17691 Official]ournal of the European Communities ^oCPo9^9 
Opinion on the annual R^eporr of the implementation of the R^eforrn of the Structural Eunds 
(91BC 1^9^21) 
On 28]anuary 1991,the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
underArticle 198 of the EECLreaty, on the Annual Report of the Implementation of the 
Reform of the Structural Eunds. 
The Section for Regional development andlown and Country Rlannmg,which was respond 
sible for preparing the Committee'sworkon the subject, adopted its Opinion on!6 April 
1991. The Rapporteur was Air AicCarry. 
At its 286th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. introduction 
1.1. pursuant to Article l^Odof theECTreaty as 
amended by the Single European Act,areform of the 
Structural Eunds was undertaken inordertomcrease 
their efficiency with a view to promoting the ComD 
mumty's economic and social cohesion The reform, 
which came into force onl]anuary 1989 mainly focuses 
on the three Structural Eunds ^European Regional 
Eo^velopment Eund (ERPoP), European Social Eund 
(ESE), European Agricultural Cuidance and Cuarantee 
Eund(EACCE)P 
1.2. Lhereform is to involve the Commumty'sother 
actions and financial instruments, e.g. the European 
Investment Ban^(ElB), and member States are obliged 
to conduct their economic policies in order to contribute 
to the cohesion implicit in the Single Act, ^ive principal 
Objectives were laid down^ 
— Objective! Eromotmg the development and adjusts 
mentof the regions whose development is lagging 
behmd,where the Cross UomesticRroduct(CL^E) 
per capita is less than s^ ^f the Community 
average. 
— Objective HmUevelopment of regions seriously affect 
ted by industrial decline. 
— Objective HP Combattmglong term unemployment, 
— Objective IV^Eacihtatmg the employment of young 
people, 
— Objectives Reform of the Common Agricultural 
Rolicy, 
Legislation giving effect to the reform was introduced, 
i.e. Regulation (EEC) ^o2t^2^88 and Implementing 
Regulations (EEC) ^o 42^^88, 42^4^88 and 42^6^88, 
1,^. In response to the member States'apphcations 
and the submission of national Elans, the Community Support Erameworl^s were agreed.These map out the 
broad lines of the measures to betaken by the member 
States and the Community, These were followed in 
turn by the preparation of Operational Erogrammes by 
thenationalandregionalauthonties which were then 
implemented. 
2 Objectives of the Annual Report 1COA^(90) ^16 
finall 
21 Regulation (EEC) ^o20eo2^88, Article 16 states 
that ^Lhe Commission shall submit to the European 
Council, to theEarhamentand to theEconomicand 
SocialCommitteeaReporton theimplementationof 
this Regulation during the preceding year. In this report 
the Commission shall in particular indicate what pro^ 
gress has been made towards the achieving of the objec 
tives set out in Articleland in concentrating assistance 
as required byArticle!2B 
2,2, Elowever, the Committee is of the opinion that 
the Commission has interpreted these objectives some^ 
what differently,namely^toreporton the application 
in practice of the basic principles laid down in the 
regulations, and to evaluate the wording of the partner 
ships and the way the CSEs have been drawnup,The 
evaluation canbe only limited,,,since theimplemen^ 
tation of the reform isagradualprocessM^ntroduction), 
In particular,it states that ats purpose is not to evaluate 
the full impact of the reform, particularly in relation to 
the objectives of economic and social cohesion spelt out 
mArticlel^n^^^p^^^^^^^^^^^^^p 
^, general review of the principles of the reform and 
their implementation (Chapter 1) 
^,1,1, The Commission sees the interim results as 
largely positive (prompt submission of plans, effective 
No C 159/80 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
doubling of resources, partnership between the Com­
mission and the national/regional authorities, consul­
tations with the social partners). 
3.1.2. However, the Commission is critical of certain 
aspects of the procedure: 
— the Member States' plans do not provide a sufficient 
guarantee that the resources are truly additional; 
— the procedure for preparing the plans has proved 
more cumbersome than initially expected. 
3.1.3. The Committee shares this critical assessment 
by the Commission. 3.2. Assessment of the operational phase for the five 
goals (Chapter 2) 
3.2.1. The annual report outlines the guidelines 
drawn up by the Commission, e.g. necessity for synergy 
between Funds, emphasis on production rather than 
infrastructure, concentration on a limited number of 
objectives. It outlines the various planning processes in 
the Member States and the negotiations which led to 
the agreement on the Community Support Frameworks. 
3.2.2. Resources were allocated to the five goals as 
follows: 
a) Resource allocation, by country, per applicable budget periods 
Greece (') 
Spain 
France 
Ireland (!) 
Italy 
Portugal 0) 
UK 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Sub-Total 
Community Initiatives Objective 1 
(millions ECU) 
(1989-93) 
6 667 
9 779 
888 
3 672 
7 443 
6 958 
879 
36 200 
2 100 Objective 2 
(millions ECU) 
(1989-91) 
735 
700 
265 
1 510 
195 
30 
355 
15 
95 
3900 
500 Objective 3 & 4 
(millions ECU) 
(1990-92) 
563 
872 
585 
1025 
174 
99 
573 
7 
230 
4 128 
217 Objective 5b 
(millions ECU) 
(1989-93) 
285 
960 
385 
350 
33 
23 
525 
3 
44 
2 607 
188 Total 
(millions ECU) 
6 667 
11362 
3 420 
3 672 
8 678 
6 958 
3 678 
402 
152 
1453 
25 
369 
46 835 
3 005 (2) 
b) Resource allocation, other budgetary periods, no country breakdown possible 
Other 
5a 
Total 38 300 (1992-93) 
2 805 
7 205 (1989) 
(1993) 
1353 
1752 
7 450 2 795 5 910 
1 150 
3 415 
60 315 
(') Greece, Ireland and Portugal are Objective 1 areas entirely. 
(2) Approved programmes only (e.g. Stride, STAR, Prisma). 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/81 
3.2.3. As regards Objective 1 regions, the Com­
mission notes that: 
— stated needs were greatly in excess of available 
funds; 
— some Member States (Spain, Greece, Ireland) made 
no use of EIB loans in their plans; 
— although basic infrastructure accounted for half of 
ERDF funding, the situation varied considerably 
from one Member State to another (see Annexes IV 
and VII). 
3.2.4. As regards Objective 2 regions, the Com­
mission emphasizes that: 
— aid should focus on productive investment, as it did 
in most Member States (the exception being Spain 
and the UK); 
— the high level of existing commitments meant con­
siderable cuts for the new measures; 
— there were considerable differences between Mem­
ber States in the importance attached to the different 
priorities (see Annex V). 
3.2.5. For Objectives 3 and 4, the Commission notes 
that: 
— demand far exceeded the resources available; 
— the plans mainly provided for schemes to assist 
young people; 
— there was a danger of overlapping where projects 
covered several objectives. 
3.2.6. Aid for Objective 5b regions concentrated on 
rural development, mainly to support small firms, natu­
re and the environment, and training schemes. 
3.3. Thematic analysis of Community assistance 
(Chapter 3) 
3.3.1. In the area of basic infrastructure, priority was 
given to transport, telecommunications and energy (see 
Annex VIII) (50% of all resources for Objective 1 
regions). 
Investment also covered strengthening of productive 
sectors, development of human resources and improve­
ment of farm structures. 
3.4. Implementing arrangements and budgetary 
implementation 
3.4.1. The Commission is striving to step up controls 
with the introduction of a code of conduct. It has set up a system of monitoring committees (not described 
in detail) to monitor implementation of the CSFs. The 
Commission focuses on the technical assistance avail­
able to help implement the Fund reforms. 
4. General Observations 
4.1. The Committee notes, with satisfaction, that the 
Commission has acquired not only a statutory role 
within the CSFs, but has played an active role, in the 
period covered by the first annual report, in the setting 
up, coordination and implementation of the CSFs. The 
Committee agrees that the Commission should exercise 
greater control over future Community policies in this 
area. At the same time, the Commission should pursue 
its efforts to have the voice of the regions heard in this 
process, thus promoting decentralisation and trans­
parency. 
4.2. The Committee considers that the report gives 
an accurate but not a sufficiently thorough or systematic 
account of the actions taken by the Commission and 
the agreements reached with the Member States 
towards the implementation of the reforms. 
4.3. The Committee notes the report's statement that 
'the Community needed resources to respond 
adequately to the requirements of Article 130A' and 
that 'adequate financial resources were required... for 
a genuine economic impact...' and that 'these two con­
cerns were satisfied'. The Committee does not feel 
that such satisfaction was justified. The Committee, 
therefore, recommends that such statements should in 
future be accompanied by more explicit information 
which can support them. This is further evidenced 
by the findings of the Fourth Periodic Report which 
provides confirmation of persistent and widespread dif­
ferences between the regions and shows that transfers 
through the Funds can only have a limited impact on 
income disparities even after a doubling of the Funds. 
4.4. The Committee notes that this first report is 
confined exclusively to the preparation stage of the 
CSFs. This should not be a precedent for future reports. 
The Committee recommends that future reports give a 
clear and thorough analysis of the implementation of 
the CSFs, the Operational Programmes and the links 
between the Funds themselves and EIB loan funds. Such 
analysis should include comparisons across regions and 
Member States in order to identify good and bad pro­
cedures in the interests of achieving the Community 
objectives. The report should detail the extent to which 
the various tasks of the Funds are being achieved and 
No C 159/82 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
the manner in which the endogenous potential is being 
mobilised. 
4.5. Since the report is confined to the preparatory 
stage of the CSFs, there is no indication on whether 
progress has been made via the reform of the Funds in 
achieving the aim of social and economic cohesion 
through reducing disparities between the regions. The 
Committee requests, therefore, that future reports are 
not confined to the technical aspects of the implemen­
tation of the reform, but also give an evaluation of the 
impact of the reform in realising the goal of economic 
and social cohesion across the regions of the Com­
munity. 
4.6. The Committee notes that there is considerable 
scope for overlap in the various reports of the Com­
mission, while at the same time there is the possibility 
that these reports will not give the entire picture. The 
Committee therefore asks the Commission to review 
the overall reporting procedure, as presently required 
under the regulations, to indicate the respective roles 
of the Annual Reports on the Implementation of the 
Reform, the Periodic Reports and the Annual Reports 
on the individual Funds, so that a comprehensive 
reporting procedure can be assured without undue over­
lap — notably in view of future reforms. 
4.7. Although the goal of cohesion is interpreted 
in the report as reducing the disparities between the 
different regions, no attempt is made to indicate any 
particular level of reduction or any time scale for such, 
or the adequacy of the structural Funds in achieving this 
goal. The Committee notes with concern the findings of 
the Fourth Periodic Report that disparities between the 
regions of the Community are, in general, growing. 
The Committee recommends that in order that policy 
makers be taken seriously by the public and that policies 
can inspire confidence, targets should be quantified, 
realistic time schedules be set out and the required 
budgetary implications be quantified and provided. 
4.8. Since the report does not give any detailed infor­
mation on the impact of the Single Market on the 
regions, the Committee remains unconvinced by sum­
mary statements, such as: 'growth of the least-favoured 
regions has been promoted by the momentum of the 
internal market.' The Committee asks the Commission 
to give clearer evidence on this point. 
4.9. The Committee notes that the Reforms have 
been implemented within a rapidly changing environ­ment, Single Market, common agricultural policy 
(CAP) reforms [accentuated by the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations] and the 
move towards Monetary Union, which will have an 
unequal impact on the core and the peripheral regions 
of the Community. The setting of appropriate baselines 
and ongoing effective monitoring is essential if the 
impact of the reforms is to be properly evaluated. 
5. Specific Observations 
5.1. Partnership 
5.1.1. The Committee shares the commitment to the 
partnership approach and appreciates the Com­
mission's efforts to implement it, even though time was 
very limited. The Committee suggests, however, that 
indications should be given on the degree of decentralis­
ation which existed in each Member State in drawing 
up the CSFs and the Operational Programmes and in 
their subsequent implementation. A clearer indication 
should be given on how the partnerships between the 
different levels of authority were constructed and how 
effectively they operated in the different Member States. 
It further suggests that summary reports, especially on 
the findings of the monitoring committees, should be 
given in the annual reports. In order to evaluate event­
ual gaps between the proposals made on the local and 
regional level and the way in which these proposals 
are presented by the Member States, the Commission 
should continue to attribute great attention to the pro­
posals of the local and regional authorities and help 
them to use their influence effectively. 
5.1.2. The Committee, while noting that the period 
of consultation between the various partners was very 
limited due to the need to finalise the CSFs, feels that 
dialogue between the various authorities on the reform 
of the Funds should not be confined to the period 
during which the CSFs are being prepared. It therefore 
suggests that regional and local authorities should be 
encouraged to engage in a wide ranging debate with all 
the relevant interest groups in the region on their role 
and priorities in Community programmes. 
5.2. Role of the Social Partners 
5.2.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction the 
efforts made by the Commission to promote the partici­
pation of the Social Partners, especially by organizing 
meetings on the CSFs at the regional level. However, 
the Committee is not satisfied with the consultation of 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/83 
the Social Partners on the national and regional level 
and recommends to the Member States systematic con­
sultation of the social and economic interests at national 
and regional level as a means of strengthening synergy. 
This consultation should include the elaboration and 
implementation of programmes. The involvement of 
the social partners is essential in terms of choices for 
investment. 
5.2.2. The Social Partners must have the possibility 
to intervene, notably on the following issues: 
— setting up the priorities for regional development 
objectives and choosing the right types of inter­
vention. The mix of infrastructure and productive 
investments must take into account the specific 
regional conditions; 
— assure greater efficiency in the practical implemen­
tation of Fund intervention. 
5.2.3. The Committee also recommends that the 
Social Partners benefit from technical assistance in 
order to help develop their role in regional development 
and put them in a position to forward their own pro­
posals for the regional programmes. 
5.2.4. The Committee notes again, that, apart from 
the Social Fund Committee and the consultation of the 
Social Partners on the European level according to art. 
31.2 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, the role of the 
Social Partners is not clear. The Committee asks the 
Commission to report specifically on the efforts made 
by the Member States and the Commission to pursue 
dialogue with the Social Partners and other interest 
groups at the national, regional and local level. 
The Committee recommends that the role of the social 
partners in the new Regulations be fully recognized at 
all levels. 
53. Additionality 
5.3.1. The Committee has always strongly supported 
the principle of additionality and welcomes the Com­
missions vigorous efforts to implement it. The Commit­
tee deplores the fact that some Member States have not 
yet given sufficiently satisfactory answers as to the 
application of the additionality principle. The Commit­
tee expects a full account of the application of the 
principle in each Member State in the next report. 
5.3.2. The Committee is of the opinion that sup­
plementary information on the application of the 
additionality principle could be obtained from the 
monitoring committees. It therefore proposes that this be assigned as one of the responsibilities of these com­
mittees. It also suggests that the views of the regional 
and local authorities be solicited on this important 
subject. 
533. The Committee accepts that there are oper­
ational problems in assuring that the principle is applied 
in Member States. It also recognises that there is not a 
penalty system in operation for situations where breach 
of the principle can be clearly demonstrated. The Com­
mittee therefore proposes that the Commission redefine 
the principle of additionality and use all means in its 
powers to guarantee its effective implementation. 
5.3.4. The Committee is concerned that the national 
or regional authorities do not always take up the full 
amount of the Structural Funds allocated to them. 
Where, in particular cases and for justifiable reasons, 
full use has not been made of the funds allocated to 
development programmes of a particular region the 
Commission should make every effort to ensure that 
the funds are spent in that region rather than lost. 
Eventually the CSFs in question may have to be rede­
fined, for example with recurse to technical and organ­
isational advice and assistance. This could also lead to 
a new mix of financing, including locally generated 
funds. 
5.3.5. The Committee recommends that Community 
Initiatives should not be controlled by Member States 
and used to top up Operational Programmes. The possi­
bility that Community Initiatives may be limited or 
under-used through Member State inability to provide 
a matching contribution could be overcome by allowing 
a role for other sources of matching funding. 
5.4. Sub-regional breakdown of fund allocations 
Since the regions designated under Objective 1 are often 
large, the report should contain more detailed infor­
mation on the distribution of funds within these 
regions. The Committee is concerned that the goal of 
social and economic cohesion should be pursued at the 
sub-regional as well as at the regional level, as specified 
by Article 12, items 4 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 
2052/88 and Article 130b of the Single European Act 
which calls for special attention to the least prosperous 
areas even within Objective 1 regions. 
No C 159/84 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
5.5. Administrative procedures 
The time schedule for the preparation of CSFs was 
extremely short. Combined with this the actual pro­
cedures appeared to be rather complicated. The Com­
mittee is concerned that the resources of the Funds 
might not be spent adequately from a qualitative point 
of view. The Committee would have appreciated some 
reference in the report to the procedures and the diffi­
culties encountered. The Committee requests the Com­
mission to ensure that the time schedule for future 
CSFs will not be so short and that the administrative 
procedures at the Community, national and regional 
levels will be better coordinated. The Committee sug­
gests that 'model procedures' be identified from the 
many CSFs which were prepared. 
5.6. Independent evaluation 
The Committee supports the Commission in its efforts 
to develop a reference framework for evaluation and 
to ask independent experts to carry out sample checks 
on the implementation of the reform. The Committee 
recommends that the findings of these experts be 
included in the annual reports. The Commitee notes 
that assessment of the implementation of the CSFs 
are currently being carried out. The Committee also 
recommends that the findings of these evaluations be 
used to amend the implementation of the CSFs where 
it is deemed necessary. 
5.7. Assessment and Monitoring committees 
5.7.1. According to Article 25 and 26 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 4253/88, Monitoring and Assessment are 
closely linked but are nevertheless distinct and separate. 
Whereas the Monitoring function is the responsibility 
of the Monitoring Committee set up within the frame­
work of the partnership, the Assessment function is 
much more detailed requiring a greater degree of inde­
pendence. The Assessment function is much more 
detailed and should refer to macro-economic indicators 
and descriptive and qualitative analysis. The ex-ante 
and ex-post assessment of measures which is specified 
must require a greater degree of independence than the 
monitoring function. The assessment procedures laid 
down in the CSFs seem to be at variance with the 
corresponding articles in the regulations. 
5.7.2. The Committee, therefore, urges the Com­
mission to give, in the next annual report, a clearer 
view of the interplay, in practice, between the above 
mentioned committees. The Commission should, in 
this context, not only coordinate the work of these 
committees, but it should assure a maximum of clarity 
with respect to their roles and the discharge of their 
responsibilities. 5.7.3. The Committee notes with interest the particu­
lar role accorded the Social Partners in Ireland in 
reviewing the implementation of the CSF and feels that 
this is a model which could be replicated elsewhere in 
the Community. 
5.8. Integrated development 
5.8.1. The Committee reaffirms its commitment to 
the integrated approach to development which requires 
a multifund approach, the integration of instruments, 
the application of funds across the different functional 
areas. The Committee recommends that the monitoring 
and assessment procedures pay particular attention to 
these various aspects of integration at the local level. 
An evaluation of the degrees of integration achieved 
and the obstacles to integration at the regional and 
local levels should be included in the annual reports. 
5.8.2. It is of little importance to the region or local 
area whether the ERDF or ESF are involved in providing 
the funds for development. Such regions and areas 
are, however interested that their local or regional 
development plan is being approved on its merits in 
meeting development objectives, regardless of which 
Fund the grant comes from. In the light of this, the 
Committee invites the Commission to review the 
necessity of separate Funds for future proposals on the 
reform of the Funds. 
5.8.3. The Committee notes that the sectoral expen­
ditures differed between Member States. There is little 
illumination of the reasons for this in the annual report. 
It may reflect different stages of development in the 
regions or approaches to achieving the socio-economic 
objectives. The Committee is concerned that these 
unanswered questions raise doubt about the coordi­
nation of regional policy in the Community for which 
the Commission has responsibility. The Committee 
requests that a fuller explanation of these differences 
and the consistency of regional policy throughout the 
Community be included in future annual reports. 
5.9. Compatibility of structural policy and compe­
tition policy 
The Committee does not want to comment in depth on 
this point, but draws attention to the possible contradic­
tion between Community policies in this area. The 
Committee recalls that it has adopted a major Opinion 
on 'National regional development aid(1) which high­
lights this problem. The Committee would like to see 
an in-depth study of this subject, focusing in particular 
(') OJ No. C 75, 3. 4. 1986. 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/85 
on the consistency of competition policy with structural 
policy. The Committee is familiar with the Commission 
communication on industrial policy in an open and 
competitive environment [COM(90) 556] on which it 
is preparing an Opinion. With a view of achieving 
social and economic cohesion the Committee stresses 
the need for competition policy to be set out in conform­
ity with EC regional development policy. 
5.10. Environmental policy 
5.10.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that 
environmental objectives play an important role in the 
Community frameworks. It would like to see a fuller 
account of the impact of the structural Funds on the 
improvement of the environment and the links with 
other Community policies in this area. 
5.10.2. The extent to which Environmental Impact 
Assessments have been applied to the various measures 
and operations are not referred to in the report. 
5.10.3. The Committee would appreciate in future 
reports information regarding the extent of ex-ante 
assessment on the environmental impact of measures. 
5.11. Mix of loans and grants 
The report shows the mix of loans and grants in each 
Member State and by implication suggests that there 
were greater opportunities for profitable projects in 
some countries than in others. The Committee would 
welcome a greater elaboration on this issue in future 
annual reports. 
5.12. Technical assistance 
The Committee note that only limited use has been 
made of technical assistance. It calls on the Member 
States to make much greater use of the facilities avail­
able to satisfy the latent demand for such assistance 
from the regional and local level and facilitate access 
to technical assistance. The use of technical assistance 
should be an integral part of the implementation of 
partnership. 
5.13. Inclusion of 5a measures in the Structural Funds 
The measures applied under Objective 5a are 'horizon­
tal' measures designed to improve the efficiency of 
agricultural structures in mountain and less favoured 
areas and were widely applied prior to the doubling of the Structural Funds. These measures which are 
becoming increasingly important as a means of direct 
income support to farmers are now included in the 
Structural Funds envelope. This procedure is causing 
particular problems where the Structural Funds are 
applied on an approximate per capita basis at the 
subregional level. The implication of this is that in the 
so called 'less-favoured-areas' where there is a high 
concentration of small farmers and where direct income 
payments are quite significant, there can be underex-
penditure on structural measures designed for economic 
development per se. 
5.14. Take up of Global Grants 
The Regulations refer to Global Grants and to 'inter­
mediaries' who 'must be present or represented in the 
regions concerned and shall associate adequately 
the socio-economic interests directly involved'. [Ref. 
Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88]. The Com­
mittee expresses its concern at the low level of take up 
of this type of funding, which could avoid much of the 
procedural complications, and at the lack of consul­
tation with the socio-economic interests where this type 
of funding was taken up. The Committee requests 
the Commission to examine closely the take up and 
application of Global Grants and the degree of involve­
ment of the socio-economic interest in the areas con­
cerned and to report on this issue in the next report. 
5.15. The Classification of regions 
The Committee notes that whereas the Council decided 
on the regions to qualify for Objective 1, a more elabor­
ate procedure was followed by the Commission in 
selecting Objective 2 and 5b regions. The Commission 
should report on the application and the usefulness in 
practice of selection procedures for eligible regions in 
order to provide more clarity. The Committee requests, 
in addition, the Commission to explain the process 
through which the socio-economic criteria were applied 
in determining the indicative allocation for the regions. 
5.16. Information 
The Committee supports the requirement for wide 
ranging information and awareness campaigns to be 
organized among recipients and regrets that the report 
does not detail the extent of such campaigns. 
No C 159/86 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
6. Conclusions and Recommendations 
6.1. In its first annual report the Commission did 
not yet dispose of all information to fully meet all the 
regulation requirements. This is a further symptom 
of an underlying and fundamental difficulty with the 
reformed Structural Funds. The Committee calls for 
these shortcomings to be rectified in the next report, 
especially as far as operational details of the implemen­
tation, cross-regional analysis and the fund impact on 
cohesion are concerned. discussions and negotiations on the future of the 
Structural Funds commence immediately, fully 
involving the Social Partners who will be required 
to play a major role with responsibility in both the 
preparation and implementation of the reforms with 
the various administrative tiers, 
where the principle of additionality has not been 
respected, that the reasons be clearly identified and 
ways found of ensuring adherence to this principle 
in the future, 
The Committee notes that the Community has moved 
a long way to contribute to the achievement of the 
overriding goal of economic and social cohesion. It 
recalls that it has, on various occasions (!) made its 
proposals in this respect. The Committee is still con­
cerned that the reformed Structural Funds as presently 
constituted might not achieve the aims of cohesion as 
laid down in the Singel European Act. 
6.2. The Committee shares the concern of those who 
have advanced a number of reasons for a prospect of 
failure in achieving the aims of the reforms, among 
which the following are considered to be the most 
significant: 
— inadequate research and analysis on the diversity of 
regions and their needs; continuing Member States' 
expectation of a guaranteed 'quota' for allocations 
from the Funds, a resistance to the new approach 
and a seeming failure to respect the principle of 
additionality, the Commission address the problem of the com­
plexity of procedures in the application of the 
reforms and investigate the practicality of one con­
solidated Fund in the case of Objectives 1, 2 and 5 
b), and 
the Commission ensure the coordination of regional 
policies in the Community and that particular atten­
tion be given to the following: 
a) Initial and analysis to determine the real needs 
of the regions and the setting of targets based 
on a clear definition of cohesion; 
b) Consultation with the Social Partners and their 
involvement in ex-ante and ex-post assessment 
of measures; 
c) Adequate budgetary resources taking into 
account the regional impact of the CAP reform, 
the Single Market, and EMU; 
— insufficient Fund resources to meet the effects of 
the internal market and increased pressure toward 
the spatial concentration of economic activity, the 
increase in the mobility of firms, labour and capital 
and the consequent enhanced economic and social 
risk to the weaker regions, 
— inadequate implementation of procedures in the 
area of partnership and inadequate association of 
the social and economic organizations at the 
regional and local level. 
These reasons must be clearly analyzed with a view to 
reform of the Funds after 1993. 
6.3. The Committee therefore recommends that: d) Appropriate amendments to the Legislation; 
e) The establishment of clear socio-economic 
impact indicators; 
f) A more flexible approach to regional develop­
ment and more selective criteria which will take 
into account the diversity of the regional needs 
and potentials; 
g) Further assessment of the Rural Problem and 
the co-ordination of regional and rural policies; 
h) Co-ordination of regional policy with other rel­
evant Community Instruments, e.g. Transport, 
Environment, Agriculture, Telecommuni­
cations, support for SMEs, etc.; 
the interim report to be published towards the end 
of 1991 contain maximum information on the 
implementation of the Funds and the achievement 
of cohesion as required by the Regulations, 
(]) OJNoC356, 31. 12. 1987. A study of the fiscal consequences for companies 
of structural Fund financing. 
6.4. The Committee is prepared to play its role in 
the process of the future reforms of the Funds, and has 
taken the decision to prepare an Own-initiative Opinion 
which will notably reflect on the following areas: 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/87 
more precise operational aims in the context of a 
clear definition of economic and social cohesion 
and the budgetary means and timescale for bringing 
it about, 
new design of the role of the Social Partners in 
application of Article 118b and implication of all 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1991. relevant interest groups in the process of monitoring 
and assessment, 
coordination of regional policy with relevant Com­
munity instruments and policies in the fields of 
agriculture, transport environment, etc. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN