31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/39 
the level of risk compatible with health and safety must 
be provided.' 
3.9.2. Annex 11- 1.4. 
The Committee draws attention to the Committee's 
Opinion {l) on the parallel Directive [doc. COM(88) 76] 
which deals with the information to be supplied by the 
manufacturer in relation to the use of PPEs: it considers 
the relationship between the manufacturer and the user 
to be important to achieve the most effective personal 
protection. 
3.10.1. Annex HI - Chapter I - 1 
There can be confusion here as while Article 8.1 requires 
that a manufacturer draw up a file, there is no obli­
gation on the manufacturer to present the file once it 
is prepared. Articles 10 and 11 do require such presen­
tation in relation to verification and to conformity. 
(') OJ NoC318, 12. 12. 1988. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 
1. Foreword 
1.1. The draft Regulation submitted by the Com­
mission falls within the general context of measures 
taken in furtherance of Title V of the Single Act: 'Econ­
omic and Social Cohesion'. The wording of clause 1.1 b) should be altered to read 
'... the manufacturer's file must include sufficient data 
to enable the ...'. 
3.10.2. Annex III - Chapter I -2(a) (English version) 
The sentence should read: '(a) its conformity to the 
harmonized standards or other technical specifications 
referred to in Article 5.' 
3.11. Annex III - Chapter 11 
The Committee endorses the minimum criteria set out 
for the Member States in appointing inspection bodies. 
It reiterates earlier Opinions however that mutual rec­
ognition between Member States of the testing stations 
and inspestion bodies should exist on a legal Com­
munity basis. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
More specifically, Article 130 A states that in order 
to promote its overall harmonious development, the 
Community shall strengthen its economic and social 
cohesion by 'reducing disparities between the various 
regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured 
regions'. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down provisions for implementing 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different 
structural funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment 
Bank and the other existing financial instruments 
(88/C 337/13) 
On 8 August 1988, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articles 123, 130 E and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The section for regional development and town and country planning, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 18 October 1988. 
The rapporteur was Mr Serra-Caracciolo and the co-rapporteur was Mr Amato. 
At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
No C 337/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
1.2. In line with its previous positions on this issue, 
the Committee wholeheartedly endorses the objective 
of achieving balance between the regions. This target 
must be pursued via a quantitatively and qualitatively 
appropriate investment policy capable of narrowing 
development and income-level gaps in the Community. 
1.3. While the structural funds are merely instru­
ments designed to remedy regional imbalances, their 
reform—along with new administrative criteria—is a 
major precondition for attaining Community-wide 
economic and social cohesion. 
1.4. The Committee therefore reiterates that the 
main pillars of genuine reform of structural policies 
are: 
— Coordination of all Community, national and 
regional policies, with a direct impact or at least 
substantial repercussions, in particular as regards 
employment at regional level. 
— Guarantees for effective, efficient partnership with 
the regional and local authorities and with the oper­
ators and representatives of economic and social 
interests. 
— Simplification, harmonization and flexibility of pro­
cedures. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee finds it regrettable (a) that the 
framework Regulation has ignored a number of points 
raised in Committee Opinions (x) and (b) that these 
points have not been incorporated in the new proposals 
either. 
2.2. However, the Committee welcomes certain pro­
visions of the Commission proposal. 
Firstly it welcomes Article 9 which provides for qualitat­
ive and quantitative additionality, backed up by 
arrangements to ensure its effective implementation. 
The concept of 'corresponding increases in total public 
expenditure' must be clarified to ensure that additional­
ity does not constitute an additional burden for some 
Member States. The annual increase in appropriations 
for the Community funds must thus be matched by a 
net increase in public expenditure investment within 
each Member State. 
The Committee also welcomes Article 27 (2) which 
provides for ex ante and ex post assessment of Com­
munity structural measures. The wholesale introduc­
tion of advance assessments is undoubtedly a step for­
ward. Nevertheless there is a need to improve and 
clarify the entire supervisory arrangements. 
(!) OJ No C 356, 31. 12. 1987, p. 13, and OJ No C 175, 
4. 7. 1988, p. 56. 2.3. The Committee is however concerned that a 
number of points to be amended are unclear, while 
others have been omitted. 
3. Partnership: consultation and concerted action 
3.1. Previous ESC Opinions on the reform of the 
structural funds had requested that: 
— the decentralized authorities should be consulted 
not only when plans are being drafted and submit­
ted, but also when Community support frameworks 
are being formulated, 
— consultation with the economic and social partners 
should be extended to all structural policies. 
3.2. While empowering the Member States to stipu­
late which authorities are to take part in consultations, 
Article 4 (1) of the framework Regulation does not 
exclude the representatives of economic and social 
interests. 
It is unfortunate that this provision has not been incor­
porated and pursued in the draft Regulation. 
3.3. The Committee stresses that: 
— the proposal should expressly require local and 
regional authorities to take part in drafting national 
plans linked to the five objectives, in defining Com­
munity support frameworks and in follow-up and 
assessment procedures, 
— the present Regulation must ensure that the econ­
omic and social operators are consulted on all three 
levels of the decision-making process (plans, Com­
munity support frameworks, operational pro­
grammes). 
3.4. Economic and social operators at national, 
regional and local level must be involved in Com­
munity-level consultations. In defining these consul­
tations, the Commission could expand and draw on 
experience with the Regulation on the integrated Medi­
terranean programmes (IMP). 
3.5. The list of the representative bodies consulted, 
and possibly their Opinions, must be included in the 
plans submitted by the Member States, in the Com­
munity support frameworks and in the monitoring and 
supervisory phase. 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/41 
4. Committees The reports to be submitted in connection with 
monitoring (their content is rather unclear). 
4.1. Previous ESC Opinions had wholeheartedly sup­
ported the establishment of a single Committee with 
responsibility for the three funds and for all five objec­
tives. This Committee, the ESC felt, should be represen­
tative of all interested bodies at Community, national, 
regional and other levels, as well as the economic and 
social partners. 
4.2. It has, however, been decided to set up three 
different committees. 
The ESC deplores the ambiguities which will undoubt­
edly arise in linking the three committees to the three 
structural funds. This arrangement does nothing to 
solve the problem of tailoring aid from the three funds 
to the five objectives. It also curtails the role of the 
economic and social forces in the Social Fund Commit­
tee (Article 124 of the EEC Treaty). 
4.3. It is essential to remedy these two shortcomings. 
The ESC therefore calls for the definition of a body with 
responsibility for assessing to what extent structural 
assistance is coordinated with the five objectives, while 
respecting the principle of partnership within the Com­
munity support frameworks. At the very least, this 
calls for an advisory committee, bringing together the 
Commission and the socio-economic interest groups. 5. Criteria 
5.1. On the issue of the criteria for deciding which 
regions should receive structural assistance, the ESC 
notes the indications supplied for objectives 1 and 2. It 
stresses however that: 
— as regards objective No 2 in particular, account 
should be taken of the arrangements provided for 
in Article 9 (2), second sub-paragraph, third indent 
of the framework Regulation (job losses—restruc­
turing of the steel industry and other ailing indus­
trial sectors); 
— the criteria for objective 5 b should be reviewed 
because there are too many of them, they are not 
sufficiently clear-cut, and they run counter to the 
principle that assistance should be concentrated. 
The Committee therefore refers to its earlier Opinion 
which proposed in respect of regions falling under 
objective 5 b and not covered by objectives 1 and 2, 
that the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 
and the European Social Fund (ESF) aid should be 
focused on disadvantaged islands and upland areas. 
4,4. A legal basis for such involvement could be 
provided in respect of the Committees concerned with 
objectives 1, 2 and 5 by assimilating the definition of 
'representatives of the Member States' to the definition 
set out in Treaty Article 124 ('representatives of 
Governments, trade unions and employers' organiz­
ations'). 5.2. The ESC concedes that the Commission must 
retain a minimum of flexibility but feels that this must 
be exercised within well-defined parameters. 
6. The integrated approach 
4.5. In connection with the monitoring and assess­
ment committees provided for in Articles 26 and 27 of 
the proposal, experience with IMPs could be used and 
improved with regard to the involvement of the econ­
omic and social operators. 6.1. The Committee would reiterate its support for 
arrangements which permit the maximum degree of 
synergy at regional level in terms of both partnership 
and coordination and multi-annual management and 
concentration. 
4.6. The ESC feels that the present Regulation should 
focus more sharply on following points: 
— The levels at which the Committees come into play, 
while also ensuring their involvement at regional 
level. 
— The qualifications of the members of these com­
mittees, in the context of wider partnership. 
— Arrangements for determining the physical and 
financial indicators to be used by the Commission 
for monitoring and assessing the impact of Com­
munity assistance. 6.2. As in previous Opinions, the Committee trusts 
that the use of this kind of structural assistance will 
be specifically encouraged. The proposed amendments 
concerning (i) the incorporation of the five objectives 
into the regional plans, (ii) partnership and (iii) coordi­
nation, reflect the concern to maximize the number of 
beneficiaries from such an approach, for example by 
promoting mixed regional and local economic and 
employment development agencies for the purpose of 
achieving the objectives. Moreover it should be speci­
fied that while remaining within the remit of the 
regional authorities, integrated operations must as a 
rule be geographically confined to NUTS III level when­
ever horizontal structural assistance is involved. 
No C 337/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
6.3. From this point of view, the Committee believes 
the Commission should be given more latitude in taking 
decisions on this approach. 
7. The new procedures 
The Committee demands that the various phases of the 
new procedure should be more clearly distinguished 
from one another. Clarity must be the paramount con­
cern in the Regulation. It must be comprehensible and 
applicable as soon as it is published without the need 
to refer to subsequent implementing instruments. 
7.1. Plans 
7.1.1. The absence of a single regional plan for the 
five objectives is regrettable. The regions covered by 
objectives 2 and 5 should be incorporated into regional 
planning. 
7.1.2. Although the framework Regulation provides 
for a national plan for objectives 3 and 4, there is 
nothing to stop them being broken down by region. 
7.1.3. The level at which plans are to be drawn up 
should be clarified. The 'geographical level deemed to 
be most appropriate' can be too widely interpreted. 
The Committee proposes that plans concerning only 
one region should have to be drawn up at regional level 
by the regional authorities. Where a plan covers several 
regions or a sectoral aspect of the development of 
several regions, the State and all regional and sub-
regional authorities concerned should, in line with the 
rules on partnership, be involved in drafting the plan 
for submission to the Commission. Article 5 (2), third 
paragraph, should therefore be amended: the term 
'expenditure' should be replaced by 'the actions and 
expenditure in respect of each of the regions ...'. 
7.1.4. The fact that certain issues are dealt with 
at NUTS III level does not prevent them from being 
incorporated into the regional plan, or being coordi­
nated with regional programming where there is no 
regional plan. 
7.1.5. Objective 5 a poses the most serious problem. 
The programming principle covers all objectives with­
out exception. The prior, deliberate exclusion of objec­
tive 5 a from the new procedures is therefore unaccept­
able. 
7.1.6. In view of the deadlines stipulated in the 
framework Regulation, the ESC calls for a rapid review 
of the agricultural regulations. In undertaking the 
review, the Commission and the Council should give consideration to coordinating and integrating objective 
5 a more closely with the other objectives, at both plan 
and Community support framework level. 
7.1.7. The deadline stipulated in Article 6 for submit­
ting plans is too tight. It should be aligned on the 
deadlines for objectives 3 and 4 (1 June 1989). 
7.2. The Community support frameworks 
7.2.1. Although the Committee considers the Com­
munity support frameworks (CSF) to be a key com­
ponent of the reform, it deplores the vagueness sur­
rounding their legal definition. The term 'sent as a 
declaration of intent to the Member State' does little 
to guarantee the results of consultation with the parties 
concerned. 
7.2.2. The Committee requests that the review pro­
cedure for the Community support frameworks should 
provide for the consultation of all interested parties. 
7.2.3. It is essential to ensure that Community sup­
port frameworks tie in with the plans. The impact and 
significance of the CSFs will in fact vary considerably 
depending on whether each plan has its own CSF or 
whether one covers several plans or just part of a plan. 
The Commission proposal should further clarify the 
content of CSFs. 
7.2.4. In the Spanish version of Title III of the draft 
coordinating Regulation, Estructuras Comunitarias de 
Apoyo should read Marcos Comunitarios de Apoyo, in 
line with Article 8 (5) of Council Regulation EEC No 
2052/88 of 24 June 1988. 
7.3. Forms of assistance 
7.3.1. Operational programmes 
The Committee attaches fundamental importance to 
the instrument of operational, possibly integrated, pro­
grammes. 
7.3.2. Programme contracts 
The Committee deplores the fact that the Commission 
proposal makes no reference to the programme con­
tracts which have been successfully tried out in IMP. 
The Committee reiterates the importance which it 
attaches to this instrument and considers that pro­
gramme contracts should be specified for each oper­
ational programme. They should be supported not only 
by the Community, the Member State and the regional 
or local authority concerned, but also by the other 
public bodies involved in the implementation of the 
programme. 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/43 
7.4. Assistance from the Fund 
7.4.1. The Committee is critical of the arrangements 
for coordination between the Funds which will in prac­
tice lead to separate administration of finances. Global 
programming of development needs at regional level 
would make for the gradual coordination of assistance 
by guaranteeing the requisite synergy, in particular with 
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee 
Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section. 
7.4.2. The Committee deplores the absence of stat­
istics on the contribution to objective 1 of ESF and 
EAGGF resources. 
7.4.3. Article 14 (1) does not clearly define the con­
nection between applications for financial assistance 
and the type of measures to be financed. The legal 
definition of 'specific operation' must be clarified and 
replaced by the definition of 'forms of assistance' set 
out in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88. 
7.4.4. There is some confusion between Article 13 of 
the framework Regulation and Article 18 of the current 
proposal dealing with the differentiation of rates of 
contribution from the Funds, since the rates can only 
be indicative and not mandatory. 
7.4.5. Steps should be taken to ensure that proposed 
operations and measures proposed for funding conform 
to the relevant Community support framework. [The 
current wording of Article 14 (3) provides for conform­
ity 'where appropriate ...'.] 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 8. Specific comments 
8.1. The Committee believes that the proposal 
should focus more closely and make adequate provision 
for a number of other points, in particular: 
8.1.1. Article 3's provisions for coordinating struc­
tural fund aid and aid from the European Investment 
Bank (EIB) with other Community financial instru­
ments are unsatisfactory since they do not make any 
practical proposals to ensure such coordination. 
8.1.2. Article 33 (publicity) should give the Com­
mission more mandatory powers vis-a-vis the Member 
States. 
8.1.3. Greater emphasis should be placed on the need 
to focus technical assistance for regions on the most 
disadvantaged regions and to apply it compulsorily 
from the moment the plans are drafted, so that these 
regions derive the maximum benefit from Community 
assistance. 
8.1.4. At no time is it suggested, that the oppor­
tunities created by Commission action in the area of 
financial engineering must contribute to the effective­
ness of structural assistance. 
8.2. With a view to the coordination of Community 
structural policy, the Committee stresses the need for 
linked deployment of all the financial instruments, in 
order to achieve the widest possible creation of new 
jobs. 
8.3. When the reform is being implemented, the 
Commission must ensure clear-cut organizational forms 
providing the requisite coordination to secure the 
efficiency of the new structural aids. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE