15. 3. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 64/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the European Regional Development Fund — sixth annual report (1980) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
At its 190th plenary session held on 23 and 24 September 1981 the Committee, acting on 
a proposal from the Bureau, decided to deliver an opinion on the abovementioned 
subject on its own initiative. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
193 rd plenary session held in Brussels on 15 and 16 December 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the fourth paragraph of Article 20 
of the Rules of Procedure which empowers the 
Economic and Social Committee to issue opinions 
on its own initiative, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the plenary 
session held on 23 September 1981, at the proposal of 
the Bureau, that the Section for Regional 
Development should be instructed to draw up an 
opinion on the sixth annual report of the European 
Regional Development Fund, 
Having regard to the discussions at the Section's 44th 
meeting on 17 November 1981 and the oral report 
made by Mr Zoli, the rapporteur, 
Having regard to the discussions at the 193rd plenary 
session held on 15 and 16 December 1981 (meeting of 
15 December 1981), Whereas following the publication of each annual 
ERDF report, the ESC has always been concerned to 
express the views of the representatives of the 
economic and social groups on the regional 
development policy pursued, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a unanimous vote: 
The Committee approves the sixth annual report of 
the European Regional Development Fund, subject 
to the following comments: 
A. GENERAL REMARKS 
1. Socio-economic and legal background 
This opinion refers to the annual report for 1980, 
which was a particularly crucial year. There were 
certainly no signs of a let-up in the socio-economic 
recession; in fact, the year-on-year change in GDP, 
No C 64/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 3. 82 
the rise in consumer prices and unemployment and 
even more marked regional imbalances all combined 
to give further cause for serious concern within the 
Community. 
1980 saw the introduction of a number of noteworthy 
new Community instruments designed to overcome 
these difficulties. During the year, the main 
provisions of the amended ERDF Regulation of 
6 February 1979 were fully implemented. 
Furthermore, in October 1980, the Council adopted 
five implementing Regulations for the 'quota free' 
section setting up five specific Community regional 
development projects. The first periodic report on the 
socio-economic situation of the Community regions 
was also completed during 1980. Lastly, the Council 
revised the national ERDF quotas in preparation for 
Greece's entry on 1 January 1981. 
As to the actual impact of the ERDF during 1980, it 
should be pointed out that the 'quota free' section did 
not become operational until 1981, because the 
relevant implementing Regulations were only 
adopted in the Autumn of 1980. 
This opinion should be assessed in the context of the 
various papers that the Economic and Social 
Committee has issued on (i) the role and influence of 
local and regional authorities and socio-economic 
organizations in the regional policy sector 
(rapporteur — Mr Ventejol), (ii) the Fifth (1979) 
annual ERDF report (rapporteur — Mr Curlis), (iii) 
the new regional policy guidelines and priorities 
(rapporteur — Mr Loebl), and (iv) the revision of the 
ERDF Regulation (rapporteur — Mr Hall). 
2. ERDF and regional policy 
The list of topics (Chapter II) in the sixth annual 
report serves once again to highlight the close links 
between the ERDF and the overall regional policy in 
1980. The Fund is after all designed to implement a 
policy (i.e. the policy of developing regions and 
redressing the balance between them), and any 
assessment of its efficiency cannot possibly ignore 
the more general context in which the Fund has to 
operate and the principles underlying the 
Community's efforts to achieve the aims expressly 
stated in the preamble to the EEC Treaty and 
Article 2 of the Treaty proper. In this connection, the 
Committee reiterates that the very fact that these aims 
are set out in the Treaty is evidence that the regional 
development schemes and attempts to redress the balance between regions which come under the 
heading of 'regional policy' are not so much a 
Community sectoral initiative, as a compulsory 
guiding principle for all its activities and hence for its 
individual policies. The Committee notes with 
approval that the 1980 report makes specific 
reference to this correct approach. Similarly, the 
appraisal of the 'regional' dimension of the 
individual policies (paragraph 21 et seq. of the 
report) has to be made against this background. 
3. Need for coordination of policies and 
instruments 
In view of the need for concerted and consistent 
Community action to redress the balance between 
regions — (paragraph 7 shows that the inequalities 
became even more marked during the '70s) — the 
ERDF report naturally devotes considerable 
attention to the various instruments which can be 
used to finance regional development (EAGGF 
Guidance Section, Social Fund, ECSC loans, EIB 
and NIC), regional development programmes and 
their amendments, and integrated regional 
development schemes. The programmes should 
provide the requisite structures for Community aid 
and therefore for a coordinated approach to the 
various national and Community policies and the 
instruments for implementing them. Integrated 
operations on the other hand are a theoretical and 
practical instrument for ensuring that schemes and 
public and private investment in a given 
geographical area are properly coordinated. This 
sixth report stresses in decidedly more explicit terms 
than previous reports, that it is imperative to get 
away from the fragmented and frequently 
uncoordinated — and even contradictory — 
approach to the individual schemes which the 
respective Member States employ to eliminate 
inequalities between regions. 
4. The Commission initiative and the 'quota free' 
section of the ERDF 
In the past the Committee has appealed for greater 
and more direct Community responsibility in a field 
which will have a vital impact on the integration 
process in the future. There is evidence that these 
calls are beginning to be heeded. The implementation 
of the 'quota free' section of the ERDF is evidence of 
this (even though progress during the 1980 reference 
15. 3. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 64/3 
period was confined to the drafting of the 
regulations), since it reflects the Community's 
determination to shoulder its responsibilities by 
implementing a given policy, selecting regions or 
areas, opting for long-term schemes, deciding on the 
type of measures to adopt and how they are to be 
funded. The very sluggish procedure leading up to 
the adoption of the Commission proposals on the use 
of the 'quota free' section is accordingly to be 
deplored. 
5. Inadequacy of the ERDF resources 
In 1980 ERDF resources were increased by about 
23 % compared with 1979. This increase is quite 
plainly inadequate to meet requirements and to cope 
with the full range of regional inequalities, both 
quantitative and qualitative, quite apart from the fact 
that inflation has significantly eroded the value of the 
appropriations in real terms. A comparision with 
national funds specifically earmarked for the 
purpose of achieving a more equitable balance 
between regions will suffice to establish that there is 
no guarantee that this objective will be attained with 
the existing resources of the ERDF, useful though 
they unquestionably are. The annual report stresses 
moreover that the appropriations for 1980 were 
already insufficient to cover the commitments in 
respect of the projects referred to the Fund 
Committee in 1980. 
B. SPECIFIC REMARKS 
1. ERDF aid and investment projects 
For the reasons outlined earlier, this opinion is 
confined to ERDF aid from the national quotas. 
The number of projects considered in 1980 (3 252 
covered by 493 applications) was fewer that the 1979 
figure (3 771). This figure is of little relevance 
however: what is more interesting is a comparison of 
the types of investments (i.e. in industry, services or 
infrastructure) and the overall financial outlay on 
projects. About a quarter of the projects considered 
in 1980 entailed investment in industry and services, 
while three-quarters related to infrastructure. While 
the latter are unquestionably easier to implement, 
they do not always create permanent jobs. In other 
words, the proportion of Fund aid allocated to 
industry declined further compared with 1979, 
(contrary to recommendations made by the Committee in the past) although the report under 
consideration does not provide sufficient details to 
explain this trend. 
The current ERDF Regulation — which is to be 
amended in the near future — stipulates that aid for 
infrastructure projects should not exceed 70 % of the 
total resources of the 'quota' section. It is worth 
noting that the ESC opinion of 27 October 1981 on 
new trends and priorities in regional policy, 
emphasized the need to achieve a better balance 
between aid for infrastructure and aid for projects in 
the industrial (in particular small enterprises) and 
service sectors. The opinion also stated that the main 
selection criterion in both cases should be the 
creation of productive jobs as quickly as 
possible (l). 
The importance of indicating precisely what 
infrastructures qualify for ERDF aid in all Member 
States of the Community is also clear. The fact that 
the Regional Policy Committee has failed to reach 
agreement on this point is abundant proof of the 
complexity of the problem. 
2. Impact of ERDF aid on employment 
In the light of the information supplied in 
applications for aid, about 60 000 permanent jobs 
were created in 1980, primarily as a result of the 
expansion of the secondary and tertiary/service 
sectors (80 000 in the 1979 report). As in previous 
years, it is stressed that the projects which created the 
maximum number of jobs in relation to the value of 
the investment and/or Fund aid were those entailing 
expenditure under 10 million EUA. Unlike previous 
reports, the 1980 report also gives the investment 
ceiling and the Fund aid for each job which was 
created or saved. These figures are broken down into 
projects costing under and over 10 million EUA 
respectively. 
3. The requirement of 'additionality' 
The 1980 report once again reflects the Commission's 
anxiety about the feasibility of ascertaining that 
ERDF aid is in fact used to supplement national 
spending on regional development. Although some 
additional information was received from the 
individual Member States, it was piecemeal and was 
concerned more with the financial machinery than 
with the real purpose of the exercise which is to 
(!) OJ No L 343, 31. 12. 1981, p. 53. 
No C 64/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 3. 82 
ensure that the Fund really is used as an additional 
resource. To remedy this situation, action should be 
taken (a) to achieve greater transparency and (b) to 
make appropriate amendments to the rules (NB the 
last paragraph of Article 4 (2 a) of the current ERDF 
Regulation). The Committee has already discussed 
this point in its opinion on the revision of this 
Regulation. 
However, the 1980 report refers to experiments in 
certain priority areas which prove that the projects 
which have been promoted, implemented and 
financed by regional and local authorities do help to 
ensure that the principle of additionality is adhered 
to; this is not however always apparent at national 
level. In other words, in some Member States, ERDF 
assistance for infrastructure projects has been 
'additional' because it was paid directly to the local 
or regional authorities concerned (or to the 
investors), without their being obliged to cut back 
their financial resources correspondingly. 
4. Integrated regional development operations 
Two integrated operations have been planned for 
Naples and Belfast respectively, but only the Naples 
scheme actually got under way in 1980. The report 
touches on it briefly, mentioning the objectives, 
monitoring procedures, the parties involved, and 
national and Community financial aid. Although it is 
still too early for a definitive appraisal of this type of 
regional development venture, it is consistent with 
the new approach which the Commission plans to 
follow up. The Committee has already voiced its 
approval of this and does in fact propose to issue a 
specific opinion on the subject. This opinion will also 
provide an opportunity for more detailed appraisals 
and recommendations as to the future of integrated 
operations. 
5. Funding of studies 
The Committee shares the views expressed by the 
Commission as to the aims and hence the importance 
of part-financing studies undertaken by Member 
States, in addition to those undertaken directly by the 
Commission. The Commission will thus be involved 
in financing investment projects right from the initial 
planning stages. Furthermore, some studies may 
make it easier (a) to ensure that ERDF resources are 
used alongside other assistance for individual projects, and (b) to draw up a sort of reserve list of 
investment projects which would help with the 
planning of initiatives. Moreover, such studies may 
assist in the coordination of the various Community 
financial instruments. 
6. Payments and controls 
In 1979, a new accelerated payments procedure was 
introduced and in 1980 the benefits of this change 
began to make themselves felt. Accelerated payments 
in 1980 accounted for 33 % of total payments made 
during the year, as against approximately 30 % in 
1979. 
The Commission aimed to check at least the same 
number of projects as it did in 1979. However, it 
rightly points out that the number of checks which 
can be carried out is limited and less important than 
the quality of checks. Checks are after all really 
designed to monitor the use of the Fund's resources 
and assess the economic impact of the regional 
scheme (this requires special procedures which are 
unfortunately highly complex and haphazard). 
Something will have to be done here, but this will 
also entail a rapid improvement in the Commission's 
manpower and organizational resources. 
One point greatly to be deplored is that one Member 
State which refused Commission inspectors access to 
industrial concerns in 1979, did likewise in 1980. It is 
to be hoped that the devolution process which has 
been started in that Member State will be 
accompanied by a change in its attitude on the 
Community front. 
7. Publicity and information 
The Committee feels that detailed, accurate 
information about the function and use of 
Community's Funds and the corresponding aims and 
results, together with the direct and indirect benefits 
enjoyed by European residents/taxpayers is of great 
practical, — psychological and political — 
importance. The Commission should therefore do all 
in its power to ensure that such information is 
improved and stepped up, with backing from the 
national governments. Detailed facts and figures are 
essential if the message is to be got across to the 
European 'man in the street'. 
15. 3. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 64/5 
8. The ERDF and regional and local interests 
The report makes several express references to the 
links between Commission regional development 
schemes and the role of the regional and local 
authorities. To quote just a few: integrated 
operations, studies, the drafting of regional 
development programmes, publicity and 
information, and provisos to ensure the principle of 
'additionality'. 
These comments are in line with the Committee's 
views on the need to involve regional and local 
authorities and economic and social interest groups 
in the Community's activities in this sphere. These 
groups and bodies do after all represent a cross-
section of the Community population and are in a 
Done at Brussels, 15 December 1981. position to assess the impact of Community activity 
and so help to ensure that it is more closely geared to 
the real needs. If these parties were involved, the 
public would also be better able to judge the political 
and financial impact of ERDF activities. 
Seats on the Regional Policy Committee for regional 
and local authority representatives and for members 
of economic and social interest groups, more 
systematic contacts between the Economic and 
Social Committee and the Consultative Committee 
for Local and Regional Institutions in the Member 
States, better information specifically directed at 
these institutions: these might be practical ways of 
ensuring that constantly reiterated statements of 
intent are effectively translated into action. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE