No C 252/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 9. 82 
Reasons 
The automatic criterion for exemption from the Regulation now depends solely on turnover, the share of 
the market no longer being taken into account. 
In this amended text the Commission treats the 20 % limit on the share of the market as an assumption 
which it reserves the right to check without giving any indication of the criteria used. 
Voting 
For: 39, Against: 45, Abstentions: 24. 
Opinion on the Commission report to the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers on the 
administration of financial and technical cooperation in 1980, under the Lome 
Convention 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
At its 178th plenary session held on 29 and 30 April 1980 the Committee, acting on a proposal 
from the Bureau, decided to deliver an opinion on the abovementioned subject on its own 
initiative. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 199th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 30 June and 1 July 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, 
Having regard to its Rules of Procedure, and in particular 
Article 20 (4) thereof, 
Having regard to the Commission report to the ACP-EEC 
Council of Ministers on the administration of financial 
and technical cooperation in 1980, under the Lome 
Convention, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 14 
December 1981, instructing the Section for External 
Relations to draw up an opinion on this report, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section for 
External Relations at its 71st meeting held on 8 June 
1982, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rapporteur, 
Mr Cremer, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 199th plenary 
session held on 30 June and 1 July 1982, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. The Commission report to the ACP-EEC Council 
of Ministers on the administration of financial and technical cooperation in 1980, under the Lome 
Convention contains information not only concerning 
1980, but on the whole period of validity of the first Lome 
Convention, corresponding with the fourth EDF. This 
gives it a special importance. 
The Committee would thus have been justified in stating 
its views on certain basic questions regarding the practical 
implementation of the Convention. However, as the 
Committee is preparing a general opinion on the Second 
Lome Convention and on new guidelines for relations 
between the Community and the ACP States, it has 
restricted its examination to a limited number of 
questions. 
2. In the light of the Commission report, and of the 
responses made by the Commission to the Court of 
Auditors' report (*), the Committee firstly notes the good 
atmosphere of cooperation which exists generally 
between the Community and the ACP States, who on the 
whole appreciate the Community's efforts to further their 
development, even if there are reservations on some 
points. Committee fact-finding missions to various ACP 
States have also formed this impression, regardless of the 
political and economic regime of the country. 
3. The Committee notes that the Commission has 
followed the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 
(i) OJNoC344, 31. 12. 1981. 
27. 9. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 252/19 
41 of the first Lome Convention to the letter. However, 
this gives an excessively 'accountancy' character to the 
Commission report. 
4. Nevertheless, an attempt is made in the final 
chapter of the report to evaluate the results of the projects 
as laid down in Article 57 of the Lome Convention. It 
would however be worth amplifying this into a record of 
the actual effects of financial and technical cooperation in 
terms of economic and social development 
(food-production capacity, balance of payments, 
industrialization, vocational training, participation of the 
local communities in economic decision-making and so 
on). 
5. The Committee shares the Commission regret that 
each ACP State has not drawn up, concurrently with the 
Commission report, and as laid down in the third 
paragraph of Article 41 (1) of the Convention, individual 
observations and proposals for the implementation of 
financial and technical cooperation in that particular 
country. In fact, the authorities in these States, and the 
heads of their social and trade organizations, could give 
valuable information on Community financial and 
technical aid, and more especially: 
(a) at operational level: on the selection of projects, their 
implementation, follow-up, results and so on, with 
reference to the needs and priorities of the local 
populations; 
(b) at macro-economic level: on the synchronization of 
national policies (agriculture, employment, energy, 
social matters, training, etc.) and of projects 
financed by the Community. 
6. The Committee notes that during 1980 there was a 
speeding up of commitments, and especially of 
disbursements, in connection with financial and technical 
cooperation. However, the Commission notes that at the 
end of 1980 53% of the sums committed had been 
disbursed. This average conceals disparities between 
different countries. This can to a large extent be explained 
by the nature of projects and the absorptive capacity of 
some local authorities. In the Section's view, the fact that 
there are noticeable delays occurring in certain 
least-developed countries makes the speeding up of aid 
implementation, and therefore the speeding up of 
disbursements (without damaging the effectiveness of 
their management), all the more desirable. 
Furthermore, in some cases there is a contrast between the 
level of disbursements and the level of commitments, 
particularly in the poorest countries (this conclusion is 
based on the figures available in 1979). 
7. The Committee wondered about the notable 
difference which exists between the cost of the creation of a job (five times higher in the case of projects financed by 
the European Investment Bank in projects financed 
directly by the EIB and in those financed by local 
development banks. Having looked into the matter, the 
Committee notes that this is due to the nature of the 
projects. In fact, EIB financing often goes towards 
projects (energy, cement works, fertilizers and, more and 
more, rehabilitation of previous projects) whose value is 
not only reflected in direct job creation. 
The Committee recognizes that some projects which are 
capital intensive and not very profitable in creating 'direct 
jobs' often strongly effect employment up and 
downstream, and therefore cannot be ignored. The 
Committee feels, moreover, that there may be a case for 
considering such projects mainly in terms of their"regional 
implications (impact on more than one country). 
That said, the Committee hopes that the Commission will 
give the greatest possible support to small-scale projects, 
in which the initiative is taken by the local population 
rather than the State, and in which implementation and 
results are achieved more quickly. 
8. The Committee is concerned about the low rate of 
return on certain projects noted by the Court of Auditors. 
The Court puts the case for a development policy rather 
than an aid policy, as when it states that 'The emphasis on 
production often leads to the neglect of other, particularly 
social, aspects of development' (*). The Committee will 
return to this subject in the opinion mentioned in point 1 
above. 
9. The Committee also wonders whether a financial 
and technical cooperation strategy really exists or 
whether, on the contrary, this cooperation is merely a 
collection of individual schemes. Special consideration 
should be given to the following: 
— how the aid cost : benefits ratio has developed, if 
consideration is not limited to the financial angle, 
— to what extent the results of technical and financial 
cooperation can be used to draw conclusions for an 
overall development strategy. 
10. The Committee wishes to emphasize two aspects 
of financial and technical cooperation which deserve ever 
greater attention from Community and ACP authorities, 
in view of their long-term effect on real ACP 
development: 
(a) 'follow-up' to investment; maintenance costs, choice 
of appropriate technologies, and training of local 
0) OJ No C 344, 31. 12. 1981, p. 155, para. 14.3.1. 
No C 252/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 9. 82 
specialists needed to keep schemes going deserve 
particular attention; the lack of special attention to 
these features leads to costly failures; 
(b) on a general level, adequate training must be 
organized before projects are launched, to ensure 
better results. However, it must be ensured that the 
effect is permanent. 
11. In conclusion, the Committee endorses the 
Commission's assessment: 
(a) of the value of promoting small-scale proj ects which, 
more than other sorts, allow the close participation 
of the people concerned; 
(b) of the importance of training, and of progress in this 
area to ensure that training is of permanent benefit to 
projects; (c) of information. The Committee shares the 
Commission's appreciation of the value of such 
publications as the ACP-EEC Courrier. 
12. In this context, the Committee stresses the value of 
the activity of the Joint Committee of the ACP-EEC 
Consultative Assembly, which with the help of the ESC 
regularly organizes contact between the trade 
organizations of the EEC and the ACP States. The 
Committee hopes that the representation of the social and 
economic groups of the ACP States will be expanded in 
order to start a real dialogue between equal partners. The 
Committee feels that this will (a) make Europeans better 
aware of their responsibilities towards the ACP States and 
(b) allow economic and social groups of the latter to 
discharge better their responsibilities towards the 
development of their countries, and thus enable them to 
extend their role in economic decision-making in their 
countries. 
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1982. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
Opinion on the regions of Europe - first periodic report on the social and economic situation 
of the regions of the Community 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the 
European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 30 September 1981 the Commission referred 'new regional policy guidelines and priorities' 
to the Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty 
establishing 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 199th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 30 June and 1 July 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 198 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Commission of 
the'European Communities on 30 September 1981 for an 
opinion on 'new regional policy guidelines and 
priorities', Having regard to the decision of its Bureau, authorizing 
the Section for Regional Development to prepare an 
opinion on the subject, 
Having regard to the subsequent decision of the Bureau 
under Article 20, subparagraph 3, on 27 October 1981, 
to call upon the Section to give further consideration to 
the abovementioned matter by drawing up an opinion on 
'the periodic report on the economic and social situation 
of the regions',