Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "PRISM - Regional initiatives (Single Market Observatory)"

(2001/C 116/01)

On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23 (3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on "PRISM - Regional initiatives (Single Market Observatory)".

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 September 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 97 votes to one, with one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. In 1999, the Economic and Social Committee's Single Market Observatory embarked on a European survey, known as "PRISM" (Progress Report "Initiatives in the single market"), of the practical measures introduced by both national and local authorities and socio-economic interest groups to adjust to the new challenges of the single market (e.g. introduction of the euro, sharper competition, new areas of cooperation, and obstacles to information and cooperation).

1.2. The aims which the Observatory set for PRISM are to:

- foster an innovatory, bottom-up approach to the single market to supplement the traditional Brussels "top-down" approach;

- promote and publicise best practice "in the field";

- on the basis of the above, list the EU political and regulatory measures needed to encourage, back up and develop those initiatives;

- ensure an original and practical ESC contribution to the debate on the single market and the Internet: this will be the ESC's own specific initiative;

- in this way, consolidate the ESC's role as mediator between the socio-economic players and the EC institutions.

1.3. In the view of the ESC Observatory, the measures under consideration, which directly concern adjustment to the European single market, fit into four categories:

A. Information and support

- effective user information (publications, symposia, Internet, training, media)

- targeted assessment of the situation vis-à-vis the single market (studies, opinion polls, media).

B. Problem-solving processes

- mediation to cope with obstacles and problems experienced (approaches at national, transnational, European levels; direct negotiation of solutions to specific problems).

C. Partnership

- European partnerships to facilitate openness (twinning, exchanges, cooperation, agreements, mergers)

- pooling of resources to sharpen competitive edge (centres, sponsorships, SME clubs, linguistic back-up).

D. Agreements and codes of conduct

- streamlining of administrative procedures (one-stop centres, mutual recognition, codes of conduct)

- enhancement of image to cope with competition (qualifications, certification, designation of origin, labels, diplomas, charters).

2. Approach to the work programme

2.1. The "Europe of the Regions" concept highlights both the environmental and cultural diversity of the geographical mosaic making up the European Union and the need for ever greater cooperation.

2.2. The rich array of traditions and social systems is extremely valuable but it does not always lend itself to establishing the single market or furthering European integration.

2.3. Some regions are already trying to find solutions, while others are leaving the problems to be addressed at national or EU level.

2.4. The aim of this opinion is to identify best practice and determine the scope for disseminating it to other regions.

2.5. The PRISM programme will have examined at least one region in every Member State (15-18) by the end of 2001, as part of the Single Market Observatory's general programme. Steps should therefore be taken to draw up a work plan focusing on a limited number of priority areas, with a view to ensuring that the data collected are homogeneous and easily comparable.

2.6. A primary distinction must be drawn in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity in order to avoid examining questions that are addressed at supra-regional level. On this point, it would be useful to compare notes with the Committee of the Regions.

2.7. The choice of sample regions should be based not so much on economic differences as on similarities, to facilitate comparison of responses to similar problems.

2.8. To further simplify the comparison, the four categories under point 1.3 should be applied to four priority areas:

- agriculture;

- industry;

- environment; and

- use of the Structural Funds.

2.9. Specific questions should be asked on the following points:

- single currency publicity campaigns;

- employment promotion programmes; and

- competitiveness.

2.10. The appended questionnaire was put together on the basis of the above considerations, and the following observations were made in the light of the oral evidence and replies received.

3. General comments

3.1. Not surprisingly, the responses to the questionnaire raised more criticisms than positive feedback.

3.2. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that all those concerned were working from the premise that, inconsistencies and contradictions apart, regional initiatives adhere to two fundamental principles: Community aid stimulates action, and programme results are significant in bringing regions closer together.

3.3. It is therefore certain that measures designed to boost cohesion have reduced regional disparities.

3.4. The criticisms related mainly to:

- competition;

- EU enlargement;

- information;

- cooperation and partnership;

- decentralised management;

- the transparency of checks and inspections; and

- the value added of programmes.

3.5. Problems relating to competition persist owing largely to differences and shortcomings in the transposition of European legislation into national law. Economic operators need to enjoy fair competition conditions regardless of where they do business.

3.6. If major imbalances remain there will be a price to pay, as the development gap between the Member States will grow, to the detriment of the economic and social cohesion of the EU.

3.7. There is therefore an urgent need for tighter rules, in order to reconcile development trends with a guarantee of cohesion, especially in the light of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU.

3.7.1. While the political and social importance of enlargement is undeniable, it will initially increase disparities in development between regions and widen the gap between the richer and poorer areas, though it is as yet impossible to tell to what extent.

3.7.2. The preaccession measures provided for under Agenda 2000 will have to be stepped up in order to alleviate and moderate this impact.

3.8. In spite of the efforts made, the economic operators and the European public alike are dissatisfied with the inadequate volume and regularity of information, resulting from language and culture barriers, insufficient dissemination channels, and difficulties with bureaucratic jargon.

3.9. The vast majority of respondents were satisfied with the instruments for partnership and consequent cooperation, but they highlighted implementation problems arising from conflicting interests, sometimes of a private nature, or fierce opposition to the objectives of certain projects.

3.10. On a more positive note, all those who applied decentralised management, though in fact they are only a minority, were appreciative of the benefits of less red tape, simpler procedures, faster access to financing and more regular controls.

3.10.1. This was not the feeling however of the majority of operators, still working under highly centralised rules and procedures that slow down and sometimes indefinitely obstruct programme implementation; the most serious complaint concerned the lack of transparency in the results of checks and inspections.

3.11. Lastly, the question of the value added of the programmes was a sensitive and complex one as it required comparisons to be drawn and value judgements to be made.

3.11.1. As the objectives of the PRISM project are clearly stated, the replies can be studied in terms of programme design mistakes to avoid:

- individual initiatives not coordinated within a larger framework;

- non-market cost-benefit ratio;

- scattered distribution of resources;

- little or no innovative content.

4. Specific comments

4.1. These comments relate specifically to the individual questions on the questionnaire.

4.2. Impact of the single market

Most of the replies suggested that the best results were to be seen in the economy and that the impact in social, administrative and cultural terms was as yet unclear but would be revealed in the longer term.

4.3. Free movement

Difficulties were encountered primarily with the free movement of persons and secondarily with capital; there did not appear to be any particular problems with goods and services.

4.4. Right of establishment

The cases referred to were few and far between and the only difficulties noted were of an administrative nature.

4.5. Recognition of qualifications

The vast majority complained of serious difficulties in the recognition of the qualifications of semi- to low-skilled workers.

4.6. Structural Funds

There is a basic contradiction in this area in that programmes offering financial assistance, especially when they relate to infrastructural work, are considered more attractive, whereas very little use is made of programmes that offer support for training, coordination and basic services to benefit the community, which should be of more interest to SMEs in particular.

4.7. Information media and channels

With the exception of the earlier question on information regarding access, the overall picture of information dissemination is depressing.

4.7.1. Owing to their obvious general interest, a few large scale projects have broad access to press and television and sometimes have their own channels and media; the same is not true for the others, however, with detrimental effects for the economic operators, who cannot draw the full benefit from market opportunities, for the users, who lack practical information, and for image enhancement in the face of competition.

4.7.2. Furthermore, note should be taken of a worrying phenomenon mentioned by almost all the respondents: the general lack of information on the euro, just over a year from its launch.

5. Conclusions

5.1. It is important to bear in mind the fact that PRISM is an ongoing programme that involves periodic surveys and related hearings, and that the points made in this opinion are the fruit of two hearings: a general one held in Brussels on 13 July 1999 and a more specialist one held in Lisbon on 24 February 2000.

5.2. The work done seems to suggest that the only definitive conclusion that can be drawn is that a list should be made of the themes on which the Single Market Observatory should conduct in-depth studies, with a view to making recommendations and practical proposals to the European, national and regional institutions.

5.3. The following list is not exhaustive and may be extended should the ESC consider it necessary:

- access to and dissemination of information;

- updating of the competition rules;

- management decentralisation;

- standard criteria for identifying best practice.

5.4. In the light of the importance of PRISM's first findings, the project should be stepped up in order to keep pace with developments in the single market.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

1. Questionnaire

1.1. What impact has the European single market had on the development of your region

- economically?

- socially?

- administratively?

- culturally?

1.2. What are the obstacles facing the social and economic operators in your region in terms of:

- the free movement of persons?

- the free movement of goods?

- the free movement of services?

- the free movement of capital?

1.3. Are there obstacles to free competition?

1.4. Is the right of establishment respected?

1.5. Is the principle of the recognition of qualifications applied?

1.6. Have the resources available from the Structural Funds contributed to the completion of the single market in your region?

1.7. Please mention one or more measures taken in your region to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the single market, for instance:

- practical information for users (publications, symposia, training courses);

- targeted assessment of the situation vis-à-vis the single market (studies, opinion polls);

- European partnerships to facilitate exchanges (twinning, cooperation, agreements, mergers);

- enhancement of image to cope with competition (qualifications, certification, designation of origin, labels, diplomas);

- pooling of resources to sharpen competitive edge (centres, sponsorships, SME clubs, linguistic back-up, research projects, links with business nurseries);

- dedicated infrastructure for cooperation and exchange;

- institutional, technical and financial support for specific measures to encourage the region to open up to Europe.

1.8. Can you specify measures to remove obstacles to free trade, with regard to SMEs for instance:

- streamlining of administrative procedures (one-stop centres, mutual recognition, codes of conduct);

- credit facilities;

- fiscal measures;

- mediation to cope with obstacles and problems experienced (at national, transnational and European levels, direct negotiation).

1.9. Taking account of your regional experience, what measures would you recommend be included in Community-level initiatives, e.g.:

- promotion of employment and mobility (training, qualification, closer approximation of social legislation);

- information on the euro;

- removal of administrative and tax barriers;

- competition between regions in the areas of social costs, taxation and public investment aid.

1.10. Would you be prepared to transfer your experience and initiatives to other European regions?