6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/13 
6.3. As this card is optional, the sickness insurance 
schemes must not have to pay an additional fee for 
Done at Brussels, 23 May. 1984. 
I. GENERAL COMMENTS 
1. The Committee points out that the ERDF's task 
is to correct the principal regional imbalances within 
the Community resulting in particular from agricul­
tural preponderance, industrial change and struc­
tural under-employment ('). 
2. The Community has been in existence for over 
25 years and a regional policy has been pursued for 
the last eight years. Nevertheless, not only has this 
aim not been achieved, but the reverse has hap­
pened: the gap between the rich and poor regions of 
(') Council Regulation (EEC) No 724/75 of 18 March 
1975, establishing the ERDF (Article 1). its issue by the doctor. It should be issued free when 
patients have their periodic medical check-up. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
the Community has grown even wider (see Tables 
appended). 
The recession has been a further factor in the wor­
sening development gap between the outlying areas 
of the Community and its central regions, where 
economic activity has returned and been consoli­
dated. This should be remembered for the future. 
3. The Committee deplores the Council's slowness 
in following up the Commission proposal of 
21 October 1981 for a revised Regulation. The Com­
mittee fully supported the original proposal particu­
larly as the proposed changes involved a concentra­
tion of ERDF measures, given the substantial 
increase in the resources available, especially in the 
'non-quota' section. The Committee firmly believes Opinion on the European Regional Development Fund (Eighth Report from the 
Commission to the Council) 
(84/C 206/04) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 14 November 1983 the Commission of the European Communities decided to con­
sult the Economic and Social Committee under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community on the abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Section for Regional Development, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 April 1984 in the light of the 
report by Mr Cavazzuti. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 23 May 1984 the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion unanimously: 
No C 206/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 6.8.84 
that only a Community regional policy can signifi­
cantly alter the regional imbalances in the Com­
munity, old and new. 
4. The Committee is pleased to see that checks 
revealed no improper use of Fund resources allo­
cated to the Member States. 
5. The Committee also notes with satisfaction that 
the Eighth ERDF Report is much more far-reaching 
and comprehensive than previous reports, in both 
quality and scope. 
6. The Committee feels that the commitment to 
studies and research — including those supervised 
by the Commission — must be stepped up; this is a 
vital, basic condition for more efficient Fund action. 
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 
The quota section 
7. The Committee notes the difficulty Member 
States have had in adhering to the 70 % ceiling (') on 
Fund aid for infrastructure investment. The average 
has in fact been just under 90 % over the last few 
years. 
8. While recognizing the need for further infras­
tructure investment for certain outlying areas of the 
Community, the Committee points out that over 
two-thirds of such investment still goes on tradi­
tional infrastructure schemes (36% on transport; 
29 % on water engineering). 
9. The Committee feels that infrastructure mea­
sures should gradually shift priority to those new 
sectors offering the greatest general interest. 
10. The Committee notes the large number of pro­
jects (in future there will also be programmes likely 
to prove more complex and harder to assess) sub­
mitted to the Fund Committee for approval in the 
last quarter of the year. It therefore suggests that 
steps be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to 
require Member States to spread their applications 
for aid\evenly throughout the year. 
11. Measures to help industry, crafts and services 
should, in the Committee's view, focus on invest-
(') Article 4 (1) (b) of the ERDF Regulation. ment in small firms, and cooperatives (in the widest 
sense of the word) including those involved in (a) 
processing the farm products of the region, and (b) 
distribution. 
12. The Committee therefore insists that the 30% 
minimum goal for ERDF aid in the productive sec­
tors be applied in each Member State, even if it is 
calculated on a multiannual basis (three years?). 
13. The Committee once again stresses the need 
for Fund measures to back up those taken by the 
State or by public or private national bodies. The 
Committee thus categorically rejects the use of the 
Fund as a tool to secure part of the 'fair return'. 
The non-quota section 
14. The Committee repeats its proposal for a 
gradual shift towards non-quota measures (still 
within the framework of the current regulations), 
both as a percentage and in absolute terms. 
15. The Committee stresses that 'non-quota' 
arrangements guarantee flexibility, unified aims and 
compatibility checks which are proving increasingly 
vital for the optimum use of resources and the effi­
ciency of their implementation. 
16. The Committee appreciates the difficulties 
referred to by the Commission in starting up the 
'non-quota' section. It nevertheless deplores the fact 
that from 1978 to 1982, only 73,33 million ECU out 
of 463,74 million ECU commitment appropriations 
were actually used — a mere 15,8 %. 
The Committee hopes that the Commission and the 
Member States will show greater commitment to 
swifter action, by expanding the departments res­
ponsible, in order to assess the reasons for delays 
and to overcome them, thus speeding up payments. 
17. The Committee notes that the positive role 
played by the 'non-quota' section, not least in 
prompting Member States to 'introduce aid arrange­
ments which did not exist before', should provide 
6.8.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/15 
an additional reason (see point 15 above), for a con­
certed drive to increase the 'non-quota' section. The Committee further feels that the role and work 
of the Regional Policy Committee should also 
receive greater prominence. 
Final comments 
18. While considering the role and responsibility 
of the Member State concerned to be vital, the Com­
mittee stresses the need to establish contact with (a) 
the regional and local authorities, to ensure that 
they are responsibly involved and (b) economic and 
social interest groups. 19. While not disputing the general validity of the 
forecasts and comments on the 'impact of Fund 
assistance on employment', the Committee feels 
that forecasts are not enough. The beneficiary coun­
tries should be asked to provide concrete details of 
their results, if possible broken down by sector. The 
shift in the new regulation from financing by project 
to programme financing may make more precise 
assessment possible. 
TABLE 1 
GDP (EUR 10 = 100) in EUA 
(Examples of the widening gap between the most- and least-favoured regions) (') 
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 
Hamburg 
Stuttgart 
Luneburg 
FRANCE 
He de France 
Limousin 
ITALY 
Lombardy 
Basilicata 
BELGIUM 
Antwerp 
Luxembourg Province 
LUXEMBOURG 
UNITED KINGDOM 
South-east (London) 
Northern Ireland 
IRELAND 
NETHERLANDS 
Groningen 
Utrecht 
Friesland 1970 
198 
138 
85 
167 
79 
103 
43 
121 
77 
127 
99 
70 
53 
113 
90 
75 1977 
225 
153 
96 
169 
86 
83 
46 
156 
96 
128 
80 
52 
47 
277 
122 
93 1979 
225 
155 
91 
173 
87 
83 
45 
152 
92 
129 
86 
59 
50 
223 
121 
95 1980 
190 
145 
105 
166 
90 
112 
48 
155 
95 
121 
100 
64 
51 
280 
113 
127 
Source: EP working document. 
(') Basically the best and worst-off regions of each Member State, except in the case of Luxembourg, Ireland, 
Denmark and Greece, where the figure given is average. A third example has been given for Federal 
Republic of Germany and the Netherlands because the richest region is unrepresentative. 
No C 206/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 6.8.84 
DENMARK 
Copenhagen 
GREECE 1970 
158 
46 1977 
167 
46 1979 
159 
45 1980 
150 
40 
TABLE 2 
Unemployment rates 1970 to 1982 
(Examples of the differences between the regions of the Community) 
EUROPE 9 
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 
Stuttgart 
FRANCE 
He de France 
Limousin 
ITALY 
Basilicata 
Tuscany 
BELGIUM 
Liege province 
LUXEMBOURG 
UNITED KINGDOM 
North-west 
South-east (London) 
IRELAND 
NETHERLANDS 
Utrecht 
DENMARK 
GREECE 1970 
2,0 
0,1 
1,3 
1,2 
7,7 
2,6 
4,5 
0 
2,6 
1,5 
5,8 
0,6 
1,0 1977 
5,3 
2,2 
4,8 
3,4 
12,0 
3,1 
10,5 
0,6 
6,9 
4,1 
9,5 
2,3 
5,8 1979 
4,1 
1,4 
5,0 
2,9 
10,0 
3,6 
9,9 
1,5 
4,4 
2,2 
7,2 
2,0 
6,0 
Figures not available October 
1982 
9,9 
3,4 
7,9 
7,5 
16,2 
4,9 
18,4 
1,6 
15,1 
9,3 
13,3 
11,6 
14,0 
4,1 
Source: EP working document. 
Done at Brussels, 23 May 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC