4.11.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC287/5
4.2.4.2.Amendtheexistingsentencetoread:
'Counterweights mustbesoinstalledastominimisetheriskofcollidingwithor
fallingontothecar.'
4.3.4.4.Amendtheexistingtexttoread:
'Carsmustbefittedwithanemergencyalarmdevicetoprovidemeansfor
communication withapermanentlyoccupiedplace.'
4.4.4.6.Replacetheword'machinery'by'machineroom'.
5.
5.1.7.1.Expand,forreasonsofclarity,thefirstsentencetoread:
'ThesafetycomponentsreferredtoinAnnexIVmustbeaccompaniedbyinstruc­
tionsdrawnupbythemanufacturerinthelanguageofthecountrywherethe
installationisinstalledandoftheliftinstalleroranotherCommunitylanguage
whichisacceptabletohim.'
5.2.7.2.Amendthefirstsentencetoread:
'Eachliftmustbeaccompaniedbyinstructionsdrawnupbythemanufacturerin
thelanguageofthecountrywheretheinstallationisinstalled.'
6.
6.1.AnnexIV—5Thisclauseisunnecessaryas'EC'typetestingofropes,chainsandtheirattach­
mentsisalreadyprotectedbyothermeanslistedintheDirective.
6.2.AnnexIV—6Inthiscontext'EC'typetestingofhosesisnotnecessarysincetheyarealready
protectedbyothermeanslistedintheDirective.
Opinionon'Europe2000:OutlookforthedevelopmentoftheCommunity'sterritory'
(92/C287/03)
On21November1991theCommissiondecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCom­
mittee,underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,on
thedocumententitled:'Europe2000:OutlookforthedevelopmentoftheCommunity's
territory'.
TheSectionforRegionalDevelopmentandTownandCountryPlanning,whichwasrespon­
sibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon19May
1992.TheRapporteurwasMrE.Muller.
Atits298thPlenarySession(meetingof2July1992)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajorityvote,withoneabstention.
1.2.TheCommitteehasalreadysetoutitsviewson
theseissuesinitsOpinionof25September1991(1).
ThisOpinionsetoutadditionalobservationsrelating
preciselytothebroadercontextofspatialplanning.It
underlinedtheincreasinglyurgentneedtoensurethat
policiesweresufficientlycoordinatedatalllevels,bear­
inginmindthespecificconditionsandcircumstances
intheindividualregionsandMemberStates.TheCom­
mitteewouldalsodrawattentiontotheneedto1.Introduction
1.1.TheCommitteebroadlyendorsestheCom­
missionobjectivesasexpressedinthedocumentunder
review.Thisdocumentclearlyillustratesthereciprocal
causeandeffectlinksbetweenspatial-planning policy
andthefieldswhichthedocumentconsiders,i.e.sec­
toralareasandpolicieswithregardtowhichtheEChas
alreadyadoptedmeasuresandtakenonresponsibilities
(demographyandmigration,transport,information
andtelecommunications ,energy,environment ,regional
development ,urbanareas,ruralareas,coastalareas
andislands,cross-frontierregions). (l)OJNoC339,31.12.1991,p.91.

NoC287/6 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 4.11.92
strengtheneconomicandsocialcohesion,asstipulated
intheTreaties.notonlythebenefitsofEuropeanintegration—which
havealreadybeenquantifiedindetail—butalsothe
possibledrawbacks,andtoseektoreducethosedraw­
backs.Thespatial-planning studiestobecarriedout
shouldbeveryusefulinthisrespect.
1.4.Oneproblemwhichwillundoubtedlyarisein
thiscontextistheneedtodefineanECreference
frameworkforlocal,regionalandnationalplanning
authorities.Afurtherproblemwhichthenarisesis
thatoftheconcretepossibilitiesforachievingeffective
coordination .1.3.Studieshavebeencarriedoutintotheregional­
developmentimplicationsoftheestablishmentofthe
singlemarketandtherelatedissuesoflocation,demo­
graphictrendsandlabourmobility,theexpansionof
intra-ECtransport,thebroadeningofEC-wideenergy
networksandtheimpactofinformationtechnologyand
telecommunications .Allthesestudiesfailtomentiona
crucialfactorwithregardtospatialplanningintheEC,
namelytheincreasingshortageofland.
1.3.1.ThispromptstheCommitteetodrawatten­
tiontothegrowingriskofproblemsarisingfromcom­
petingdemandsforimproveduseofland.TheECmust
givedueregardtosuchdevelopments ,whichmayarise
asaresultofparticulargeographicalconditionsand
whichprompt,interalia,thefollowingobservations :
—InthecentralregionsoftheCommunityfurther
concentration ofeconomicactivityisrunninginto
constraintsbecausealmosteverysquaremetreof
landisalreadybeingused.Projectsofsignificance
atEuropeanlevelwhichhaveanimpactonland
usecanonlyberealizediflandbeingusedforother
purposesisreallocatedorifoldindustrialareasare
redeveloped .
—Centralareaswillonlybeabletomaintainor
improvetheirappealandqualityoflifeifanumber
ofdifferentrequirements (theneedtomakeland
availableforindustryandnewroads,theneedto
providenewhousingataffordablepricesandthe
needforrecreationalareas)canbereconciled .This
taskisbeingmadeincreasinglydifficult—aswas
notedduringthehearinginStuttgartinJune1991
—bylandshortages.
—Theperipheralregions—thedevelopmentofwhich
willbenefit,forexample,fromtheestablishmentof
trans-European networks—possessgreater
reservesofland,whichcouldforexamplebeused
fortheestablishmentofindustry,butthislandis
notunused.Itiseitherbeingusedforagricultural
purposesoritrepresentsaconsiderablereservoirof
naturalresources(forests,undevelopedscenicareas,
waterresources,etc.).
1.3.2.Inthelightofsuchobservationsitis,inthe
Committee'sview,essentialforregionsaffectedby
Europeanprojectswhichhaveaspatialimpacttobe
abletoundertakecost-benefitanalysesofthisimpact,
payingparticularattentiontotheimpactonthe
environment .Trans-European networks(transport,
energy,telecommunications ,etc.)andotherprojects
ofimportanceatEuropeanlevelmustnotsimplybe
imposedupontheregionsconcerned.1.5.Anotherunavoidableissueisthequestionof
howandtowhatextenttheECanditsinstitutionswill
havetotakeonresponsibilities andcompetenceswith
regardtotheplanning,coordinatingandmonitoringof
theimplementation ofspatial-planning measuresand
programmeswhichareintrinsicallylinkedtothevari­
ousECpolicies.TheCommitteereaffirms,inthiscon­
text,theprinciplewhichitsetoutindetailinitsfirst
Opiniononthe'Europe2000'document,namelythat
'theCommunityshouldconfineitselftothedefinition
ofgeneralconditionsorobjectivesandtheprovisionof
finance,leavingtheMemberStatesandregionstotake
actionwithinthisgeneralframeworkinthelightof
theirspecificrequirementsandresources'(*).
1.6.TheCommitteerecognizesthat,althoughitis
necessarytoraisethesefundamentalissues,itisdifficult
toanswerthematthecurrentstageinthedebate.The
Committeethereforereiterates,atvariouspointsinthis
Opinion,theviewsetoutinitsinitialOpinionof
25September1991(2)totheeffectthattheCom­
mission'sconsultationprocessmustcovertheobjective
issuesofanECspatial-planning policy,thebinding
natureofthereferenceframework,implementation of
theprincipleofsubsidiarityandtheallocationofpow­
ersatregional,nationalandEClevel.Theissuesat
stakeherearesoimportantthatitisvitaltosetabout
findingananswer.
1.7.Ifallthepartiesinvolvedatregional,national
andEClevelaretobeconsultedproperlyontheobjec­
tivesofECspatial-planning policy,itisessentialthat
themainquestionstobeansweredbeformulatedmore
clearlyandbackedupbytherelevantdata.
1.8.Thedocumentthereforedoesnotseemtogofar
enoughtowardsprovidingaconstructivecontribution
tothefurtherdevelopmentofanECresponsibilityfor
thefutureofEurope'sregions.TheCommitteeregards
thepointssetoutbelowasbeingoffundamental
importanceinthiscontext.
1.3.3.Whenmakinganoverallassessmentofposs­
ibledevelopmentitisthereforeessentialtohighlight(*)Seefootnote,p.5,point2.7.
(2)Seefootnote1,p.5.

4.11.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC287/7
1.9.IntheCommittee'sviewitisessential,when
formulatingtheobjectivesofECspatial-planning pol­
icy,toestablishhowtheseobjectivestieinwiththe
objectives,instrumentsandfundingpossibilitiesofthe
existingstructuralfundsand,inparticular,thepro­
posedcohesionfund.
1.10.Thedocumentdoesnotaddressanissueof
fundamentalimportancetothe'developmentofthe
Community'sterritory'andtheresponsibilities which
ECbodiesmayassumeinthisfield.Thisquestion
concernshowandatwhatlevelsresponsibilityfor
spatial-planning policyistobeallocatedinfuture,and
whatmethodsandinstrumentsshouldbeconsidered
fortheachievementofECrequirements .
1.10.1.Theexactobjectives,provisionsandbinding
natureoftheprojectedEuropeanreferenceframework
hasnotyetbeenclearlyestablished.Itisconsequently
notcleartowhatextentandunderwhatconditionsthe
objectivesandprovisionsofthereferenceframework
forECstructuralpolicyandcomplementary national
andregionalmeasuresaretobebinding.
1.10.2.Itis,however,scarcelyconceivablethatthe
MemberStateswillagreetoanextensionofECpowers
intheabsenceofaclearunderstanding ofthewayin
whichEC,nationalandregionalpowersinthisfield
aretobegraduated.IntheCommittee'sviewitis
thereforeessentialthatacomprehensive debatebeheld
fromtheverybeginningontheobjectivesandscope
ofECpowersinthefieldofspatial-planning policy.
Otherwisethereisariskthatevenareferenceframe­
workforEuropeanspatial-planning policydesigned
onlyforinformationpurposesmightbeill-conceived .localdecision-making bodiesandpopulationstoaccept
aroleunderwhichtheywouldnolongerbeableto
determinetheirspatial-development plansindepen­
dently.
1.12.IntheCommittee'sviewitisparticularly
necessarytodevisewaysofensuringappropriatepar­
ticipationbyrepresentatives ofeconomicandsocial
interestgroupsintheformulationofEuropeanspatial­
planningpolicy.Thisisimportantsince,intheCom­
mittee'sview,itwillonlybepossibletoresolvethe
increasingnumberofproblemsinrespectoftheappro­
priateuseofspaceifdevelopmentplansarediscussed
onthebroadestpossiblebasis.
1.12.1.TheCommitteewouldreferinthiscontext
totheoralevidenceittookinStuttgartinJune1991
fromrepresentatives ofgovernmentbodiesandecon­
omicandsocialinterestgroups.Itemergedfromthis
hearingthat:
—fullparticipationofrepresentatives ofeconomicand
socialinterestgroupsisabsolutelyessential;
—theCommunity,too,mustmakefurtherstrenuous
effortstofamiliarizeeconomicandsocialinterest
groupsintheregionswithEuropeandevelopment
plansandmustgivethemtheopportunityto
exchangeinformation,particularlyasregardsthe
borderareasoftheCommunity .
1.13.Thereisaneedtoputforwardfurtherpro­
posalswithaviewtoenablingtheCommunityto
promoteandfacilitatetheformulationandimplemen­
tationofcross-frontierprogrammesforborderareas
wheredifferinginstitutionalcircumstancesapply.The
aimhereistomakeitpossibletopursuethedesired
regionalandinter-regionalactivitiesmoreeffectively.
1.14.Itisalsourgentlynecessarytodeviseconcrete
planstopreventtheestablishmentattheexternalfron­
tiersoftheCommunity—andparticularlythefrontiers
withformerEastBlocstates—ofeconomic,socialand
infrastructuredisparitiesliabletotriggerincalculable
migrationswhichcouldjeopardizethepeacefulfuture
developmentofthewholeofEurope.
1.15.ThedevelopmentofanECspatial-planning
policymustnotberegardedasapurelytechnicalunder­
taking.TheabolitionoftheCommunity'sinternalfron­
tiers,theprofoundchangeswhichhavetakenplace
incentralandeasternEurope,developments inthe
Mediterranean areaandthecreationoftheEuropean
EconomicAreawillhavepolitical,economic,social
andculturalrepercussionsonthelivesofallEuropean
citizens.Themajortaskbeforeusistore-knithistorical
linksbetweenregionswhichhavebeenorcontinueto
beseparatedbynationalboundaries,andtohealthe
woundsofearlierconflicts.Againstthisbackgroundan
ECregionaldevelopmentpolicy,particularlyonewith
across-frontierdimension,willplayanimportantrole
inconsolidatingthecitizens'Europe.1.11.Thedocumentleavestheformulationofcon­
cretedevelopmentobjectivestofuturediscussionand
thereforedoesnotproposeanyprinciplesinrespectof
ECregionaldevelopment .Asaresult,thedocument
failstomakeaconstructiveconcretecontribution to
theexpansionofECresponsibility forthefutureof
Europe'sregions.
1.11.1.Thedocumentsetsoutrelativelyconcrete
objectivesforindividualfields(e.g.energyandtrans­
port),butwithoutspecifyinghowprioritiesaretobe
establishedforcoordinationbetweenthevariouspolicy
areasandauthorities (atEC,nationalandregional
level).Considerationshouldalsobegiventothespatial­
planningimplicationsofoveralleconomicpolicy.
1.11.2.Thisomissioncouldbeafatalimpediment
totheacceptanceandimplementation ofECpriorities.
ThiswouldbethecaseforexampleiftheCommunity
weretoagreeatcentralpoliticalleveltosetuptrans­
Europeantransportorenergy-supplynetworks,orpro­
videfinancialincentives (structuralfund,cohesion
fund)tothisend,withoutgivingconsiderationfrom
theoutsettothespatial-planning consequences .Such
anapproachcould,fromtheoutset,forceregionaland

NoC287/8 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 4.11.92
2.2.2.Acomparativesurveyoftheverydifferent
systemsofspatialplanningandregionaldevelopment
usedbytheindividualMemberStatesisanimportant
andnecessarypreconditionfortheformulationofan
overallreferenceframeworkforthefurtherdevelop­
mentofpracticalpolicy.Suchasurveywouldhelp
governments tounderstandthedifficultiesof
developinganECspatial-planning policywhichcon­
finesitselftowhattheCommunityregardsastheessen­
tialelements,whilstatthesametimerespectingnational
andregionalstructures.
2.2.3.Suchasurveyis,however,alsonecessaryfor
moregeneralreasons.Interestintheinteraction
betweenthepowersexercisedatEC,national,regional
andlocallevelwillincreasesignificantlywiththeadvent
ofthe'CommitteeoftheRegions',providedforin
theTreatyonPoliticalUnion.Thereisashortfallof
informationintheECwithregardtotheapplication
ofthesubsidiarityprincipleintheMemberStates,and
withregardtothepowersofregionalandlocalauthori­
ties.
2.2.4.Anexchangeofviewsandexperiencewith
regardtothelevelofregionalautonomywhichexists
intheMemberStatesandtheconsequenteffectonthe
variouspolicyareaswouldbeextremelybeneficial,and
shouldtakeplaceassoonaspossible.1.16.TheCommitteewishestopointoutthatthe
aboveobservationsareonlytoberegardedasacriticism
ofthecoursepursuedtodatebytheCommissionifit
transpiresthattheCommissionisnotpreparedtodis­
cussthewell-founded ,fundamentalissuesraisedby
theCommitteeandtosetoutitsownviews.The
observationssetoutinchapters2,3and4below
aretoberegardedastheCommittee'sproposalsfor
facilitatingthisprocess.
2.Generalobservationsonthefurther.development of
ECspatial-planning policy
2.1.Clarificationoffieldsofresponsibility having
regardtotheprincipleofsubsidiarity
2.1.1.IntheCommittee'sview,itisessentialfor
theCommissiontoformulateassoonaspossibleand
submitfordiscussionacomprehensive ,preliminary
draftoutliningtherespectiveresponsibilities ofEC,
nationalandregionalinstitutionsinthefieldofpolicy
decisionsregardingspatial-planning developments .
2.1.2.Suchadraftmustprovideaconvincingjustifi­
cationforthetransferofresponsibilityforcertaintasks
totheEC,intheinterestsofallpartiesconcerned,
andclearlysetouttheresponsibilities ofnationaland
regionalbodiesforformulatingmeasuresandputting
themintopractice.
2.1.3.Informulatingtheabovedraft,theCom­
missionandtheCouncilmusttakecognizanceofthe
principleofsubsidiarity .Inparticular,theabovedraft
mustrestrictanyproposedECtermsofreferenceto
taskswhichcannoteffectivelybecarriedoutbynational
andregionalauthorities.
