Opinion on the involvement of the economic and social partners in Community regional policy (94/C 127/07)

On 25 March 1993 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the involvement of the economic and social partners in Community regional policy.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 18 January 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Masucci and the Co-Rapporteur was Dame Jocelyn Barrow.

At its 312th Plenary Session (meeting of 27 January 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, with six abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

1.1.1. The Economic and Social Committee has stressed the importance of involving the social partners in Community regional policy from the very beginning when the European Regional Development Fund was set up.

The Committee's Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a European Regional Development Fund, adopted at its 114th Plenary Session of 24/25 October 1973, laid repeated stress (1) on two aspects:

- participation of the regions in drawing up regional policy, 'by involving all socio-professional organizations which are representative' (2);

- involvement of the socio-professional organizations 'in the work of the Regional Development Fund and the Committee for Regional Policy within these new bodies' (3).

1.1.1.1. The Committee returned to this subject on several further occasions (4), but its most weighty contribution came with its Opinion on the role and influence of local and regional authorities and socio-economic organizations in the field of the common regional policy (5) (Rapporteur: Mr Ventejol), which was adopted at the Plenary Session of 24/25 October 1979.

Although the 1979 Opinion was adopted in very different circumstances from the present, the reasons it puts forward to justify involvement of the social partners still hold good today:

- to fully serve the goal of economic and social cohesion,

- to make it easier to check that Community regional aid tops up national aid and does not replace it;

- to help evaluate the regional impact of Community sectoral policies;

- to ensure a more complete upward and downward flow of information;

- to arouse the interest of the general public.

All these are necessary conditions for ensuring the success of regional policy and of the spirit of solidarity which lies behind it.

1.1.1.2. The 1979 Opinion was accompanied by a Report (6), dated 11 October 1979 and compiled on the basis of a questionnaire. The Report notes that 'all in all, local and regional authorities and socio-economic associations have only a slight influence on Community policy guidelines. To have more influence, they would have to be already playing an active part in the drawing-up of their own countries' regional development programmes, which more often than not does not seem to be the case' (7).

The present Opinion can use the 1979 Report as a yardstick for establishing how the situation has changed in the last 14 years, and for assessing the progress made.

1.1.2. The European Parliament has also upheld the importance of involving the trade unions and professional organizations since the very beginning.

1.1.3. Although the ERDF Regulation contained no formal arrangements for involving the social partners, the Commission had already in the 1970s established the practice of holding meetings between the relevant Commissioner, Mr Giolitti, and representatives of the socio-economic organizations, in order to discuss Community regional policy guidelines.

1.1.4. On the social partners' side, January 1976 saw the setting-up of a select group of representatives of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) which held periodic information meetings with the Directorate-General for Regional Policy.

However, it was not until the second half of the 1980s, when discussions began on the reform of the Structural Funds adopted by the Council at the end of 1988, that ETUC and UNICE stepped up their efforts to ensure that the social partners were informed and consulted at national and regional level.

1.1.4.1. The upshot of this lobbying, and of constant support from numerous ESC Opinions, was that Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 provided for annual consultation of the social partners on Community structural policies.

More importantly, the Directorate-General for Regional Policy agreed to hold consultation meetings on the Community Support Frameworks in each Member State, bringing together national and regional authorities and national and regional representatives of trade unions and employers' organizations. The meetings took place during 1989 and 1990, firstly on Objective 1 and later on the other Objectives. They represented the first large-scale consultation of the socio-economic organizations, the aim being to convince the national authorities of the case for launching a similar practice at national level.

1.1.4.2. The ETUC executive committee has approved a Resolution (1) on regional policy which focuses on two aspects:

- matters which EC regional policy must address if it is to achieve economic and social cohesion and tackle de-industrialization;

- levels and ways in which the social partners can be involved.

1.1.4.3. UNICE has also stressed the need for a stronger and clearer framework for involvement of the social partners at both national and local level (2).

1.1.4.4. This concern is shared by all the social partners, as is clear from the letter which they sent the Commission and the Member States in June 1992, calling for the active participation of their representatives in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of the various stages of the programming procedures to be clearly laid down as part of the partnership.

1.2. Article 4 of the new Framework Regulation

1.2.1. The new Commission proposal amending the Structural Fund regulations makes a few important changes to the 1988 reform. Further details are contained in the Committee's Opinion of 26 May 1993 (3).

One key innovation is the revised version of Article 4 of Regulation 2052/88, in the definitive form adopted by the Council on 20 July 1993, which reads as follows:

'Article 4

Complementarity, partnership, technical assistance

1. Community operations shall be such as to complement or contribute to corresponding national operations. They shall be established through close consultations between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent authorities and bodies - including, within the framework of each Member State's national rules and current practices, the economic and social partners - designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level, with all parties acting as partners in pursuit of a common goal. These consultations shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'partnership'. The partnership shall cover the preparation and financing, as well as the ex ante appraisal, monitoring and ex post evaluation of operations.

The partnership shall be conducted in full compliance with the respective institutional, legal and financial powers of each of the partners.

2. Acting in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and with the provisions referred to in Article 3(4) and (5), the Commission shall take steps and implementing measures to ensure that Community operations are in support of the objectives set out in Article 1 and impart an added value to national initiatives.

3. Within the framework of the partnership, the Commission may, in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 3(4), contribute to the preparation, implementation and adjustment of operations by financing preparatory studies and technical assistance operations locally, in agreement with the Member State concerned and, where appropriate, with the authorities and bodies referred to in paragraph 1.

4. For each objective, tasks shall be shared between the Commission and the Member State during the preparation of operations in accordance with Articles 8 to 11a.'

1.2.1.1. The definitive wording of Article 4 differs from the Commission's original proposal which did not contain:

- the phrase 'within the framework of each Member State's national rules and current practices';

- the last sentence of (1): 'The partnership shall be conducted in full compliance with the respective institutional, legal and financial powers of each of the partners.'

1.2.1.2. Although by including the social partners in a partnership which is to take the form of 'close consultations', Article 4(1) represents the culmination of twenty years of concerted lobbying by the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the social partners, there is no denying that the first of the two alterations represents a compromise, even if it does not reduce the significance of this provision.

The reference to national rules and current practices (and especially the latter) could be misinterpreted by those governments which are loath to involve the economic and social partners, and could be used as a way of excluding them from EC structural policies too. However, such an interpretation would run counter to the thinking behind the new Article 4, which is clearly designed to include the socio-economic partners in the partnership. This is in line with the belief that development necessitates the synergic involvement of all the main interest groups.

1.2.1.3. In countries where the social partners already participate in other spheres and decisions, on the other hand, the provision set out in Article 4 should be made operative at national and regional level. This means that the national and regional authorities and the socio-economic organizations must be equipped to implement it effectively in an appropriate forum and within the framework of agreed procedures.

1.2.1.4. Thanks to the initiatives mentioned in Point 1.1.4 above, a number of Member States and regions already have experience in this field, and studies and research have been undertaken with financial support from the Commission (1).

It is a pity that the Commission's annual report gives no details of these experiences. This shortcoming was highlighted in the ESC Opinion on the third annual report on the reform of the structural funds (1991), adopted on 29 April 1993 (2).

1.2.2. A systematic picture of practical examples of participation and information-swapping would be a definite help in implementing the abovementioned Article 4.

The present Opinion accordingly seeks to assess the participation of the social partners in regional policy since the reform of the Structural Funds became operative in 1989.

2. The involvement of the socio-economic organizations

2.1. In order to ascertain the social partners' familiarity with EC structural policies and their degree of participation in them, a tried-and-tested, detailed questionnaire (3) was sent to the national and regional organizations which in 1988-1990 had taken part in a series of information briefings regarding the Community Support Frameworks. The briefings were held by the Commission, in the twelve national capitals, at the request of ETUC and UNICE, and were attended by the national and regional authorities.

2.1.1. The first point worth noting is the high response rate, totalling around 25 % of the questionnaires sent out. This is a very satisfactory sample in sociological terms.

2.1.2. The replies highlight two apparently contradictory aspects: although the respondents express a strong interest in structural policies, their familiarity with them becomes much shakier when it comes to more specific problems.

This can be seen as a result of the low level of participation generally observed. The social partners are interested but there are no procedures and, more often, practices for translating this interest into action.

2.1.3. It also emerges that two thirds of respondents are acquainted with the content of the overall development plan for their region (although this means that one third are not).

2.1.4. It is significant that most respondents say that they were not consulted during the drafting of the plan. A majority also only became aware of its content after it was issued.

2.1.5. As regards the negotiation of the Community Support Framework, there is a clear gap between the number who are familiar with the content of the CSF (the majority) and the very small number (a mere 6 %) who say that they were consulted on it.

2.1.6. The same trend emerges with regard to the operational programmes. While levels of awareness vary, consultation of the social partners during the programming procedures is invariably low. In the case of the European Social Fund, on the other hand, most respondents say that they received good prior information.

2.1.7. On the question of programme monitoring, the replies confirm that only a minority of the social partners are admitted to Monitoring Committee meetings (and more of these attend as members than as observers).

2.1.8. Respondents speak positively and optimistically (perhaps too optimistically - this is something that needs checking) about the level of technical and organizational facilities enjoyed by the individual bodies involved in regional policies (it is fair to assume that the social partners also need to target their activity more firmly in this direction).

2.1.9. In short, the responses bear out the imbalance which has long been apparent between the importance of regional policies and the practical conditions for active involvement of the social partners. The practices followed in past years do not appear to have secured significant progress on this front, even though the social partners seem to have gleaned more information of EC policies and programmes via other channels (seminars, conferences, training courses).

2.2. A number of studies have been conducted in recent years to ascertain trends with respect to regional policy and the social partners' position. However, it should be noted that these studies have tended to focus on the role of the trade unions, and more indirectly on that of employers, and that not enough attention has been paid to other interested parties.

2.2.1. EC regional policies are viewed as an important channel for the development of a Community social dimension - a body of rights and issues on which the Community can help to alleviate the problems and disparities faced by individual Member States.

'Cohesion' policies are viewed as a key plank in the building of the Community and the social dimension. At the same time they help to provide an idea of the current and future role of the social partners. In particular, they can help to show whether the social partners are set to play a similar role on the Community stage to their role in the Member States.

2.2.2. These studies can help us to answer two key questions:

- whether the social partners' influence on regional policies has increased, in both qualitative and quantitative terms;

- what aspects help or hinder their influence and what ways are proposed for improving it.

2.2.3. The abovementioned studies suggest that the present situation is unsatisfactory in various ways.

The involvement of the social partners is deemed incomplete or unsatisfactory.

It has not hitherto been the practice for social partners to have a joint decision-making or a joint management role. It is agreed that the social partners' influence on individual policies is not backed by direct steps to give them management responsibility.

2.2.4. At national level, the social partners use the resources typical of their systems; these generally include machinery - informal or otherwise - for involving them in the framing of key decisions.

2.2.4.1. The national authorities have always tended to feel that all EC policies are a matter for governments and public administrations. This is due to the inherent nature of the EC institutions - the 'democratic deficit' - and to the emphasis placed on the economic and commercial side of the Community, at the expense of social issues.

This attitude has affected EC structural policies, and participation by socio-economic organizations has not been the only casualty. Decentralized state institutions have also suffered, and the general public has been poorly aware of Community activity as access to information has been very difficult.

2.2.4.2. The situation improved, although not sufficiently, in the 1980s partly thanks to the efforts of the Committee, the European Parliament and the socio-economic organizations and, above all, thanks to the gathering momentum of the European integration process which highlighted the cohesion problem.

2.2.4.3. In some countries involvement of the social partners is significant and systematic. This is the case in Denmark, Germany and to some extent in Italy (it should be noted that although in Germany there are no special bodies, the social partners nevertheless enjoy a high level of institutional recognition). In other countries involvement is less pronounced, and at the far end of the spectrum come countries such as the UK which have openly discouraged the involvement of the socio-economic organizations (and, in particular, have limited the involvement of the trade unions). The country with the greatest formal participation in regional policies is Ireland, which has included the social partners on the national monitoring committee.

The Committee has learned of a decision by the Irish Government to replace the sub-regional Review Committees by a structure which downgrades the social partners. The Committee views this as a serious step backward from an experience which was felt to constitute an important reference point, and calls for the social partners to be restored to their previous level of participation.

2.2.4.4. The differing institutional traditions and industrial relations practices obviously affect the choice of decision-making forums, and this in turn affects the nature and effectiveness of the social partners' involvement.

In countries where interest groups are stronger and have a more formal structure, such groups can exert a greater influence on regional policies. Various studies have shown that their influence is strongest in Germany and Denmark, where the social partners have long been closely involved in decision-making. The situation of Italy falls midway between the two extremes, with the recent conclusion of a major national tripartite agreement. In Spain the attempts at highly formalized consultation which occurred in the early 1980s have not been kept up, due to the worsening relations between the trade unions and the other parties involved (government and employers). The situation of most other Member States falls somewhere in the middle, but the social partners are by no means without influence at national level.

2.2.5. The differences in arrangements for involving the social partners, and in the results achieved, are particularly apparent at sub-national level. Here most analysts agree that the situation is generally disappointing.

This is due principally to Member States' differing degrees of formal regionalization.

2.2.5.1. There is no doubt that the institutional structure greatly influences the organizational set-up of the social partners and their ability to liaise with the administration.

A highly decentralized administration which is based on elected assemblies makes participation easier, if only because it provides more forums for it.

An efficient, centralized administration tends to overestimate its self-sufficiency and to channel its regional activity via technocratic bodies such as development agencies.

2.2.5.2. Among the larger Member States, there is a contrast between Spain, Italy and Germany which give the regions constitutional recognition (and the powers of the German Länder go even further), and France and the UK which have a more centralist tradition. However, even the latter two countries took diverging paths during the 1980s, with France setting up a 'light' regionalization process while the UK heightened the role of central government.

2.2.5.2.1. As a general rule - with the exception of the UK, Portugal and Greece - there is some degree of regional autonomy, particularly as regards social and administrative matters.

2.2.5.3. While it is generally felt that the social partners are showing an increasing interest in regional policies, stress is also laid on the need to give them a more active role in industrial and employment policies. The Italian and Spanish social partners (particularly the trade unions) are taking a keen interest in the expansion of the Structural Funds.

2.2.5.4. In the UK, the type of partnership established by the central government has focused on a network of relations involving the EC, the national and local public authorities, and local economic operators. There is thus no real 'social partnership'.

2.2.5.5. In Ireland, the centralized concentration of decision-making has created a number of problems. These are aggravated by the absence of sub-regional executive institutional bodies.

2.2.5.6. In Spain too, it is accepted that the final drafting of the Structural Fund plans is a matter for the central administration. Some studies of individual regions (e.g. Asturias) say there is 'no participation whatsoever'. The tight deadlines laid down for submission of the plans has favoured an administrative and technocratic decision-making procedure.

2.2.5.7. In some of the Italian regions studied (for example, in Southern Italy), protocols of understanding provide for systematic contacts between the regional government and the social partners in connection with the planning of Community assistance. In theory at least, these are highly advanced procedures, although they have yet to be tried in practice.

2.2.6. Another factor which can greatly influence the location and quality of participation is the existence, at the various national and regional levels, of economic and social councils, development committees, employment committees, vocational training committees and the like, as they can provide forums for participation.

In this case the quality and impact of participation depends on the real powers and remits of these committees. If, as often happens, they are only consulted or informed a posteriori, they will not meet the requirement for 'close consultations' between the partners in accordance with Article 4 of the Framework Regulation, and cannot provide an overall picture of structural policies.

2.2.6.1. But while such bodies are frequently operative at national level, they are much less common on a regional scale. Some were set up in France as part of the regionalization process. They also exist in Spain, largely on the basis of moves taken by the autonomous regions since 1984 (later consolidated by a national law). In Italy too, the National Economic and Labour Council (CNEL) is flanked by a similar regional body in Sicily; however the Sicilian region has special status and the practice does not extend to other regions. There are also some signs of greater regional autonomy on economic and social matters in the UK (limited to certain regions such as Scotland).

2.2.6.2. Hence only certain Member States have sub-national bodies for developing the partnership, and even in these countries the results are not wholly satisfactory. Participation does not depend only on the existence of appropriate institutions. In France and Spain, for example, a number of analysts point to the socio-economic partners' low level of participation and influence in the regional decision-making process.

2.2.6.3. The French social partners are keen to participate in the regional economic and social councils. The councils have little practical influence on EC regional policy and even in regions where sub-committees have been set up to deal with 'Community aspects', these sub-committees do not issue opinions on the way EC aid is used. It should be noted that in France all firms are represented in the chambers of commerce; these public bodies are partners in the implementation of Community policies.

2.2.6.4. In the present situation it has to be agreed that the influence of the partners is not linked to the existence of ad hoc bodies. This fact is clear from the situation in Germany, where there are no economic and social councils but where there is a strong federal structure. Here the social partners and more especially the trade unions have a wide range of possible channels for activity.

Analysts generally agree that where the social partners are consulted, consultation only occurs after the aid plans have been drawn up.

2.2.7. In some countries (such as Italy) it is particularly difficult for the socio-economic organizations to identify the appropriate institutional partners because responsibility for the Structural Funds is shared between several Ministries (EC Affairs, Budget, Agriculture, Industry, Employment, etc.), and this again makes an overall picture more difficult.

This fragmentation is undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that responsibilities are similarly spread among the Commission departments. Conversely, it could be discouraged by amalgamating the Funds, as would be desirable.

2.2.8. The attention which the social partners devote to EC structural policies, and the pressure with which they have therefore lobbied the relevant authorities to involve them, differs considerably from one Member State to another.

This is undoubtedly due partly to the varying magnitude of EC aid, but a number of other factors also come into play.

2.2.8.1. Firstly, in cases where the confederation prevails over the sectoral organizations, greater attention is paid to general and regional issues.

Conversely, where sectoral organizations predominate and the role of the confederation is to provide political leadership and coordination, priority is given to collective-bargaining policies.

2.2.8.2. However, some studies indicate that there are further problems at national level. The social partners and governments have in the past focused their relations on economic and social policies and employment. Because of this, they often lack the technical means and expertise to play an equally active role in regional policy, since this is a topic which they are not used to handling.

2.2.8.3. In countries where there is a deep economic divide (such as Spain) and where this problem has always been at the centre of political and economic debate (such as Italy), the socio-economic organizations are more familiar with regional policy issues.

The reunification of the East German Länder has made economic and social cohesion a major issue in Germany.

In the UK, on the other hand, regional policy is viewed more as an arm of social policy, for redistributing wealth, than as a tool of economic planning.

2.2.8.4. Lastly, two factors significantly influence the attitude of the organizations:

- the degree to which people feel involved in the process of European integration;

- the ideological attitude to partnership and consultation, which cannot be just a shopping list of demands, and which also depends on the existing industrial relations system.

2.2.9. All research shows that awareness of Structural Fund policies is generally very low, and more importantly is limited to a small group within the leadership of the organizations concerned.

It goes without saying that greater awareness would enhance the potential offered by participation.

It is not enough to have read the relevant documents and regulations; a broader view is needed of the main Community policies, and a familiarity with Community practices and with the way in which the Commission and the relevant national authorities interpret and apply the regulations.

2.2.9.1. Most information has been gleaned from seminars and conferences held by the Commission and the socio-economic organizations. Increasing use should be made of this channel in the future, but it is not enough.

The only way to achieve solid progress is by means of participation and consultation on the ground.

This is borne out by the qualitative leap in awareness of EC policies that followed the national consultation meetings on the Community Support Frameworks held by the Commission during 1989 and 1990.

3. Conclusions

3.1. General comments

3.1.1. It is clear from Chapter 2, which summarizes the findings of studies and research carried out over the period 1989-1993, that the involvement of the socio-economic partners in regional policy has increased considerably in the thirteen years since the Committee's 1979 report (1), even though some governments still remain opposed to it.

3.1.2. It is not only the actual experience of participation which has changed, and the level of information about EC regional policy procedures and objectives, but also the determination of the European, national, regional and local organizations to play an active part in the partnership, and the relevant authorities' perception of this participation.

3.1.3. Even so, much remains to be done. But we are no longer at the stage of unrealistic assumptions, or even that of preparing the ground: we are beginning to reap the first fruits, and the problem now is how to use the new Regulations in order to generalize existing participation by creating more favourable conditions for it.

In other words, in most Member States we have reached the stage where the only way of tackling the obstacles to practical, worthwhile participation is to test this participation in the field.

3.1.4. A number of problems and weaknesses remain. Some of the main ones are listed below:

a) The attitude of the relevant authorities varies considerably from one country to another as regards both theory and practice, and also depends on the bargaining clout of the socio-economic partners and the industrial relations system;

b) Every Member State has a different institutional structure, and the manner and forums in which the partnership can operate vary accordingly;

c) The cultural backdrop to regional policies varies greatly from country to country, region to region, and organization to organization;

d) Awareness of regulations, procedures, policies and programmes remains superficial, and, more importantly, is limited to a select group of operators;

e) Not all organizations have the means and instruments for in-depth, large-scale participation.

3.1.5. The Commission's report accompanying the proposals for the new Regulations mentions the calls by the European Parliament and ESC for closer involvement of the socio-economic partners, and concludes: 'the Commission will also ensure full consultation of the economic and social partners at Community level' (1).

3.1.5.1. Point 1.1.1 of the present Opinion explained why for 13 years the Committee has called for an extension of participation. Those reasons remain valid, and they are not only linked to the question of recognition for the role of the socio-economic organizations.

The participation of the social partners serves a practical purpose if it is not just a formality and if it helps to:

- stimulate economic growth and convergence;

- make measures more effective;

- make measures more open;

- involve a majority of local residents in the problems of their region;

- articulate the concrete needs of the sections of society which they represent;

- improve the living conditions of local populations by providing greater work opportunities and better infrastructure;

- ensure democratic control of public spending and of programme assessment.

3.1.5.2. The amendment and extension of the Funds' Objectives, focusing on the labour market at a time when the key problem is employment, reinforce the case for involving the social partners.

Here we are referring in particular to the new Objective 3: 'integration of those exposed to exclusion from the labour market' and the new Objective 4: 'facilitating the adaptation of workers to industrial changes and to changes in production systems'.

3.1.6. The abovementioned new Article 4 stipulates that the 'competent authorities and bodies, including the economic and social partners' are to:

- be designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level;

- act as a partner in pursuit of a common goal;

- act in partnership with regard to the 'preparation and financing, as well as the ex ante appraisal, monitoring and ex post evaluation of operations'.

3.1.6.1. Since this Article comes in the framework Regulation, it clearly has general validity and refers to all the objectives and levels of Community regional policy, even though its contents are not repeated in the other Structural Fund Regulations.

3.2. The identity of the partners

3.2.1. The Regulation states that the partners are to be identified and designated by the Member State 'at national, regional, local or other level'.

3.2.2. This is in line with the subsidiarity principle, and the Committee endorses it; national situations vary greatly and the type of participation will be affected by a number of factors, for example:

- whether or not there are any powerful regional institutions in the areas receiving structural policy assistance;

- the existing industrial relations system;

- the way the different socio-economic interests are organized, and the position they occupy.

At all events, the Committee feels that further clarifications are necessary.

3.2.3. Firstly, it is clear that we are talking about a variety of partners, including not only the 'social partners' who represent the general interests of management and labour but also organizations representing more specific sectoral interests.

3.2.3.1. These parties all occupy a different niche in the social fabric, and represent different social groups and geographical areas. The partnership will thus operate in varying ways, in line with the degree to which the interests of these parties are involved.

3.2.4. Secondly, when designating the partners account must be taken of how representative the organizations really are at the various geographical levels.

3.2.4.1. Although it is clear from Article 4 that partnership is to operate at Community level too, no specific reference is made to the socio-economic partners at this level.

3.2.4.1.1. There is a lack of clarity and consistency here. Other parts of the Regulations mention the social partners at Community level:

- Article 31(2) of the coordinating Regulation states that 'each year, the Commission shall consult the social partners organized at European level on the structural policy of the Community';

- Article 28 of the same Regulation mentions the Committee referred to in Article 124 of the Treaty (ESF Committee).

3.2.4.1.2. While Article 31(2) explicitly mentions the social partners at Community level (and it is the established practice to consult them in advance), the committee referred to in Article 28 comprises only representatives of national organizations.

The obvious link between development policy and social policy makes the inconsistency even more apparent.

3.2.4.2. There are a number of reasons why the right of the EC-level social partners to take part in the partnership at Community level, as recognized in Article 4, should be formally spelt out in the Regulations. Firstly, EC structural policies aim to achieve economic and social cohesion throughout the Community. Secondly, they include transnational and cross-border measures, such as the trans-European networks and the Community initiative programmes. Thirdly, the Community also has an embryonic regional planning policy, outlined in Europe 2000.

In this case the designation should be made by the Community institutions, thereby institutionalizing a consultation practice which is already followed.

3.3. The role of the partners

3.3.1. Here too clarifications are needed. All the parties in the partnership are put on the same footing under Article 4, and this is right and proper. However, the sentence now added at the end of Article 4(1) provides an important clarification by stating that 'The partnership shall be conducted in full compliance with the respective institutional, legal and financial powers of each of the partners.'

3.3.2. The Council has thus adopted an amendment proposed by the European Parliament which draws a formal distinction between the local and regional authorities and the social partners, including them all in pursuit of a common goal.

3.3.3. This helps to clarify the meaning of 'close consultations' - a term which has been used rather than mere 'consultations' partly in order to emphasize the role of the social partners and the view that development is the product of synergy between all the main interest groups in our society.

3.3.4. In spheres such as business, vocational training or social policies, one might expect systematic consultation or even the transfer of decision-making powers to negotiations between the partners. However, in the case of economic and development policies the role of the public authorities is clearly of a higher order than that of the social partners.

This reflects a de facto situation in which certain partners (Commission, Member States, regional authorities) have decision-taking powers while the task of the others (the socio-economic partners) is to provide responsible criticism.

The fact that there is a common general goal - economic and social cohesion - does not rule out the possibility of conflicting strategies and differing narrower goals that reflect the different interests being represented.

3.3.5. The 'close consultations' can therefore take two interlinked forms:

- consultation in the sense of exerting an influence - via consultative bodies - on decisions taken at the various decision-making levels;

- checks that implementation is effective and swift, and identification of the means needed to improve the socio-economic impact.

3.4. The levels and forms taken by the partnership

3.4.1. The partnership will operate at the various geographical levels at which regional policy is successively prepared, funded, monitored and assessed (ex ante and ex post) over the programming period 1994-1999.

3.4.1.1. All stages of the process are clearly important, but there is no doubt that the socio-economic partners can make their maximum contribution at the preparation and assessment stages.

3.4.1.2. Alongside the Community level, the geographical levels involved are national and regional (or local). Their relative importance in the partnership varies greatly depending on the political and institutional structure of the Member States.

3.4.2. At regional and local level, the 'close consultations' in the preparatory stage will mean involving the socio-economic partners first and foremost in the framing of the regional development plan. The relevant authorities should send any comments made by the socio-economic partners to the national authorities and the Commission for information purposes. Secondly, the socio-economic partners will be involved in the framing of the various types of operational programme.

3.4.2.1. The relevant authorities should keep them briefed during the negotiation of the region's Community Support Framework, in order to receive and pass on their comments.

3.4.2.1.1. So as to ensure that the operational programmes are implemented in an effective and open manner, the socio-economic partners should either sit on the monitoring committees or should be kept fully and regularly informed of their activity. This is also necessary if they are to carry out their role when the accompanying measures are being decided and during the assessment stage.

3.4.3. At national level, there are four points in the preparatory stage at which it is particularly important to involve the socio-economic partners:

- the drawing-up of the indicative list of Objective 2 and 5b areas;

- the national development plan, which is to form the basis for consistent regional plans;

- the operational programmes which cover several regions;

- coordination of operational programmes with Community initiatives.

3.4.4. At Community level, it has to be said that the partnership principle announced in Article 4 is not reflected in the practical arrangements set out in the rest of the Regulations.

3.4.4.1. This applies first and foremost to the committees mentioned in Chapter VIII of the coordinating Regulation (with the exception of the ESF Committee), and in particular the Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions. This Committee is required to pronounce on such key issues as the Community support frameworks, the periodic reports on the socio-economic situation and development of the regions, and the drawing-up of the list of areas eligible under Objective 2. These are all matters in which the socio-economic partners have major interests.

3.4.4.2. It is difficult to understand why Article 31(2) of the coordinating Regulation requires the social partners at European level to be consulted on EC structural policy (which in practice has come to mean consultation on the annual report mentioned in Article 16(1) of the framework Regulation), when they are not consulted on the three-yearly report (Article 16(3) of the framework Regulation) on economic and social cohesion.

3.4.4.3. Article 8(5) of the framework Regulation states that the Commission 'shall establish, through the partnership referred to in Article 4(1) and in agreement with the Member State concerned, the Community support framework for Community structural operations'. It is therefore clear that the close consultations with the socio-economic partners on the Community support frameworks for Objective 1 regions are also conducted at EC level. The same is true of the other Objectives [Objective 2, see Article 9(9); Objective 3, see Article 10(1); Objective 4, see Article 10(2); Objective 5a, see Article 11(3); and Objective 5b, see Article 11a(6)].

3.4.4.4. There would seem to be a particularly strong case for the Commission to consult the socio-economic partners before putting forward any proposal to change Objective 2 regions [Article 9(6)].

3.4.4.5. The socio-economic partners operating at Community level should also be involved in the preparation of the Community initiatives.

3.5. Participation instruments

3.5.1. Of course there are many degrees of participation, depending not only on the receptiveness of the relevant authorities, but also on the strengths and capacities of the socio-economic organizations.

For the 'close consultations' to be conducted satisfactorily, so that they achieve the underlying purpose of the participation (usefulness, efficacy, safeguarding of the general interest, openness), some forward planning and a development strategy are necessary, particularly during the programming stages.

3.5.2. Not all organizations have the resources (staff and funding) or instruments (study centres and research institutes) to meet these needs and to take a positive and pro-active stance on development problems.

Only certain organizations are equipped for this, and even they will need some help.

Technical assistance - which is already laid down in the Regulations - from the Commission and the national and regional authorities could be a great help here, as could coordination by the European organizations and the establishment of channels for transnational exchanges of experience.

3.5.3. There has been little time to make provision for optimum administration of Article 4 along the lines sketched out in the present Opinion.

The new Regulations were adopted in July, and two stages in the implementation of the 1994-1999 programme have already passed: the regional programmes have been prepared, and the national programmes have been submitted to the Commission. The third stage, involving the negotiation of the Community Support Frameworks, is due to begin shortly.

Only in a few instances have the regional and national authorities and the social partners been able to contact each other in time. In at least one case - in Scotland - the response from the relevant authorities was a firm 'No'. In another case - in Italy - the Government reacted positively and sent a notification to the Commission.

3.6. Concluding recommendations

3.6.1. In order to begin a phased implementation of Article 4, the Committee considers that:

a) the national socio-economic organizations must act quickly and submit a formal request to the relevant authorities. It would also be wise to:

- lay down protocols of understanding with the national and regional authorities in order to decide on forums for, and types of, participation;

- set up training schemes for socio-economic operators interested in the content, rules and procedures governing Structural Fund assistance;

b) the Commission should facilitate this process by:

- consulting the national socio-economic organizations on the mandates for the individual Community Support Frameworks;

- devising a programme to support the national training courses, and holding conferences and seminars to swap experiences and set up trans-national networks;

- drawing up a periodic progress report on the implementation of Article 4.

For its part, the Committee undertakes to keep an eye on further developments in this process and to make periodic checks on the implementation of the partnership in the regions and areas covered by the Structural Funds.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 1994.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

(1) Points 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 7.2.2.

(2) Point 5.1.

(3) Point 5.2.3.

(4) CES 654/79 fin, CES 537/79 fin.

(5) OJ No C 53, 3. 3. 1980.

(6) CES 537/78 fin.

(7) Point 3.1.1, p. 7.

(8) Resolution on economic and social cohesion and the participation of the trade unions in regional policy - Rome, 13 and 14 December 1990.

(9) UNICE comments on the Commission Communication on Community structural policies - assessment and outlook (9 November 1992).

(10) Framework Regulation, Coordinating Regulation, and ERDF, ESF, EAGGF-Guidance and FIFG Regulations [COM(93) 67 final and 67 final/2 - SYN 455, COM(93) 124 final and 124 final/2 - SYN 457].

(11) There is also a special budget line which was approved at the initiative of the European Parliament.

(12) OJ No C 161, 14. 6. 1993, p. 46.

(13) The questionnaire was used in Sicily and Calabria by the Italian trade unions CGIL, CISL and UIL, as part of an ETUC research project.

(14) See point 1.1.1.2 above.

(15) COM(93) 67 final - SYN 455, pp. 6 and 21.