high risks involved in the immediate commercialisation of R&D results. The provision of early-stage venture capital can, at least partially, disentangle this limiting factor. Graph 9 shows the relative importance of early stage venture capital in Member States.

[7] Commission definition for venture capital in: "Risk capital: a key to job creation in the European Union" (SEC(1998) 552 final, 31 March 1998)

Graph 9: Early stage venture capital.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: Venture capital (early stage - seed and start-up phase) as percentage GDP (1997-1999 averages). Data on venture capital are not available for Luxembourg. Source: DG Competition, Eurostat (structural indicators) and European Venture Capital Association.

Venture capital as a percentage of GDP is highest in Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. In the EU as a whole, early stage venture capital accounts for only 0.02 percent of GDP.

6.4. State aid for R&D and innovation in the Internal Market

Given the relatively limited contribution of R&D aid to overall business expenditure in R&D in Member States, the effects of the overall volume of R&D aid on innovation in the Internal Market might only be partially assessable. Nonetheless, Table 4 presents State aid to R&D as a percentage of GDP and overall R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP together with some results of R&D activities, here reflected in the number of patents and labour productivity growth. The growth in labour productivity measures the efficiency of production. At least a considerable part of the increase in efficiency of production is assumed to reflect the impact of R&D. Even though the relevance of these indicators is clearly limited, their comparison allows some observations. Both the level of patenting and the growth of labour productivity vary considerably from one Member State to another. There is no apparent correlation between either of these indicators and the level R&D aid. For example, Member States with a relatively high level of R&D aid do not necessarily generate a large number of patents or enjoy a high rate of labour productivity growth. It should be noted that generating patents is not the primary objective of R&D aid and the number of patents is strongly dependent on the sector in which the industrial research is conducted. Hence, the number of patents is also influenced by the strong or weak position of certain industries in Member States.

Table 4: State aid for R&D and selected innovation indicators.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Note: All data, with the exception of labour productivity, are averages for 1997-1999. Only patents that have been registered at the European Patent Office are considered. Data on overall R&D expenditure are not available for Luxembourg. State aid data on R&D are not collected within the regular guidelines and standards of R&D surveys (Frascati Manual) and any comparison might therefore contain inaccuracies. Data on R&D aid exclude R&D aid given in the context of regional aid. Source: DG Competition, Research and Eurostat.

A future further in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of R&D aid might also take advantage of some of the indicators, which were collected as part of the first phase of benchmarking of national research policies. In particular, a wider range of the indicators used to benchmark national research policies related to public and private investment into R&D and to benchmark scientific and technological productivity could be helpful to achieve a better understanding of possible interactions between R&D aid and economic performance.

The following publications should be consulted in order to obtain a deeper analysis of general R&D policy in the Member States: European Commission (2001): 'Towards a European Research Area: Key figures 2001; Special edition; Indicators on benchmarking of national research policies' and European Commission (2001): 'European Innovation Scoreboard'. Internet addresses: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/area/benchmarking2001.pdf http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-smes/scoreboard/scoreboard_2001.htm

7. State aid fora

This chapter contains internet-links to information on State aid policy issues of the Member States and the European Parliament.

An overview of the legal framework of State aid control is provided on the Union's Internet server EUROPA:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/legislation/

7.1. Member State Forum

An important component of a peer review process that the Commission wishes to encourage by way of the Scoreboard is a transparent exchange of information between Member States on various aspects of their respective State aid/Competition policies. The Scoreboard is therefore designed to provide links to relevant Internet sites operated by or on behalf of the Member States. In this way the profile of information already provided to the public by Member States on their aid policies should be increased.

In addition to information already published in the Member State Forum in the first edition of the Scoreboard, the latest developments in Member States are described below.

France has created one national and various regional commissions whose mission is both to evaluate the economic and social impacts of State aid awarded to undertakings and to control its use with a view to improve its effectiveness (Loi no. 2001-7 du 4 Janvier 2001 relative au contrôle des fonds publics accordés aux entreprises, publiée au Journal Officiel no. 4 du 5 Janvier 2001 page 218; Décret no. 2001-483 du 6 Juin 2001 rélatif à la Commission nationale et aux commissions régionales des aides publiques aux entreprises, publiée au Journal Officiel du 7 Juin 2001 page 8999). These legislative acts can be consulted on the internet-site of the "Journal Officiel de la République Française":

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/

Germany has recently published its 18th biannual Report on Subsidies.

http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6738/Beiheft-zum-18.-Subventionsbericht.pdf and http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6737/18.-Subventionsbericht-der-Bundesregierung.pdf .

7.2. European Parliament Forum

Documents of the European Parliament on State aid policy can be found under the following Internet address: http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/econ_home.htm.

Technical annex

All State aid data refer to the implementation of Commission decisions and not cases that are still under examination, which once decided upon, may have an effect on historical data. State aid expenditure is attributed to the year it was made. In cases that result in expenditure over a number of years, the total amount is attributed to each of the years in which expenditure took place.

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 1

Source: // DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Gross Domestic Product at market prices taken from the Eurostat database Newcronos.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 1a: Percentage change of State aid less agriculture, fisheries and railway transport by Member State between 1997 and 1999.

Source: // DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Gross Domestic Product at market prices taken from the Eurostat database Newcronos.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 2

Source: // DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Gross Domestic Product at market prices taken from the Eurostat database Newcronos.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 2a: Distribution of State aid to main areas of the economy less agriculture, fisheries and railway transport as percentage of national GDP.

Source: // DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Gross Domestic Product at market prices taken from the Eurostat database Newcronos.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 0: State aid in Euro per person employed

Source: // DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Data on employment are taken from the Eurostat database Newcronos.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in Euro at constant 1998 values.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 3

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 4

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 1

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Regional GDP data at market prices taken from the Eurostat database Newcronos. Data on aid granted under Regional Fund (objective 1 interventions) are taken firm the Structural Funds Annual Reports 1996,1997 and 1998.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values. Regional GDP data have been selected at NUTS 3 level. GDP data for Italy are only available at NUTS 2 level.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Graph 5

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States.

Remarks: // All data are expressed in million Euro at constant 1998 values.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 6

Source: // Commission's registration register XXVIIIth Report on Competition policy1998. XXVIXth Report on Competition Policy 1999.

Remarks: // The following decision types, according to the Procedural Regulation 659/99 (OJ 83/1 of 27.03.1999), have not been taken into account for this table: - Injunction decisions - Decisions to open proceedings - Decisions to close proceedings because of withdrawal of notification - Appropriate measures to modify existing aid measures - Referral to the Court of Justice or Council

State aid decisions concerning the fisheries sector are not included in this table.

Data

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 2, Graph 7, Table 3 and decision process

Source: // DG Competition.

Remarks: // Notified aid: A sample of 96 recent decisions not to raise objections on notified aid cases in the sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport was taken.

Non-notified aid: All decision to launch the formal investigation procedure for cases in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport which were published in the Official Journal between June 2000 and June 2001 were analysed.

_______________________________________________________________________

Graph 8

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. R&D expenditure data taken from the Eurostat database.

Remarks // A fourth sector (the private non-profit sector) is generally of negligible significance with the exception of Portugal where the sector accounted for more than 10% in 1999. The breakdown has been calculated without this sector. The averages have been calculated on the basis of the available data. A breakdown of R&D expenditure by institutional sector is not available for Austria and Luxembourg.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

______________________________________________________________________

Graph 9

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Venture capital (early stage) data taken from the Eurostat database.

Data:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

______________________________________________________________________

Table 4

Source: // State aid data are taken from the DG Competition database on State aid expenditure in the Member States. Data on patents, R&D expenditure and labour productivity taken from the Eurostat database.

______________________________________________________________________