10.11.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC304/35
OpinionontheFutureofCommunityInitiativesundertheStructuralFunds
(93/C304/10)
Inparagraph8oftheGreenPaperTheFutureofCommunityInitiativesundertheStructural
Funds[doc.COM(93)282final],theCommissioncallsforconsultationoftheCommittee.
On25May1993,theBureauoftheEconomicandSocialCommitteeinstructedtheSection
forRegionalDevelopmentandTownandCountryPlanningtopreparetheOpinion.
TheSectionforRegionalDevelopmentandTownandCountryPlanningadopteditsOpinion
on14September1993.TheRapporteurwasMrChristie.
Atits308thPlenarySession(meetingof22September1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajoritywithoneabstention.
1.Introduction transnationalcooperationandthepoolingofknow­
howinareasofsharedconcern.ThroughCommunity
initiativesbestpracticecanbetransferredthroughout
theCommunityandthismightwellbeoneofthekey
functionsofinitiatives.1.1.TheGreenPaperpresentedbytheCommission
representsthefirstoccasiononwhichtheprinciples
andpracticesoftheCommunityinitiativeprogramme
havebeensubjecttoacomprehensive review.TheCom­
missionisusingtheintroductionofthenextphase
intheCommunitystructuralpolicies—settobeginin
January1994—astheappropriatetimeatwhichto
adjusttheCommunityinitiativeschemethathasbeen
inplacesince1989.On20July1993,inadoptingthe
revisedRegulations(*)governingtheStructuralFunds,
theCouncilconfirmedtheCommunityinitiativesand
fixedsomefinancialandadministrative provisions .
1.2.TheCommitteehas,onanumberofoccasions
since1989,expressedanopinionconcerningtheoper­
ationofCommunityinitiatives.However,thesehave
typicallybeenmadewithinthegeneralcontextofthe
Community'sstructuralprogrammeasawhole,rather
thanasdetailedcommentontheoperationofthe
Communityinitiativeschemeitself.2.2.TheCommitteeacknowledgesthatthestrengths
oftheCommunityinitiativeslieintheflexibilityof
theinstruments ;thecapacityforinitiativestoaddress
problemsthatarenotadequatelydealtwithunderthe
structuralfunds,suchastheproblemsofborderregions;
theinnovativenatureofmanyoftheprogrammeswhich
implementCommunityinitiatives;andtheimmediate
relevanceoftheprogrammestoCommunitycitizens.
2.2.1.TheCommissionmightconsiderincorporat­
ingsuccessfulinnovativeCommunityinitiativeswhich
havegeneralapplicabilitytoeconomicandsocial
cohesionintootherstructuralinstrumentsthusreleas­
ingresourcesforthefurtherdevelopmentofnewCom­
munityinitiatives .2.Generalcomments
2.1.TheCommittee welcomestheCommission
GreenPaperonreformofCommunityinitiatives,and
takesthisopportunityoffullysupportingtheprinciple
ofCommunityinitiatives.Communityinitiativescon­
stituteanimportantinstrumentofeconomic :andsocial
cohesion.Itisessentialthattheindependentandinno­
vativenatureofCommunityinitiativesisretained.
Communityinitiativesshouldcontinuetobeavailable
totheCommunitytouseindirectresponsetothe
emergenceofunexpectedeconomicandsocialprob­
lems.TheyareahighlyvisibleaspectofECcohesion
policies,allowtheadoptionofacommonapproachto
resolvingeconomicandsocialproblemsthroughoutthe
Community,andprovideaframeworkforencouraging2.3.Atthesametime,theCommitteehasinthepast
expressedaviewthattherearetoomanyCommunity
programmeswiththeresultthattheprincipleofconcen­
trationintheapplicationofstructuralpoliciesisbeing
neglected.WhilstwelcomingtheCommission'spro­
posalthatthenumberofCommunityinitiativesshould
bereduced,wenonethelessconsiderittobeimportant
thatCommunityinitiativesretainadegreeofflexibility
toenablepolicytorespondspeedilytounexpected
problems.AtatimeofdeeprecessionintheEuropean
Community,andduringaperiodwhenthepaceof
structuralchangeisincreasingandbringingwithita
riseinlongtermunemployment ,itisimportantthat
theCommunityhassuchafacilityatitsdisposal. (*)Regulations (EEC)Nos2081/93and2082/93.

NoC304/36 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 10.11.93
theinvolvementoflocalparticipants,includingthe
economicandsocialpartners,inbothdevisingand
implementing programmes .Communityinitiatives
mustreflecta'bottom-up'approachtoeconomicdevel­
opmentandmustnotbesubjecttoexcessivecentraliza­
tionatanationallevel.
3.Specificcomments
3.1.Programming Communityinitiatives2.4.TheCommitteeregretsthattheCommissionhas
beenunableatthistimetopresentacomprehensive
evaluationofCommunityinitiatives.Whilstaccepting
thatevaluatingsuchprogrammesisdifficult—particu­
larlyforthosewhichinvolverelativelysmallsumsof
money—neverthelessitisextremelydifficultforthis
Committeetoofferdetailedcommentsonthefuture
shapeofCommunityinitiativesintheabsenceofsuch
anevaluation .TheCommitteeproposesthatMember
StatesincludeevaluationproceduresinrespectofCom­
munityinitiativeswhensubmittingplansforassistance
undertheStructuralFunds.
InthecaseofnewandinnovativeCommunityinitiatives
theCommissionshouldspeedilyevaluatetheircontri­
butiontoeconomicandsocialcohesionsothatbest
practicemeasurescanbeincorporatedintothegeneral
applicationofStructuralFunds.
2.5.TheCommissionproposesthatCommunity
initiativesshouldconcentrateonfivegeneralpriorities:
—cross-border ,transnationalandinter-regionalcoop­
erationandnetworks,
—ruraldevelopment ,
—outermostregions,
—employmentandthedevelopment ofhuman
resources ,
—themanagementofindustrialchange.TheCommissionproposesthatuptothree-quartersof
thefundsavailabletoCommunityinitiativesbeallo­
catedtothefivebroadprioritiesofCommunityinitiat­
ivesbeforeanyoftheCSFsareadopted,leavingone­
quarteroftheavailablefundinreserveforlaterallo­
cationinresponsetounforeseenproblems.Itisessential
thatsomedegreeofflexibilityinCommunityinitiatives
isretainedasthereiseverylikelihoodthatsectorsnot
specificallymentionedinthepastorpresentinitiatives
(e.g.services)willexperienceadjustmentdifficultiesin
thefutureandrequirethekindofsupportpossible
throughCommunityinitiatives.
3.1.1.Ifimplemented ,thesereformsarelikelyto
improvethecoherencebetweenCommunityinitiatives
andthestructuralfunds,andeasetheadministrative
burdenwhichtheseprogrammesimposeonlocal
administrations —bothofwhicharedesirable.How­
ever,thesebenefitshavetobesetagainstthecostsof
introducinganapproachwhichislesssensitivetothe
changingeconomiccircumstances inmanyofthe
regionseligibleforCommunityassistance.Thisriskof
inflexibilityisincreasedbytheCommissionproposal
thatcertain—thoughnotall—Communityinitiatives
shouldbeoperationalforthefullsix-yearperiodofthe
reformedstructuralfunds.2.6.TheCommitteeagreesthatthesegeneralobjec­
tiveshouldguidethedesignandimplementation of
Communityinitiativesduringtheperiod1994-1999.
Theyconformcloselyto,andcomplementtheaimsand
objectivesof,thereformsthathavebeenproposedto
theoperationoftheStructuralFundsgenerally.Itis
alsoimportanttostressthatthesegeneralobjectives
provideforsupportforallareasofeconomicdevelop­
mentinthetargetedareas,includingsupportforthe
servicesectorandforsmallandmedium-sized enter­
prises(SMEs).
2.7.Further,togethertheseobjectivesforaction
underCommunityinitiativeswillenabletheretention
ofthosecurrentinitiativeswhicharewidelyacknowl­
edgedtocontributepositivelytocohesion.Conse­
quently,theCommitteeendorsesthegeneralframe­
workofoperationforCommunityinitiativesaspro­
posedbytheCommission .3.1.2.TheCommissionhasdeliberatelyavoidedpro­
posingaspecificdivisionoffundingbetweenthefive
generalobjectivesforactionwithintheprogrammeof
Communityinitiatives.Clearly,asignificantpartof
thefundsassignedovertheperiod1994-1999willbe
influencedbythecurrentconfigurationofCommunity
initiatives.TheCommitteeconsidersthat,asaguiding
principleinallocatingCommunityinitiativeexpendi­
ture,fundsshouldbeassignedtothoseprogrammes
thatdeliverthegreatestbenefittotheCommunity's
disadvantaged andrestructuringregions.
3.2.Geographiceligibility2.8.TheCommitteeconsidersthatCommunity
initiativesareamostsuitableinstrumentforencourag­
ing'partnership'inallthestagesofthepreparationand
planningofactivities[Article4ofthenewCoordinating
Regulation (EEC)No2081/93].Accordingly ,theCom­
mitteewouldstressthatanyreformtotheCommunity
initiativeschememustseekwaysofclearlyimprovingTheCommitteesupportstheCommissionproposalthat
alimitedamountofresourcesavailableunderCom­

10.11.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC304/37
thatwouldgobeyondgeographiccontiguity.One
objectiveofthiscooperationwouldbetopromotethe
diffusionofbestpracticeproductiontechnologiesand
encouragediversification ,inordertoraiseproductivity
inthelessfavouredregionstherebycontributingto
economicandsocialcohesion.munityinitiativesshouldbespentoutsideeligibleareas.
Thisisespeciallyimportantforinfrastructural pro­
grammestargetedatborderorruralareaswheresome
areasareeligibleandothersarenot.Further,itshould
bepossiblewithintheregulationsgoverningCom­
munityinitiativesforassistancetobegiventoareas
sufferingadverseconsequences fromanunexpected
changeineconomiccircumstances .
3.5.1.TheCommitteenotesthereservationsrecord­
edbytheCommissionconcerningextendingInterreg
tointernalborderareasseparatedbythesea.Whilst
acceptingthatincludingallseaborderswouldnotbe
possiblewithinthefinancialprovisionsoftheCom­
munityinitiativesscheme,weconsiderthegeneralrule
thatmaritimebordersdonotqualifytobeinappropri­
ate.Attheveryleastadjacentregions(forexample,
areasoftheAtlanticArcandtheMediterranean )separ­
atedbymaritimebordersshouldbeeligibleforassist­
ancetoundertakeexploratoryresearchconcerningthe
possibilitiesforimprovingtransportlinks.3.2.1.However,itremainsthecasethatMember
Stategovernmentsthemselvesmustaccepttheprincipal
burdenofresponsibility foraddressingproblemsin
theseareas.InthepastthisCommitteehasexpressed,
andreiterateshere,theviewthattheprincipleofcon­
centrationofCommunitystructuralpoliciesmustbe
strictlyobserved.Caremustbeexercisedtoensurethat
thepotentialeffectivenessofCommunityinitiativesin
theCommunity'shandicappedregionsisnotunder­
minedbyover-extending geographiceligibility.Where
eligibilityisextended,itshouldbeincumbentuponthe
Commissiontoestablishtheparticularadded-valueto
theCommunity'shandicapped andrestructuring
regionsthatisexpectedtoaccruefromtheimplemen­
tationofaCommunityinitiative.3.5.2.TheCommitteeendorsestheCommissionpro­
posaltosupportinter-regionalandtransnationalcoop­
erationandtheestablishment ofnetworksthatlink
poorerregionsandareastomoreprosperousareas
andregions,bothwithintheECaswellasbetween
Communityregionsandareasofneighbouringnon­
MemberStates(includingCentralandEasternEurope
andtheMediterranean countries).Inparticular,the
Committeeconsidersthatsupportshouldbegivento
cooperationbetweenregionsandareaswhichhave
commonstructuralfeatures(e.g.uplandareas,major
conurbations ,areasofparticularenvironmental inter­
est).Inthi?waypublicpolicywouldassistthefunc­
tioningoftheprivatesectorbyidentifyingmutually
beneficialopportunitiesforcollaboration .3.3.TheCommitteenotestheCouncil'sdecision
toassign9%oftheStructuralFundstoCommunity
initiativesovertheperiod1994-1999.WhilsttheCom­
mitteerecognizesthatthisdecisionmayberegardedas
asuccessforthoseseekingtorenationalizestructural
activities,itwouldpointoutthatafundallocationof
9%isbelowthatobtainingin1989-1993andbelow
theminimumthresholdof10%calledforbytheESC
andtheEuropeanParliament .
3.4.Priorityactions
3.6.RuraldevelopmentTheCommissionidentifiesfiveobjectivesorthemes
thataretobeeligibleforassistancewithintheCom­
munityinitiativeframework .
3.5.Cross-border ,transnational andinter-regional
cooperationandnetworksFlerethereiswidespreadagreementthatimpending
policychangeswillrequirethatnewapproachestothe
problemsoftheruralregionsoftheCommunityneed
tobefound.TheCommission'sproposalsinthisrespect
areparticularlywelcomedbythisCommitteewhich
producedanOpiniononruralareasoutliningarange
ofproposalsforaction(*). TheCommitteeacknowledges theimportanceofCom­
munityinitiativesunderthispriority,andendorsesthe
Commission'sproposaltoextendtheInterregpro­
grammeaccordingly .Further,weaccepttheCom­
mission'sargumentsforalimitedextensionofeligibility
forassistancetoensurethecoherenceofmeasures
aimedatpromotingeconomicdevelopmentinallbor­
derregions.However,itisparticularlyimportantthat
measuresadoptedunderthispriorityarecoordinated
withtheotherstructuralpolicies,inparticularthoseto
whichmanyborderregionsareeligible.3.6.1.Moresothaninotheraspectsofeconomic
development ,itisvitalinthematterofruraldevelop­
mentthata'bottom-up'approachtopolicyformulation
andimplementation isadopted.Consequently ,weurge
theCommissiontoconsidernewwaysofinvolvingall
thepartners—inlocal,nationalandCommunitylevel
TheCommitteebelievesthattheInterregprogramme
couldpromotearegionaltransnational cooperation (*)OJNoC161,14.6.1993,p.39.

NoC304/38 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 10.11.93
organizations—representingthediverserangeofinter­
estsrepresentedinruralareaswithinthepolicyprocess.capacityoftheCommunityeconomy,butalsoasitwill
promoteeconomicandsocialcohesion.However,it
isimportantthatsufficientattentionisgiventothe
requirementsofbusinesswhendevisingCommunity
policy.Consequently ,mechanismsshouldbeestab­
lishedwhichensureanadequaterepresentation ofthe
economicandsocialpartnerspriortospecificpolicies
beingformulated.3.7.Outermostareas
3.9.ThemanagementofindustrialchangeAsmanystudieshavedemonstrated ,geographicperiph­
eralityconstitutesoneofthemostintractablebarriers
toeconomicdevelopmentand,consequently ,tothe
objectiveofachievingeconomicandsocialcohesion.
TheCommitteebelievesthattheprincipalresponsibility
forpromotingeconomicdevelopinginperipheralareas
lieswithnationalauthorities .However,theCommittee
welcomestheemphasisthatisnowbeinggivento
thematterofperipherallyinCommunitystructural
programmes ,andfullyendorsestheCommissionpro­
posalthatoutermostregionsshouldbeapriorityfor
assistanceunderCommunityinitiatives.Thesepro­
grammesshouldemphasizemeasureswhichencourage
sustainableeconomicdevelopment inperipheral
regions.Asinthecaseofdevelopmentwithinrural
areas,itisessentialthatprogrammesaddressedto
peripheralareasaredevisedandimplementedwiththe
maximumlocalinvolvement .Whendefiningoutermost
areasitisimportanttoincludewithinthedefinition,
outlyingIslandterritorieslinkedtoMemberStates.TheCommissionproposalsamounttocollectingunder
oneheadinganumberofCommunityinitiativesthat
aretargetedatassistingtheprocessofstructuralchange
thatisaconsequenceofthecontinuedrun-downof
traditionalindustries(steel,shipbuilding ,textiles,coal).
TheCommitteeacknowledgesthatthereisanon-going
needforsuchprogrammestoencourageeconomic
diversification withintheregionsaffected.
3.9.1.Inadditiontoprovidingareactivefunction
forregionsdependentupontraditionalindustrialsec­
tors,theCommissionproposesthatCommunityinitiat­
ivesareavailabletoassistthebroadprocessofecon­
omicdiversification inhandicappedandrestructuring
regions.Theaimwouldbetoreducethedependence
ofregionsonspecificactivitiesthatmaybesusceptible
toindustrialchange,andbroadentheproductivebase
ofthelocaleconomy.TheCommissionalsoproposes
thatassistancewouldbeextendedtoareasoutside
eligibleareas.3.8.Employmentandthedevelopmentofhuman
resources
Thisisabroadpriorityforactionwhichhasalready
beenelaboratedintheproposedreformtotheStructural
FundsundertheaegisoftherevisedObjective4.It
is,therefore,appropriatethatthispriorityalsofinds
expressionwithintheCommunityinitiativeframework .
Further,actionunderthispriorityislikelytoreinforce
andfacilitateCommunityinitiativesdesignedtofacili­
tateinter-regional businesscooperation .3.9.2.TheCommitteeendorsestheproposalthat
Communityinitiativesaredirectedatencouraging
regionaleconomicdiversification .Employmentinmany
handicappedandrestructuringregionsisdependenton
anarrowrangeofeconomicactivities,orreliesonlocal
firmswhichoperatesolelyassub-contractors tolarge
internationalcompanies.Initiativeswhichfacilitate
localemployerstobroadenthescopeoftheiractivities,
andtoextendtheirmarkets,willcontributetoprotect­
ingemployment .TheCommitteeis,however,lesscon­
vincedofthecaseforextendingtheseinitiativesbeyond
eligibleareas,otherthaninthosecaseswhereitcan
bedemonstratedthatsodoingwillcontributetothe
developmentofthehandicappedorrestructuring
regions,orwhere,intheabsenceofCommunityassist­
ance,theregionconcernedwouldbesubjecttosubstan­
tialeconomicdislocation .3.8.1.TheCommitteeagreeswiththeCommission's
analysisthateconomicgrowthalonewillnotprovide
sufficientjobstoreduceunemployment overthenext
decade.Consequently ,theCommitteewelcomesthe
proposaltocreateasingleframeworkhumanresource
initiativetoaddresstheproblemofunemployment .
3.8.2.AkeyelementintheCommission'sproposal
istheimportanceitgivestodevisingprogrammeswhich
assistdisadvantaged groupstobecomeactivepartici­
pantsintheCommunitylabourforce.Thefocusis
ontheacquisitionofskills,introducingmeasuresto
encouragewomenintothelabourforce,andpromoting
technologytransfer.TheCommitteewelcomesthisnot
onlyasitwillcontributetothewealthgenerating3.9.3.TheCommitteeproposesthatcriteriaare
developedwhichdetermineeligibilityforCommunity
initiativesdesignedtopromoteregionaleconomic
diversification .Thesewouldinclude,interalia,indi­

10.11.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC304/39
recentimplementation periodandisintendedprecisely
topromotethespreadoftechnologyandthecapacity
forinnovationandtechnologicaldevelopmentinthe
Community'sweakerregions.
3.10.Finally,theCommitteerepeatsitscallfora
Communityprogrammeonuplandareas.
4.Conclusion
4.1.TheCommittee welcomestheCommission
GreenPaperasofferingaconstructiveandpragmatic
contributiontothecontinueddevelopmentofstructural
policies.Thegeneralprincipleselucidatedandtheoper­
ationalreformsproposedintheGreenPaperareconsist­
entwiththeproposedreformstothestructuralfunds
andare,therefore,tobewelcomed.catorsofsectoralemploymentdependenceinregions;
indicatorsofindependentresearchanddevelopment
capabilityatthelocallevel;concentrationofmarketing
andsalesbylocalfirms.Strictoperatingcriteriawould
needtobeestablishedtoensurethattherewasgenuine
publicbenefitfromtheapplicationofpublicresources.
3.9.4.TheCommitteedoesacknowledge that
developingcorporatenetworks,promotingtechnology
transferandassistingintheprovisionofhighquality
businessservicesareessentialprerequisitesforecon­
omicdevelopmentparticularlyinSMEsintheCom­
munity'slessfavouredregionsandsupportsthedevel­
opmentofCommunityinitiativesinthesefields.
3.9.5.TheCommitteetakestheviewthatthere
shouldbeexplicitprovisionforreinforcingtheStride
programme ,whichhasyieldedgoodresultsoverthe
DoneatBrussels,22September1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN