No C 339/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
repealed in Article 10 of the co-ordinated text. Article 3(4) of the co-ordinated text should suffice. 
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the Regions in the 1990s—Fourth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic 
Situation and Development of the Regions of the Community 
(91/C 339/05) 
On 29 January 1991 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
Regions in the 1990s — Fourth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and 
Development of the Regions of the Community. 
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 19 July 
1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Frerichs. 
At its 289th plenary session (meeting of 25 September 1991), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanismously. 
The Committee has already issued Opinions on the 
previous three Periodic Reports published in 1981, 1984 
and 1987; the Opinions stressed that these Reports were 
extremely important for understanding and developing 
regional policy. At the current stage in the drive towards 
economic and social cohesion in the Community, as 
dealt with in Title V of the Single Act, the Fourth 
Periodic Report is of invaluable importance. 
In line with its earlier Opinions, the Economic and 
Social Committee also approves the Fourth Periodic 
Report, subject to the following comments. 
1. Introduction 1.2. The Fourth Periodic Report clearly differs from 
its three predecessors. Previous Reports considered a 
number of specific issues such as the problems of per­
ipheral regions, differences in infrastructure, the classi­
fication of regions, differences in regional disparities 
between the United States and the Community, etc. 
Although they have not been examined again in the 
present Report, these issues, with their regional impli­
cations, continue to be relevant. 
1.3. Unlike its predecessors, this Report also exam­
ines policy response to the Community's regional prob­
lems, particularly in the context of the 1988 reform of 
the three Structural Funds. 
1.1. The Fourth Periodic Report on the social and 
economic situation and development of the regions in 
the Community not only examines regional trends and 
regional differences—as previous Reports have—but 
also presents new information and analyses on regional 
problems and related policy matters. 1.4. In addition, the Report considers a number of 
broader developments, which will have important 
consequences for the regions in the decade ahead. These 
include demographic changes, the political and econ­
omic developments in Central and Eastern Europe, 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/7 
including German unification, and the effects of the 
Community's policy to further integration. 
1.5. The present Report indicates that a number of 
uncertainties hanging over such matters as energy prices 
and supplies together with planned cuts in defence 
spending will also shape the economic environment in 
the regions in the years ahead, although it is not yet 
possible at this stage to assess the likely regional effects. 
1.6. As in previous Reports, this Report's summary 
and conclusions are contained in the initial part which 
provides a good general picture of the situation and 
includes numerous suggestions for Community regional 
policy. 
1.7. The main body of the Report and the statistical 
annexes—both of which are more extensive than 
before—use graphs and tables to depict Community 
regional policy and provide a wealth of ideas for further 
work. 
2. Structure of the Report 
2.1. The Report is divided into three parts. The first 
part describes the major economic trends and regional 
differences in the Community and considers some of 
the underlying causes. 
The second concentrates on the regional policy 
measures set in train by the Single European Act in 
1987 to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the 
Community, including the Structural Funds reform. 
The third part anticipates the likely effects on the 
regions of greater integration in the Community and 
looks at the profound changes taking place in the econ­
omies of Central and Eastern Europe. 
2.2. The Report's analyses refer to the results of a 
number of new studies on: 
— long-term population trends and medium-term job 
requirements in the regions, 
— factors determining regional competitiveness based 
on a survey of 9 000 firms, 
— regional differences in the provision of education 
and training in the Community, — research and development and the process of inno­
vation in the regions, 
— implications for the regions of the completion of 
the internal market, 
— the economies and regions of Central and Eastern 
Europe and the former GDR, compared to the Com­
munity (1). 
3. General comments 
3.1. The Committee welcomes the Fourth Report's 
detailed examination of the political response to the 
Community's regional problems, in particular the 
reform of the three major Structural Funds in 1988, 
although a definitive assessment of the reform's impact 
is not possible after such a short period of time. 
3.2. The long-held basic belief that effective regional 
policy can only be achieved in tandem with economic 
growth has not been borne out by events. The Report 
acknowledges that, despite the spate of growth in recent 
years, regional policy has not managed to reduce 
regional differences. On the contrary, the gap between 
developed and backward regions has continued to 
grow. 
3.3. The Fourth Report clearly shows that a backward 
region cannot achieve the absolute per capita income 
growth of a developed region, even with considerable 
financial assistance from the Comunity. 
3.4. This applies particularly to rural regions and is 
not purely an agricultural policy matter, but is also 
linked to economic and labour market policy. These 
regions should be urged to take a keener interest in 
public tenders, submit bids in response to Community 
invitations to tender, encourage establishment of non-
farm small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and 
attract tourism. 
3.5. For this reason, the Committee reiterates the 
view in its Opinion on the Third Commission Report 
[Doc. COM(87) 230 final] that both Community and 
national regional policies have not yet achieved the 
sucess expected of them. 
3.6. The Committee feels that this is due not only to 
the inadequacy of the financial resources available, but 
also to administrative and procedural difficulties which 
are most difficult to overcome. 
(*) These analyses were carried out before German unification 
on 3 October 1990. 
No C 339/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
3.7. Less-developed areas and less prosperous Mem­
ber States are still not managing to implement success-
full regional policies, because of inadequate 
financial and administrative resources; for this reason 
they are at best able to make only limited use of 
Community subsidies. 
3.8. Moreover, some Member States have a tendency 
to use Community support for measures and invest­
ments which they would have had to implement in any 
case; hence no additional financial resources are being 
provided. 
3.9. Generally speaking, the Fourth Periodic Report 
constantly mixes the descriptive with the prescriptive. 
It would be more desirable to adopt a methodological 
approach differentiating between the two. Regional 
policy diagnosis and therapy are two different things. 
Successfull therapy depends on proper diagnosis. 
4. Specific comments 
4.1. The study of regional disparities in income and 
productivity [Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita 
and per employed person] again reveals chronic major 
differences between Community regions. The average 
per capita income in the ten economically weakest 
regions (mainly in Greece and Portugal) is less than one 
third of the average in the ten economically strongest 
regions. 
4.2. More significant changes were registered in 
employment levels in the various parts of the Com­
munity and thus in regional differences in unemploy­
ment rates. Rising employment followed by falling 
unemployment in the Community stabilized the 
regional discrepancies in unemployment figures initially 
prior to the trend being reversed. 
The Report states that there are still major regional 
differences. In 1990, the average unemployment rate in 
the ten regions with the lowest unemployment was just 
2,5 %, while in the ten regions with highest unemploy­
ment (e.g. Spain and southern Italy) the figure was as 
high as 22 %. 
4.3. The Committee would again point out the inad­
equate statistical basis and unreliability of the statistical 
surveys on employment. The unemployment and 
employment figures quoted in the Report are based on 
Community statistics. However, the data on which 
these statistics are themselves based, are registered and 
evaluated by Member States using a variety of pro­
cedures which do not always comply with Community recommendations; for this reason, they do not accu­
rately reflect actual circumstances. 
4.4. The Committee regrets the fact that the syn­
thetic index used for evaluating regional situations in 
the Third Report has been omitted from the Fourth 
Report. The synthetic index admittedly provided a very 
perfunctory picture of the economic situation in the 
Community's region; it was based on only two conven­
tional indicators (GDP and unemployment), and con­
tained no indicators of regions' economic production 
structures, infrastructure, etc. 
Per capita GDP (population or work force) does not 
alone provide a true picture of regional disparities and 
can be misinterpreted. For instance, migratory move­
ments (inward and outward) have a considerable influ­
ence on the GDP/income per capita and on unemploy­
ment rates. Both can rise or fall even though production 
levels remain unchanged. 
The situation is similar for the opinion poll of managers 
which is specifically mentioned by the Report. Man­
agers in backward regions tend to be less successful, 
and the poll does not provide conclusive evidence as to 
the state of the regional economies. 
The Committee Opinion on the Third Report com­
mended the importance of calculating the synthetic 
index and underlined the need to include a larger num­
ber of variables so as to take better account of the 
different types of regions. This important recommen­
dation was, moreover, in line with the recommendation 
contained in the Opinion of the Committee of the 
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The 
omission of the synthetic index makes it much more 
difficult to assess regional policy measures. 
4.5. The Committee was most interested to note 
the Report's comments on demographic trends in the 
Community and the impact of higher birth rates on the 
growth in the workforce and unemployment in less-
developed regions, as well as the attendant migratory 
movements. Under-employment, high unemployment, 
inadequate vocational training opportunities, poor 
infrastructure and few development prospects can, in 
the Committee's view, have dramatic consequences, 
particularly where the economic recession is deepening; 
this affects problem regions first and foremost. 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/9 
The increasing numbers of young people moving to the 
big cities and conurbations in search of work (e.g. from 
Scotland to London and from southern Italy and Sicily 
to Rome and Naples) has adverse consequences both 
for the regions with the inadequate structures and for 
the conurbations. The Committee believes that this 
situation may deteriorate much further if regional 
imbalances are aggravated by moves to revamp the 
common agricultural policy (CAP). 
The ESC feels that these regions, nowadays highly 
dependent on agriculture, should be provided with 
additional assistance as set out under point 3.3. 
4.6. The study of regional differences in demo­
graphic developments and job vacancies has not 
included express reference to immigration into the 
Community from third countries and to the call for a 
common immigration policy. This will be an extremely 
important issue for the European Community in the 
coming years. 
4.7. Problem regions (Objectives 1, 2 and 5b) bor­
dering on third countries are exposed to both general 
and special immigration-related pressures; these com­
pound the difficulties caused by the regions' peripheral 
location and mean that new strategies are required to 
improve their socio-economic situation. The Report 
goes into this matter in Chapter 9 using the results of a 
financial study; it does not however make any concrete 
proposals. 
4.8. The Fourth Report says nothing about border 
regions and peripheral locations and does not provide 
any statistics on these matters. This is a fairly major 
shortcoming which should be remedied in the next 
Report; it is in border regions particularly that regional 
policy must be firmly established, and its successes or 
failures publicized. 
4.9. Chapter 3 of the Report goes into the determi­
nants of competitiveness in great detail, but the infor­
mation on each country and its regions should be sup­
plemented by more extensive quantitative and qualitat­
ive data. Thus, in the education and training section, 
information on the following points would be valuable 
for regional policy measures and programmes: 
— the number of universities in each Member State 
and the subjects covered, 
— the number and type of vocational training estab­
lishments and the groups of users served, — the qualifications (level) of the various initial and 
further training establishments and their sponsors 
(e.g. trade unions, employers' organizations, 
churches, independent bodies), 
— the number and type of business and innovation 
centres and technology parks, 
— the regions where these operate and the inter­
national contacts they have. 
4.10. A much more in-depth analysis would be useful 
in the innovation and research section. The key ques­
tions concern not only the number, field of activity 
and type (public, private or public benefit) of national 
research institutes and bodies for technology transfer or 
for training in innovation and the regional distribution 
thereof. They also concern the Member States' consti­
tutional responsibilities for research, development and 
industrial policy. Who is responsible for practical 
implementation in what areas, financial responsibility 
included ? 
The aim of this is to ensure a better breakdown in 
the formulation and implementation of Community, 
national and regional measures, while fully observing 
the principle of subsidiarity. 
Greater transparency would also benefit competition 
policy. 
4.11. Innovation should not be confined to research 
and high technology but should also cover traditional 
sectors and economic, social and cultural services. Put­
ting an innovation to profitable, economic use calls 
inter alia for market analyses, establishment of efficient 
sales networks, export activities and the constant culti­
vation of markets. Technology transfer—both vertical 
and horizontal—is closely linked to the concept of 
innovation. Closer examination of this area would also 
provide more information for the necessary coordi­
nation measures. 
4.12. In order to find out more about the realities of 
regional policy in each Member State, studies could be 
financed by the EC to look into the questions of edu­
cation and training, innovation and research and tech­
nology transfer. The aim would be to extend the foun­
dations for an effective regional policy, particularly in 
the run-up to 1993. A list of studies financed by the 
Commission, together with the relevant questionnaires, 
should in future be appended to the Periodic Reports. 
No C 339/10 Official Journal of the European .Communities 31. 12. 91 
A useful bibliography of this type should also include 
an abstract of the studies and their findings, together 
with the financial resources deployed. 
4.13. The Committee was pleased to note that 
Part B of the Report on Community assitance to prob­
lem regions details individual measures along with all 
assistance provided and the relevant appropriations, as 
this is in line with an earlier suggestion by the Commit­
tee. Analysis of trends in national and Community 
measures and expenditure on regional policy confirms 
the Committee's concern that although changes in 
national regional policy have boosted its effectiveness 
in overall terms, the policy's contribution to solving 
regional problems has been reduced by expenditure 
cuts. 
Unfortunately, the drop in Community expenditure on 
business investment incentives was largely determined 
by a similar trend in Member States' regional policy 
measures which were supported and co-financed by the 
Community. The situation is aggravated by the fact 
that the bulk of expenditure for assisting businesses is 
allocated to sectoral and horizontal measures which, in 
the Commission's opinion, does practically nothing to 
redress existing imbalances in the Community and in 
fact even exacerbates them. 
4.14. In this connection, the question arises as to 
whether the plethora of Community initiatives triggered 
by the Structural Funds reform has meant that the 
Commission's regional policy has been watered down 
and has become less effective. Who checks and monitors 
whether funding overlaps and how effective this fund­
ing actually is in boosting development in the regions 
concerned? 
4.15. A key criterion for effective regional policy 
is direct participation of employees' and employers' 
representatives in the regions concerned. The Report 
makes no statement about this, as apparently no survey 
has been carried out of the involvement of employees' 
and employers' representatives in cooperation with the 
relevant regional authorities. Such involvement is likely 
to improve the deployment and supervision of resources 
and lead to more realistic information about what is 
actually achieved. Community action of this kind would 
also stimulate and sustain the media's and general pub­
lic's interest in the tasks and work of regional aid in 
the regions concerned. 
4.16. Member States could be urged to appoint 
'regional observers' to monitor regional policy measures in a constructive but critical manner and 
report on these over a given period of time. Links 
should be set up on a national and European level to 
exchange experiences and make Member States and the 
Commission more aware of the observations made. 
These experiences gained 'on the spot' through constant 
monitoring could be just what is needed to provide a 
major boost for a long term regional policy. 
4.17. The Committee is critical of the fact that the 
Report fails to say anything about the responsibilities 
of Member States' regions. No details are provided of 
Member States' administrative structures, the flow of 
funds to the different levels or the coordination of 
individual policies. Attention should be drawn here to 
the close links between regional policy and planning. 
4.18. The Committee is most concerned to note the 
widening gap between regions lagging behind in devel­
opment (Objective 1), declining industrial areas (Objec­
tive 2) and purely rural areas (Objective 5b) on the 
one hand, and economically well-developed areas and 
conurbations on the other. If people, particularly 
younger working people, were to continue to move 
away, these areas would inevitably become impoveri­
shed and suffer adverse consequences. 
4.19. The Committee notes that the trends of GDP 
per capita and unemployment vary among the least-
developed regions. 
4.20. The Committee welcomes the first-ever 
inclusion of a description of developments and changes 
in Central and Eastern Europe, including the former 
GDR. It proposes the submission by the end of 1991 of 
a report dealing specifically with this area and using 
up-to-date figures to provide a detailed account of 
economic and social aspects of Central and Eastern 
European countries and regions. At the moment every­
thing is in a state of flux, particularly in the USSR and 
in Soviet states such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia 
which are fighting for ther independence and freedom. 
It is still too early to comment on possible measures 
for effecting the change-over from centrally planned to 
market economies in Central and Eastern European 
countries and the impact of this on the European Com­
munity and its regional policy. 
The Committee is most concerned that if such measures 
fail there may be a large influx of refugees into the 
Community, the consequences of which cannot be accu­
rately predicted at this moment. However, they would 
be bound to create an enormous burden in more than 
just financial terms. For this reason the Committee feels 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/11 
that developments and trends in these countries have 
to be closely monitored and reported. It believes that 
it will be possible for the Commission to submit a 
report on Eastern Europe by the end of 1991. 
4.21. The analyses in the Fourth Periodic Report 
were carried out prior to German unification on 
3 October 1990. 
The Committee assumes that the five new Lander in 
the Federal Republic of Germany, with their total popu­
lation of about 16 million will be analyzed in detail 
in the Fifth Periodic Report. An economic and social 
upheaval is under way at the moment. Privatization of 
former State-owned firms is only proceeding slowly. In 
the interim period, short-time work and unemployment 
are rising sharply. In the old industrial areas whole 
sectors are disappearing and new industrial structures 
are slow to take shape. The former State-controlled 
wholesale and retail sector is being speedily developed. 
In sparsely populated rural areas, new agricultural 
structures are having to be developed and, moreover, 
are having to be integrated into the European Com­
munity. 
The entire services sector is under-developed by western 
standards, while the infrastructure is obsolete and 
dilapidated. The Federal Republic of Germany has 
announced its intention to build up a market economy 
in its new Lander and to bring this part of its economy 
under the umbrella of European integration. The Com­
mittee trusts that eastern Germany will be covered by 
the Community's regional measures without any cut­
backs in funding for other Member States. 
5. Conclusions 
5.1. The Fourth Report clearly states that the major 
imbalances between the regions have deteriorated fur­
ther and that the gap between well-developed and back­
ward regions has not been narrowed by all the financial 
and other measures. This also demonstrates that the 
Community's regional policy has not yet found the right 
form. To avoid a two-tier Europe new, far-reaching 
reforms have to be introduced which cover not only 
financial aids, but also co-operation between European 
and national administrators. 
5.2. These conclusions compel the Community and 
its Member States to redouble their efforts and improve 
their coordination; this involves overcoming adminis­
trative and procedural difficulties. 5.3. The ESC reiterates its suggestion that an action 
programme be developed to boost the coherence of 
each and every Community policy, in accordance with 
Article 130 A. 
5.4. Methods and procedures should be developed 
to ensure that account is taken of the need to achieve 
coherency in all Community-wide policies, including 
economic policy. To make regional policy a dynamic, 
pervasive force, there must be more effective consul­
tation and involvement of employers' and employees' 
representatives in joint decision-making processes and 
the assessment and monitoring of results. 
5.5. Particular attention should be paid to refining 
and coordinating instruments for compiling statistics. 
5.6. An improved version of the synthetic index 
should be introduced. 
5.7. In the interests of clarity, a clear distinction 
should be made between the Reports' descriptive and 
prescriptive parts in future. 
5.8. The Commission is requested to provide a more 
detailed analysis of the causes underlying the diverse 
rates of development in Objective 1 regions. 
5.9. A chapter should be included on problems relat­
ing to immigrants from third countries. 
5.10. The Report should deal specifically with 
regions bordering on third countries (peripheral 
location). 
5.11. It is both desirable and necessary to include 
structural and qualitative information on education and 
training. 
5.12. Innovation and research should be dealt with 
separately. 
5.13. So as to improve knowledge about the Com­
munity's regions, and in particular to be able to make 
overall comparisons, regional observers should be 
deployed in each Member State. They would be en­
trusted with the same tasks and their work coordinated 
No C 339/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
at EC level, in order to ensure regular information 
exchange. Existing structures should serve as a basis 
and flexible administrative procedures followed. 
5.14. The Committee feels that the following are 
suitable for improving the impact and effectiveness of 
regional policy: cooperation in the regions, improved, 
clear definition of responsibilities, involvement of all 
socio-economic groups in cooperation with the authori-
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1991. 
1. The Committee welcomes the proposal and 
approves of the introduction of the stamping out policy, 
with recourse to vaccination being very restricted. 
2. The Committee notes that Annex I refers to nine 
exotic diseases, and is pleased to see that the list can 
be extended if the need arises. 
2.1. These are highly contagious viral diseases. In 
certain circumstances, the viruses can infect humans. 
This is especially true of Rift Valley fever. These dis­
eases could cause economic disaster if they become 
established in the animal population of the Community. 
(*) OJ No C 148, 7. 6. 1991, p. 12. ties and well-organized, continual exhange of experi­
ences at national and EC level. 
5.15. The Committee expects the Commission to 
monitor carefully developments in Central and Eastern 
European countries and regions and to discuss in depth 
the impact of this on Community regions in its Fifth 
Periodic Report on the social and economic situation 
and development of the regions in the Community. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
2.2. In some previous laws [e.g. Regulation (EEC) 
No 72/62], there is provision of the import of small 
quantities of food for personal use in the luggage of 
travellers from third countries. This should be reviewed. 
The Committee acknowledges the near-impossibility of 
preventing this absolutely, but suggests that this food 
should be properly certified. 
2.3. Disposal of waste food material from inter­
national transport must be rigorously supervised. 
3. The proposal to establish a properly trained epide­
miological unit in each Member State with the help of Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) introducing Community measures 
for the control of certain animal diseases (r) 
(91/C 339/06) 
On 5 June 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 September 1991. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Scully. 
At its 289th plenary session (meeting of 25 September 1991), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.