No C 180/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 87 
Opinion on the eleventh annual report (1985) to the Council by the Commission — European 
Regional Development Fund 
(87/C 180/14) 
On 6 November 1986 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned document. 
The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was respon­
sible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 March 
1987, in the light of the report by Mr Delia Croce. 
At its 246th plenary session (meeting of 13 May 1987), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a large majority, with two abstentions: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The eleventh Commission annual report to the 
Council on the European Regional Development Fund 
is of considerable interest. It is longer and more detailed 
than its predecessors, which were valuable nonetheless. 
The eleventh annual report provides a large number of 
precise data, illustrates in detail the workings of the 
Fund, gives a full picture of Community regional devel­
opment measures, and forms a basis for a detailed 
assessment of Community policy. However, the report 
shows that the situation regarding regional policy com­
mitments is unsatisfactory. 
Taken overall, the analyses, proposals and reflections 
contained in the report deserve the Committee's 
appreciation. 
1.2. Nevertheless, the report has a few shortcomings 
which may be usefully highlighted. 
Firstly, there is no attempt at a scientific assessment of 
the results achieved by the programmes and projects 
part-financed by the Fund. The means to provide a 
proper assessment are either non-existent or inad­
equate, making it impossible for the eleventh report to 
tackle this important aspect. Secondly, the description 
of the economic environment in which regional meas­
ures operate appears inadequate. The Commission 
postpones discussions of this until the third periodic 
report on the situation of the regions, to be drawn up 
shortly. 
However, some advance information and analysis 
would have been useful, in order to assess the adequacy 
of the Fund's operating criteria detailed in the report, 
and the efficiency of the schemes financed. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Despite the innovations and adjustments which 
have been made during the 11 years of the Fund's 
operation, it has to be said that Community regional 
development policy is insufficient for the priority goal 
of bringing incomes and living conditions in the less 
advantaged regions closer to those in more economi­
cally developed regions. 2.2. It is disappointing to note that regional disparit­
ies in unemployment rates have again worsened. The 
report suggests that 'it is possible that the deterioration 
in the unemployment situation may not have been 
accompanied by a more general widening of differ­
ences'. However, no precise figures are given to bear 
this out. 
2.3. It is worth referring back to the Commission's 
1986/87 economic report, which stated that: 
(1) there was a considerable increase in absolute dispar­
ities; 
(2) unemployment disparities between regions are 
greater than those between the individual Member 
States; 
(3) in no Member State did regional income disparities 
fall significantly; 
(4) in 1976 the average unemployment rate in the 25 
least favoured regions was 8 %, as against 2,4 % in 
the richest regions; in 1985 the respective figures 
were 21,1% and 6,6%. 
On the basis of these figures, in the same report the 
Commission states that the disadvantaged regions need 
to register a growth rate which is higher than the 
Community average. Suitable measures are needed from 
the national and regional authorities, and from the 
Community. The Community can help by means of its 
own financial instruments, investment can come from 
the European Investment Bank, and the EIB's financial 
instruments can supplement the action of the disadvan­
taged region's authorities. 
2.4. We must also remember that without a proper 
European 'economic and social area' (of which regional 
policy is one of the cornerstones), the completion by 
1992 of the internal market will worsen the economic 
and social conditions of the economically weakest 
regions by further reducing their competitiveness. 
2.5. Since 1985, the European economic situation has 
been improving, thanks to the major drop in inflation, 
8. 7. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 180/43 
the halving of oil expenditure, lower exchange rates, 
and, in some ways, the marked weakening of the dollar. 
Conditions are thus ripe for a vigorous boost to Com­
munity and Member State regional development poli­
cies. But the opportunity does not seem to be being 
taken. 
2.6. The percentage of the Community budget allo­
cated to regional policy has remained stationary for the 
past six years, at just over 7%. As the overall results 
of intervention provide scant comfort, a change in the 
relative proportions of the various budget lines seems 
necessary to give greater priority to regional policy 
support. 
2.7. Even if it is improved, Community regional pol­
icy will not be able to solve the various problems of 
the existing imbalances unaided. It needs to be closely 
linked to Member State policy. It is unfortunate to have 
to note here that Member State intervention has fallen 
as a result of the restrictive policies pursued over the 
past few years. 
2.8. Not only must Member States allocate sufficient 
spending to regional development; they must also 
rethink this spending, to avoid the mistakes and failures 
of the past. Just as the Community has seen fit to amend 
the Regulation of the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF) and with it the intervention criteria, the 
Member States would probably do well to review the 
legal provisions for their own regional policies and 
adapt them to the current situation. 
The goals of restoring regional balance and creating 
greater cohesion within the Community cannot be met 
by regional policy alone. This means that all Com­
munity policies must play a part in improving the 
position of the regions. 
SPECIFIC COMMENTS 
3. The economic environment for regional action 
(Chapter 1, point 1, of the eleventh report) 
3.1. As stated above, the description of the economic 
environment is rather brief, being limited to a few 
general comments focusing on the employment situ­
ation. This is expected to improve slightly after 1985 
in general terms, although regional disparities are 
expected to worsen still further. 
3.2. The report repeats the statement made in the 
second periodic report that enlargement has meant an 
increase in regional disparities within the Community. 
Whilst it is undoubtedly true that other disadvantaged 
regions have now joined the Community, it is also true 
that disparities have worsened between the regions which were part of the Community before enlargement. 
The accession of Spain and Portugal makes the problem 
more extensive, so that greater attention and more 
resources need to be devoted to it. 
4. Coordination of regional policies (points 2 to 6 of 
the report) 
4.1. Coordination of national regional policies and 
Community regional policy is vital to the achievement 
of good results. All the programmes must be in keeping 
with the goals of the Community. The means which 
the Commission deems necessary for this coordination 
are clear and detailed. 
The analysis of the regional impact of the main Com­
munity policies is useful, but it needs to be carried 
out using precise methods familiar to all the bodies 
involved. 
4.2, The reports which the Member States should 
send the Commission under Article 2 of the ERDF 
Regulation would provide a useful tool for assessing 
regional development programmes. However, the Com­
mission notes with regret that Member States met this 
obligation 'less than adequately' in 1985. More cogent 
rules on this must be drawn up, and ways found to 
ensure that Member States comply with them. 
4.3. To judge the Fund's effectiveness, we must be 
able to assess the results achieved. Faced with the 
undeniable difficulties of a serious assessment, the Com­
mission merely makes a number of — admittedly inter­
esting — general points; it does not attempt to examine 
results. 
Detailed surveys need to be made in at least some 
intervention areas, as analysis of results is essential if 
regional policy is to be improved. 
4.4. The Commission's view that sectoral policies 
(agriculture, industry, etc.) influence regional policy is 
correct. This is precisely what makes integration of the 
various Community and national economic policies so 
vital. 
5. The new Regulation (Chapter 2 of the report) 
5.1. Chapter 2 gives a detailed illustration of the 
principles behind the new Regulation. This is to be 
welcomed, but it is regrettable that a truly indicative 
picture of the impact of the new Regulation still cannot 
be provided two and a half years after its adoption. 
No C 180/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 87 
The Commission limits itself to a recapitulation of the 
main points of the Communication presented at the 
Luxemburg meeting of 21 April 1986. Whilst the ele­
venth report inevitably refers to 1985, it is difficult to 
assess the results of the new Regulation in the light of 
only the first year of application. 
5.2. The new system of ranges, clearly described in 
the report, seems better designed to allow Member 
States to make the best possible use of the Fund. With 
the introduction of the new system, the amounts applied 
for rose substantially. However, the rise was not uni­
form throughout the Member States. It would be inter­
esting to consider this point in more detail. Is it just 
coincidence that amounts increased with the new Regu­
lation, or is there a causal connection? Why have the 
Member States reacted so differently? 
5.3. The Commission has devised a rigorous method 
for assessing grant applications ex ante. This method 
is satisfactory and acceptable. However, it requires a 
larger number of skilled staff than before. Yet the 
Commission itself notes the understaffing of the assess­
ment departments. It is deplorable that steps have not 
yet been taken to improve the situation. The Committee 
must repeat the proposals put to the Council in the past 
(Point 5.3 of the Opinion on the ninth report). 
5.4. The workload has increased now that grant 
applications are being made by Spain and Portugal. 
It would be helpful if the Commission could issue 
a communication on the current position regarding 
applications received and examined from these two 
countries. 
6. Use of ERDF resources (points 15 to 30 of the 
report) 
6.1. Since 1981 the Fund's share of the total Com­
munity budget has remained virtually unchanged. 
ERDF resources represent less than 0,1% of Com­
munity GDP. The inadequacy of fund intervention 
becomes immediately clear when we note elsewhere in 
the report that the 10 most disadvantaged regions have 
received an annual average of 17 ECU per capita from 
the ERDF, while in terms of per capita GDP the gap 
between these and the most developed regions is over 
10 000 ECU. Such low expenditure cannot achieve sig­
nificant results. 
Commenting on the budget allocation, the Commission 
points out the multiplier effect of ERDF intervention. 
It notes that ERDF grants account for a significant 
percentage of public infrastructure expenditure, par­
ticularly in certain Member States. 
This is undeniable, but the Community's main concern 
should be for the continuing and worsening disparities. It must thus adopt a more dynamic regional policy 
endowed with adequate financial resources. 
6.2. The Commission assures the less prosperous 
Member States that in 1986 they will qualify for at least 
as much ERDF aid as the minimum guaranteed for 
1985. Detailed figures are not yet given, but everything 
suggests that the trends mentioned in the previous para­
graph are not taking the direction recommended by 
previous Committee Opinions. 
6.3. It is particularly pleasing that virtually all the 
available resources were used. The take-up level 
(99,3 %) could scarcely have been bettered. It may also 
be noted that payments are lower than commitments 
because projects take several years to implement. How­
ever, the payments: commitments ratio has improved 
slightly. 
6.4. 1985 also saw a quite significant increase (three 
percentage points) in the proportion of resources allo­
cated to productive investment. This is to be welcomed, 
and the Commission is to be congratulated on its efforts 
to further increase investment in industry and services. 
6.5. The geographical distribution of resources 
showed a very marked concentration in the four Mem­
ber States which contain the regions with the most 
serious problems. This concentration increased slightly 
in 1985, from 79,6 to 82 %. The proportion of resources 
going to regions with priority status also increased. 
The concentration of assistance strengthens the impact 
on development, and is thus to be supported. 
However, it is worth noting that use of the Fund in all 
Member States which suffer regional imbalance would 
allow all the Community's citizens to better appreciate 
the Fund's objectives, which must be perceived as econ­
omic rather than based on solidarity. The favourable 
psychological impact would provide a platform for 
launching a more dynamic regional policy, particularly 
if backed by examples of obviously successful assist­
ance. 
6.6. The Commission recognizes the great import­
ance of making ERDF grants additional to, rather than 
a substitute for national financial assistance. 
'Additionally' (topping-up) is one of the most delicate 
aspects of the relation between the Community and the 
individual Member States. Public opinion, economic 
operators and trade groupings always ask whether the 
programmes carried out with Community support 
D.B.D^ COfficial]ournal of the European Communities ^oClD^eo 
wouldnothavebeenfundedanyway by the national 
and regional authorities, ^uch a question is neither 
simple nor out of place. 
Irrespective of the difficulties of assessing whether 
Community grants are really additional to national 
funding, an instrument has to he found to oblige 
national governments to make the Community contrP 
bution truly additional. 
The Committee appreciates the fact that the ComD 
mission has correctly identified the problem, but must 
also urge it to provide the means of solving it. 
D.B5 The Commission states that the Aiember states 
have refused to apply individual additionally in the 
case of industrial and service projects, whilst such 
additionality is possible under Article^of the ^R.fo^ 
regulation, member states feel that it could both waste 
public money and distort competition. 
The member ^tates^position is unconvincing. 
The results are disappointing because there is still insuf^ 
ficient private investment.This shows that production 
in underdeveloped regions cannot compete with that in 
developed regions. Reference to competition problems 
is therefore out of place. 
D.D5 The Commission is quite right that programme 
financing will help strengthen additionality. 
o.^. The Commission is also right about the need to 
publicise the Community^ assistance. Active involved 
ment of the two sides of industry in the planning and 
implementation of projects would be even more useful 
here. 
B^. ^ploiting local development potential^points^^ 
to^ 
^.L Toseek to e^ploitaregion^sown development 
potential is a sensiblepath to take. TheCommittee 
thereforeendorses the Commissions supportfor the 
financing of measures to help small and mediumsi^ed 
enterprises in industry, tourism and the service sector, 
however, programme and project schemes must be 
worked out in advance, to provideareliable system for 
the small firms involved. 
^. The lack of applications for measures to exploit 
local development potential is disappointing. As the 
Commission is aware of the difficulties which are preD 
venting national authorities from using the instruments 
madeavailabletothem,itshoulddo whatitcanto 
interest small firms directly,partly via their representa^ 
tive organizations and associations. ^. The ^R^ and employment ^points ^Ito^ 
^.1. I^he creation of new jobs through ^RfO^ inter 
vention must be consideredapriority goal. 
The data given by the Commission on the likely effects 
on employment arehighly reassuring, but legitimate 
doubts may remain as to whether forecasts will be 
realized.Aprecisee^ post assessment of results is not 
provided. 
nevertheless, it is desirable that when assessing appli 
cations the Commission should continue to take special 
account of employment forecasts. Priority must begiven 
to programmes involving investment calculated to pro 
duce the maximum number of direct or indirect jobs. 
^. investment on infrastructure projects ^points^to 
^.L ERL^T support for infrastructure is certainly 
necessary,especially in some regions, as lack of infra 
structure is one of themainfactorsinunderdevelop 
ment. COn theother hand, some areas are in decline 
even though they have adequate infrastructure. The 
problem thus has to be examined in more detail, pin 
pointing ways to achieve an optimum balance between 
measures to provide infrastructure andthose for pro 
ductiveinvestment.The Committee fully endorses the 
Commission^spriority support for economic infrastruc 
ture, particularly for infrastructure linked to vocational 
training, and technological research and development. 
^BL However, theneed toincreasethepercentage 
of spendingonproductiveinvestmentmustnever be 
forgotten. It must increase steadily,particularlyonce 
basic infrastructure is in place. 
10. The integrated approach q^oints^dtoou^ 
i^.L The integrated approach is of considerable 
interests the carefully targeted joint use of the various 
financial instruments foraprogramme which forms an 
organic whole, and the synergies which result from this, 
can produce highly favourable results.The Committee 
would refer backtoearlrerCOpinionsonthissubject, 
particularly the recent one on Integrated operations. 
10.^. fdowever, the integratedapproach isnot yet 
beingapplieddecisively enough. The only integrated 
No C 180/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 87 
operations implemented so far remain the pilot oper­
ations in Naples and Belfast. Even the IMPs are not 
proceeding as swiftly as was hoped. 
10.3. Of course, integration of the various instru­
ments and authorities is not easy. Yet it has to be 
acknowledged that the legal framework for the inte­
grated approach is still incomplete; that overall pro­
cedures are inadequate or uncertain; and that the Com­
mission services are not as well equipped as they might 
be to provide the necessary coordination. 
10.4. The co-existence of integrated operations, pro­
grammes, approaches and measures and their relation­
ship to national programmes of Community interest is 
confusing, particularly to potential applicants in Mem­
ber States. The Commission should simplify and clarify 
the definitions and distinctions involved. 
11. Relations with national, regional and local autho­
rities (points 57 and 58) 
11.1. The Commission's intention to extend the dia­
logue with Member States and with regional and local 
authorities deserves particular support. Regional and 
local authorities in particular need to be involved in 
Community activities, as they alone can bring projects 
to public notice and ensure proper involvement of the 
various economic and social groupings. 
11.2. The Commission is pursuing the right objec­
tives: joint agreement on priority sectors, promotion of 
co-financing through the programmes, clear generally-
available information on the sources of finance, joint 
guarantees that the necessary resources will be avail­
able. 
12. ERDF operations in 1985 (Chapter 3 of the report) 
This whole chapter, detailing ERDF operations in 1985, 
is of considerable interest. The Commission is to be 
congratulated in particular for the completeness of the 
information and the clarity with which it explains the 
criteria and methods on which the decisions were based. 
12.1. Assessment of grant applications (point 65) 
The criteria for assessing applications cannot be faulted. 
However, the order in which they are placed gives 
cause for concern, even though this is derived from 
the Regulation itself. The integrated deployment of Community instruments appears in seventh (penulti­
mate) place; and frontier, island or peripheral location 
comes last of all. These two elements deserve greater 
consideration. 
12.2 (point 69 of the report). 
The Commission states here that during the eleven 
years of the Fund's operation, the ERDF Committee 
has not delivered a single negative opinion. Although 
this may bear out the accuracy of the vetting procedures 
at the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, it also 
suggests that vetting may be too strict and selective. 
12.3. The Regional Policy Directorate-General (DG 
XVI) was reorganized following the adoption of the 
new Regulation. This obviously had to be done immedi­
ately. At the same time, however, staffing should have 
been increased in line with the new duties. If the com­
mitment to improve regional development activity is 
real, efficient services and operating instruments must 
be provided. 
13. Programme financing (points 72 to 88) 
13.1. The gradual move from project financing to 
programme financing seems well advised, as pro­
grammes provide more comprehensive and coherent 
assistance. It should be noted however that even though 
this is only the first year of the implementation of 
the new Regulation, the change-over is proceeding too 
slowly, largely owing to the lack of initiative shown by 
some Member States. 
13.2. The Community programmes are of great 
importance. The criteria which the Commission puts 
forward for their implementation are satisfactory; tele­
communications and energy policies must make a deter­
mined effort to involve the less developed regions in 
the creation of a high-technology Europe. 
13.3. The national programmes of Community inter­
est must also be supported, as by nature they can link 
regional policy with the main Community policies. The 
emphasis here must be on coordination, integration and 
coherence of the programmes with the development 
goals of the Community economy as a whole and the 
strengthening of advanced technologies. 
13.4. Of particular interest is the fact that the pro­
grammes are being monitored by coordination commit­
tees made up of representatives of the agencies respon­
sible for the programmes at local, regional and national 
level and of the Commission. So far this only applies 
to the first three UK programmes; the system should 
be made general. 
13.5. The Commission has adopted decisions on 
parts of the integrated operations submitted for certain 
D5B,D^ COfficial]ournal of the European communities l^oC^uB^ 
regions of r^ranceD In the absence of detailed infer 
mationmt is impossible to criticise or praise this action, 
butitisfairtoasl^ whvanoveralldecision wasnot 
tal^en. Integrated operations need to be assessed as an 
overall package, and the various structural funds used 
together to produce an effect of svnergv^ 
1^, C^rant applications ^point^ 
l^L 1^5 sawamarl^ed rise in grant applications 
^^^. Acareful analysis of the reasonsfor this rise 
wouldbe interesting.lt isprobablvpartlvdue to the 
provisions of the newl^egulation, but it is alsoasign 
that awareness of regional imbalances is growing. 
15. ^pain and Portugal ^pointltn^ 
15.1. Phe start of^und activity in ^pain and Portugal 
is tobe welcomed. Idowever,toofew proposals were 
received in 1^5 to represent a fullscale launch. A 
Commission preparatory studv on activities in these 
two countries would be useful. 
16. Grantsforproductiveinvestment ^points 10^ to 
116^ 
16.1. The committee appreciates the commission's 
worl^ to increase the percentage of grants going to 
industrial and service investment projects to create per 
manent jobs in economically sound sectors. Idowever, 
it shouldbe noted that infrastructure grants and pro 
jects still outstrip those for industry and services. 
16.^. The committee alsoendorses theprovisions 
tomal^e^undoperationsmorefle^iblebvliftingthe 
restrictive requirements of the old regulation. 
16.^. The50^ ceiling for ERdO^ contributions to 
aid granted bv national and regional authorities could 
probablvusefullv be raised as alreadv occurs in certain 
cases. Lhe ceiling reduces aid potential precisely in the 
leastdeveloped areas, whichhavefewer resources at 
their disposal. 
16.^. C^ontributionsshouldpreferablvgiveprioritv 
to production sectors creating jobs at little cost. Idow^ 
ever,this mustbecompatiblewiththeneedtomove 
towards new technologies. 16.5. It isdisappointingtonotethattheshareof 
contributions going to the service sector has fallen when 
the role of this sector in the world economv is growing. 
Idowever, the increase in contributions for research and 
development activities i^ encouraging. 
1B^. conclusions 
1^.1. Phe committee confirms its favourable opin 
ion of the eleventh ER.f0^report.The report provides 
a clear and exhaustive picture of all the I^und^soper 
ationsinl^5, and sets out clearlv the criteriawhich 
theC^ommission intendstousefor implementingthe 
detailed points of the new regulation. 
TheC^ommittee^sassessmentofC^ommunitvandAiem 
ber ^tate regional policv as a whole has to be less 
favourable, as the results achieved so far are unsatisfacD 
torv. 
1^.^.. LheER.Lo^ has insufficient resources at its dis 
posal. Phe ramd^s share of the C^ommunitv budget 
is inadequate to the scale of the problems needing 
solution. 
IBm^. The single European Act places regional policv 
amongst the fundamental activities of the C^ommunitv. 
It is to be hoped that this heralds a major shift of 
approach which will haveacorrespondingimpacton 
the resources problem. 
l^mA Tomake regional policv more effective, links 
need to be strengthened between the commission and 
the Aiember^tate, regional and local authorities.The 
shift from projects to programmes makes this particu 
larlvnecessarv. 
1^.5. Also vital is the active involvement, at all stages 
of activity, of business circles, the general public, 
employers and unions, and all the representative social 
interestgroups. Thesuccess of the various measures 
dependslargelvon theparticipationof all interested 
parties, and on their being satisfied that useful instru 
ments are at hand to solve the serious problems facing 
them. 
!Bs6. In addition to the reorganisation which has 
alreadv taken place, the commission regional develop 
ment services still need strengthening. Ide^ible pro 
cedures are also needed to coordinate these services 
with those dealing with the other C^ommunitv policies 
which affect regional development. 
1^.B5 L^he commission savs that it attaches priority 
to the integrated approach^ this approach must be effect 
tivelv used foralarger number of operations. 
l^oC18uB48 COfficialjournal of the European Communities 8.7.87 
17.8. The Committee welcomes thegradual move 
fromproject financing to programme financing.This 
new system has the potential to solve many problems^ 
in the preparation and finalization of measures^ in the 
involvement of the various tiers of authority^ in the 
participation of the two sides of industrymn additional 
ity^and in the coordination of the various policies. 
The Community programmes merit l^een interest and 
priority treatment. It is to be hoped that their number 
will increase. 
Done at Brussels^ 13 May 1987. 
1. Introduction 
LI. Economic development in the highlydndustriaP 
ized countries is characterised on the one hand by an 
increasingshortageofjobsforlower-skilled workers 
— due in the main to the deployment of new technoL 
ogies — and on the other byarelative increase in the 
demandfor welPtrained andskilled specialists in all 
sectors of the economy. It is this^ plus the related 
fact that human tasks (particularly those at lower-skill 
levels) are being replaced by electronic information and 
communication systems in almost all areas of adminis 
tration andproduction^ which largely contributes to 
the high level of structural unemployment seen today. 
An alarmingly high proportion of such unemployment 
is accounted for by youngsters on the threshold of 
^Oi^De^^.t^D^ 17.9. The actual results of the operations carried out 
with ERDE support must be measurable^ and must be 
madeknown to those involved and to thepublic at 
large. 
This need cannot go unmet.Of courses there are many 
obstacles to the collection of data and preparation of 
conclusions^ but these must be overcome. 
Lastly^it is desirable that the third periodic report on 
the situation of the regions should provideacomplete 
picture of the economic environment in which regional 
policy operates. 
o^^E^o^o^^^^o^^Co^^r^ 
working life. Relatively speakingmt is still young people 
withagood school education andavocationalqualifi 
cation who stand the best chance of finding a job. 
Vocational training itself however^ should not be con 
fined to imparting purely specialist knowledges but 
should also haveasocial content. 
In cases in which general school education does not 
include a practical understandingof such subjects as 
social security^ health and environmental protections 
ta^ and money managements then ways must be found 
of including these within the content of vocational 
training, 
1,2, Eor the rest of this Opinion on the proposal for 
aCouncil Decision adopting an action programme for 
the training and preparation of young people for adult 
and working life^ we have agreed on the following 
definition of ^training^ or more precisely ^vocational 
trainings Opiniononthe proposal for aCouncilDecisionadoptinganactionprogramme for the 
training and preparation of young people for adult and working life(^) 
(87BC18uBloE 
On ^ April 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committees 
under Articlel28 of theTreatyestablishingtheEuropean Economic Community^onthe 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr, l^ierhaus rapporteur-general 
to prepare work on the matter. 
At its 246th plenary session (meeting of 14 Mayl987) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously^