NoC106/20 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 27.4.92
OpinionontheAnnualreportontheImplementation oftheReformoftheStructuralFunds
(1990)
(92/C106/11)
On13December1991,theCommissiondecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCom­
mittee,underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,on
theAnnualReportoftheImplementation ontheReformoftheStructuralFunds(1990).
TheSectionforRegionalDevelopmentandTownandCountryPlanning,whichwasrespon­
sibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon13March
1992.TheRapporteurwasMrChristie.
Atits295thPlenarySession(meetingof25March1992),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajoritywithtwoabstentions .
—thatsubsequentAnnualReportscontainmoreinfor­
mationonhowpartnershipwasinpractice
operatingindifferentMemberStates,
—theAnnualReportshouldincludethefindingsof
theindependentassessorsemployedtoevaluatethe
implementation ofthereforms,
—thattheCommissionprovideanevaluationofthe
degreesofintegrationachievedinpracticeintheso­
calledintegratedapproachtodevelopment .
1.5.WhiletheCommitteenotesthatsomeconsider­
ationhasbeengivenbytheCommissionwithrespect
tothesematters,itregretsthatnosystematicaccount
ispresentedonthefollowingissues:
—take-upofglobalgrants,
—provisionoftechnicalassistance,1.Introduction
1.1.InpresentingthesecondAnnualReportonthe
Implementation oftheReformoftheStructural
Funds(*),theCommissionisdischargingitsobligation
assetoutinArticle16ofRegulation (EEC)No2052/88
(theFrameworkRegulation )onreformofthestructural
funds.ThefirstAnnualReportontheimplementation
ofthesereforms(2)wasthesubjectofaprevious
OpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee (3).
1.2.Article16oftheframeworkregulationstipulates
thatintheAnnualReporttheCommissionshall'indi­
catewhatprogresshadbeenmadetowardstheachiev­
ingoftheobjectivessetoutinArticle1andinconcen­
tratingassistanceasrequiredbyArticle12'.
1.3.InthesecondAnnualReport,theCommission
setsout'toprovideadetailedreviewoftheimplemen­
tationoftheCommunitySupportFrameworks (CSFs)
andofcoordination betweenthevariousstructural
instrumentsandtheotherfinancialinstruments ,andto
summarizethefirstresultsoftheassessmentexercises
undertaken'(ExecutiveSummary,Page1).
1.4.Itispertinenttorecallthat,initsOpinionon
thefirstAnnualReportontheimplementation ofthe
ReformoftheStructuralFunds,theCommitteeset
outanumberofrecommendations whichshouldbe
includedintheCommission'ssecondAnnualReport.In
particular,thefollowingrecommendations weremade:
—thattheAnnualReportgivemoredetailedinfor­
mationontheimpactofthereforminachieving
economicandsocialcohesionacrosstheregionsof
theCommunity ,
—thattheReportmakemoreexplicittheimpactof
theSingleMarketprogrammeontheregionsofthe
Community ,—respectforenvironmental impactassessmentpro­
cedures.
2.GeneralReviewoftheSecondAnnualReporton
theImplementation oftheReformoftheStructural
Funds
2.1.ReportontheMainFeaturesofImplementation
(Chapter1)
2.1.1.TheCommissionreportsgeneralsatisfaction
withtheprogressmadeinimplementingthoseelements
ofreformconcentrateduponduring1990,viz.approval
offormsofassistance;exanteassessmentpursuantto
Article16ofthecoordinatingRegulation;monitoring
oftheCSFsandapprovedprogrammes .
2.1.2.TheCommissionreportsthatthemainfea­
turesofthereformoftheStructuralFunds(multiannual
programming ,partnershipandadditionality )represent
importantadvantageswhichshouldbepreservedand(!)Doc.COM(91)400final.
(2)Doc.COM(90)516final.
(?)OJNoC159,17.6.1991,p.79.

27.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunitiesNoC106/21
tationoftheReformswillhaveontheObjective1
regions.TheseforecastssuggestthatObjective1regions
shouldexperiencesignificantgainsbothtoGrossDom­
esticProduct(GDP)andtoemploymentasadirect
resultoftheReforms.ThenationalandCommunity
resourcescommittedtoObjective1regionsunderthe
CSFsrepresentasignificantcomponentoftotalpublic
expenditureintherelevantcountries.
2.2.3.Inparticular,theforecastssuggestthatby1993
some350000neworpreservedjobsinObjective 1
regionswilldependonCommunitygrants.consolidatedandcontributetothesuccessoftheinte­
gratedapproach.
2.1.3.TheCommissiondoesrecordthefollowing
caveats :
—fundsalwaysfallshortoftheneedsexpressed,and
thishassometimesbeenseenasunderminingthe
programmingeffort,
—althoughpartnershipiswidelyrecognizedasoneof
thestrengthsofthereform,thetendencyinsome
countriesforcentralgovernmenttoexerciseauth­
orityoverregionalauthoritiesunderminedthisprin­
cipleandcurtailedtheinputoflocalpartnerstothe
developmentstrategy,
—theCommissionreportsthatsomeMemberStates
havebeendilatoryinprovidingtheinformation
requiredtoverifyadditionality .Eveninthosecases
wherepublicexpenditurearrangementsmeanthat
therequiredinformationisdifficulttoextractfrom
nationalaccounts,suchasintheUnitedKingdom,
MemberStatesshouldconformtotheRegulations ,2.2.4.TheCommission'sforecastsdemonstratethat
someeconomieswouldsufferfromaseveredemand
shockifthecooperativeeffortsforpromotingsocial
andeconomicadjustmentinthelaggingregionswere
nottobecontinuedbeyond1993.
2.2.5.TheCommission alsoconductedexante
assessmentsofindividualObjective1countriesand
regions.Thesestudiesshowthat,inoverallterms,the
potentialimpactoftheStructuralFundscouldraisethe
GDPofthesecountriesandregionsin1993by1,5%
to2,5%,increasingtheirabilitytocatchupwiththe
restofthetwelve.Whilstwelcomingthis,theCom­
mitteedoesnotethatGDPisonlyoneofanumber
(e.g.employment ,emigration,poverty)ofrelevantindi­
catorsofcohesionandthatsomeattentionmustbe
giventodevelopments intheseotheraspects.—someimplementing difficultiesarose,especially
withregardtothefinancialprovisions.TheCom­
missionhas,therefore,beguntotryandimprove
andsimplifytheproceduralaspects.
2-1.4.TheCommitteesharestheconcernsofthe
Commissionwithregardtothesepoints.Inparticular,
thematterofadditionalityremainscentraltothesuc­
cessoftheFunds,andtheCommitteesupportswithout
reservationtheCommission'seffortstoextractfrom
MemberStatestheinformationrequiredtoconfirm
additionality .2.2.6.TheCommitteewelcomesthepresentationof
theseexanteassessmentsoftheimpactoftheReforms
onObjective1regions.Notonlydotheseforecasts
demonstrateclearlythatbyconcentratingresourcesitis
possibleforCommunitypolicytoachieveadiscernible
(macroeconomic )impactonincomeandemployment
intheObjective1regions,therebycontributingtothe
overallobjectiveofstrengtheningcohesioninsidethe
Community,theyalsoillustratetheadvantagesinthis
regardofprogramming assistancewithinthestructure
oftheCSFs.2.1.5.TheCommission'sReportindicatesthatthe
StructuralFundsarehavinganoverallpositiveeffect.
However,theCommitteenotesthatwhattheReport
doesnotshowisthegeneralimpactoftheFundsat
locallevel;thatisthemannerinwhichtheFundshave
beendistributedandusedwithintheMemberStates.
2.2.Implementation ofObjective1(Chapter2)
2.2.1.Objective1concernssevencountries.Inall
casesexceptFranceitiscoveredbyasingleCSF.More
than300programmesorotherformsofassistancehave
beenapprovedsincethestartofthereform.2.2.7.TheCommitteeconsidersthatitisimportant
tostressthatthegainsinbothemploymentandincome
projectedbytheCommissioncanmaterialiseonlyif
theinvestmentcommitments enteredintounderthe
respectiveCSFsareimplementedintheirentirety.The
Committeealsonotesthattheseforecastsdonot,how­
ever,takeaccountofdevelopments inotherCommunity
policyareas[commonagriculturalpolicy(CAP),Econ­
omicandMonetaryUnion(EMU),thesinglemarket,
etc.]whichwilloccurinthemeantime,whichmayact
contrarytothethrustofstructuralfundsandwhichare
certaintoaffectfinaloutturn.2.2.2.TheCommissionreportsonmodel-basedfore­
castsofthemacroeconomic impactthatimplemen­

NoC106/22 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 27.4.92
2.3.Implementation ofOtherObjectives (Chapter3)
2.3.1.Objective 2
2.3.1.1.Thepredominantformofassistancein
Objective2regionsistheOperationalProgramme .In
1989and1990approvalwasgivento109Operational
Programmes ,11majorprojectsand3globalgrantsin
implementation oftheprioritieslaiddownintheCSFs.
TheaggregateCommunitycontributiontothese
measuresisECU2297million.
2.3.1.2.IntheObjective2regionstheCommission
soughttoconcentratefundsonmeasurestocreate
employmentinplaceofjobslostasaresultofindustrial
decline.TheCommitteewelcomesthegreateremphasis
thattheCommissionisplacingonimprovingthecom­
petitivenessoffirmsratherthanonlarge-scalebasis
infrastructures .
2.3.1.3.TheCommissionreportsthatexanteassess­
mentoftheimpactofCommunityassistancetoObjec­
tive2regionsisvirtuallyimpossible .Notonlyare
thenecessarystatisticaldataunavailable,themarginal
natureofCommunityassistanceincomparisonto
nationalexpendituremakesattemptstomeasurepoten­
tialmacroeconomic impactattheregionallevelimposs­
ible.However,theCommission isconfidentthatthe
impactofCommunityassistancewillbediscerniblein
expostmicroeconomic indicatorsofregionaleconomic
competitiveness .2.3.2.2.Althoughevaluatingtheimpactoftraining
andemploymentprogrammes isinherentlydifficult,
theCommissionreportsgeneralsatisfactionwiththe
impactofthechangefromproject-basedtoamultian­
nualprogrammingapproach.Thishasfacilitateda
greaterdegreeofdecentralization ofimplementation ,
ensuringthatprogrammesreflectbetterthespecific
needsofindividualregions.
2.3.2.3.TheCommitteeendorsestheCommission's
commentswithrespecttothebenefitsthatarelikelyto
ariseasadirectconsequenceofgreaterdecentralization
ofimplementation .
2.3.3.Objective5(a)
2.3.3.1.TheCommissionreportsthatmeasuresto
adaptstructuresfortheproductionandmarketingof
agriculturalandforestproductsareonlyintheirinfancy
asMemberStateshavenotyetsubmittedallrelevant
planstotheCommission .Consequently ,assessment
withrespecttoObjective5(a)hasnotbecomeoper­
ational.
2.3.3.2.TheCommissiondoesrecordthatcompen­
sationschemesandmarketingassistanceprogrammes
havehadthehighesttake-up.
2.3.3.3.TheCommitteerecognizesthatimplemen­
tationoftheReformsunderthisheadingcannotprop­
erlybeconsideredoutsidethemuchbroadercontextof
reformofthecommonagriculturalpolicy.Inparticular
theCommitteefeelsthatmeasuresconcerningextensi­
fication,set-asideandtheenvironment shouldbe
implementedinamannerthatproperlytakesaccount
ofruraldevelopmentinObjective5regions.Inthis
connection,itseemslikelythatthedemandsonthe
StructuralFundsfromtheseareaswillincreasegreatly
inthefuture.
2.3.4.Objective5(b)
2.3.4.1.TheMemberStatespresentedtheirOper­
ationalProgrammesaftertheapprovaloftheCSFsin
June1990.Somewereapprovedbeforetheendofthe
year,butmostofthemhadtobeappraisedanddecided
uponinthecourseof1991.
2.3.4.2.TheCommissionstressestheimportanceof
prioritizingmeasuresdirectedatthediversification and
conversionofagriculturalproductiontowardsnon­
surplusproducts,includingthedevelopmentofforestry.
Inaddition,expenditureoftheEuropeanRegional
DevelopmentFund(ERDF)focusesonthedevelopment
ofsmallandmedium-sized enterprises,tourismand
infrastructure inordertoassistthedevelopmentof
endogenouseconomicpotential.
2.3.4.3.TheCommitteerecognizes,andendorses,
theemphasisthattheCommission isplacingonthe
needtoencouragethedevelopmentofnon-agricultural
economicpotentialofObjective5(b)regions.2.3.1.4.TheCommitteeacknowledges thedifficult­
iesinherentinassessingtheimpactoftheReformsin
Objective2regions,andstronglyrecommendsthatthe
qualityofregionaleconomicdatamadeavailabletothe
CommissionshouldbeimprovedtoassisttheCom­
missioninthisendeavour .
2.3.1.5.TheCommitteealsowelcomesthefactthat
CommunityassistanceforObjective2regionsisnow
beingfocusedonasmallerrangeoftypesofinvestment
comparedtothesituationpriortothereform.
2.3.2.Objectives 3and4outsidethe
Objective 1regions
2.3.2.1.Virtuallyalltheformsofassistanceare
OperationalProgrammes ,with43%ofthemeasures
relatingtoObjective3and57%toObjective4.1990
wasthefirstyearoftheReforms'application .

27.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunitiesNoC106/23
2.4.CommunityInitiativesandInnovativeMeasures
(Chapter4)
2.4.1.Implementation ofCommunityinitiatives
beganwiththesubmissionofprojectsundertheinitiat­
ivesapprovedin1989(Rechar,Envireg,Stride,Interreg
andRegis).In1990theCommissionintroducedanew
seriesofinitiativeswhicharebasedonthreepriorities:
—strengtheningofhumanresources(Euroform,Hor­
izon,NOW),
—integrationofruralareas(Leader),
—extensionofcertainbasicinfrastructure (Prisma,
Regen,Telematique).
2.4.2.TheCommitteenotesthatthenewinitiatives
complementorreinforcetheexistinginitiatives.Conse­
quently,thesecontributetoalreadyestablishedaimsof
Communitypolicy,andaretobewelcomedasaresult.
2.4.3.TheCommitteestressesthat,althoughthese
initiativesinvolvedcomparatively smallsumsofmoney,
theyareimportantintworespects.First,theyenable
theCommunitytorespondtoparticularareaswhich
havebeendamagedorwherethereisaneedforaspecial
initiativetoachieveadesirableobjective.Secondly,in
manyinstancesthequalityoftheresourcesappliedto
particularproblemscannotbeimputedfromthequan­
tityofresourcesapplied.Astheseinitiativesaredirectly
targetedatspecificproblems,theirimpactislikelyto
bedisproportionate totheresourcesdeployed.showthatthefiveEastGermanLanderareatthe
bottomoftheCommunityleagueofpercapitaGDP.
Inresponsetothis,thefiveLanderaretobeaccorded
Objective1statusandtheCommitteeencouragesthe
Commissiontoensurethattheappropriatemechanisms
areinplacetoallowthesefiveLandertoaccessthe
StructuralFundswiththisstatusassoonastheyare
eligibletodoso.
2.6.TheContributionoftheLoanInstruments (Chap­
ter6)
2.6.1.TheFrameworkRegulationoutlinestheprin­
ciplethatassistancefromtheStructuralFundsshould
becombinedwiththatoftheEuropeanInvestment
Bank(EIB)andotherCommunitylendinginstruments
[theEuropeanCoalandSteelCommunity (ECSC)]in
ordertomaximizethestimulusprovidedbybudgetary
resources .
2.6.2.TheCommissionreportsthatwhilstgenerally
thisprincipleisbeingobservedwithrespecttoEIB
activityinObjective1regions,wherethereisarelatively
highlevelofcorrespondence betweentotalEIBlending
andlendinglinkedtoCSFpriorities,thisislesstruein
countrieswhereObjective2and5bregionspredomi­
nate(Italy,theUnitedKingdomandFrance).Inthese
countriesEIBloanscanbeseenascomplementary to
theCSFpriorities.
2.6.3.TheCommitteenotesthatasitremainsthe
casethatEIBlendingisrelatedtospecificprojects,the
timeperspectiveoftheEIBwillnecessarilybeshorter
thanthatadoptedbytheCommissionunderthemulti­
annualprogrammeapproachtoexpenditureadopted
undertheReformsoftheCommunity'sstructural
funds.Thismakescomprehensive integrationbetween
theFundsandtheloaninstrumentsdifficulttoachieve.
2.7.BudgetImplementation in1990(Chapter7)
2.7.1.In1990theshareofbudgetcommitments
goingtoObjective1regionswas75,8%comparedwith
80,6%inthepreviousyear.Thisisexplainedbythe
increaseinthepaceofimplementingtheCSFsinObjec­
tive2regionsduring1990.TheCommissiontakesthe
viewthattheconcentration ofresources(with80%of
theERDFdestinedforObjective1regions)shouldbe
evaluatedoverafive-yearperiod.
2.7.2.TheCommitteeisgenerallysatisfiedthatthe
countriesandareascoveredbytheStructuralFundsare
drawingofffundsbroadlyinlinewiththebudgetary
provision.
3.GeneralobservationsrelatingtotheCommittee's
OpinionontheFirstReport
3.1.TheCommitteerecognizesthatinthisSecond
AnnualReport,theCommissionhasbeenableto
addressmorespecificallythepreciseissuespertinentto
appraisingtheimpactofthereformsoftheStructural
Funds.Moreover,theCommissionhasgonesomeway
toaddressingthepointsraisedintheCommittee's
OpinionontheFirstAnnualReport.2.5.IntegrationoftheGermanRegionsAfterUnifi­
cation(Chapter5)
2.5.1.TheCommissionreportsonthemeasures
takentochannelsupportfromCommunityfundsto
Germanyinordertoassisttheintegrationofthefive
newLanderandEasternBerlin.
2.5.2.InMarch1991theCommissionapprovedthe
CSFfortheseareas.
2.5.3.ThetotalallocationfromthethreeFundsto
thefivenewLanderandEasternBerlinissetatECU
3000million(1991prices)overtheperiod1991to1993.
Ofthis,ECU1,5billioncomesfromtheERDF,900
millionfromtheEuropeanSocialFund(ESF)and600
millionfromtheGuidanceSectionoftheEuropean
AgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFund(EAGGF).
2.5.4.CommunityassistancetothefivenewLander
andEasternBerlinwasthesubjectofaprevious
OpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee(*).
SincethatOpinion,statisticshavebeenpublishedwhich
(i)OJNoC40,17.2.1992,p.26.

NoC106/24 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 27.4.92
3.2.TheCommitteeacknowledges theattempts
madebytheCommissiontopresentestimatesofthe
impactofreformontheObjectiveregions.Thefore­
castsrelatingtotheimpactonObjective1regionsare
particularlysignificant,establishingastheydothat
Communityfundsshouldhaveadiscernibleimpacton
incomesandemployment ifappliedinsufficient
measurerelativetotheGDPoftheregionconcerned,
andwithintheframeworkofco-operativepartnership .
However,itremainsthecasethatexpostevaluation
oftheReformswillbethesoletestoftheireffectiveness .
TheReportcontainsnoestimatesofthistype,although
theCommitteerecognizesthattheMid-TermReview
oftheReformsoftheStructuralFundsisimminent,
andexpectsthatsuchestimateswillbepresentedin
thatReview.
3.3.TheCommitteeregretsthattheCommissionhas
beenunabletopreventanyspecificconclusionsonthe
impactofthereformsupontheObjective2regions.
3.4.TheCommitteeremainsconcernedthatthe
Commissionhasfailedtopresentanyestimatesofthe
likelyimpactofthesinglemarketprogrammeonthe
regionscoveredbytheStructuralFunds.Shouldthe
measurescurrentlybeingimplementedunderthesingle
marketprogrammetendtoinduceare-structuringand/
orre-locationofeconomicactivitytowardsthegeo­
graphiccentreoftheCommunity,thenthechallenge
facingthestructuralfundswillincreasecommensur­
ately.Thisisparticularlyimportantwithrespectto
Objective2regionswheretheadverseconsequencesof
industrialre-structuringand/orre-locationarelikelyto
befeltmoststrongly.4.1.2.Whilstacknowledging thatthereareinherent
difficultiesofatechnicalnatureinestablishingthatthe
principleofadditionality isalwaysandeverywhere
beingobserved,theCommitteetakestheopportunity
toremindallMemberStatesthattheagreementreached
during1988ontheReformoftheStructuralFunds
requiresthattheyrespectinfulltheprinciplesunderly­
ingCommunity structuralpolicies,including
additionality .Moregenerally,theCommitteefeelsthat
incertaininstancesnationalregionalpolicyisbeing
usedpolitically—asavehicleforMemberStatesto
obtainanincomeflowfromtheCommunitybudget
ratherthanasanopportunityforthemtoreinforce,and
contributetoachieving,theprinciplesandobjectivesof
Communityregionalpolicy.
4.1.3.TheCommitteeendorsesthecommentsmade
inSection5.3oftheCommittee'sOpinionontheFirst
AnnualReportonadditionality ,andrecommendsthat
theCommissionpresentcomprehensive detailsofthe
countriesthatarefailingtoprovidetherequisiteinfor­
mation,ormakesknownitsreservationsconcerningthe
qualityofthedatathatisbeingpresentedbyparticular
MemberStates.
4.2.MonitoringCommittees
4.2.1.TheCommitteenotesthatthrough1990the
MonitoringCommitteesrequiredunderArticles25and
26oftheCoordinatingRegulationwereestablished (1).
TheCommitteeendorsestheimportancethattheCom­
missionattachestotheseCommitteesandfullysupports
theCommission'sviewthatsocio-professional organiz­
ationsandemployers'andworkers'organizations
shouldbekeptfullyinformedbytheMonitoringCom­
mitteesoftheirdeliberations .TheCommitteereiterates
thecommentsmadeinitspreviousOpinion(2)that
monitoringandassessmentaredistinctactivities,and
thattheassessmentfunctionistechnicallydemanding
andrequiresagreaterdegreeofindependencethanthe
monitoringfunction.ThepracticeinIrelandwhereby
employersandemployeesarerepresentedonmonitor­
ingcommitteesisonethattheCommitteefeelscould
beausefulmodelforotherpartsoftheCommunity .
4.2.2.TheCommitteereiteratesitsviewthatthe
SocialPartnersshouldhaveamuchgreaterrolein
implementingtheactivitiesoftheStructuralFundsthan
ispresentlythecase.
4.3.Concentration andApplicationofStructural
Funds
4.3.1.TheSecondAnnualReportprovidesdetailed
forecastsoftheimpactofCommunityassistanceon
incomeandemploymentintheObjective1regions.
Theanalysisestablishesthatthemulti-fundassistance3.5.TheCommitteewelcomestheeffortsmadeby
theCommissiontoincorporategreaterinformationon
theoperationofpartnershipinpractice,andstrongly
supportstheCommission'sviewthatlocalpartners
shouldbemoreactivelyinvolvedinboththeprogram­
mingstageandinthemanagementofimplementation .
TheCommitteealsoconsidersthatimplementation will
workbestwhendirectcontactbetweentheCommission
andtheregions(includingthesocialpartners)ismaxi­
mized.
4.SpecificobservationsontheSecondAnnualReport
4.1.Additionality
4.1.1.TheprinciplethatCommunityassistance
shouldbeadditionaltonationalandregionalexpendi­
tureineachMemberStateiscentraltotheoperation
oftheStructuralFunds.TheCommission'seffortsto
acquiretheinformation necessarytoverify
additionalityarecommended .However,astheReport
makesclear,someMemberStatesremainreluctantor
simplyunwillingtofurnishtheCommissionwiththe
requisiteinformation .(')CouncilRegulation (EEC)No4253/88—OJNoL374,
31.12.1988,p.1.
(2)OJNoC159,17.6.1991,p.79.

27.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC106/25
regions,oftheCommunity,thesebeingtheregionsin
needofgreatestsupport.
5.2.2.Atthesametime,however,Objective2
regionscontinuetodisplaythecharacteristicsofindus­
trialdecline.Itisveryimprobablethattheseregionswill
experienceasignificantimprovement intheireconomic
conditionsevenshouldtheCommunityasawholeenter
aperiodofsustainedeconomicgrowth.Consequently ,
agreatereffortisneededtoestablishpreciselywhich
mechanismsaremostableeffectivelytodeliverassist­
ancetothoseregionsandacceleratethepaceofstructur­
altransformation byimprovingthecompetitiveness of
indigenousenterprises,andhowthesemechanismscan
bestbeimplemented .Thecomparatively lowlevelof
CommunityassistanceappliedtoObjective2regions
increases,ratherthandiminishes,theneedforscrutiny
intheapplicationofthosefunds,andappraisaloftheir
effectiveness .presentlybeingappliedwithinthestructureofCom­
munitySupportFrameworks islikelytohavean
important,thoughnotconsiderable ,impactonecon­
omicactivityintherecipientregion.Thisanalysisdem­
onstratesnotonlytheimportanceofconcentrating
resourcessuchthatthetotalresourcesbeingappliedis
significantrelativetodomesticexpenditure,butalso
thatassistancewillbemorebeneficialwhenapplied
withinacoherentactionprogramme .
4.3.2.TheCommitteenotesthelackofanyassess­
mentofObjective2regionsintheSecondAnnual
ReportandthereasonsadvancedbytheCommission
forthis.However,theCommissiondoessuggestthat
thebenefitsofCommunityassistancetoObjective2
regionswillbereflectedinanimprovementofthe
competitiveness ofindustrylocatedinthoseregions.
4.3.3.TheCommitteerecommendsthatinfuturethe
Commissionreportthemicroeconomic indicatorsthat,
initsopinion,togetherdetermineregionalindustrial
competitiveness andhowtheseindicatorsareinfluenced
bytheFundsineachcountryinreceiptofObjective
2assistance.Further,itwouldbehelpfuliftheCom­
missioncouldofferspecificreasonstoexplainwhy
assistancetoObjective2regionsishavingdifferential
impactacrosstheCommunityincluding,wherepracti­
cable,anassessmentoftheeffectivenessofdifferent
tiersofgovernmentindeliveringtheCommunity's
regionalpolicy.5.2.3.TheCommitteerecommends thattheCom­
missionacquiregreateraccesstostatisticaldatathat
indicatestheeconomicconditionsinObjective2
regions.InsomeinstancesthismightrequireMember
States,orregionalauthorities,tocollectcertaindata
forthefirsttime.ThisisnecessarytoassisttheCom­
missiontoaccesstheimpactoftheReformsinObjective
2regions.TheCommitteestressestheimportanceof
assessmentoftheimplementation oftheStructural
FundsinObjective2regions,althoughitrecognizesthe
difficultiesinvolvedinthis. 5.IssuesofPolicyarisingfromtheSecondAnnual
Report
5.2.4.Moreover,astheimportanceoftheregionsin
theCommunitystructureevidentlyissettoincreasein
thefuture,itisimportantthatearlystepsaretaken
toensurethatareasonablyharmonizeddatabaseof
economicandsocialindicatorsisavailableatthe
regionallevel.5.1.ResourcesavailableundertheStructuralReforms
5.1.1.TheCommission'ssecondAnnualReport
establishesthattheprinciplesunderlyingthereformsof
theStructuralFundsare,generally,beingimplemented
efficientlyandarecontributingtotheoverallaimof
achievingagreaterdegreeofcohesionthroughoutthe
Community .Whilstacknowledging thattherearesome
problemswhichremaintoberesolved,theCommittee
believesthisReportverifiestheoverallsuccessofthe
ReformstotheStructuralFunds,andthatthissuccess
mustbeconsolidatedandbuiltuponinthefuture.
5.1.2.Tothisend,theCommitteerecommendsthat
thereshouldbeasubstantialincreaseintheresources
beingappliedtotheObjectiveregions,andthatthe
presentproceduresforimplementing Community
assistanceschemescontinuetoberefined,simplified,
andimproved .5.3.EconomicandSocialCohesion
5.3.1.TheCommitteewelcomestheProtocolon
economicandsocialcohesionthatwasincludedinthe
TreatyonPoliticalUnionagreeduponatMaastricht
inDecember .ThisreaffirmedMemberStates'commit­
menttotheprincipleofeconomicandsocialcohesion
thatunderpinnedthereformoftheStructuralFunds.
TheCommitteewelcomestheintroduction ofthe
CohesionFund,tobeestablishedbeforetheendof
1993,whichwillprovideCommunityfinancialcontri­
butionstoprojectsinthefieldofEnvironmentand
Trans-European NetworksinMemberStateswitha
GrossNationalProduct(GNP)percapitaoflessthan
90%oftheCommunityaverage.5.2.BalanceinResourcesavailablebetweenObjective
Regions
5.2.1.Thepresentbalanceofresourcecommitments
correctlyfavourstheObjective 1,least-developed

NoC106/26 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 27.4.92
5.3.2.TheCommitteebelievesthatthisfacility
shouldrepresentanetadditiontothefundsavailable
tothecountriesconcernedandwillnotinsteadinvolve
adiversionfromthepresentStructuralFundbudget.
Atthesametime,thenewfundshouldenablesome
resourcestobereleasedwhichcanbetargetedtowards
raisingproductiveinvestmentlevelsinObjective1
regionstherebyenhancingcompetitiveness .
5.3.3.TheCommitteestressesthateconomicand
socialcohesioncouldbejeopardizediftheproposed
reformsoftheCAPareimplementedinamannerwhich
damagesruralcommunities .TheCommitteeempha­
sisesthattheresourcescurrentlyavailabletotheagri­
culturalregionsunderObjective5oftheReformsare
whollyinadequatetoresolvethedegreeofeconomic
andsocialdislocationwhichcouldaccompanymajor
CAPreforms.
5.4.MonetaryUnion
5.4.1.Withthedecisiontoproceedtofullmonetary
unionbytheendofthepresentdecade,theCommittee
takesthisopportunitytoemphasizethatasubstantial
increaseintheresourcesdevotedtotheStructuralFunds
willneedtoaccompanythetransitiontomonetary
unioniftheaimofeconomicandsocialcohesionisnot
tobejeopardized .
5.4.2.TheconditionssetoutintheTreatythatMem­
berStateshavetosatisfypriortobeingabletojointhe
singlecurrencyzonecould,intheory,beachievedby
greatlywideningthedegreeofeconomicandsocial
disparitybetweentheMemberStates.Intheviewof
theCommittee,sufficientresourcesshouldbemade
availablethroughtheCommunity'sstructuralfundsto
ensurethatthedegreeofconvergenceinbudgetaryindicatorsrequiredformembershipofthesinglecur­
rencyzoneisnotachievedbyawidenedgapbetween
nationalorregionalindicatorsofeconomicandsocial
welfare.HowevertheCommitteestressesthattheoper­
ationoftheStructuralFundsaloneisincapableof
narrowingregionaleconomicandsocialdisparitiesin
thecontextofmonetaryunion.OtherCommunityand
MemberStatespolicyinitiativeswillbenecessary.
5.5.Communityinitiatives
5.5.1.TheCommitteesupportstherightofCom­
missioninitiativeinpresentingproposalsforspecific
programmesthatassisttheoverallprocessofeconomic
andsocialcohesion.Althoughtheseprogrammestypi­
callyhaveaccesstorelativelysmallfinancialresources,
theyconstituteanimportantmechanismwherebythe
CommissioncanindicateprioritiesforCommunity
actioninthefuture.
5.5.2.However,theseinitiativeswillsucceedintrig­
geringsupportonlyifimplementedspeedilyandwith
theminimumofadministrative barriers.TheCom­
mitteeunderstandsthattherehavebeencriticismsofthe
implementation ofCommunityinitiativesalongthese
lines,andurgestheCommissiontomakeeveryeffort
tospeeduptheimplementation ofsuchprogrammes
onceannounced .Moreover,theCommitteewould
emphasisethattheprinciplesofconcentrationandinte­
grationofpolicymeasuresshould,wherepossible,
informtheCommission'spolicytowardsowninitiat­
ives.
5.5.3.TheCommitteebelievesthatithasbeenable
toplayausefulroleinpreparingOpinionsonthe
CommunityInitiativesandexpectstocontinueinthis
positiveroleinrespectofnewinitiativessuchasRetex.
DoneatBrussels,25March1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH