4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/47 
Own-initiative Opinion on 'A policy for upland areas' 
(88/C 175/16) 
On 23 February 1988, the ESC Bureau authorized the Section for Regional Development and 
Town and Country Planning to draw up an own-initiative Opinion based on the information 
report on a policy for upland areas approved by the Section on 16 February 1988. 
The Section adopted its Opinion on 19 April 1988. The rapporteur was Mr Amato. 
At its 255th plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 35 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. 
1. Foreword 
1.1. The Community has no standard definition of 
an 'upland area'. The present Opinion takes an upland 
area to be a physical, environmental, socio-economic 
and cultural region in which the disadvantages deriving 
from altitude and other natural factors must be con­
sidered in conjunction with socio-economic constraints, 
spatial imbalance and environmental decay. a) all upland areas are to some degree disadvantaged 
by their physical geography. In other words, they 
suffer permanent natural disadvantages, and socio­
economic handicaps which are the direct conse­
quence of these disadvantages. However, this is 
not the main cause of the difficulties faced by the 
uplands, or of the need for a special uplands policy; 
b) most of the Community's upland areas are under­
developed. The marginalization of development 
processes reinforces the negative effects of the natu­
ral disadvantages; 
1.2. Upland areas cover a large part of the Com­
munity's territory (around 28%), and the proportion 
of the Community's population stil living in these areas 
is far from negligible (around 8,5%). c) in all cases, the uplands are out of kilter. Even 
when there is growth or apparent equilibrium, the 
prevailing economic and social processes have an 
unbalanced impact. 
2. Upland areas today 3. What type of policy do upland areas need? 
2.1. In the last few decades upland areas have suf­
fered a growing ecological decline which in some 
respects is irreversible. The balance has been disturbed 
by depopulation, irrational exploitation of forests and 
meadows, uncontrolled development of tourism, gen­
eral atmospheric pollution, the building of communi­
cations infrastructure and the intensification of open­
cast mining. 
2.2. The uplands are disadvantaged areas because of 
their permanent natural handicaps and associated 
socio-economic disadvantages. The most characteristic 
feature of upland areas today is the imbalance in devel­
opment which began with the disappearance of low­
land-upland integration and the steady concentration 
of agricultural and industrial growth in lowland areas. 3.1. The special nature of uplands means that incen­
tives and compensation are not enough; they need a 
policy which will change their overall relations with 
the economy and with society. There are some signs 
that national and Community policies on this are begin­
ning to change. These policies will be analyzed below, 
with a view to defining positive prospects and proposals 
for action. A policy for tackling the problems facing 
uplands today will also have to tackle the structural 
causes of the imbalance while protecting and enhancing 
the environment. 
4. Upland policies in the Community to date 
2.3. The causes of this imbalance are to be found in 
the general mechanisms of the economy and their 
impact on upland areas. These mechanisms lie behind 
the different types of upland area within the Com­
munity: 4.1. The analysis contained in the information report 
shows clearly that, for various reasons, no national or 
Community policy has tackled overall development, 
conservation and enhancement of the upland environ­
ment. 
No C 175/48 Official Journal of the 
4.2. Chapter V of the information report pinpoints 
and analyzes four main types of upland policy: residual, 
exploitation/colonization, hand-outs, and protection/ 
constraint. 
5. Guidelines for an uplands policy 
5.1. The question arises as to whether it would be 
feasible to have a single uplands policy for the whole 
Community. In fact, it would be completely pointless, 
damaging and over-ambitious to base all upland poli­
cies and measures on a single set of regulations or to 
introduce a package of measures applicable to all 
upland areas. As we have seen, the interaction between 
economic development processes and natural handicaps 
has led to varying degrees and types of imbalance in 
the different countries and regions. The need is thus 
not for a centralized uplands policy, but one which is 
tailored to the differing situations. 
The various national policies examined in the infor­
mation report bear out the need for a Community 
policy which unifies without itself being uniform. Such 
a policy should be based on: 
a) The establishment of common general goals for the 
uplands policies carried out at various levels in the 
Community—goals which give uplands policy a full, 
coherent role in overall Community policy. They 
are: 
— to save the uplands' natural, human and cultural 
heritage, 
— to end the depopulation of upland areas, 
— to follow a development strategy which tackles 
the structural causes of imbalance and not just 
the effects, 
— to achieve 'competitive' living conditions in 
upland areas, 
— to increase employment; 
b) The pinpointing of key guidelines to achieve these 
goals efficiently. These guidelines would underpin 
the joint efforts to be deployed at the various levels: 
Community, Member States, regional and local 
authorities. They are: 
— an integrated global approach to development, 
covering various aspects: economic, social, cul­
tural, ecological, technological, institutional European Communities 4. 7. 88 
— action on production structures and creation of 
a new enterprising spirit, in which local entre­
preneurs work together with other outside man­
agers, 
— full use of all local resources, both natural and 
human, 
— appropriate fully-fledged technologies; these 
might be devised by research bodies to be sited 
in upland areas, 
— synergic interaction, not just balance, between 
development and protection of the environment; 
the environment should be seen not as a con­
straint, but as a resource to be used in the 
development process, 
— integrated programmes and projects (covering 
both measures and expenditure), instead of sec­
toral measures and the granting of incentives on 
demand, 
— self-management of development: this means 
involving upland residents in development 
decsions and activities, 
— practical contribution from the community: as 
an instrument to provide concrete backing-up 
for self-development. 
6. Proposals for a Community uplands policy 
6.1. Role of a Community uplands policy 
6.1.1. The Community must take on the task of 
standardizing, extending and developing upland poli­
cies by defining and implementing a specific Com­
munity policy. 
6.1.2. The Community should draw up a common 
framework of general goals, key guidelines and specific 
contents (see Chapters VI and VII of the information 
report). This should form a benchmark to guide the 
policies of the Member States and the Community's 
own direct measures. 
6.2. Definition and delimitation of upland areas 
6.2.1. The legal classification criteria used by the 
Member States and the Community to define upland 
areas need to be standardized, partly to eliminate any 
distortions in competition between the enterprises of 
different Member States. This standardization requires 
the establishment at Community level of criteria cover­
ing various natural and socio-economic handicaps as 
suggested in the definiton given in point 1.1. 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/49 
6.2.2. The classification criteria should be: 
a) natural disadvantages. This should not be limited to 
the factors used by Directive 75/268/EEC (altitude, 
slope, combination of these two), but: 
— with regard to climate, should consider not only 
altitude but also latitude and geographical situ­
ation, 
— with regard to the physical aspects, should con­
sider not only slope but also relief, type of soil, 
etc. 
b) socio-economic disadvantages: 
— low population density, 
— isolation caused by remoteness from cities and 
economic/political centres, 
— population excessively dependent on agri­
culture, 
— insufficient outlets downslope in areas bordering 
with third countries with which communi­
cations are difficult; 
c) degree of environmental decay. 
6.2.3. It is the combination of these factors which 
defines an area as 'upland'. The minimum altitude at 
which an area qualifies as 'upland' varies accordingly. 
Hence the choice and combination of these factors, and 
their use as yardsticks, cannot be uniform throughout 
the Community, but must be adapted to the various 
circumstances. The Member States should see to this, 
and submit the results to the Community together with 
the corresponding demarcation of upland areas. 
6.2.4. Directive 75/268/EEC and most national laws 
use local authority areas (pr parts of them) as the basic 
territorial unit for demarcating upland areas. In many 
cases, this practice has made the official upland areas 
rather irregular in size. Instead, measures should cover 
compact 'blocks' of territory, i.e. units comprising 
uplands plus the immediately adjoining areas which 
are linked to them geographically, economically and 
socially. This would also ease the problem of inte­
gration between upland anreas and the neighbouring 
lowlands. It may rightly be objected that inclusion of 
areas which are not strictly 'upland' would mean that 
public aid is spread more thinly, instead of being con­
centrated in the areas where the handicaps are greatest. 
This can be prevented by granting aid on a sliding scale 
based on the levels of handicap within the area. 6.3. The Community's role in Member State policies 
The Community's role is to coordinate, standardize 
and encourage. It should focus on: 
a) better knowledge of upland problems. The lack of 
intercomparable statistics on the uplands—which 
created problems in the preparation of the infor­
mation report—is the tangible reflection of an unac­
ceptable lack of political attention. Standardized 
statistics on all the Community's uplands are 
needed. Member States must be instructed to start 
producing statistics, add to them, or standardize 
them as necessary; 
b) adaptation of national legislations, to gear them to 
the development and protection of the uplands by 
aligning them to the framework of goals, guidelines 
and contents defined at Community level. A direc­
tive would seem to be the best instrument for this. 