2.1.4.Examplesoftaskswhicharebestcarriedout
atEClevelinclude:
—theformulationandestablishmentofthespatial­
planningprinciplestobeobservedthroughoutthe
EC;and
—theidentificationofthecentreswhichshape,toa
significantextent,thestructureoftheCommunity
asawholeandofthecommunication linksofEC
importancebetweenthesecentres.
2.2.Inter-relationship betweenregional,nationaland
ECspatial-planning policies
2.2.1.TheCommitteeexpectsthat,intheprocess
offurtherdevelopmentofECspatial-planning policy,
concreteproposalswillbeputforwardconcerning :
—thewayinwhichtheexistingregionaldevelopment
conceptsoftheMemberStatesandtheirregions
aretobeincorporatedintoanECframeworkfor
regionaldevelopment ;
—theregionalandnationalinstrumentsandresources
whichcanbeusedtoenhancethedesirableeffects
ofthechangesinlanduse,whilstreducingtheir
undesirableside-effects;and
—theextentandformofanysupplementary Com­
munityprogrammesandmeasureswhichmayprove
necessary .2.3.Identificationof'EuropeanRegions'andtheinsti­
tutionalizationofeffectivehorizontalcooperation
2.3.1.TheCommissiondocumentroughlydivides
theterritoryoftheCommunityintoeightregional
groupings.Thisclassification,whichismoreofthe
natureofaspeculativeproposal,doeslittletofurther
theestablishmentofananalyticallyandstructurally
soundsystemofregionalgroupingsintheEC.
2.3.2.TheCommitteelooksforwardtopresentation
bytheCommissionofaCommunityregionaldevelop­
mentmapshowing'Europeanregions'whicharecom­
parableandhavefeaturesincommon.Themapwould
bebasedonthefindingsoftheindividualstudiescur­
rentlybeingcarriedoutandwouldbedrawnupafter
consideringalltheotheraspects.Theinformationcom­
piledonthese'Europeanregions'shouldprovideabasis
forfutureECstudiesandpoliticaldecisions,particu­
larlyinthefieldoftheStructuralFunds.Incaseswhere
thisisnecessaryforanalyticalpurposes,such'European
regions'wouldhavetoembracesmallernationaland
infra-nationalentities,withoutcallingintoquestionthe
politicalautonomywhichsuchareasmayenjoywithin
theirrespectivenationalcontexts.Inthelightofthe
currentsituation,itislikelythatinsomecasesitwould
beadvantageous for'Europeanregions'tooverlap
existingnationalfrontiersinordertotakeaccountof
linksbetweencomparable,inter-relatedareas.
2.3.3.Aregionaldevelopmentapproachdesignedto
enhancetheefficiencyofECstructuralpolicieswould
beincompleteifitfailedtocoveralltownsanddensely

4.11.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC287/9
populatedareas.TheCommitteepresumesthatthe
Commissionwillcollaboratecloselywiththecompetent
institutionsintheMemberStatesandconfineitselfto
outliningregionaldevelopmentrequirementsofimport­
ancetothestructuraldevelopmentoftheCommunity
asawhole.Underthisbroadapproach,thereisalsoa
needtospecifytheadditionalmeasurestobetakenby
nationalandregionalauthoritiesinrespectoftheir
respectiveterritory.
2.3.4.TheCommitteefirmlyreiteratesitscallfor
thetraditionalterm'ruralworld'tobebrokendown
intoanumberofsub-categories .Thetermencompasses
anumberofareaswithacompletelydifferentbasic
situationanddevelopmentpotential.Inthelightofthe
realisticdevelopmentprospectsofthevarioustypesof
ruralareacoveredbytheterm'ruralworld',theterm
couldbebrokendownintosub-categories suchas:
'denselypopulatedruralareassituatedclosetoareas
ofconcentratedpopulation';'thinlypopulatedrural
areaswithdevelopmentpotentialfortourism',and
'ruralareashavingexistingindustrybutsituatedfar
fromareasofconcentratedpopulation'and'European
forestregions'.Differentiating theterm'ruralworld'in
thiswaywouldmakeanimportantcontributiontothe
formulationofthepolicyonagriculturalstructuresin
suchawayastotakeaccountofregionalimplications .
2.3.5.Intheprocessofdeterminingthe'European
regions',accountmustalsobetakenofintra-Com­
munity,cross-frontierenvironmental interdependence .
Developmentrestrictionsandprioritiesmustreflectthis
interdependence andbecomparableasbetweenthe
differentregions.
2.3.6.TheCommitteeexpectstheCommissionto
submitproposalsconcerningthewayinwhichcross­
frontiermeasuresaretobetakeninfuturetoregulate
theuseofnaturalresourcesincloselyinter-linkedareas.
ExamplesofsuchareasaretheadjacentareasofGerm­
anyandFranceintheUpperRhinevalleyandthe
adjacentWaddenSeaareasofGermanyandtheNether­
lands.ECframeworkprovisionsinthisfieldinparticu­
lararelikelytoleadtoconsiderableimprovements in
thesituation.
2.4.Coordinationofspatial-planning objectivesand
structuralpolicyinstruments
2.4.1.TheCommitteethinksthattheCommission
shouldidentifythespecificmeasurestobetakento
improvetheefficiencyofCommunitystructuralpro­
grammeswithaviewtotheattainmentofspatial­
developmentgoals.Tothisend,thesegoalsmustbe
takenaspointsofreferenceinthedraftingofthe
CommunitySupportFrameworks (CSF)andtheOper­
ationalProgrammes .
2.4.2.TheCommitteesupportstheapproachof
increasinglyshiftingtonationalandregionalgovern­
mentsresponsibilityforimplementingtheCSF,once
theyhavebeenagreeduponatEuropeanlevel.This
willstrengthentheCommunity'spartnershipwiththe
regionsandthesocialpartners.Suchanapproachwill
requirearegularstocktakingoftheimpactoftheStruc­
turalFunds.
2.4.3.Theincreasedfundingforstructuralimprove­
mentmeasuresinECcitiesandregionsqualifyingforprioritysupport,whichtheCommitteehasalready
endorsed,mustbebasedonrealisticstudiesand
appraisalsoftheunderlyingsituationinEurope's
regionsandtheprospectsforfuturedevelopment .The
economicallyandfinanciallystrongerregionshavea
legitimateandunderstandable interestinensuringthat
financialtransfersareusedonlytoconsolidatedevelop­
mentwhichcanbejustifiedonthegroundsofcommon
interest.
2.4.4.Inconjunctionwiththenationalandregional
governmentsconcerned,andtakingacomparable
approachtoallthe'regionsofEurope',theCommission
shouldidentifytherelativeandsectoralassistance
requirementstobeborneinmindinfixingprioritiesfor
theallocationofCommunityfunds.Inthisconnection,
followingtheMaastrichtdecisionstoestablisha
CohesionFund,itwillbeparticularlyimportantto
specifyhowspendingtoimprovelivinganddevelop­
mentconditionsindisadvantaged regionsshouldrelate
togeneralmeasurestopromoteeconomicefficiency
anddevelopmentpotential.
2.4.5.Inadditiontoincreasedfunding,theneedfor
aCommunityvisionofthedevelopmentofhuman
resourcesintheregionsisoffundamentalimportance .
Suchavisionmustalsoindicatehowtheexistinginter­
regionaldisparitiescouldberemovedbyCommunity
programmesorthedefinitionofbasicobjectives.
2.4.6.TheCommitteewouldstressthatthecoordi­
nationofCommunitystructuralpoliciesagainstthe
backgroundofregionaldevelopmentobjectivesmust
alsotakeaccountoftransportandtransport-infrastruc ­
turepolicy,withparticularimportanceattachingto
verticalcoordination .AnexpansionofCommunity
activitiesaimedatsystematicallypromotingthedevel­
opmentoftransportinfrastructureswouldbeappropri­
ateonlyiftherelativepriorityofprojectseligiblefor
assistancecouldbeevaluatedinthecontextofaCom­
munityregionaldevelopmentplan.
2.5.Step-by-stepintegration
2.5.1.TheCommitteereiteratesitscallforthedevel­
opmentofastep-by-stepapproachtoCommunityspati­
al-planningpolicy.Inthisconnection,theformulation
ofaninformation-based referenceframeworkwould
representafirst,importantstepandprovidethebasis
forsubsequentmeasuresaimedatimprovingthe
regionalcoordinationofCommunitypoliciesandthe
applicationofthestructuralfunds.Suchastep-by-step
approachwouldmeanthatthelaterstagescouldbe
implementedwiththebenefitoftheexperiencealready
gained.
2.6.Cooperationwithneighbouringcountries
2.6.1.Althoughnoonecanpredicttheexactform
whichEuropewilltakeinthefuture,itisperfectlyclear
thattheprofoundchangessince1989incentraland
easternEuropewillhavefundamentalregionalconse­

NoC287/10 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 4.11.92
quences.Accountshouldalsobetakenoftheapproach­
esmadeinrespectoftheCommunityaccessionof
severalEFTAcountries.Inthisconnection,theCom­
mitteeexpectsthat,whenupdatingitsdocument,the
Commissionwillendeavourtocooperatewiththe
governmentsofneighbouringnon-Community states
andincorporatetheresultsofthesecontactsinits
overallapproach.
2.6.2.Atthesametime,dueattentionmustbepaid
tospecificquestionsregardingthefutureroleofthe
newregionsintheEuropeancontext.TheCommittee
thereforesuggeststhat,inupdatingthedocument,the
Commissionshouldinitiallymakegeneraldevelopment
proposals—atleastfortrans-frontier areasof
undoubtedEuropeansignificance,suchasFrankfurt/
Oder-Slubice —whichmustbeworkedoutinconsul­
tationwiththeindividualsub-regionsanddesignedto
increasetheircapacityforcooperationattheoper­
ationallevel.contactswitheconomicandsocialinterestsgroupsin
theMemberStatesandtheregions.Theworkofthe
'observatory'couldbeofassistancetotheCommission,
theEuropeanParliament,theEconomicandSocial
Committeeandnationalandregionalgovernments .
3.3.TheCommitteewonderstowhatextentthe
Commission'sproposed'CommitteeonSpatialDevel­
opment'willbeabletocontributetotheintensivework
involvedinpreparingthesubsequentstagesofEuropean
spatial-planning policy.Inthisconnection,itmustbe
stressedthatthehandlingofanyregionalconflicts
ofinterestanddevelopmentdisputeswhichariseisa
politicaltaskwhichmustremainthepreserveofthe
ParliamentsandsuchadvisorybodiesastheESC,rep­
resentingeconomicandsocialinterestgroupsandthe
future'CommitteeoftheRegions',madeupofrep­
resentativesofregionalandlocalauthorities(*).
3.4.TheCommitteeagreesthatthespecificareasof
Communityinterventionlistedattheendofthe'Policy
implications'createimportantpriorityobjectivesfor
theEC.Itemphaticallyunderlinestheimportanceof
Communitysupportbothforborder-areaintegration
andforcooperationbetweenregionsandcities.
4.Recommendations3.Commentsonthe'Policyimplications'
3.1.CommissionandCouncilresponses
3.1.1.The'Policyimplications'havealreadybeen
discussedatthethirdinformalmeetingoftheMinisters
forregionalpolicyandspatialplanningon18—19
November1991intheHague.Nevertheless ,theCom­
mitteefeelsthattheseverygeneralconclusionsdonot
gofarenough.Initsview,thereshouldbeanintensive
discussionatalllevels(national,regionalandEuro­
pean)—encompassing economicandsocialinterests
—overthenexttwoyears.TheCommittee'scomments
andrecommendations withregardtosuchadiscussion
aresetoutinPoint4.
3.2.Formulationoftheinformation-based reference
framework
3.2.1.TheCommitteeagreeswiththeCommission
thatthefurtherdevelopmentofaneffectiveCommunity
regionaldevelopmentpolicywilldependcruciallyon
whetherandtowhatextentitprovespossibletoensure
theprovisionthroughouttheCommunity,andifposs­
iblebeyondtheCommunity'sfrontiers,ofthenecess­
ary,sufficientlycomparableinformation .
3.2.2.TheCommitteereaffirmstheview,already
expressedinitsinitialOpinionon'Europe2000'(1),
thatimprovements inthedisseminationofinformation
shouldbecoupledwiththeestablishmentofan'observ­
atory'forspatialplanningenjoyingacertainindepen­
dencefromnationalandCommunityauthoritiesand
backedupbyanetworkofresearchinstitutesand
bodiesinalltheMemberStates.The'observatory'
couldmakeavaluablecontribution,inaEuropean
context,tothedefinitionofobjectivesforallthe
nationalterritoriesandthedevelopmentofuniform
analysisandevaluationmethods.The'observatory'
couldalsocarryoutstudiesofthesituationinthe
regionsandtheirdevelopmentprospectsandpromote4.1.Updatingofthedocumentintheformofan
'OutlookforEuropeanregionaldevelopment'
4.1.1.Withoutprejudicetotheremarksandsugges­
tionsmadeinChapters2and3above,theCommittee
callsontheCommissiontoensuretheregularupdating
ofthedocument,inconjunctionwithallthegovern­
mentsandinstitutionsconcernedandthesocialpart­
ners,intheformofan'OutlookforEuropeanregional
development',withaviewtoensuringthegradual
improvementofthecoordinationofspatial-planning
policies.
4.2.Transitiontoa'policy-basedreferenceframe­
work'
4.2.1.Inlinewiththerecommendation alreadyset
outinitsOpinionof25September1991(3),theCom­
mitteeagaincallsontheCommissiontoamplifythe
proposed'information-based referenceframework'in
afurtherstage,sothatitmaymakeasubstantial
contribution (a)toimprovingcoordinationatalllevels
andinthevariousfieldsofECactivitywhichhavea
bearingonspatialplanningand(b)torenderingthe
applicationofECandnationalstructuralpolicyinstru­
mentsmoreeffective.
(2)TreatyonEuropeanUnion,Article198a.
(3)Seefootnote,p.5. HSeefootnoteonp.5,point4.6.

4.11.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC287/11
4.2.2.TheCommitteestressestheneedtousethe
'policy-basedreferenceframework',conceivedand
implementedontheabovelines,todeterminetheinter­
actionbetweenspatial-planning decisionsanddecisions
inotherpolicyareas(singlemarket,energy,transport).
4.3.Clarificationofinstitutionalresponsibilities for
aspectsofregionaldevelopmentpolicy
4.3.1.TheCommissionshouldspecifyorsuggestthe
bodieswhicharetoberesponsibleforthecoordination
requirementsstemmingfromthesystematicpreparation
ofthereferenceframeworkandwhichproceduresthey
aretoadoptforthispurpose.
4.3.2.TheCommitteethinksitwouldbeappropriate
nottopostponesuchadiscussiontoanunspecified
date,howeverdifficultthismayprove,buttoinitiate
itimmediately,sinceitistheonlybasisforthedefinition
ofthescopeandcontentofbothan'information-based '
anda'policy-based'referenceframework.
4.4.Establishment ofasufficientlycomprehensive
regionaldatabase
4.4.1.TheCommitteeendorsestheCommission's
intentiontocreate—anditsearlierattemptstodo
so—aEurope-wideminimumdatabaseofregional
informationasabasisfortheimprovedcoordination
ofdevelopmentpoliciesbetweentheMemberStatesandtheCommunity,ontheonehand,andthevarious
Commissiondepartmentsconcerned,ontheother.In
endeavouringtocreatethisdatabasetheCommission
hascooperated,whereverpossible,withthecorre­
spondinginstitutionsintheECMemberStatesand
otherEuropeanstates.TheCommissionshouldresol­
utelycontinuetheseeffortswithintheframeworkofa
long-termplan,notleastbecauseofthewidespread
underestimation oftheimportanceoftheavailability
ofreliableandcomparableregionallydifferentiated
statistics.
4.4.2.Theuseofthisdatabaseshouldfacilitate
cooperationinandbetweenregionsandMemberStates;
itshouldundernocircumstances leadtodelaysor
createobstacles.
4.5.Communityspatial-planning policyandtheCiti­
zens'Europe
4.5.1.TheCommitteeconsidersitessentialtopre­
senttheEurope2000proposalsfordiscussionwithout
delayinaformwhichwillenableeconomicandsocial
interestgroups,theinhabitantsoftheregionsandthe
generalpublictoassesstheobjectivespursuedatCom­
munitylevelandtomakeproposalsandsuggestions.
Thiswillmakeitpossiblefordemocratically elected
representatives atthevariouslevels,tocontribute,in
linewiththeirspheresofresponsibility ,tothe'develop­
mentx>ftheCommunity'sterritory'.
DoneatBrussels,2July1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH