3.12.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 292/5 
Done  at Brussels,  29 September  1977. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the guidelines  for Community  regional  policy 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not been  published  in the Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 June  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  subject  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 
151st  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 28 and  29 September  1977. 
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  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 20 
June  1977, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
22 February  1977,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Regional  Development  to prepare  the  Committee's 
work  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to its previous  opinions  and  studies  on 
this subject, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Regional  Development  at its meeting  on 14 
September  1977, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mr Cremer, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 151st  plenary 
session  of 28 and  29 September  1977  (meeting  of 29 
September  1977), HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously  less  2 abstentions: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  welcomes  the 'guidelines  for 
Community  regional  policy'.  This  document 
represents  an important  step  in the development  and 
implementation  of Community  regional  policy.  It 
also covers  the problems  connected  with  Community 
regional  policy,  which  all the Community  bodies  will 
have  to help  solve. 
1.2. In  the  document  under  consideration  the 
Commission  presents  a  clear  blueprint  for 
Community  regional  policy.  Regional  policy  is given 
particularly  high  priority  among  Community  policies, 
since  it can  serve  to promote  and  safeguard  effective 
integration  of the Community.  The  Committee  shares 
the Commission's  assessment  of  the  overall 
importance  of Community  regional  policy.  Similar 
views  have  been  expressed  in previous  Committee 
documents.  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  the 
Commission's  ideas  on regional  policy  cannot  be 
No C 292/6 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 3.12.  77 
faulted.  The  Committee's  critical  comments  are 
intended  to  promote  development  of  the 
Commission's  ideas  along  constructive  lines  and  to 
contribute  to more  efficient  application  of the 
measures  based  on these  ideas. 
1.3. The  Commission  considers  that  the 
Community  regional  policy  pursued  so far should  be 
expanded  by 'specific  Community  actions'.  Regional 
policy  of a specifically  Community  nature  should 
moreover  become  more  and  more  important  in the 
coming  years.  A specifically  Community  regional 
policy  could  solve  regional  problems  which  the 
individual  Member  States  can  overcome  only  with 
difficulty,  if at all. This  applies,  for example,  where 
investments  which  are  important  from  the point  of 
view  of regional  policy  would  exceed  the  financial 
capacity  of a given  region  or State,  or take  too  long 
to come  to fruition,  or go beyond  the  planning 
jurisdiction  of an individual  State  (frontier  areas). 
The Committee  urges  that  the  conditions  under 
which  specific  Community  measures  can  be taken  be 
closely  examined  and  clearly  defined.  Strict  criteria 
for implementing  the  measures  and  monitoring  the 
results  will  also  have  to be worked  out and  applied. 
1.4. As  more  scope  is given  to specific  Community 
regional  policy  measures,  it becomes  increasingly 
important  to clearly  define  the relationship  between 
regional  policy  and  the  other  Community  policies. 
The amount  of money  from  the European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (ERDF)  to be used  for  specific 
Community  actions  will  depend  on how  clear  a 
conception  there  is of the  role  of regional  policy  in 
the context  of Community  policies  as a whole.  It 
would  therefore  be expedient  to define  more  precisely 
the interrelationships  between  all the main  pillars  of 
European  integration.  To this  end  it will  be necessary 
in particular,  to combine  and  coordinate  (a) regional 
policy  aims  and  measures,  (b) the requirements  of a 
competition  policy  designed  to bring  about  a greater 
degree  of balance  and  to provide  a stimulus,  and  (c) 
the demands  of a social  policy  based  on solidarity. 
Coordination  should  prevent  new  problems  from 
arising  or exacerbation  of existing  problems,  while 
combination  of the  above  elements  "should  enable 
complex  problems  to be solved. 
1.5. The  contribution  which  regional  policy  can 
make  towards  an active  Community  employment 
policy  should  be brought  out more  clearly  since  such 
a policy  is essential  if people  are to enjoy  better  living 
conditions  in general.  Regional  policy  must  not  be 
used  to even  out  cyclical  fluctuations  or to replace 
sectoral  conversion  measures.  It should  rather  be 
geared  to creating  permanent  jobs  that  provide 
satisfactory  working  conditions  and  incomes. 
Regional  policy  is, first  and  foremost,  part  of a 
forward-looking  structural  policy,  the effectiveness  of 
which  should  be gauged  by,  for  example,  regional surveys  in the areas  which  have  received  assistance. 
In conclusion,  attention  should  be drawn  to the fact 
that,  according  to all the  indications,  the  economic 
disadvantages  suffered  by the more  remote  areas  in 
the Community  are constantly  increasing.  The  limtied 
resources  of the Regional  Fund  must  therefore  be less 
and less  scattered  over  extensive  areas  and  an 
excessive  number  of projects.  Only  very  little  of the 
money  reaches  the  areas  in greatest  need.  It is 
therefore  most  desirable  to give  priority  to those 
areas  which  are lagging  furthest  behind.  This  is also 
called  for  as a concrete  expression  of European 
solidarity. 
2. Comments  on the individual  paragraphs  of the 
Commission  document 
2.1. The  Committee  shares  the  Commission's 
assessment  of the  situation  in the  regions  of the 
Community.  One  especially  important  point  made  by 
the Commission  (in  paragraph  8) is that  'the 
persistence  of regional  imbalances  even  threatens  the 
proper  functioning  of the  common  market  itself'. 
This  observation  prompts  a number  of questions: 
— To what  extent  does  Community  regional  policy 
help to even  out  income  disparities  between  the 
various  areas  of the  Community?  Are  financial 
redistribution  measures  an appropriate  way  of 
achieving  this  aim? 
— To what  extent  is additional  growth  being 
stimulated  in the regions? 
— Do  regional  policy  measures  merely  bring  about  a 
better  geographical  distribution  of the  existing 
growth  potential  and  volume  of investment? 
2.2. One  cannot  of course  expect  regional  policy 
to eliminate  regional  imbalances  completely  (see 
paragraphs  9 and  10).  Efforts  should,  however,  be 
made  to reduce  regional  imbalances  to such  an extent 
that they  are  on a par  with  those  in the  Member 
States  with  the  highest  degree  of  economic 
integration.  Compensation  for  specific  locational 
disadvantages  must,  as far as possible  be neutral  in its 
effect  on competition.  Distortions  of factor  price 
relationships  which  are objectionable  from  the point 
of view  of trade  policy  should  be avoided. 
2.3. The  Committee  agrees  with  the  general  aims 
of Community  regional  policy  (see  paragraphs  11 to 
14). This  policy  must  already  be regarded  as part  of a 
future  European  policy  on  land-use  planning. 
Environmental  requirements  must  not  be  looked 
upon  merely  as secondary  constraints  but  must  be 
fully  integrated  in regional  policy. 
3.12.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 292/7 
2.4. The  Committee  agrees  with  the  Commission 
that there  should  be a comprehensive  system  of 
analysis  and  policy  formulation  (see  paragraph  15). 
The Committee  would  point  out,  however,  that  it is 
not enough  merely  to  'consider  how  regional 
disparities  have  developed'  (see  paragraph  16).  It 
might  well  be a more  useful  exercise  to analyze  the 
interdependence  between  relatively  rich  and  relatively 
poor  areas.  An assessment  should  be made  of the 
extent  to which  transfer  of resources  from  one  region 
to another  can  contribute  to balanced  growth 
without  endangering  the  situation  in those  regions 
from  which  transfers  are effected.  On the one  hand, 
there  are  economic  limits  to such  transfers  and,  on 
the other  hand,  it must  be borne  in mind  that  if poor 
areas  remain  underdeveloped  this  may  create  new 
problems  or exacerbate  existing  ones  in richer  areas. 
2.5. The  Committee  approves  the  Commission's 
recommendation  that  'key  regional  indicators'  be 
used  when  assessing  the situation  in the regions  (see 
paragraph  17).  Special  care  must  be taken  in selecting 
the indicators  to be  used  basically  to measure 
effectiveness  in achieving  the main  aims  of regional 
policy.  Statistical  employment  indicators  and  general 
social  indicators,  such  as figures  for  infrastructure 
provision  for  private  households,  will  have  to be 
taken  together.  If analyses  are  based  merely  on a 
small  number  of seemingly  representative  indicators, 
this can  lead  to a serious  mis  judgement  of the 
situation. 
2.6. The  Committee  thinks  that  the  formulation 
and implementation  of regional  policy  should  not 
require  the  setting-up  of additional  bodies  for  the 
purpose  of prior  or subsequent  consultations  (see 
paragraph  58).  Instead,  employers'  organizations  and 
the trade  unions  should  be directly  involved  in the 
deliberations  of the  Regional  Policy  Committee.  A 
way should  be found  of enabling  representatives  of 
regional  and  local  authorities  to play  a part  in the 
making  of decisions  affecting  them  rather  than  simply 
being  asked  to give  their  views.  Such  a process  must 
not, however,  result  in decisions  being  any  less 
transparent  or being  unduly  delayed. 
2.7. The  ERDF  budgeting  procedure  must  be seen 
in conjunction  with  the checks  on the effectiveness  of 
the Fund.  The  Committee  doubts  the  wisdom  of 
separating  the annual  budgetary  appropriations  from 
the two-yearly  checks  from  the very  outset. 
2.8. The  Committee  welcomes  the commitment  on 
the part  of the Commission  and  the Regional  Policy 
Committee  to work  out  a uniform  system  for 
monitoring  the  effectiveness  of regional  policy.  The 
Commission  must  not,  however,  be content  simply 
with  checks  as work  progresses  (individual  projects) or purely  statistical  ex post  facto  checks  (regional 
policy  as a whole).  Rather,  procedures  will  have  to be 
developed  to avoid  funds  being  misused,  either 
deliberately  or as a result  of negligence.  One  example 
of such  misuse  is where  projects  fail  to provide  the 
number  of new  jobs  quoted  in the  application  for 
financial  aid.  Attention  must  be  paid  to  the 
interrelationship  between  aims,  criteria  and  indicators 
used,  as well  as the  conditions  for  the  granting  of 
funds  and  the monitoring  of the effectiveness  of the 
action  taken.  It is therefore  essential  that  the 
Regional  Policy  Committee  discuss  these  elements  of 
regional  policy. 
2.9. The  coordination  of the  policies  of the 
individual  Member  States  should  be  taken  still 
further  (see  paragraphs  25 to 31).  In this  connection 
it should  be  noted  that  the  'complementarity' 
problem  does  not yet appear  to have  been  adequately 
solved.  Procedures  will  therefore  have  to  be 
developed  to ensure  that  aid from  the ERDF  is used 
to complement  own  funds.  The  Commission's 
remarks  in paragraph  27  about  'guaranteeing  a 
speeding-up  of the  overall  regional  development 
effort'  should  be enlarged  upon  and  made  more 
specific. 
2.10.  A  prior  assessment  of the regional  impact  of 
Community  policies  and  their  associated  individual 
measures  is an absolute  prerequisite  if these  policies 
are to be  coordinated  in the  Community  (see 
paragraphs  21 to 22).  The  aim  should  be to reduce 
the negative  effects  of individual  policies  on regional 
policy  to a minimum.  This  is particularly  necessary  to 
avoid  having  to spend  an excessive  proportion  of 
funds  from  the non-quota  section  of the  ERDF  on 
making  good  the  harmful  effects  of the  other 
Community  policies  on the regions.  At all events,  the 
regional  impact  of these  other  policies  must  not  be 
rated  as slight  from  the outset  because  'unforeseen' 
negative  effects  on the  regions  can  be tempered  by 
having  recourse  to the ERDF. 
2.11.  The  Commission  apparently  attaches 
particular  importance  to the general  introduction  of 
disincentives  in the Community  (see  paragraphs  28 to 
30). This  matter  needs  to be carefully  considered. 
Disincentives  can  make  a useful  contribution  to 
attaining  regional  policy  aims  but  cannot  on their 
own bring  about  'a new  distribution  of human 
activity  throughout  the  Community'  (see  paragraph 
30). It would  be  a success  already  if further 
migrations  of manpower  to congested  areas  could  be 
curbed.  Though  the  principle  of  employing 
disincentives  may  be accepted,  such  measures  must 
lead only  to a shift  in investment,  and  not  to the 
complete  prevention  of investment.  The  advisability 
of employing  disincentives  in  periods  of  low 
economic  activity  is very  much  open  to question. 
Unreserved  support  of the use of disincentives  is not 
warranted  on competition  policy  grounds  alone. 
No C 292/8 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 3. 12. 77 
2.12.  The  Committee  considers  it important  that 
the Commission  make  good  its claim  that  it will  be 
able to 'exert  a substantial  influence  on  the 
development  of the  regions  in the  Community'  by 
means  of regional  policy,  and  trusts  that  this  will  be 
done  (see  paragraph  36).  To this  end  more  money 
should  be made  available  to the ERDF.  It should  also 
be restructured  into  a 'quota  section'  and  a 
'non-quota  section'.  The  increase  in the  ERDF's 
resources  must  not  be  designed  merely  to 
counterbalance  the effects  of inflation,  i.e. it must  not 
be just  a special  way  of maintaining  the value  of the 
Fund's  resources.  The  more  effective  financial 
assistance  is as a means  of achieving  the  regional 
policy  aims  of the Community,  the more  likely  it is 
that more  money  for the ERDF  will  be forthcoming. 
The Committee  takes  the view  that  the development 
potential  of the individual  regions  of the Community 
should  be fully  utilized.  'General  support  action'  (see 
paragraph  38)  cannot  stand  alone  as an aim  of 
Community  regional  policy. 
2.13.  The  Commission's  remarks  on the  'special 
problems  of frontier  regions'  (see  paragraph  38) 
should  go into  specific  detail  in order  to bring  out 
more  clearly  the  Community's  particular 
responsibility  for these  areas.  In the case  of projects 
that cut across  national  frontiers  a derogation  from  the 
principle  of complementarity  could  be permitted  for 
one of the  States  concerned  if this  would  expedite 
completion  of the project. 
2.14 The  Commission's  classification  of problem 
areas  is appropriate  (see  paragraphs  39 to 42).  It 
might  be useful  to make  a further  subdivision  on the 
basis  of the  type  and  extent  of the  infrastructure 
(material,  human  and  institutional)  existing  in the 
individual  cases.  This  further  subdivision  is essential 
if appropriate  use  is to be made  of ERDF  funds  for 
infrastructure  for  industry  and  for  private 
households.  The  complementary  relationship  between 
these  two  sectors  must  not be overlooked. 
2.15 In  paragraph  43 it is stated  that  the regions 
concerned  should  receive  annually  a contribution  at 
least  equal  in real  terms  to the contribution  received 
the previous  year.  Here  care  must  be taken  to avoid 
giving  the impression  that  these  regions  are in fact  to 
be subsidized  indefinitely.  Merely  arousing  such  an 
expectation  could,  at the  very  least,  have  an 
unfavourable  influence  on the efforts  of these  regions 
to help  themselves.  The  Committee  considers  that 
exactly  the same  periodical  reviews  of regional  policy 
successes  and  failures  should  be  carried  out  in 
development  areas  as are  carried  out  in conversion 
areas  (see  paragraph  44). 
2.16 It  is clear  from  the  document  that,  in the 
medium  term,  the Commission  envisages  an increase 
in the non-quota  section  of the ERDF  (see  paragraph 
45). No  indication  is given  as to whether  such  an 
increase  would  be made  at the expense  of the quota 
section  of the Fund  or whether  the non-quota  section would  simply  be expanded.  Steps  should,  however,  at 
all events  be taken  to ensure  that  the latter  section  of 
the Fund  is increased  only  if the experience  with  it has 
been  largely  favourable.  Particularly  rigorous  criteria 
should  be applied  here.  Such  criteria  would  also  make 
it possible  to clearly  identify  where  things  went 
wrong.  The  marginal  efficiency  of the specific  actions 
must  at all events  be greater  than  the  marginal 
efficiency  of actions  financed  from  the quota  section 
of the ERDF. 
2.17.  The  ERDF  is beginning  to acquire  a finely 
differentiated  set  of instruments.  The  following 
points  should  however  be borne  in mind  here: 
(a) The  Committee  expects  the  Commission  to ex-
plain  more  fully  how  it intends  to held  'solve  the 
problems  of risk  capital  firms  face'  through  the 
ERDF  and  similar  intermediaries  (see  paragraph 
47). 
(b) The  problems  involved  in increasing  borrowing 
capacity  for regional  policy  measures  do not  yet 
seem  to have  been  fully  discussed. 
(c) A number  of problems  arise  with  regard  to the 
Commission's  proposal  that  interest  rebates  be 
paid in order  to reduce  capital  costs.  On the one 
hand,  the intermediary  institutions  which  pass  on 
global  loans  in the form  of subsidiary  loans  must 
be carefully  selected  and  their  business  conduct 
must  as far  as possible  be subject  to public 
scrutiny.  On  the  other  hand,  the  recipient 
undertakings'  entitlement  to assistance  will  have 
to be checked  and  it will  have  to be examined 
how the payments  can  be made  transparent.  This 
being  so,  the  Commission  should  consider 
whether  it would  not  be better  in general  to 
grant  open  subsidies  for loans  to firms. 
2.18.  Where  ERDF  funds  are made  available  for 
production  investments,  the size  of the  grant  should 
at least  be determined  in part  by the number  of jobs 
to be created,  as in the  case  of investments  in the 
tertiary  sector  (see  paragraph  48).  Where  a choice 
has to be made  between  two  projects  which  are both 
designed  to  create  the  same  number  of  jobs, 
preference  should  be given  to the project  which  is less 
capital-intensive,  in  the  interests  of  an  active 
medium-term  employment  policy. 
2.19.  The  Committee  thinks  that  the  Commission 
is right  in looking  upon  publicity  as an important 
tool of regional  policy  (see  paragraphs  53 to 55).  A 
document  should  be published  soon  setting  out  the 
aid schemes  and  the incentives  granted  in the various 
Member  States.  This  document  should  be backed  up 
by a further  document  detailing  the ways  in which 
regional  policy  can  be  of  benefit  to  private 
households. 
2.20.  The  Commission  should  produce  a 
document  comparing  the  real  effects  of the  interest 
rates  charged  in the  various  countries  of the 
3.12.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 292/9 
Community  (Annex  III).  Attention  should  be drawn, 
in particular,  to the differences  in interest  levels  and 
to the problems  involved  in checking  interest  rebates. 
As an alternative  to interest  rebates,  consideration 
could  be given  to granting  a specific  subsidy  directly 
related  to the  amount  of the  loan,  so that  the  aid 
would  no longer  be linked  to the prevailing  interest 
rate. 
3. Specific  comments  on Individual  Articles  in the 
draft  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
724/75  establishing  a European  Regional  Development 
Fund 
3.1. Article  6 
The Committee  considers  it desirable  to avoid  Fund 
provisions  being  circumvented  through  the  splitting 
up of projects  that  form  a whole  and  recommends 
that provisions  to this  effect  be included  in this 
Article.  If therefore  a State  submits  applications  in 
respect  of several  investment  projects  which  each 
require  less  than  five  million  units  of account  and  it 
is clear  that  these  projects  are  economically  and 
technically  related  and  if the overall  expenditure  for 
these  projects  exceeds  five  million  units  of account, 
then any  decision  on the Fund's  contribution  should 
be made  in accordance  with  the procedure  laid  down 
in Article  15 of Regulation  (EEC)  No 724/75. 
3.3. Article  13  (concerning  new  Article  12  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No 724/75) 
Special  justification  should  be required  for  each 
individual  measure  under  Article  12 (1) (a) to (1) (e) 
and for other  measures  planned  in addition  to those 
listed. 
The additions  to the Regulation  provide,  under  Title 
III, Article  12 (1) (a),  for extension  of ERDF  aid to 
mountain  and  hill  farming  and  farming  in certain 
less-favoured  areas  (Directive  75/268/EEC  of 28 May 
1975),  and  at the same  time  maintain  the aid under 
Title  II,  Article  4 (1)  (c),  which  applies  to 
infrastructure  investements  covered  by Article  3 (2) of 
the abovementioned  EEC  Directive.  The  allocations 
under  the  latter  Title  have  so far  been  relatively 
small  and  it would  seem  more  appropriate  to transfer 
to Title  III all the aid that  is to be expected  from  the 
Fund  under  Directive  75/268/EEC. 
4. Conclusions 
4.1. The  Committee  approves  the  fact  that  the 
approach  to regional  policy  reflected  in the guidelines 
is one of overall  integration. 4.2 In  the  absence  of further  progress  towards 
political  —  and  more  particularly  economic  — 
integration  in the Community,  regional  policy  must  be 
& driving  force  for integration,  on condition  (i) that  its 
scope  is not confined  to the Regional  Fund;  and  (ii) 
that the  coordination  of Community  policies  is 
guaranteed,  together  with  consistency  in the  use  of 
the Community's  various  financial  instruments. 
4.3. The  Committee  once  again  presses  for 
effective  use of the ERDF's  resources.  This  entails  in 
particular  setting  realistic  targets  that  can be checked, 
and using  appropriate  instruments  to implement 
measures  and  monitor  results. 
4.4. The  Committee  stresses  the importance  of the 
ERDF  from  the  point  of view  of forward-looking 
objectives  which  should  be laid  down  in national 
development  plans;  in this  respect  it is a development 
fund.  It should  only  be  concerned  with  the 
preservation  of existing  structures  where  this  will 
safeguard  and  promote  the  development  of the 
Community  and  of potential  that  is particularly 
capable  of expansion. 
4.5. The  Committee  approves  the  division  of the 
Fund  into  a 'quota  section'  and  a 'non-quota 
section'.  The  latter  will  come  more  specifically  under 
Community  control  and  will  increase  the scope  for 
helping  undertakings.  In  the  Committee's  view 
workers  in the undertakings  in question  should  have 
a say in the use of the funds. 
4.6. The  Committee  considers  it essential  to avoid 
all criteria  that  are  liable  to lead  to unchecked 
permanent  subsidizing  or over-promotion  of areas  or 
projects. 
4.7. The  Committee  shares  the Commission's  view 
that it will  not  be possible  to do without  loans  to 
help finance  regional  policy  measures. 
4.8. As  far  as budgeting  is concerned,  special 
attention  should  be paid  to the ERDF's  medium-term 
aims  as an instrument  of Community  structural 
policy.  It would  therefore  be more  sensible  to fix the 
ERDF's  resources  initially  for a three-year  period.  But 
notwithstanding  this,  the  European  Parliament 
should  have  the  right,  under  normal  budgetary 
procedure,  to decide  each  year  on  the  ERDF's 
resources  within  the  limits  of the  total  funds 
available,  having  regard  to practical  necessity  and 
financial  feasibility. 
Quite  apart  from  the  budgeting  arrangements,  the 
Committee  considers  that  there  should  continue  to be 
an annual  report  on the activities  of the  ERDF  and 
that the Economic  and  Social  Committee's  views  on 
this report  should  be sought. 
No C 292/10 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 3. 12. 77 
4.9. Finally,  the  Committee  considers  that  commensurate  with  the  wider  field  of activity  of 
provision  must  be  made  in  future  for  funds  regional  policy. 
Done  at Brussels,  29 September  1977. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
1. Rejected  amendments 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussions: 
Paragraph  2.6. 
Delete  second  sentence. 
Reason 
The suggestion  seems  to be incompatible  with  the  structure  and  terms  of reference  of the 
Regional  Policy  Committee.  The  question  of the  role  and  influence  in regional  policy 
planning  and  implementation  of interested  groups  at local  and  regional  level  should  be 
further  examined  before  definite  proposals  are made. 
Result  of the voting 
For: 18 
Against:  38 
Abstentions:  23 
Paragraph  4.5. 
Delete  last  sentence. 
Reason 
The use  of funds  under  the  non-quota  section  is already  firmly  controlled  and  committed 
by 'the  Council  acting  by qualified  majority  on a proposal  from  the  Commission  having 
consulted  the European  Parliament'  (Article  12.2  of the amended  Regulation  as proposed  by 
the Commission). 
Result  of the voting 
For: 35 
Against:  42 
Abstentions:  6 
2. The  following  passages  in the Section  opinion  were  withdrawn  or modified  as the result  of 
amendments  accepted  during  the discussions: 
Paragraph  3.2. 
Paragraph  3.2 becomes  new  paragraph  2.20  on page  10 as adopted.  The  headline  is deleted, 
and the words  '(Annex  III)'  are inserted  at the end  of the first  sentence. 
Result  of the voting 
Agreed  unanimously. 
3.12.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 292/11 
Paragraph  4.2.  (text  withdrawn) 
'In the  absence  of further  progress  towards  political  — and  more  particularly  — 
economic  integration  in the  Community,  regional  policy  must  be a driving  force  for 
integration;  it cannot,  however,  replace  other  integration  measures.  It would  be 
undesirable  for  regional  policy  to be overburdened  with  problems  whose  solution 
should  be sought  in other  areas  of Community  policy'. 
Result  of the  voting 
Agreed  unanimously. 
Opinion  on  the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 3164/76  on the  Community  quota  for  the  carriage  of goods  by road  between 
Member  States 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 220  of 15 September  1977  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 12 September  1977,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  75 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 
151st  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 28 and  29 September  1977. 
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  75 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 12 
September  1977, 
Having  regard  to Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
1018/68  of 19 July  1968  (*), supplemented  by Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2829/72  of 28  December 1972  (2), as last  amended  by  Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No 3164/76  of 16 December  1976  (»), 
Having  regard  to its opinion  of 27 November  1975 
on the same  subject  (4), 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Chairman 
on 16 September  1977,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Transport  and  Communications  to draw  up  an 
opinion  on the matter, 
(*) OJ  No L 175,  23. 7. 1968,  p. 13. n OJ  No L 298,  31. 12. 1972,  p. 16. 
(3) OJ  No L 357,  29. 12. 1976,  p. 1. 
(4) OJ  No C 35, 16. 2. 1976,  p. 44.