Harmonization of national laws is particularly 
necessary in frontier upland areas, where mountain 
ranges belonging to different Member States require 
standard planning and intervention criteria; 
c) adoption of an effective planning tool by the public 
authorities, who must take an active role in upland 
development. This is a fundamental task which the 
Community alone can take on, by providing an 
active and well-organized sorting-house for ideas 
and experiences, by encouraging national and local 
authorities (sometimes by laying down norms) and 
involving them in jointly financed programmes 
which will be innovative in both content and meth­
odology. 
6.4. The uplands in Community policies 
6.4.1. Take full account of the uplands 
Account must be taken of the uplands in policies which 
have hitherto ignored them. Policies which have taken 
them into some consideration will also need adjusting. 
The information report details the ways in which the 
various sectoral policies should support upland devel­
opment. Here we will recall the main adjustments which 
would be required in Community policies. 
6.4.2. Adjustments to the common agri­
cultural policy (CAP) 
To change the CAP from a source of hand-outs to a 
force for the development and re-equilibrium of upland 
No C 175/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 88 
agriculture is to raise the general question of its reform. 
The goals pursued by market policy hitherto, and the 
imbalance between this and structural policy, favour 
the agriculture of the stronger areas and widen the gap 
between them and the weaker regions. They are thus 
incompatible with the goals of developing and restoring 
balance to upland agriculture and the upland economy. 
Even so, some adjustments could be introduced straight 
away, for example by: 
a) defining guidelines and actions for a Community 
land policy, with particular regard for upland areas. 
This is a subject which has been left to the Member 
States and has never been seriously tackled by the 
CAP. The analysis contained in the information 
report (Chapter VII, 2) shows that solution of the 
land problem is a precondition for any primary 
sector policy, Community or otherwise. The Com­
munity cannot defer any longer from adopting a 
fully-fledged land policy; 
b) promoting high-quality traditional upland products, 
and encouraging local markets and sectors; 
c) introducing a structural policy in tandem with the 
land policy outlined above. This would support 
integrated investment by cooperative and other non­
profit bodies, particularly in forestry and farming 
or agri-tourism (see Chapter VII, 2, of the report). 
For smaller holdings, aid should only be granted 
via plans covering groups of farms; 
d) adopting Community provisions to exclude the 
uplands (as defined by the criteria given in point 
6.2 above) from any present or future administrative 
measures aimed at curbing production (milk quotas, 
co-responsibility levies, etc.), and from any similar 
constraints found in the structural measures [Regu­
lation (EEC) No 797/85]; 
e) exluding upland areas from the measures on extensi-
fication of production [Regulation (EEC) No 
1760/87] and land set-aside; 
f) conducting a radical review of the compensatory 
allowance (CA). The report provides ample justifi­
cations for this. Some concrete proposals: 
— compensation for natural disadvantages should 
be assessed separately from compensation for 
structural disadvantages, — compensation for natural disadvantages should 
take the form of a minimum CA which will be 
supplemented according to certain variables. A 
minimum threshold, such as that used in Ger­
many, should be adopted to prevent waste, 
— the additional compensation for structural dis­
advantages should be for a fixed period, and 
should be tied to structural improvement plans. 
Small farms should be encouraged to join forces, 
— the method of defining the CA by livestock unit 
or acreage should be changed. A CA linked to 
the amount of work (self-employed or 
employed) carried out on the farm seems (a) 
more likely to help stem the rural exodus, (b) 
to give a fairer distribution between small and 
large farms, and (c) to provide a greater incen­
tive to employment. For example, larger farms 
which might be excluded by the thresholds could 
receive the CA simply for the extra jobs pro­
vided, 
— the CA should not be used for purposes which 
are the province of other socio-structural meas­
ures (e.g. income supplements for farms hit by 
the changes in the CAP). We should therefore 
oppose the tendency to over-extend the geo­
graphical areas of the disadvantaged regions in 
some Member States as a way of offsetting the 
effects of milk quotas and market policy, 
— the eligibility criteria for upland and other disad­
vantaged areas adopted by the national and 
regional authorities should first be approved by 
the Commission, which should check that they 
conform with the Community's own criteria (as 
is already done in other areas of Community 
policy, such as measures of the European 
Regional Development Fund, ERDF); 
g) conducting an in-depth analysis of the interaction 
between market policy and individual structural 
measures; in some cases they may be completely 
incompatible. For example, we should find out 
whether and to what extent some price support 
policies (e.g. durum wheat) are thwarting the overall 
development of certain upland areas. 
6.4.3. Adjustments to forestry policy 
In its Opinion of 2 July 1986 (*) on the Commission 
Communication and Memorandum on Community 
(!) OJ No C 263, 20. 10. 1986. 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/51 
action in the forestry sector, the Committee welcomed 
the Commission proposals, although it regretted the 
fact that no common forestry policy had yet been 
implemented. Its reservations included the following: 
'1.5. The Committee also thinks that insuf­
ficient consideration has been given in the 
Commission Communication to the specific 
problems of forests in upland areas. These 
problems will have to be studied in detail at 
a later date.' 
The Commission approach hinges largely on monocul­
ture and on vertical integration (wood products). This 
approach appears unsuited to the uplands, where for­
estry has to tie in with other economic activities for 
reasons of income, employment and environment pro­
tection. Moreover, inadequate stress is laid on the dam­
age which intensive monocultural forestry of inappro­
priate species can do to the upland water system and 
environment. The Committee therefore asked the Com­
mission to conduct a general review of forestry in the 
uplands. The problem of forest fires and how to prevent 
them also deserves greater attention. 
The Committee is disappointed to note that more than 
two years later the Commission has still not followed 
up these documents with concrete legislative proposals. 
6.4.4. Adjustments to regional policy 
Upland areas must be given a more clearly defined niche 
in Community regional policy. 
a) the ERDF and the Community credit instruments 
should give special attention (if not priority) to 
measures which affect upland areas; 
b) the ERDF Regulation should be amended to cover 
—in upland areas only—certain measures which 
are currently excluded (e.g. in the building sector) 
but which are essential for the restoration and refur­
bishing of historic town centres and rural settle­
ments, and for protection against earthquakes. As 
these are closely linked to the development of tour­
ism, they cannot be included in the strictly "wel­
fare" category; 
c) a Community programme for upland areas should 
be introduced under the ERDF. This type of pro­
gramme should not be limited to specific sectors, 
but should also cover cases of inter-sectoral imbal­ance. The uplands are one example of such imbal­
ance. 
The keystones of the programme should be: 
— Small firms: Particular encouragements should 
be given to the development of business and 
innovation centres (BIC) in upland areas, along 
the lines indicated in the information report 
(Chapter VII, 4). The programme should also 
promote instruments to support R&D and tech­
nological innovation for the uplands, working 
from the abovementioned centres. This would 
not involve setting up complicated agencies or 
super-structures, nor should it rely solely on the 
existing network of BICs. At national level, a 
coordination and promotion agency should be 
set up, comprising companies, public bodies, 
research institutes, and specialists, perhaps with 
further delegates at regional level. At Com­
munity level, a task force for technological inno­
vation in the uplands could be set up, to stimu­
late and transmit knowledge between the 
national agencies and to carry out pilot projects. 
— Tourism: In addition to the support measures 
outlined in the report (Chapter VII, 3), the pro­
gramme's main task, with the help of the 
national and regional authorities, should be to 
map tourist numbers, movements and potential 
(including agri-tourism) in upland areas. These 
maps would be of assistance when drawing up 
Community measures to restore balance 
between over-used and under-used areas. 
— Energy: As proposed in Chapter VII, 5, of the 
report, the VALOREN programme could form 
part of the basis of action to promote greater 
use of alternative energy sources in the uplands. 
— Land use and infrastrucures: The uplands should 
be seen as a fully-fledged production and devel­
opment factor, as outlined in Chapter VII, 6, of 
the report. The programme should re-plan the 
use of land in the uplands with a view to restor­
ing balance, in some cases within a single upland 
area. The programme should also adopt specific 
measures, tailored to the differing circum­
stances, covering: water systems; infrastructure 
and public works; renovation of buildings in 
upland towns and villages, where necessary with 
the use of antiseismic building techniques; res-
No C 175/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 88 
toration of monuments and areas of historical 
or artistic interest; public services, particularly 
transport and telecommunications (starting with 
the STAR programme). 
— Information on planning methods and on local 
and regional experiences of development in 
upland areas: This information should be 
targeted on local and regional authorities and 
the relevant socio-economic groupings. As well 
as written and audiovisual information, support 
should be given for meetings, seminars, and 
study visits at which participants can compare 
notes; 
d) the Community programmes which the Com­
mission is drawing up (environment, R&D) should 
give special attention to the specific problems of 
upland areas. 
6.4.5. Adjustments to tourism policy 
It is of course incorrect to speak of adjustments to a 
policy which does not yet exist as such. In December 
1986 the Council adopted a Decision establishing a 
consultation and coordination procedure in the field of 
tourism, and a Resolution on a better seasonal and 
geographical distribution of tourism. Although these 
are a step in the right direction, and are in keeping with 
the recommendations made in Chapter VII, 3, of the 
information report, they are still only general guidelines 
and preliminaries to the introduction of a full-scale 
policy. 
The Commission is drawing up a multiyear programme 
of action in the tourist sector. The Committee hopes 
that the Commission will pinpoint the special problems 
of upland tourism and draw up concrete proposals for 
action along the lines suggested in Chapter VII, 3, of 
the report. 
6.4.6. Adjustments to energy policy 
The Community demonstration projects have so far 
affected the uplands only tangentially. The special 
energy problems of the uplands have never been tackled. 
This failure should be remedied by giving greater pri­
ority to projects carried out in upland areas, and by 
drawing up a full-scale upland energy policy as pro­
posed in Chapter VII, 5, of the report. 
6.4.7. Adjustments to environmental and 
regional planning policies 
Community environment policy has to date only affec­
ted particular aspects of the uplands. Specific measures 
for the uplands as such have never been proposed. The Community's fourth environmental action pro­
gramme (1987-1992) refers to uplands, but the only 
concrete action mentioned is the Community's meas­
ures to support upland agriculture. The Committee 
stresses the limitations of this approach, given that 
environmental decay in the uplands is caused not only 
by the abandonment of agriculture, but also by over­
grazing, tourism, and other factors. 
Although not specifically designed for upland areas, 
some of the actions scheduled in the fourth programme 
will affect uplands quite considerably. Among these, 
the Committee is pleased to note the increased emphasis 
on measures for the conservation of nature and natural 
resources, and the insertion of a chapter on "soil protec­
tion", which covers the serious upland problems of 
erosion and run-off. The Committee trusts that the 
Commission will take appropriate action on this when 
it presents its specific proposals for tackling physical 
degradation, erosion, natural hazards, misuse and waste 
caused by space-consuming activities. 
The implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC on 
environmental impact assessment (EIA) raises consider­
able expectations. With only a few weeks to go to 
the implementing deadline, the Commission should 
pressurize those Member States who have not yet made 
implementing arrangements. 
However, this is not enough to fulfil the Community's 
task of saving its upland heritage. We must also: 
a) promote Community action to harmonize national 
legislative protection, partly to safeguard the prin­
ciple of competition. This harmonization should 
include certain minimum standards for the protec­
tion of lakes and rivers, a ban on building above a 
certain altitude, and a code of conduct for the 
protection of woodlands; 
b) step up Community support for, and pressure on, 
regional and national authorities. At the very least, 
aid from the structural funds should only be granted 
to regions which apply the Community Directives 
on environmental protection; 
c) define Community rules to oblige local and regional 
bodies to take into account environmental resources 
and constraints in their economic and regional plan­
ning. This involves two main points: 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/53 
— environmental impact assessment should be 
obligatory not just for individual projects, but 
also when drawing up economic or land-use 
plans at either regional or sub-regional level; 
— economic and regional planning should take 
fundamental account of the balance of environ­
mental resources, and should be underpinned by 
guidelines on the use of resources and proper 
environmental planning methods. Planning 
should be based on natural regional units; in the 
case of uplands, these would correspond with 
river catchment areas. 
These should be the basic criteria for the Community 
regional planning policy which is to be drawn up. This 
policy should include Community rules harmonizing 
town-planning legislation, with some key points cover­
ing upland areas: regulation of building in rural areas 
and sales of private building plots, discouragement of 
second homes, and restoration of balance between over­
used and under-used upland areas. Rules on land use 
(balance between the value of farmland and building 
land, compulsory purchase rules, tax systems, etc.) 
should be harmonized, partly to ensure fair competition 
in the single internal market. 
The information report (Chapter VII, 6) lays great 
stress on the concept of "productive ecology". This 
must form the guiding principle of every aspect of the 
environment policy which the Community should carry 
out via the structural funds, starting with the ERDF 
Community programme for the environment which is 
currently being drawn up. 
6.4.8. Adjustments to transport policy 
Community transport policy must take account of two 
basic requirements of upland areas. Firstly, communi­
cations and access must be adequate both for the needs 
of upland residents and for development purposes. Sec­
ondly, damage to the environment must be kept to a 
minimum. The main problems here are caused by 
passing motor traffic, which has undoubted adverse 
effects on the environment (pollution, marring the land­
scape, etc.) and generally does little to boost the upland 
economy. 
Community transport policy should therefore seek to 
reduce heavy goods traffic and switch extra traffic to 
the railways. Railway and inter-modal traffic needs to 
be made more competitive. Schemes to build or widen 
motorways across upland or mountain areas should be reviewed, and only implemented when all other 
alternatives have been ruled out. 
The branch railway network should be extended to 
improve access to upland areas. 
At a more general level, further efforts are needed to 
reduce the pollution caused by motor traffic to existing 
Community measures (lead-free petrol, catalytic con­
verters, efficiency of combustion systems etc.), speed 
limits should be introduced on routes through uplands. 
These general criteria should first be adopted in the 
multiyear transport infrastructure programme, particu­
larly for the Community's main passes through the 
Alps, Pyrenees, Greek mountains, Apennines, etc. 
6.4.9. Adjustments to research and tech­
nological innovation policy 
This policy seems to have failed to take account of the 
uplands. Given the key role which research plays in 
upland development (especially for the tapping of 
potential resources—see the report), this is a short­
coming which must be remedied, particularly in: 
— the framework Community scientific research pro­
gramme, 
— the common programmes for agricultural research, 
— the non-nuclear research programmes of the Joint 
Research Centre; 
— the BRITE (basic research in industrial technol­
ogies), FAST (forecasting and assessment in science 
and technology), COST (cooperation in scientific 
and technical research), SPRINT (innovation and 
technology transfer), ECLAIR (agro-industrial tech­
nologies), FLAIR (foodstuffs), non-nuclear energy, 
and environment programmes. 
6.4.10. Adjustments to employment poli­
cies 
a) The following measures, laying particular emphasis 
on upland areas, should be stepped up: 
— support for local employment initiatives (LEI), 
— job-creating environmental measures, 
— support for socially useful non-market jobs; 
b) European Social Fund measures for the uplands 
should be stepped up, especially: 
— training for development agents and financial 
support for their employment (programme to 
cover at least three years), 
No C 175/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 88 
— integrated training programmes targeted on the 
needs of upland residents, 
— training for new jobs (including sandwich 
courses, day release schemes and the like), 
— programmes to bring together and galvanize the 
various socio-economic forces, as indicated in 
Chapter VII, 7, of the report; 
c) some of the pilot job-creation schemes of the Euro­
pean Social Fund (ESF) (such as the one carried 
out in the Pyrenees) should be introduced in other 
upland areas. 
6.5. Integrated upland development programmes 
(IUDP) 
6.5.1. The IUDPs should combine the various sec­
toral Community measures which affect the uplands, 
and should be implemented by the national and regional 
authorities. The programmes should complement 
national and regional policies (see Chapter VII of the 
report), and should be carried out at sub-regional level. 
6.5.2. Community financing would be a great help 
to these programmes. It need not be generalized, but 
should seek to stimulate national and regional measur­
es, and help spread and standardize appropriate plan­
ning methods. 
6.5.3. For each IUDP financed by the Community, a 
programme contract should be drawn up between the 
Community, the Member State, the regional authority 
and the other parties involved. 
6.5.4. Financial support should only be granted to 
IUDPs which involve the various social partners right 
from the planning stage. 
6.5.5. The Commission should be involved in the 
planning of the programmes and provide the necessary 
instruments and know-how. This will also help to avoid 
the difficulties which the regions face when trying to 
plan integrated development (as has occurred in the 
integrated mediterranean programmes). 
6.6. Upland areas and the reform of the structural 
funds 
6.6.1. If upland policy is not granted a special 
additional budget line and gets most of its financing 
from the structural funds, importance will obviously 
attach to the general pattern of structural fund reform 
which has materialized since the Brussels Summit. 6.6.2. Upland areas should feature strongly in the 
measures to help the less developed regions covered by 
objective No 1. It will be up to the Commission, under 
its new regional planning procedure, to make regional 
authorities aware of the need to ensure that the new 
regional development plans cater adequately for upland 
areas. 
6.6.3. The Committee notes with regret that the 
Council has not adopted its proposal (Opinion CES 
1067/87) to extend objective No 1 to islands and 
uplands in regions where the per capita gross domestic 
product (GDP) is below the Community average. 
6.6.4. The measures for upland areas in regions not 
covered by objective No 1 should therefore be included 
in the "measures to develop rural areas" (objective 
No 5). Aid would be severely fragmented if ESF grants 
under objectives No 3 and 4 were applied in upland 
areas independently of other structural fund support. 
6.6.5. The Committee also stated in the above Opin­
ion that "as far as objective No 5 is concerned, the 
ERDF and the ESF should confine their operations to 
island and upland areas". 
6.6.6. It should be noted that a rural development 
policy is not the same as an uplands policy. As the 
latter is more wide-ranging, it cannot be considered a 
subgroup of the former. The reverse is the case: rural 
development policy should form part of uplands policy. 
6.6.7. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that 
the Commission's new version of the framework Regu­
lation should give uplands priority within the second 
section of objective No 5 (development of rural areas). 
The measures to be taken should adopt a multidiscipli-
nary and inter-sectoral approach, using the integrated 
method and drawing on all the structural funds. Such 
an approach will be very close to the global approach 
to upland development favoured in this Opinion and 
in the information report. 
6.6.8. For both objectives, No 1 and 5, the integrated 
approach and the financing of IUDPs should be the 
main (though not exclusive) vehicle of structural fund 
intervention in the uplands. 
6.6.9. An early start should therefore be made (i.e. 
using existing instruments and provisions) on arranging 
Community financing of: 
— a few pilot IUDPs, to try out the proposals made 
in the present Opinion, 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/55 
— IUDP studies and plans, to encourage national and 
regional authorities to offer financial assistance. 
6.7. Assistance for upland areas from the Com­
munity's credit instruments and financial engin­
eering 
6.7.1. When IUDPs are planned, careful attention 
must be devoted to the Community credit instruments, 
as these can be used to complement the assistance from 
the structural funds. 
6.7.2. Community activity in the financial engineer­
ing sector should be stepped up and geared to the needs 
of upland areas. 
6.7.3. A stock of loans earmarked for upland areas 
should be set up as soon as possible. These could come 
from the own resources of the European Investment 
Bank (EIB) or via the New Community Instrument 
(NGI).These loans should also be extended to farming 
and forestry. 
6.7.4. These loans should be granted at concession­
ary rates of interest. 
Done at Brussels, 28 April 1988. 6.8. The coordination of Community measures 
6.8.1. The Commission should set up an administrat­
ive unit for upland areas. 
6.8.2. This unit would: 
— assess the impact on upland areas of the Com­
munity's different policies, 
— provide a benchmark for Community and national 
policies by drawing up a Community framework of 
goals, guidelines and instruments for the develop­
ment of upland areas, 
— draw up proposals for harmonizing national policies 
and legislation, starting with the definition and 
delimitation of upland areas, 
— draw up proposals on ways of ensuring that Com­
munity policies accomodates the development needs 
of the uplands, 
— coordinate and develop the implementation of Com­
munity policies in upland areas, 
— promote and coordinate Community financing of 
the IUDPs. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT