28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 101/17 
3.9. Final paragraph: remove 'questions' and replace 
'university' by 'further and higher education' on the 
grounds that universities alone are not responsible for the 
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1986. 
1. General comments 
1.1. In the Committee's view, the 10th Report on the 
ERDF (1975 to 1984) is more important and decisive than 
the previous ERDF reports produced by the Commission. 
The Committee values the analyses contained in the report. 
Its distinguishing features are its review of the first decade 
of ERDF activities and its account of the new perspectives 
opened up by the revised ERDF Regulation. 
1.2. The Committee would reiterate that the purpose of 
the ERDF is to help correct the principal regional 
imbalances resulting in particular from the predominance 
of agriculture, industrial change and structural under­
employment. 
1.3. The Committee would once again point out that 
although the European Community has been in existence 
for 27 years, and has had a regional policy for 10 years, the 
above objective has not yet been achieved. On the contrary, 
economic imbalances between the various regions of the 
Community have actually increased. The persistent 
economic recession has also contibuted to the aggravation 
of regional disparities. 
1.4. The problem of disadvantaged regions has become 
more widespread in the present 12-member Community, as 
the percentage of the Community's population living in 
such regions has doubled. According to Commission training (whether basic or in-service) of teachers in all 
Member States. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
estimates, the numbers living in such regions have increased 
from 24 million in 1980 to 50 million in 1986 (10th Report, 
page 1). 
1.5. The convergence of economic development levels 
should be the Community's prime aim. The internal market 
cannot be successfully completed without simultaneously 
promoting the economic convergence of the regions and 
Member States of the Community. 
1.6. The Committee would point out that the ERDF was 
set up much later than the other Community financing 
instruments which have an impact on the regions, and that 
it has been operating at a time of pronounced economic 
recession and stagflation which has severely affected the 
less-developed countries and regions and those in industrial 
decline. 
1.7. The Committee would emphasize on the one hand 
that ERDF interventions have not been sufficiently effective 
or sufficiently coordinated with the other structural funds 
and financing instruments and, on the other, that the 
inadequacy of its resources has prevented it from attaining 
maximum effectiveness. As an instrument designed to 
correct regional imbalances, the ERDF has tended to play a 
repressive rather than a preventive role. 
1.8. Despite the scale of the economic recession which is 
afflicting the Community and the constant increase in 
regional needs, growth in the fund's resources has been 
virtually non-existent in practical terms. As a result, the Opinion on the 10th Report from the Commission on the European Regional Development 
Fund (1984) 
(86/C 101/07) 
Procedure 
On 9 October 1985 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 10th Report 
from the Commission on the European Regional Development Fund (1984). 
The Section for Regional Development, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's 
work on the subject, adopted its draft opinion on 14 February 1986, in the light of the opinion by 
Mr A. Kamizolas (Rapporteur). 
At the 234th Plenary Session of 26 to 27 February 1986 (meeting of 26 February 1986), the 
Committee adopted the following opinion by a large majority, with two votes against and no 
abstentions: 
No C 101/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
ERDF fails to provide an effective response to the problems 
which the recession has brought in its wake, for example, 
by cutting the number of unemployed and by reducing 
regional imbalances. 
2. Review of the first decade of ERDF activities 
2.1. Reasons for the exacerbation of regional 
imbalances 
2.1.1. As a structural fund, the ERDF has brought about 
only marginal improvements in the already existing 
structural problems of the less-developed regions and of 
those suffering industrial decline. Its very limited resources 
have been channelled into these regions, but have not been 
enough to make a tangible impact on development. 
2.1.2. Despite the Commission's recommendations, the 
Member States have not given serious consideration, when 
implementing national regional policies, to the potential 
role of the local authorities and economic and social 
interest groups in contributing to the more effective 
formulation and application of Community regional 
policy. It is also necessary to stimulate local agents of 
development, such as small and medium-sized firms, 
agricultural and craft cooperatives and industries run on a 
community basis. 
2.1.3. The lack of coherence between a specific regional 
policy and other sectoral policies, on the one hand, and 
overall development strategy at both Community and 
national level, on the other, has undermined the effective­
ness of regional development measures and prevented the 
rational utilization of resources. 
2.1.4. The lack of differentiation and the inadequate 
coordination between regional support measures so far 
introduced under the Community's present regional policy 
indicate that the existence of imbalances in regional 
development between regions with a high rate of economic 
activity and regions with limited economic activity has been 
overlooked. 
2.2. ERDF budget 
2.2.1. The Committee notes that the ERDF's resources 
were increased by only 0,9 % in real terms in 1983/84, and 
that ERDF appropriations amounted to only 0,08 % of 
Community GDP in 1984. Given that the revised Regu­
lation is broader in scope and more flexible, and that its 
financial requirements are greater in view of the intense 
regional difficulties which already exist and which will 
arise from the recent enlargement of the Community, the 
ERDF's present level of resources is clearly inadequate. 
2.2.2. It would also observe that it is not enough to 
increase ERDF resources — according to the Commission's 
report, resources have increased more than eight-fold 
during the ERDF's first 10 years. It should also be noted, on 
the one hand, that there was only a minimal increase 
(0,9 %) in the fund's resources between 1983 and 1984 and, 
on the other hand, that the ERDF's appropriation from the Community budget has remained stationary at 7,3 between 
1981 and 1984. Furthermore, in 1982/83, the increase in 
real terms was 7,5 % 0) (2), despite the fact that the rate of 
inflation was 6,2 % (i.e. higher than the 5,96 % rate of 
inflation for the 1983/84 period), figures which would 
indicate the start of an economic recovery. The fund's 
resources totalled 2,4 billion ECU in the previous year 
(1982/83). 
2.2.3. The Commission would appear to be responding 
to pressure from the Member States for a more rational 
regional policy, at least as regards the increase and 
distribution of allocations, in theory only, instead of using 
its main regional financing instrument, the ERDF, to 
introduce practical measures consistent with the urgent 
need for a more dynamic regional policy. 
2.2.4. The Committee would also stress that the ERDF's 
share of the Community budget is not only dis­
proportionately small as regards the development require­
ments of the regions, but also in comparison with funding 
for agricultural price support measures. As a result, 
regional disparities are becoming more numerous and more 
widespread throughout the Community. 
2.2.5. The Committee would point out that the 
proposals made by the ESC to the Commission and the 
Council, requesting that the fund's resources be increased, 
have not been given adequate consideration. As a result, the 
fund has been unable to achieve its objectives satisfactorily. 
The Committee would like to take this opportunity to 
repeat its proposal that the ERDF's resources be doubled. 
2.3. Geographical allocation of ERDF grants 
2.3.1. The Committee would observe that, with respect 
to the geographical allocation of ERDF grants, Italy 
continues to head the five Member States which take the 
lion's share of ERDF allocations, having received 37,6 % of 
grants over the past 10 years (i.e. over 4,4 billion ECU). The 
United Kingdom comes second, having received 24,1 % of 
grants (i.e. over 2,8 billion ECU). ERDF subsidies per head 
of population are headed by Ireland (207 ECU), followed 
by Italy (190 ECU), Greece (171 ECU), Denmark (165 
ECU) and the United Kingdom (133 ECU). 
2.3.2. The Committee is pleased to see that the fund has 
continued to concentrate 91,1 % of aid on the five priority 
Member States, but would point out that there has been a 
reduction in the level of concentration of aid spent on 
support measures in priority regions (the Italian Mez-
zogiorno, Greece, Ireland, Northern Ireland, the French 
DOMs and Greenland): the 1975 to 1984 average of 
56,4 % dropped to 53,3 % in 1984, whereas the figure was 
actually as high as 64,1 % in 1983. 
2.3.3. The Committee stresses that a number of frontier 
regions in economic decline require a cross-frontier 
and cross-regional solution, mainly through special 
(!) See the ESC opinion on the 9th ERDF Report (OJ No C 169, 
8.7. 1985, p. 9). 
(2) 10th ERDF Report, page 6, Table 1. 
28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 101/19 
Community measures involving financial assistance and 
the simplification of administrative procedures. 
2.3.4. It would also point out that upland areas received 
only 1,4 % of ERDF aid in 1984. The Commission should 
therefore re-examine the question and propose measures to 
increase the flow of resources to these regions. 
The remote location of certain upland and island regions 
where development is lagging, together with their special 
problems and the difficulties encountered by a large 
number of SMEs in adopting new techniques of produc­
tion, administration and marketing, make it particularly 
necessary for local information and technical services 
directly linked with the ERDF to be set up in these regions. 
2.4. Infrastructure and directly productive investment 
2.4.1. Over four-fifths of ERDF allocations went to 
finance infrastructure projects — mainly for transport, 
water engineering and energy. Only one Member State 
managed to maintain the recommended 30 % proportion 
of regional aid to be set aside for productive investment. 
The year 1984 saw only a slight increase in ERDF grants 
used to finance investments in industry. This was due, on 
the one hand, to the varying abilities of individual Member 
States to make productive investments (the size of 
investments obviously depends on the general economic 
situation within the Member State) and, on the other hand, 
to the pressing need in certain Member States and under­
developed regions for infrastructure investments. 
2.4.2. The Committee would like to see the retention of 
the 70 % to 30 % ratio for infrastructure and productive 
investment respectively, without however excluding the 
possibility of flexible allocation of resources by sector, 
which would make it possible to support and develop the 
regions in accordance with their practical needs. 
It calls upon the Commission to take all possible steps — 
including the use of other means of financial intervention 
— to assist and contribute to projects in critical sectors 
which are capable of creating permanent jobs involving the 
direct production of goods. 
2.4.3. The Committee agrees that infrastructure plays a 
many-faceted role in that it is capable of contributing to an 
increase in demand, productivity and job creation, 
particularly at a time of recession, ant that it creates the 
appropriate conditions for the development of economic 
and social activity in the less-developed regions. It does not, 
however, agree that projects connected either directly or 
indirectly with social infrastructure should be considered 
less important, particularly in regions which are hard hit by 
the recession. 
Regional policy-making bodies should also take into 
consideration the importance of the tertiary sector — 
particularly the services sector — in fostering regional 
development. The choice of location of new services, especially those involved with new information tech­
nologies, should be made according to criteria consistent 
with the overall aims of regional policy. 
2.4.4. The Committee feels that the introduction and 
expansion of infrastructure projects and transport facilities 
in the more remote areas and islands of the Community will 
be of considerable help in overcoming the problem of 
accessibility, which has been one of the prime reasons for 
under — development in these areas. 
2.5. Jobs 
2.5.1. According to the 10th ERDF Report and Com­
mission estimates, 85 % of the new jobs envisaged in the 
industry, crafts and services sectors in the 1975 to 1984 
period in fact materialized (a total of about 640,000), with 
the help of ERDF grants and national aid. Of these jobs 
69,000 were created in 1984. Industrial investment grants 
accounted for 14 % of the ERDF's resources. The 
Committee therefore calls upon the Commission to take 
every possible initiative, resorting also to other financing 
instruments, to assist and promote investment projects in 
sectors which create permanent jobs and directly increase 
the national product. 
2.5.2. It emerges from the report that more jobs were 
created in projects costing less than 10 million ECU 
(430,484 jobs) than in those costing more than 10 million 
ECU (207,840 jobs). The cost of individual jobs in projects 
costing less than 10 million ECU was also lower. A job in a 
small-scale project cost a total of 26,029 ECU, of which 
2,445 ECU was paid by the ERDF, whereas a job in a large 
project cost a total of 76,311 ECU, 4,939 ECU being paid by 
the ERDF. A total of 25,774 projects received assistance 
between 1975 and 1984 with 95,7 % of funds going to 
finance projects costing less than 10 million ECU. In 1984, 
funding for small-scale productive investments increased to 
6,7 % of total funding for productive investments, 
compared with an average of 5,9 % in the 1975 to 1984 
period as a whole. 
2.5.3. The Committee acknowledges the important 
contribution of SMEs to job creation and recognizes that 
the size of certain infrastructure projects requires coopera­
tion with large firms which have the relevant technology. It 
would also stress that the eligibility criteria for projects 
should take account not only of their more general 
importance for the development of a region, but also of 
their economic and social utility. 
2.5.4. Jobs are created both directly and indirectly in the 
infrastructure sector, however. According to estimates, 
ERDF support for infrastructure since 1975 has created the 
equivalent of about one million jobs lasting one year in the 
housing and public works sectors. 
No C 101/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
2.6. Studies 2.8. Specific Community regional development 
measures 
2.6.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the 
Commission has undertaken to finance studies on invest­
ment procedure and preparation. It attaches great 
importance to the publication of studies which could 
provide a firm basis for improving the effectiveness of 
ERDF activities, increasing knowledge of the problems 
peculiar to certain economic branches and regions and 
enabling the Commission to play a more active role in 
initiating a number of investment projects. 
2.6.2. The carrying out of studies should be an integral 
part of a policy designed to maximize the benefits of ERDF 
resources. The Committee therefore welcomes the fact that 
appropriations for this purpose have been increased four­
fold in 1984, financing 43 such studies. 
The Committee would note, however, that between 1980 
and 1984 most ERDF subsidized studies were carried out 
by three or four Members States: Italy (20,12 million ECU), 
the United Kingdom (6,49 million ECU), France (6,02 
million ECU) and Denmark (5,74 million ECU), whereas 
very few such studies were carried out by Luxembourg and 
the Netherlands, for example. 43 studies were financed in 
1984 at a cost of 24,21 million ECU. Over the 1980 to 1984 
period, a total of 98 studies was financed, costing 41,27 
million ECU (10th ERDF Report, page 32, Table 10). 2.8.1. The Committee expresses satisfaction at the 
implementation, since 1984, of the second series of specific 
regional development programmes, with an estimated 
expenditure of 724 million ECU by the ERDF — three 
times the total amount spent during the first five years of 
the ERDF. 
Some of these programmes relate to the Community's third 
enlargement and seek in the main to improve the economic 
climate by providing aid to create jobs in small and 
medium-sized firms. 
2.8.2. The Committee recognizes the difficulties facing 
the Member States as regards adapting to the requisite 
conditions for applying specific Community regional 
development measures. Nonetheless, it would voice its 
concern at the great gap between payment commitments 
and payments made in the second series of specific 
Community measures. 
2.8.3. The ERDF should assist disadvantaged frontier 
and upland areas, by introducing swifter and simpler 
administrative procedures. Community spending should be 
increased, or additional aid made available. 
2.7. Specific comments 3. Guidelines of the new Community regional policy 
2.7.1. The Committee notes that the Commission 
considers that the ERDF has made excellent use of its 
resources, with a 97 % rate of utilization of payment 
commitments. By the end of December 1984, overall 
payments represented 64 % of commitments made. There 
was a significant increase in the rate of utilization of 
resources in 1984 (10th ERDF Report, page 36, Table 15). 
2.7.2. The Committee recognizes that despite the 
complexity of the system of additionality, the fund 
contributes substantially, through its subsidies, to the 
implementation of projects. 
2.7.3. Member States should submit early applications 
for aid so as to facilitate the task of the Commission. The 
Committee would, however, draw attention to the fact that 
the percentage of applications for projects and studies 
finally approved dropped from 70,3 % in 1983 (J) to 
67,1 % in 1984 (10th ERDF Report, page 19, Table 6). 3.1. The revised ERDF Regulation 
3.1.1. The Committee welcomes the new ERDF Regu­
lation (2) (3), which incorporates many of its previous 
suggestions regarding the Fund's activities. The new 
Regulation is an important step towards a more coordi­
nated, flexible and effective regional policy. It enables local 
authorities to programme, participate in and develop new 
projects. The Committee hopes that the Commission will 
succeed in gradually establishing closer links with the 
regions. 
3.1.2. The revised ERDF Regulation places greater 
emphasis on the Community aspect of its aid and allows the 
Commission to develop its own strategy. The Committee 
hopes that this will make for greater economic convergence 
and a more balanced distribution of aid and economic 
activity. 
2.7.4. The Committee would highlight the fact that very 
few annual on-the-spot checks are carried out by 
Commission officials. It would invite the Commission to 
draw up specific criteria so that projects can be more 
speedily and efficiently monitored. 
(!) 9th ERDF Report, page 15, Table 6. 3.1.3. The new Regulation contributes to improving the 
coordination of Community regional policy guidelines and 
priorities with national regional development policies. The 
instruments of coordination are the periodic report on the 
(2) OJ No L 169, 28. 6. 1984. 
(3) ESC opinion of 25. 9. 1985 (OJ No 303, 25. 11. 1985, p. 1.). 
28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 101/21 
situation and development of the regions, the regional 
development programmes and the analysis of the regional 
aspects of individual Community policies. 
3.1.4. The new Regulation introduces a range of upper 
and lower financing limits to replace the quota system 
which existed under the previous Regulation. Co-financing 
rates have also been increased, with greater scope being 
given to small firms. 
The new Regulation also provides for the financing of two 
categories of programme — of Community and national 
interest — and an increase in the rate of spending on 
integrated programmes. 
3.1.5. The Committee hopes that the revised Regulation 
will help to shorten the Commission's bureaucratic 
procedures concerning the approval of grants for invest­
ment projects. This should be reflected in the new 
application forms. 
3.1.6. The new opportunities made available under the 
revised Regulation will only be used effectively if all those 
concerned — the Commission, Member States, regional 
and local authorities and the social partners — recognize 
the need for serious cooperation. 
3.1.7. The Committee would particularly draw atten­
tion to the measures contained in the revised Regulation to 
promote the development of inherent regional resources. 
This will entail the strengthening of the small business 
sector and the financing of individual projects. The 
Committee would stress that the less-developed regions 
have a greater need for resources, technical assistance and 
appropriate and adequate infrastructure which will play an 
important role in stimulating productive investment. 
3.2. Regional development programmes 
3.2.1. The Committee agrees that regional development 
programmes enable better use to be made of Member 
States' investment schemes for which ERDF grant appli­
cations are made. It feels that regional development 
programmes could act as a link between Community 
regional policy and national regional policies, provided 
that the priorities of the regional development programmes 
are more accurately specified. It is also in favour of 
introducing joint programmes whereby individual regions 
and Member States join forces to implement and finance an 
action programme. 
3.3. Integrated regional development operations 
3.3.1. The Committee is in favour of directly supporting 
integrated regional development operations and integrated 
programmes, which will allow the regions concerned 
priority access to the structural funds and other sources of finance, thus contributing to the more rapid and self-
sufficient development of those regions. 
It feels that any increase in the effectiveness of regional 
policy and its financing, and indeed the very future of 
regional policy, will largely depend on integrated opera­
tions designed to strengthen and develop each individual 
region according to its own resources and particular 
problems. 
The Committee would suggest that a study be made of the 
economic impact of integrated projects and coordinated 
actions. The study should include, if possible, detailed 
analyses of the results of these coordinated actions, the 
number of new jobs created and the cost to the ERDF. 
3.4. Integrated Mediterranean Programmes 
3.4.1. The Committee would stress the importance of 
integrated development programmes, for which financial 
coordination between the Community and the Member 
States is a prerequisite — this kind of coordination already 
exists in the case of the integrated programmes concerning 
the Community's Mediterranean regions. The IMPs 
(Integrated Mediterranean Programmes) aim among other 
things to improve the economic and social structures of 
these regions and to facilitate their adaptation to the new 
conditions which are created by the recent enlargement, by 
mobilizing all their resources. 
4. Conclusions — Proposals 
4.1. The Committee expresses satisfaction at the 
analytic content of the 10th ERDF Report and welcomes 
the attempt to present data on the objectives and activities 
of the ERDF in a more precise and accurate way. It would 
suggest that more effective use should be made of resources 
in order to achieve the objectives of the ERDF, and 
underlines the need for the Annual Report to be drawn up 
and submitted in time for it to adopt its opinion by the end 
of the relevant year. 
4.2. It once again proposes that a dynamic and more 
effective regional policy be adopted, with resources and 
criteria commensurate with the intensity and extent of the 
problems and the special features of the economic and 
social situation of the regions. ERDF grants should also be 
made available to a wider range of activities, including agri-
industries and agricultural and craft cooperatives, in an 
effort to mobilize local forces of production with a view to 
maintaining balanced productivity at both Community and 
local level. 
4.3. Despite the wealth of statistical data, the Com­
mittee would point out that the report fails to make the 
necessary reference to the other financing instruments 
which support regional policy or to assess the repercussions 
of the Community's sectoral policies on the regions. It 
would also be useful if the Commission provided details of 
NoC 101/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
the other structural funds so that the coordination between 
the various funds' interventions can be assessed. 
4.4. The Committee feels that if the new Regulation is to 
be successful following the Community's latest enlarge­
ment, ERDF funds will have to be at least doubled and 
productive investment encouraged, resources will have to 
be channelled into and concentrated on the Community's 
real problem areas and ERDF interventions will have to be 
rationally coordinated with those of the other structural 
funds and other financing instruments. In this context it 
proposes the modification of certain Community policies 
of regional significance and the introduction of new 
measures to complement them. 
4.5. The Committee would invite the Commission to 
recommend measures and methods for concentrating 
ERDF aid in those sectors where the most jobs would be 
created at the lowest cost, in line with the objectives of 
regional policy. This could prove to be a more effective way 
of contributing to policy and initiatives in favour of small 
firms as, thanks to their inherent versatility and adapt­
ability — essential assets in combatting the recession and 
mobilizing local economic resources — they are capable of 
making a direct impact on regional development by 
creating jobs. 
4.6. The Committee agrees with the Commission that 
infrastructure projects contribute, directly or indirectly, to the creation of jobs. It would invite the Commission to 
carry out detailed research in order to back up this claim 
with precise official data wherever possible. 
4.7. The Committee would encourage the Commission 
not only to provide information and administrative and 
technical assistance for national and local authorities when 
requested, but also to devise other ways of ensuring the 
successful and effective application of the Regulation. 
4.8. The Committee would urge the Council and the 
Commission to take appropriate measures to enhance the 
role of the ERDF and to redouble their efforts to 
incorporate adequately the regional dimension into other 
Community policies. 
4.9. In regions with development problems, appropriate 
new technologies should be introduced and applied, taking 
account of the comparative advantages and physical 
resources of these regions, so as to help them to overcome 
their structural weaknesses as rapidly as possible. 
4.10. Finally, the Committee believes that, by mobiliz­
ing all the natural and human resources of the regions, 
regional development policy and regional financing 
instruments could prove to be a key factor in defeating the 
recession. Measures designed to bring about economic 
recovery should therefore go hand in hand with regional 
development measures, as part of efforts to achieve 
economic convergence and European integration. 
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council resolution on a programme of action of the European 
Communities on cancer prevention 
(86/C101/08) 
On 4 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 February 
1986, in the light of the report by Mr Brassier. 
At its 234th Plenary Session (meeting of 27 February 1986), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by 63 votes for, none against and with 14 abstentions: