16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/13 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision introducing a supplementary Community measure for 
the eradication of brucellosis, tuberculosis and leukosis in cattle (*) 
(87/C 68/08) 
On 10 November 1986 the Council, acting in accordance with the provisions of Articles 43 and 19 8 of 
the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, asked the Economic and Social 
Committee for an opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee appointed Mr Storie-Pugh as rapporteur-general and instructed him to prepare its 
work on the matter. 
On 16 December-1986 during its 242nd plenary session held on 16 and 17 December, the Committee 
adopted the following opinion with no dissenting votes and 3 abstentions. 
The Committee approves the draft Decision. 
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
(>) OJ No C 292, 18. 11. 1986, p. 2. 
Opinion on local employment initiatives 
(87/C 68/09) 
On 19 December 1985 the Economic and Social Committee, acting on the fourth paragraph of Article 
20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on local employment initiatives. 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the 
subject, adopted its opinion on 13 November 1986 in the light of the report by Mr Roycroft and 
Mr Roseingrave. 
At its 242nd plenary session (meeting of 17 December 1986), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by 108 votes to 6, with 23 abstentions: 
1. General comments remains difficult to assess, as does the measurement of 
economic activity generated. 
1.1. The Committee notes that the widespread increase in 
local employment initiatives (LEIs) in recent years must be 
seen in the context of the parallel unemployment crisis which 
has developed in Europe during the same period. The net 
'job-creativeness' of LEIs and their impact on local labour 
market conditions are therefore clearly of primary 
importance. Yet the total number and quality of jobs created 1.1.1. On the one hand, the projects summarized in the 
report, and the fact that many LEIs tend to develop in areas 
where, apparently, the 'optimal business mix' is lacking, 
would indicate that LEIs can: 
— 'create' new local jobs; 
— 'save' local jobs; 
No C 68/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 3. 87 
— induce a community or cooperative commitment to 
developing further local job initiatives; 
— open up new and existing markets for goods and services, 
including social and recreational services; 
— provide initial or transitional training experience for local 
young people; 
— grow from a local sense of solidarity; 
1.1.2. On the other hand, there is insufficient aggregate 
quantification of: 
— the job displacement factor (undermining the market and 
jobs elsewhere); 
— the job substitution factor (steady jobs replaced by 
sub-contractual work); 
— the grey area in which some (e.g. certain 'alternative') 
projects operate and the macro-economic effects of 
this on official revenue and expenditure on 
employment-creation policy as a whole; 
— the large number of employees or 'contributors' in 
'alternative' projects who were or who are regularly 
employed in the first place, but seek a different 
socio-cultural outlet. 
1.2. The Committee has repeatedly referred to the-need 
for social cohesion and solidarity as essential elements for 
employment growth (J). 
1.2.1. It can be seen in this respect that LEIs and 
community-based prime-mover groups can indeed help to: 
— stimulate initiative and commitment at local level; 
— transform distressed communities into 'opportunity' 
areas; 
— -stabilize, involve and integrate disadvantaged or 
marginal groups in the local community; 
— improve and promote local public facilities, services, 
products and the environment. 
1.2.2. However, an unbalanced or indiscriminate 
approach to such LEI development has risks and might 
help to: 
— remove or reduce social initiatives at other levels or in 
public spheres of responsibility; 
(') See for example ESC opinions on social developments in the 
Community in 1983 and 1984 (OJ No C 307, 19. 11. 1984; 
OJNoC218,29. 8. 1985). — induce an over-optimistic and over-committed attitude 
among some vulnerable and motivated individuals, 
eventually at their own personal expense; 
— build up an enclosed 'commune' or isolated approach 
among marginal groups; 
— conceal dangerous or even areas of activity bordering on 
the criminal among problem groups. 
1.3. The multiplicity and confusion of legal forms, or 
sometimes semi-legal forms, with which LEIs have developed 
in the European Community is indicative of their indigenous 
and often precarious nature. 
1.3.1. Inhibiting factors in this connection include: 
— the absence in some Member States of a clearly defined 
and sufficiently broadly based flexible legal framework 
conducive to the promotion of varying forms of LEIs; 
— specific legal difficulties in some Member States for 
new groups of self-employed persons who are not 
professionally qualified or recognized; 
— difficulties in other Member States where persons 
wishing to form a worker cooperative are either not 
legally catered for or are classified as being self-employed 
and therefore excluded from unemployment and sickness 
insurance cover; 
— unfavourable legislation on the size and structure of 
worker cooperatives, or on fiscal and subcontracting 
incentives; 
— difficulties for workers' takeovers of bankrupt 
enterprises, insolvency practice often not involving the 
employees concerned and usually dominated by the legal 
issue of how to mediate between debtor and creditors 
rather than how to rehabilitate the firm in a new 
form; 
— over-rigid bankruptcy regulations; 
— particular legal problems for 'alternative' projects in that 
their non-ownership, 'neutralized capital' structure, 
often accompanied by variable 'social' incomes and a 
'communal' social protection system, raises difficulties in 
terms of recognition, registration and liability. 
— national or local political climates which are not at times 
conducive to creating the partnership essential to starting 
up new enterprises; 
— the over-centralized bureaucratic demands. 
16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/15 
1.4. It is recognized that there are many different 
approachaes to establishing LEIs. LEIs moreover are 
sometimes considered as a more motivating form of 
employment than 'traditional', mass-corporate, models in 
both the private and public sectors. 
1.4.1. Whilst registering that motivation, creativeness 
and job satisfaction-performance in general can be achieved 
in such conventional undertakings, it is equally worth 
emphasizing that: 
— LEIs can bring out the creative and entrepreneurial 
talents of individuals; 
— LEIs can give persons involved a certain stimulating sense 
of local .identity and of being of service to the local 
community; 
— LEIs can promote a motivating sense of solidarity and 
joint effort in place of the sometimes alienating or 
semi-conflictual worker/management practices under 
'traditional' forms of ownership; 
— LEIs can provide a non-profit oriented, enterprising and 
productive form of self-expression and can perhaps 
'retrieve' some persons living on the margins of society 
from becorning completely alienated and from falling 
into a completely clandestine form of activity; 
— LEIs can usefully combine professional and managerial 
training with sheltered market conditions. 
1.4.2. There are also inherent risks and dangers, and 
these include: 
— the fact that some LEIs provide lower standards of pay, 
working conditions (particularly in the case of young 
persons), insurance cover and job security, and that their 
lifespan sometimes appears to be short; 
— the general absence of, and at times antipathy towards, 
formal trade union structures and representation within 
LEIs, and the danger of earnings and working conditions 
thereby being downgraded still further; 
— the high degree of 'self-exploitation' in 'alternative' 
undertakings and the possible danger of accentuating the 
'black economy'; 
— the risk of training standards not being properly 
monitored or recognized after a period of employment in 
an LEI. 
It is also necessary to point out that: 
— some unemployed persons look to LEIs simply in order to 
get a job, irrespective of other potential motivating 
factors or risks possibly connected; 
— at the same time not all unemployed persons have the 
necessary aptitude, skills, motivation or desire to try to 
become 'new' entrepreneurs or cooperators; — not everyone in such a position, especially those with 
immediate family obligations and responsibilities, feels 
free to risk short-term or dwindling personal financial 
resources or 'collateral' in order to experiment in LEI 
activity; 
— some persons prefer to work in larger, perhaps less 
vulnerable, private and public undertakings. 
1.5. Start-up aid and finance facilities for potential LEI 
promotion now available in the Member States, include: 
— enterprise allowance grants and loans; 
— 'hand-holding' advice agencies providing support 
structures and financial and managerial assistance in 
order to help LEIs move confidently towards viable forms 
of self-sustaining employment; 
— business and banking promotion of local enterprise 
agencies, together with loans, secondees and advice 
facilities for LEI start-ups in collaboration with local 
authorities; 
— much more use of the financial and marketing facilities 
and resources of the private sector; 
— trade union advice, funding and training facilities; 
— cooperative based or credit union based loans, grants, 
guarantees and other facilities for promoting local 
co-ops. 
— State-sponsored 'on-the-job' training and wage subsidies 
for young people; 
— business management training schemes; 
— local temporary work subsidies for young unemployed 
persons; 
1.5.1. Notwithstanding such schemes, key problems 
remain, for example: 
— difficulties in arranging and financing feasibility 
studies; 
— the rather rigid position of banks and public financial 
institutions at local and national levels with regard to 
taking risks in the direct financing of specific LEI 
projects; 
— a lack of relevant and clear information getting through 
to the localities on how to apply for and gain access to 
relevant national and Community funds; 
— the lack of involvement of these local communities in 
decisions concerning the distribution and use of 
No C 68/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 3. 87 
Community monies available, and the continuing 
problem of some central governments delaying 
distribution of and 'clawing back' such monies for the 
national exchequer; 
— the specific difficulties encountered in this connection for 
workers over the age of 25 in that 75 % ESF funding for 
job and enterprise training schemes and subsidized 
placements throughout the Community must be for 
young people under the age of 25; 
— the sudden loss of entitlement to unemployment benefit 
and related forms of assistance, in most systems, with the 
tentative taking up of a self-employed activity; 
— the difficulties which 'alternative' projects have in raising 
capital, given their 'non-ownership' structure; 
— difficulties in the development of LEIs in those regions 
which have cross-frontier obstacles. 
2. Conclusions/proposals 
2.1. The Committee recognizes the useful and at times 
vital role which LEIs have to offer, particularly in local and 
regional areas with acute unemployment problems. From a 
local or microeconomic point of view, LEIs can generally be 
identified as being advantageous and socially desirable. From 
a macro-economic point of view, LEIs cannot be seen as a 
panacea to mass unemployment. Their aggregate 
job-creative impact remains unclear. 
2.2. Local intiatives tend to be induced and helped along 
as part of a local climate of community commitment, 
involvement and collective self-reliance. Prime-mover groups 
are often crucial in this respect. 
2.3. Whilst more specific forms of support for LEIs could 
indeed aim at maximizing their job-related potential and 
social usefulness, official attention should not be diverted 
from the need for macro-economic employment measures 
and policies. Nor should excessive attention and resources be 
diverted towards the promotion simply of experimental 
lifestyles. Sustainable jobs and the improvement of local 
social conditions ought to remain the essential focuses for 
supporting LEI development. 
2.4. Such support needs to be based on a partnership of 
understanding between LEI prime movers and the statutory 
public bodies and local authorities in order to guarantee 
standards and uphold democratically accountable provision 
of basic public services. The involvement of the social partners is also essential in order to help stimulate local 
enterprising attitudes and to help ensure proper working 
conditions and fair competition. 
2.5. Member States and the European Community need 
to put together a more comprehensive and less inhibiting 
legal framework conducive to the promotion of varying 
forms of LEIs. 
2.6. The Committee once again stresses that such LEI 
development must not lead to a diversion into the 'black 
economy'. Likewise there must be no exploitation of 
unemployment based on undeclared labour or at least on 
working conditions which may lead to unfair competition. It 
is therefore important to create the right political and 
administrative attitudes which help unlock human resources 
whilst at the same time to apply certain conditions for a rapid 
and limited transitory phase towards proper working 
standards and norms, both in the public and private 
sectors. 
2.7. The Committee puts forward the following specific 
proposals: 
2.7.1. Member States ought to calculate and provide the 
Community with reliable data on the net job-creative impact 
of LEIs and how more sustainable jobs might be promoted in 
our local economies. 
2.7.2. Member States should not frustrate but instead 
encourage local groups, communities and regions to secure 
an appropriate participation and some say in the distribution 
and use of Community and a range of funds available for the 
economic and social development of their own areas, notably 
through the promotion of LEIs. 
2.7.3. In addition to the need for a more appropriate 
functioning and financing of the European Social and 
Regional Funds, the feasibility of a new, credit-based, 
European Employment Fund ought to be given 
consideration, with a view to encouraging growth and 
employment in all possible fields, as already outlined in the 
Committee's opinion on 'social developments in the 
Community in 1985' (J). 
2.7.4. 'Up-front' financing of viable LEIs could be 
facilitated by the use of substantial single grants paid out at 
the start of a project which could be used in some instances to 
prepare professional feasibility studies to make projects more 
acceptable to potential funders. Financial institutions, 
together with the social partners, might also consider how 
they could better provide guarantees for viable projects. 
(!) Economic and Social Committee document of 17 September 
1986, points 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 (OJ No C 328, 
26. 12. 1986). 
16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/17 
2.7.5. The Community ought to promote the setting up 
of professional advisory services for LEI development, and 
build on and further encourage the useful 'networking' and 
information role of ELISE. Better use should also be made of 
guidance and written material available. 
2.7.6. All persons employed or self-employed in LEIs 
ought to have access to State support in the form of 
unemployment benefit and other social insurance benefits 
both in cases of failure and of temporary inactivity. 
2.7.7. Workers' take-overs of insolvent or bankrupt 
enterprises could be facilitated by formally involving them in 
the liquidation procedures and by preventing an 
(uneconomic) shut-down of a factory by means of a jointly 
agreed care and maintenance contract procedure or through 
appropriate legal procedures in court, the interests of all 
parties concerned being taken into account with prime 
consideration being to maintain viable jobs. 
Done at Brussels, 17 November 1986. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee has for a 
number of years concerned itself with the subject of 
integrated development operations, in the firm belief that 
underdeveloped and particularly run-down areas need 
coordinated integrated help from various Community 
instruments and national development measures. 
1.2. On 30 April 1980 the Committee unanimously 
approved a report by Mr Bornard on the Lorraine region. 
1.3. In 1982 Mr Bornard produced another report, on 
integrated operations as a whole. The. main document dealt 2.7.8. The role of the social partners in stimulating LEIs 
and ensuring proper working conditions could be organized 
through the setting up, Europe-wide, of local and regional 
tripartite committees composed of: 
— employers, workers and representatives of other 
socio-professional groups; 
— local government representatives; 
— local prime mover groups and representatives of LEI 
projects. 
Such Committees could jointly aid, advise and constructively 
monitor the progress of LEIs emerging in their own 
communities, also as regards any ancillary employment 
resulting from large-scale infrastructure schemes provided 
for by the Council to support production activities and 
employment. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
with the general problems facing integrated development 
operations, whilst the appendices, drawn up by 
co-rapporteurs Mr Masprone(1), Mr Hall (2), Mr 
Ognibene (3) and Mr Kolbenschlag (4) presented an analysis 
of the operations already underway in Naples and Belfast and 
examined a number of proposed schemes for other areas. 
1.4. Following a proposal by various members of the 
Section for Regional Development, the Committee 
subsequently produced an information report on an 
(») On Naples. 
(2) On Belfast. 
(3) On disadvantaged rural areas. 
(4) On the Bavarian forest. Opinion on the criteria and efficiency of integrated operations 
(87/C 68/10)