No C 182/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
this subject of crucial importance for the EC's less 
developed regions. 
On regional policy in particular, EFTA countries are in a 
position to assist the less developed regions (as the EFTA 
fund for the industrialization of Portugal set up in 1975 
continues to do). As the present ERDF cannot be altered, an 
EES Treaty could perhaps include provisions for the 
establishment of a fund aimed at reducing disparities in 
regional development, focusing on the problems of the 
regions most affected by the creation of the EES. 
7.4. EFTA's socio-economic representatives are also 
proving highly responsive to the social dimension; this has 
been clearly demonstrated in work carried out in 
preparation for the joint meeting scheduled for June 1990. forthcoming round of EC-EFTA negotiations, for which 
the Commission has already drawn up a mandate to be 
submitted to the Council of Ministers, should clarify those 
objectives which appear contradictory. 
Clearly the most important thing is for the EFTA countries 
to reach a consensus, enabling them to speak with a single 
voice, and for them to accept the relevant 'acquis 
communautaire'. 
The ESC feels that there is a danger that the European 
Economic Space could in fact delay acceptance of the 
accession applications of EFTA countries which have 
already applied for membership or plan to do so. These 
countries are fellow Europeans, and have democratic 
governments. 
With higher social and environmental protection standards 
in some areas, the EFTA nations can help ensure that the 
Treaty also gives full weight to employment policies, 
education and training programmes, social dialogue, social 
issues in general, and the free movement of workers in 
particular. The ESC is aware of the difficulties involved in setting up 
an EES. However, it calls for coordination of policies 
throughout the EES area, in order to reinforce their 
effectiveness with regard to Europe's main competitors. 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
8. Conclusions 
The concept of the European Economic Space defined in 
the joint declaration of December 1989 is ambiguous. The The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the Community initiative programme to assist the most remote regions of the 
Community (REGIS) 
(90/C 182/13) 
On 4 April 1990, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the Community 
initiative programme to assist the most remote regions of the Community (REGIS). 
The Section for Regional Development, Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 May 1990. The 
rapporteur was Mr Delia Croce. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/39 
1. The Commission's proposal 
1.1. The proposed Commission initiative to assist the 
most remote regions of the Community encompasses 
Guadeloupe, Guyana, Martinique, Reunion, the Canary 
Islands, the Azores and Madeira. 
1.2. The conditions and difficulties holding back 
development in these regions differ sharply from the rest of 
the Community. 
These regions' specific problems can be summed up as 
follows: 
— insularity, 
— remoteness from other areas of the Community, 
— environmental constraints, 
— small local markets, 
— weak economic structures, 
— a rate of unemployment well above the Community 
average (a) (though the statistical methods of calcu­
lation are hardly comparable), 
— underdeveloped infrastructure (especially transport), 
— limited natural and energy resources, 
— location in a disadvantaged economic environment, 
frequently in proximity to third countries with a low 
GNP, 
— natural and climatic geographical disadvantages with 
frequent risk of cyclones and earthquakes, 
— specific agricultural products, usually very different 
from the rest of the Community, 
— population expansion (sometimes with very high 
birthrates), 
— in some regions, large-scale immigration from develop­
ing countries. 
1.3. This Commission initiative follows on other 
schemes to assist all or some disadvantaged regions 
(ENVIREG, STRIDE, POSEIDOM, etc.) and supplements 
Community support framework (CSF) activities, with 
which it should be coordinated. 
1.4. REGIS operational programmes are to be funded 
jointly by the Member States and the Community, which is 
to make a total contribution of 200 MECU from the 
structural funds for the period 1990-1993. 
(*) Unemployment rates: (national and regional sources): French 
overseas departments 25,6 % (1986); Canary Islands 23,2 % 
(1989); Azores 2,2 % (1989); Madeira 4,3 % (1989). 1.5. The initiative aims to diversify agricultural, 
industrial and tourism activities by developing production 
and services for local markets, markets in neighbouring 
non-member countries and the Community markets (also 
with an eye on the Single Market). 
The idea is to strengthen ties with the rest of the 
Community and to improve cooperation with neighbour­
ing non-member countries. 
1.6. The proposed measures include: 
— diversification of agricultural, industrial and tourism 
activities, 
— investment in the infrastructure for transport and 
communications with the rest of the Community 
territory and drives to promote these regions' produce 
on the Community market, 
— aid for trade, tourism and technology exchanges and 
transport with neighbouring non-member countries, 
— prevention of natural disasters, 
— vocational training and job creation. 
2. General comments 
2.1. In delivering an opinion on the REGIS initiative, the 
Committee would make specific reference to its earlier 
opinions on the Island Regions, POSEIDOM, ENVIREG 
and other schemes to assist remote regions. 
2.2. The POSEIDOM programme, which focusses on 
four of the regions encompassed by REGIS and pursues 
similar aims, is of particular relevance. 
2.3. The Committee's opinion on POSEIDOM made a 
specific appeal to the Commission to introduce similar 
programmes for other regions. However, some of the areas 
indicated (Ceuta, Melilla, Crete and Pantelleria) still 
remain outside the scope of REGIS. 
Nonetheless, effective Community action embracing all 
remote and island regions, including the small islands of 
Ireland, is needed. 
Though it recognizes that the Commission has already 
provided for measures to assist certain of these regions, the 
Committee feels that it would be preferable for all such 
schemes to form part of a coherent whole. 
The economic consequences of peripherality affecting 
islands mentioned in point 1.1 (and other remote islands) 
are detailed in the report published by the Commission in 
No C 182/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
December 1989 on 'The Socio-Economic Consequences of 
Completing the Internal Market for the Island Regions of 
the European Community'. 
2.4. The total Community contribution is very small, 
especially in relation to the immense problems to be 
tackled, as pointed out by the Commission in the 
explanatory memorandum. 
Though the scale of funding does not as such always 
determine the success of an initiative, in this particular case 
the inadequancy of funds is most disquieting. 
2.5. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that REGIS 
really does back up all other programmes in the shape of 
demonstration projects providing effective assistance in 
identifying the main ways of tackling current constraints. 
2.6. REGIS activities will have to supplement CSF 
operations. Here a clear-cut, direct link-up is needed to 
avoid fragmentation and inconsistencies. 
2.7. The Member States concerned will have to make 
full use of the opportunities opened up by REGIS, both on 
the financial front and as regards recommended program­
ming and the Community's political contribution. 
This is particularly true in the case of Spain and Portugal 
which have substantial regional development commit­
ments encompassing huge areas and will experience 
financial difficulties in co-funding programmes. 
2.8. The relevant measures listed in Chapter II of the 
Communication seem apposite because of their potentially 
key contribution in removing obstacles to development. 
However, careful selection is essential to choose the 
measures best suited to specific situations. 
2.9. The prerequisites for attaining the desired aims are 
as follows: 
— financing must be tailored to the activities selected, 
— full involvement of local communities and economic 
and social groups in the framing and management of 
programmes, 
— coordination of REGIS with existing initiatives and 
with CSF programmes, 
— monitoring by Community bodies etc. of the program­
me's progress. 2.10. The transparency of operations and widespread 
publicity play a key role in ensuring true efficiency. 
Action should anyway concentrate on fostering a better 
economic and social climate conducive to future benefits 
rather than on alleviating temporary handicaps. 
Here an overall medium-term programme is a sine qua non. 
2.11. It should be added that this initiative entrusts the 
regions concerned with major responsibilities in promoting 
economic, social and cultural cohesion vis-a-vis neighbour­
ing non-member countries whose development, in most 
cases, lags far behind. Here the Community must shoulder 
specific responsibility for the very substantial financial and 
other costs involved. 
3. Conclusions 
3.1. The Commission Decision seems both constructive 
and apposite. 
3.2. The operational programmes must be selected on 
the basis of the specific and widely differing features of the 
individual regions. 
3.3. The operations to be funded must serve as example 
in respect of the proposed objectives. A number of 
initiatives will therefore have to be selected to demonstrate 
the feasibility of improving current economic conditions 
and overcoming obstacles to development. 
3.4. In all cases it must be remembered that the schemes 
concern regions whose culture and traditions, as well as 
socio-economic conditions, differ substantially from the 
rest of the Community. 
I some of these regions the bond with Europe is not always 
properly perceived since other economic and cultural forces 
may exert a powerful pull. It is therefore necessary to 
restore a relationship of trust by trying to draw the local 
population closer to Europe and awaken its interest in the 
integrated economic development of the Community, of 
which it forms an integral part. 
3.5. The agricultural sector is another key area of 
concern. On account of their diversity these regions' special 
(often tropical) products necessitate protective and other 
measures. Banana production is a particular problem. 
A solution will have to be found to shield producers in these 
regions against competition from bananas produced in 
countries in the dollar area. 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/41 
Here the Committee notes that the Commission is currently 
planning specific action (though the details are not yet 
known). 
Pineapples, flower plants and cut flowers are other 
products requiring assistance, including arrangements for 
fast transport to markets all over Europe. 
3.6. In view of the importance of fisheries in all the most 
remote regions, this sector must not be overlooked. Here 
schemes should be tailored to the specific conditions. 
3.7. Transport is a crucial problem for these regions. 
Prompt action is needed to upgrade transport structures 
and infrastructure to meet the requirements of economic 
development and to improve links with the rest of Europe 
and domestic communications. Domestic transport is of 
vital importance, especially for the archipelagos. 
3.8. Special attention should be given to small, family-
run businesses, with particular emphasis on rural tourism 
and the hotel and catering sector. 3.9. Vocational training is a highly important activity 
which needs to be stepped up significantly (especially in 
connection with new technologies and language courses for 
hotel staff). 
It must be remembered that new technologies, besides 
boosting development in these regions, can have profitable 
spin-off effects for neighbouring developing countries. 
In addition, a greater command of languages is a key factor 
in cooperation with other countries and improving job 
opportunities in all sectors. 
3.10. All aspects of information and culture are also of 
key importance. These regions are far away from the centre 
of Europe and their popular traditions are a mix of 
European influence combined with powerful local in­
gredients. All measures, even if ostensibly purely economic, 
must therefore take account of a social and cultural 
substratum that differs widely from the rest of the 
Community. 
Production in these regions is primarily geared to domestic 
consumption. Provision should be made for measures 
securing supplies of the requisite resources and com­
modities at prices which enable the firms concerned to be 
competitive. 
Local crafts can play a major role in economic develop­
ment, e.g. in tapping and boosting local potential. Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the Research and Development Programme for Regions (STRIDE) 
(90/C 182/14) 
On 4 April 1990 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on the Research and 
Development Programme for Regions (STRIDE). 
The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 May 1990. The 
rapporteur was Mr Christie. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously.