No C 178/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 15.7.82 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 
724/75 establishing a European Regional Development Fund 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 336 of 23 December 1981, page 60. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 10 November 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty estab­
lishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
197th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 April 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 10 November 
1981 for an opinion on the proposal for a Regula­
tion amending Regulation (EEC) No 724/75 estab­
lishing a European Regional Development Fund, 
Having regard to Article 21 of the Rules of Proce­
dure, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Com­
mittee Bureau on 24 November 1981 instructing the 
Section for Regional Development to draw up an 
opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the discussions of the Section at its 
46th and 47th meetings, held on 5 March and 
7 April 1982, 
Having regard to the written report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Hall, 
Having regard to the discussions at the 197th plen­
ary session of 28 and 29 April 1982, 
Whereas the Committee has already put forward 
recommendations for revising the operation of the 
ERDF, many of which are embodied in the propo­
sal submitted to the Council, HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 78 votes against 8 and 1 abstention: 
1.1. The Committee wishes to draw attention to 
the opinions listed below in which the Committee's 
views on Community regional policy and the ERDF 
have been developed. The present opinion examines 
the Commission's proposals in the light of the 
recommendations contained therein. 
— Regional development programmes (*); 
— Revision of the ERDF Regulation (2); 
— New regional policy guidelines and priorities (3). 
1.2. Though the Committee is pleased to find that 
the majority of its suggestions are reflected in the 
Commission proposals, it deplores the fact that the 
explanatory memorandum accompanying the pro­
posed Regulation makes no mention whatsoever of 
its work. It trusts that this omission will be remedied 
in the final text. 
1.3. Before examining the projected changes in 
greater depth, the Committee would point out that 
the need to boost the Fund's appropriations will 
remain as acute as ever, even if the rules governing 
its operation are improved, since the financial 
resources earmarked for this sphere of Community 
C1) OJNoC205, 11.8. 1980. 
(2) OJNoC 185,27.7. 1981. 
(3) OJNoC343, 31. 12. 1981. 
15. 7. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 178/39 
policy are inadequate for the purpose of achieving 
its desired aim of reducing regional imbalances 
within the Community. 
1.4. The Committee believes that the poor econo­
mic performance of the less favoured regions of the 
Community, including those suffering from serious 
industrial decline, not only limits the potential of 
the national economies concerned but acts as a 
brake on the development of the Community as a 
whole. 
1.5. The Committee is therefore rightly concerned 
that the situation be improved and notes with satis­
faction that the revised rules are intended to give the 
Community, through the Commission, better means 
of playing a part in the development of these 
regions. At the same time, the revised rules should 
ensure more participation of interested parties in the 
decision-making and administrative processes. This 
appears important, particularly in some member 
countries where such participation has so far been 
limited. 
1.6. The Committee strongly approves this exten­
sion of the decision-making and administrative pro­
cesses both downwards, towards the local level and 
upwards, towards the Community itself, provided 
proper cooperation is developed between the differ­
ent levels so as to obtain the optimum results. 
1.7. The Committee therefore welcomes the pro­
posed Regulation but would comment as follows: 
2. Coordination of regional policies 
2.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal to 
empower the Commission to institute the coordina­
tion between national regional policies and Com­
munity regional policy as a means of contributing to 
the convergence of the economies of Member 
States. While it is important to increase the 
resources of the Fund and to make it a more effi­
cient instrument for promoting regional develop­
ment, it cannot be the sole instrument of Com­
munity regional policy. The Committee would 
therefore suggest that a study be carried out into the 
impact at regional level of the other Community 
financial instruments, and that coordination 
amongst the various forms of financial assistance be 
sought wherever possible, and not solely in the case 
of integrated operations (Article 29 of the draft 
Regulation). 2.2. The Community must continue to rely mainly 
on the regional development efforts of the Member 
States. These, however, must be coordinated so that 
they help to reduce regional disparities principally 
within the Community but also within individual 
Member States and raise the level of social and 
economic development in the regions. In this res­
pect the Regulation should stipulate that, subject to 
the criteria applied under EEC competition policy, 
national aids for regional development within a 
Member State can be provided even if the area to be 
assisted is above the Community average. 
2.3. The main instruments of coordination are the 
regional development programmes, the periodic 
report, the coordination of national aid schemes and 
the assessment of the impact upon the regions of the 
economic and sectoral policies of the Community 
and of Member States. While recognizing the statist­
ical and conceptual difficulties involved, the Com­
mittee welcomes the obligation placed on Member 
States to give fuller details on the measures used to 
stimulate regional development and on the results 
which they have achieved in terms of investment 
and jobs. Assessment of the effectiveness of 
regional policy is seriously lacking in all Member 
States and is essential if an effective coordinated 
Community regional policy is to be created. This 
criticism has been made frequently by all the Com­
munity institutions who underlined the need for 
Member States to provide fuller and more precise 
information. 
2.4. As far as the coordination of national aid 
schemes is concerned, the Committee insists that 
full account is taken of the severity of the regional 
problems within each Member State and at the 
Community level. 
2.5. The Committee wishes to underline the 
importance of quantified assessments of the 
regional impact of Community policies and insists 
that these assessments are undertaken at a suffi­
ciently early stage to allow Community policies to 
be adapted, so that they make a positive contribu­
tion to regional development in the Community and 
permit appropriate measures to be taken under the 
quota-free section of the Fund to counteract any 
adverse effect which the other policies may have on 
the region. 
2.6. The Committee wishes also to stress the con­
tribution which the development of all Community 
policies can make to Community regional develop­
ment. 
No C 178/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 7. 82 
2.7. Finally, the Committee emphasizes the need 
for an overall regional policy which will help to 
promote an increase in the number of permanent 
jobs in the regions and thus help recovery in the 
Community economy. 
3. Programme contracts 
3.1. The shift from project to programme financing 
has been advocated many times by the Committee 
and is to be welcomed. It should reduce the increas­
ingly heavy administrative burden of reviewing, 
mostly as a mere formality, many thousands of indi­
vidual projects. It will permit the projects assisted to 
be more coherently and effectively grouped, enable 
the Fund's efforts to be more closely linked with the 
overall regional development plans of Member 
States and facilitate closer cooperation between the 
Commission staff and those who are promoting 
economic development within the regions. Care 
must be taken, however, to ensure that the proce­
dures for handling these programmes at all stages — 
submission, implementation, auditing, etc. — keep 
to a reasonable minimum the amount of detail 
required to be provided by the promoters of the pro­
grammes. 
3.2. The contractual nature of the programmes is 
an important new element. It will enable the Com­
munity to have a more effective influence over the 
use made of Fund assistance and to vary the rate of 
contribution. It is important that the Commission 
should undertake with Member States and other 
public authorities, studies which will allow a port­
folio of schemes which would benefit from Fund 
financing to be built up. 
3.3. The Committee recommends that these prelimi­
nary studies should ensure that proposed Regional 
Development Programmes, for which ERDF finan­
cial support is requested, provide accurate and oper­
ational information on clearly-defined priorities, 
quantified objectives and, finally, an evaluation of 
predicted results, particularly for employment (see 
Article 8 (3) of the draft Regulation). 
3.4. The difficulties in defining eligible infrastruc­
ture should also be more easily resolved in the con­
text of preparing actual programmes with the auth­
ority's concerned. In this respect the Committee's 
views in its opinion on the new regional policy 
guidelines (II 1.4) should be borne in mind. 3.5. The proposed system of addressing payments 
directly to the public authorities responsible for the 
programmes rather than to the Member State, is a 
further improvement to be welcomed. 
3.6. If the majority of the Fund is to be used to 
finance programmes, it is important that procedures 
be quickly established to avoid a large proportion of 
the Fund's activities being delayed by disagree­
ments over the mode of Community scrutiny or 
definitional problems (as in the case of infrastruc­
ture at present), or by the inexperience of member 
governments in submitting such programmes, which 
will require a more overall approach to regional 
development and a closer consultation with regional 
and local authorities than in the past. 
3.7. The period of transition from project to pro­
gramme financing provided for, must be used by 
both the Commission, Member States and local and 
regional authorities to draw up codes of practice for 
the preparation and execution of programmes. 
3.8. Since it is well known that both the Commis­
sion and the Committee favour the concerted appli­
cation of all the Community instruments, proce­
dures must be developed at the programme-writing 
stage, which ensure that grants and loans available 
from Community instruments other than the ERDF 
are taken into account. The Committee is not clear, 
at this stage, how a quota Fund and non-quota 
instruments can be successfully integrated, but since 
programmes should be comprehensive, all available 
instruments must play their part in the programmes. 
This problem has become evident because under the 
new proposals the quota fund itself would provide 
for funding intangible investment. Such invest­
ments may require additional help from the Social 
Fund, for example, in order to be fully effective. 
3.9. The Committee particularly welcomes the pro­
posed point 3 (g) of Article 8, in which Member 
States are required, in connection with these pro­
grammes, to provide details of the measures envis­
aged to protect the environment. Regional develop­
ment must take account of the quality of life. 
3.10. The switch to programme-based financing 
has, of course, far-reaching implications for the 
/ 
15.7.82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 178/41 
question of additionality and this matter will be dis­
cussed under a separate heading. 
4. The regions' indigenous growth potenial 
4.1. With the prospect of higher unemployment 
levels in the years ahead and the decline in the num­
ber of jobs which can be transferred from the hith­
erto prosperous regions, the widening of the quota 
section to finance aid other than physical invest­
ment in order to encourage indigenous enterprises 
in the regions, is a change which the Committee has 
already recommended. 
4.2. The Committee welcomes the emphasis on the 
aid proposed for SME's, services and tourism since 
these have a particularly important role to play in 
providing employment in the regions. The ESC pro-
poeses that the ceiling contribution referred to in the 
second paragraph of Article 12 (1) be raised from 
50% to 100% of the national contribution, so that, 
in individual cases where there is justification for it, 
Community aid can match national aid. The Com­
mittee reiterates the value of a financial contribu­
tion by the ERDF to promoting access by SMEs, 
artisanal enterprises and tourism, to new technol­
ogy, information on new outlets, consultancy facili­
ties and financial markets. The Committee recom­
mends that, in this field, the ERDF should be able 
to support regional bodies — on the lines of UK 
Regional Enterprise Boards — set up to share finan­
cial risk-taking for SME's (Article 16 (c) of the draft 
Regulation). The higher rates of assistance and the 
degressive nature of the assistance is a sensible com­
bination. The making available of finance to local 
authorities recognizes the important role such bod­
ies play in aiding and stimulating the starting-up 
and development of small and medium-sized enter­
prises within the regions. Such finance should how­
ever not be made available only to local authorities, 
but also to bodies run by social interest groups. 
4.3. The Committee approves the Commission's 
proposal to grant such aid, even in the absence of a 
national contribution; the procedures governing this 
new type of financial assistance should, however, be 
established as quickly as possible, whilst bearing in 
mind that other Community instruments may also 
be of use here. 5. The quota-free section 
5.1. The proposal to enlarge the quota-free section 
is welcomed and should allow the Fund to respond 
more substantially and flexibly to crisis in all the 
regions of the Community. The widening of the 
terms of reference to include areas hit by the recent 
recession is timely and correct. Many hitherto 
untroubled areas are being faced with a sudden 
run-down of their basic industries. The Community 
must, in serious cases, be able to intervene quickly 
and efficiently and have the discretion to employ a 
wide range of measures. 
5.2 The Committee urges that the development of 
the frontier areas be taken into account in the allo­
cation of aid from the quota-free section in the same 
way as in the allocation of aid from the quota sec­
tion (see Article 13 (d) of the draft Regulation). 
5.3. The vesting of responsibility for operations in 
the Fund Committee is a much needed change 
which should help to prevent the delays and dis­
agreements which have arisen in the Council's treat­
ment of the first quota-free measures. The Com­
mittee welcomes this valuable and imaginative pro­
posal which it hopes will speed up decisions and 
which should allow a greater degree of flexibility. 
6. The regional authorities and socio-economic 
organizations 
6.1. Local and regional authorities 
6.1.1. The amendments for the first time give a for­
mal role to local and regional authorities, an omis­
sion which has been criticized by the Committee on a 
number of occasions in the past. They are to be 
closely associated with the drawing up of the 
regional development programmes. Even more 
important, they are to be involved in the preparation 
of the programme contracts and to receive payments 
directly from the Fund in respect of infrastructure 
investment and certain of the measures to promote 
indigenous development in the regions. In the case 
of investment projects, preference is to be given to 
those carried out by local and regional authorities. 
No C 178/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 7. 82 
6.1.2. The amendments also provide and indeed 
demand considerable involvement of local and 
regional authorities in all stages of the Fund's activi­
ties and in the manner which is functionally appro­
priate. The new regulation should see a much grea­
ter input of regional knowledge and preferences and 
closer and more effective, if indirect, cooperation 
between the regions and the Commission. 
6.1.3. In line with this policy for involving local 
and regional authorities, the Commission should 
consider further extending its consultations with 
their representatives at European level. 
6.2. Socio-economic organizations 
6.2.1. The struggle against unemployment is a top 
priority, and the direct participation of representa­
tives of socio-economic organizations should be 
better guaranteed. 
6.2.2. The Committee reiterates its view that repre­
sentatives of economic and social interest groups 
should play an active part in drawing up, carrying 
out and supervising the Community's regional 
policy. 
For this purpose, the machinery for consultations 
between the Regional Policy Committee and the 
socio-economic organizations should be improved. 
7. Integrated operations 
7.1. The Committee approves the introduction of 
Article 29 which provides a legal basis for integrated 
operations; the integrated approach, though it is too 
early to comment on its results, is certainly one 
which can contribute to the objectives defined in the 
new guidelines, namely to reduce disparities by bet­
ter coordination and concerted use of financial 
instruments within areas with major problems. The 
proposed legal basis could be completed by provid­
ing — in the Regulation — for a specific budget 
heading covering not only studies and administra­
tive expenses, but also relevant investments which 
are not eligible under any of the Community finan­
cial instruments. A typical example would be the housing action in the Belfast area, which in the pres­
ent circumstances had to be authorized by a specific 
Council Regulation. 
8. Geographical concentration 
8.1. The need for greater geographical concentra­
tion of funds from the quota section has already 
been accepted by the Committee in its opinions on 
regional development programmes of 30 April 1980 
and on the revision of the ERDF Regulation of 
29 April 1981. While in the latter opinion the Com­
mittee expressed some reservations about the exclu­
sion of some Member States from a share in the 
quota section, the Committee believes that in view 
of the increasingly serious employment problem 
throughout the Community, it is essential that the 
Community concentrate the quota section of the 
Fund in those regions where it can make the greatest 
contribution, namely in the poorest regions, i.e. 
those regions which suffer from serious problems 
whether of under development or of major indus­
trial decline. 
8.2. The levels of unemployment and income per 
head in those regions are unacceptably low in rela­
tion to other regions in the Community. This consti­
tutes a major obstacle to greater convergence. The 
problem in those regions is a long term one of 
improving infra-structure and introducing new 
activities which will create permanent jobs. Accord­
ingly, it is necessary that an assurance be given to 
all the Member States concerned that their own 
effort will receive continued support from the Fund 
as soon as satisfactory criteria have been identified 
in the Fund Regulation if the limited resources of 
the Fund are not strategically concentrated in this 
way, they will be spread too thinly to have any 
impact on the more serious regional problems in the 
Community. Moreover, the Committee is of the opi­
nion that the decision to concentrate the efforts of 
the Fund is a symbol of Community solidarity with 
those who seek employment and a reasonable stan­
dard of living in its poorest regions. 
8.3. In the light of these considerations, the Com­
mittee approves the general thrust of the Commis­
sion document, but stresses the need to constantly 
update statistical data which alone can justify the 
admission or exclusion — not of a Member State — 
but of a given region. 
8.4. The principle of concentration is in any event 
well established in regional policy both at Com-
15. 7. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 178/43 
munity level and in Member States' own regional 
policies. Member States accord varying degrees of 
priority to regions within their boundaries in their 
own regional aid schemes. They have, moreover, 
accepted that in coordinating regional aids, the 
Community takes account of the differing intensity 
of the regional problems facing different regions. It 
would be inconsistent if the Community did not 
show the same selectivity in its own regional 
development expenditure. 
8.5. The Committee does, however, recognize that 
in the present economic recession, and with the 
prospect of low economic growth throughout the 
Community, due among other things to high energy 
prices and a significant increase in competition 
from countries outside the Community, some rela­
tively prosperous regions in relatively prosperous 
Member States may find their economies suddenly 
weakened. 
8.6. The Committee notes the Commission's inten­
tion in the second periodic report on the social and 
economic situation of the regions of the Com­
munity, to examine regional problems on the basis 
of smaller geographical units so that excessive 
aggregation may not conceal all of the problems of 
certain areas. 
8.7. The Committee also stresses that the Commis­
sion should obtain the most up-to-date statistics 
available in its review of the criteria. This is particu­
larly necessary if the rapidly changing situation is to 
be fully appreciated. The Committee will be making 
more detailed recommendations of these specific 
points in its opinion on the 'periodic report'. 
8.8. The Committee welcomes the provision in the 
proposed new Regulation for changes — both of a 
marginal and a more far reaching nature — to be 
made in the list of regions eligible for aid from the 
quota section, should Community criteria indicate 
that such changes are necessary. The list of regions 
currently proposed for aid under the quota section 
may thus be modified: in a rapidly changing econo­
mic environment this is right. 
8.9. The Committee wishes to lay emphasis on 
another factor which will compel change in the dis­
tribution of the Fund, namely the further enlarge­
ment of the Community. This will substantially 
increase the number of regions suffering from struc­
tural under-development and possessing levels of 
income and employment which lie further below the 
Community average than some of the regions pre­
sently qualifying for aid from the quota section. The 
Committee believes in these circumstances that this problem of an increase in the number of disadvan­
taged regions is likely to require even further con­
centration from the quota section in the future. 
8.10. In considering the matter of geographical 
concentration, the Committee wishes to draw atten­
tion to the much larger role which it hopes the 
quota-free section will play in the operation of the 
Fund. This will allow the Fund to deploy larger 
amounts of aid of a new, as well as classical type, to 
deal with specific regional problems created by the 
sudden decline of certain industries anywhere in the 
Community. This provision ensures that the Fund's 
resources can be made available in a spirit of Com­
munity solidarity in all regions of the Community 
and not simply in those regions covered by Member 
States' regional aid systems. 
9. Additionally 
9.1. As pointed out by the ESC in its 29 April 1981 
opinion on the revision of the ERDF Regulation, 
'the ERDF Regulation provides that projects can 
only receive a financial contribution from the Com­
munity if they are already assisted by or wholly 
financed by public authorities. These twin features, 
that Community monies should always be supple­
mentary to national expenditure, and given to pro­
jects in receipt of national funds, together make up 
the so-called principle of "additionality".' 
9.2. Whilst the Committee has always endorsed the 
principle of greater expenditure in the regions, pro­
vided it makes a positive contribution to job crea­
tion, it has also recognized the overriding import­
ance of national economic policies. Since the major 
part of regional development financing comes from 
Member States' own budgets, it follows that the 
stronger the economies of the Member States 
become, then the better able they will be to increase 
their contribution to the regions for regional 
development. 
9.3. The Committee welcomes the proposed new 
rules for the Fund, believing that they introduce new 
methods of deploying Fund resources which will be 
more effective in producing effective additionality. 
It does, however, recognize that no improvements in 
the methods of operating the Fund can in them­
selves assure true additionality unless there is a will­
ingness on the part of Member States as part of their 
overall economic policies to comply with the princi­
ple. The proposal to which the Committee gives it 
support are essentially those recommended by the 
Committee in its opinion of April 1981. 
9.4. The encouragement of indigenous develop­
ment in the regions will in many cases make avail­
able additional resources, which are hitherto pro-
No C 178/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 15.7.82 
vided neither by Member States nor by the Com­
munity, to the regional authorities concerned. 
9.5. The quota-free section which should in princi­
ple consist entirely of aid which is additional to that 
provided by Member States for regional develop­
ment, may now be four times larger and have a cor­
respondingly greater impact. 
9.6. The proposed system of advance payments 
and the reduction of the period during which reim­
bursement is allowed in respect of operations 
already started, will increase the number of new 
operations — both individual projects and projects 
presented as part of programmes — which are 
financed by the Fund. 
9.7. The proposal to make payments directly to 
regional and local authorities and other agencies 
will encourage additional expenditure. The aid from 
the Fund will provide an increase in the financial 
resources of these authorities. While expenditure 
planning procedures may make it difficult to use 
these additional resources to finance additional pro­
jects immediately, the recipient authorities will be 
able to budget for Fund assistance in future expend­
iture plans. The Committee in its April 1981 opinion 
has already urged that the existing Regulation be 
amended to ensure that such direct payments should 
not be reduced by deduction or levy by Member 
States- The Committee wishes to endorse this 
recommendation. 
9.8. Direct payments will in any event encourage 
regional authorities to resist any attempts by Mem­
ber States to reduce their support by the amount of 
Community aid and stimulate regional authorities to 
press for increased expenditure. 
Done at Brussels, 29 April 1982. 9.9. As the Committee noted in its opinion of 
April 1981, the switch to programme financing will 
help insure additionality. It is now widely accepted 
that the Community cannot ensure additionality so 
long as the Fund is based on the financing of indivi­
dual projects since Member States are not prepared 
to 'top up' aid to individual projects, but merely — 
and this not in all cases — to give general assur­
ances that more funds will be released for regional 
development. The examination of many thousands 
of projects, none of which will receive directly any 
additional aid, is a costly and largely purposeless 
activity. 
9.10. The Committee believes that the use of the 
Fund to cofmance, on a contractual basis at variable 
rates of assistance, programmes of expenditure 
which put together projects into a coordinated 
scheme for regional development, will allow the 
Commission a much clearer knowledge of how the 
Fund may be combined with other sources of 
finance from within Member States to increase 
expenditure in the regions. The closer association of 
the Commission with national and regional 
authorities should permit the Commission to press 
its case for additional expenditure in a more know­
ledgeable and effective manner. The Committee 
agrees that in the case of individual projects costing 
more than 40 million ECU, additionality should 
either be in the form of direct 'topping up', which is 
reasonable for large exceptional projects, or an equi­
valent extra expenditure in the region which, with­
out the Fund's aid, would not have occurred. 
9.11. The Committee therefore fully supports the 
stronger insistance in the new draft Regulation on 
additionality, while accepting that the principle may 
be implemented in a number of different ways. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
15.7.82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 178/45 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendment was rejected during the discussions: 
Item 8 
Replace the whole Chapter by: 
"The Committee reiterates the opinions it delivered on 30 April 1980 and 29 April 1981, in 
which it advocated greater geographical concentration of aid from the quota section but 
expressed the hope that no Member State would be excluded. 
The Commission proposal takes concentration to such extremes that a number of Mem­
ber States will no longer be eligible for quote-fund aid. 
Firstly, the Committee would point out that the data used for selecting the regions eligible 
for aid are based on unreliable and inadequate indicators. They also date back several 
years during which many changes undoubtedly occurred . 
Secondly, the total exclusion of some States from a share in the quota section could easily 
spark off disinterest, not to say misunderstanding, regarding the Community's regional 
policy and the workings (and even funding of the ERDF. Coordination at Community 
level of national regional aid schemes might also suffer. 
These States' chances of receiving aid from funds outside the quota system — even if 
these are enlarged — remain uncertain and would not seem sufficient to offset the loss of 
the guarantee represented by a specific quota. 
The Committee therefore regrets that the concentration of aid, as proposed by the Com­
mission, has been taken to such lengths that solidarity may well be jeopardized rather 
than strengthened. 
The Committee calls on the Commission to amend the proposed quotas so as to ensure 
that the concentration arrangements do not automatically debar any Member State from 
receipt of funds, and so that disbursements of quota-fund aid bear out that the Com­
munity supports schemes which give priority to the elimination not only of imbalances 
within the Community as a whole, but also of imbalances within each Member State'. 
Voting 
For: 57, against: 71, abstentions: 4.