Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Guidelines for integrated actions on the island regions of the European Union following the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 158)'
Date: 2000-07-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, European Union, economic and social cohesion, equal treatment, island region

C 268/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Guidelines for integrated actions on the
island regions of the European Union following the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 158)’

(2000/C 268/09)

On 22 September 1999 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of
Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentionned guidelines.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 June 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Vassilaras.

At its 374th plenary session (meeting of 12 July 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 53 votes in favour and five abstentions.

During the preparation of the opinion, representatives from the Section visited several islands locations
within the European Union. A short summary of these visits is appended to this opinion.

1.

Introduction

measures to ensure that island regions can compete on a level
playing field with other regions.

1.1. More than 25 years after the creation of the European
regional policy, most of the population of the island regions (1)
of the European Union still have a per capita G.D.P. lower
than 75 % of EU average. This raises the question of the
efficiency of the policies that have been implemented over the
years, by both the European Union and the Member States,
with regard to the islands.

Article 158 of the Amsterdam Treaty which now forms
1.2.
the legal basis for the EU’s economic and social cohesion
policy, not only emphasises that in order to promote harmoni-
ous development throughout the Community, the disparities
between levels of development of the various regions must be
reduced, but also pays particular regard to reducing the
backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including
rural areas.

1.3.
For the Economic and Social Committee, the con-
clusion to be drawn from this new Article, together with
Declaration No. 30 on island regions (2), is that EU policies
have so far insufficiently addressed the structural problems
faced by these regions linked to their permanent geographical
handicap. It also reflects the present urgent need for special

(1) Throughout the Opinion, the word ‘region’ is used in its geo-

graphical, and not administrative, sense.

(2) Declaration No. 30 states: The Conference recognises that island
regions suffer from structural handicaps linked to their island
status, the permanence of which impairs their economic and
social development. The Conference accordingly acknowledges
that Community legislation must take account of these handicaps
and that specific measures may be taken, where justified, in favour
of these regions in order to integrate them better into the internal
market on fair conditions.

It should be emphasised also that one of the achieve-
1.4.
ments of the Amsterdam Treaty is that sustainable develop-
ment is considered as one of the EU’s main aims in terms of
economic and social cohesion.

island regions in the European Union (3),

1.5.
On 16 May 1997 the European Parliament adopted a
resolution on an integrated policy adapted to the special
in
situation of
the meaning of Article 158 of the Treaty, recognising the
sustainable, harmonious, convergent and balanced socio-
economic development of the island regions of Europe as a
priority objective and necessity, and calling upon the Council
and the Commission to maintain their high level of concern
to reduce the inequalities and backwardness affecting the
Community’s disadvantaged island regions, and to maintain
the high level of structural fund interventions. It also called for
them to push ahead with the necessary measures which would
benefit all European island regions.

1.6.
The European Parliament considers that these measures
must, in the future, be reflected in all Community legislation
and policies: only in this way can the nearly 14 million
inhabitants of the island regions compete with the other
regions on equal terms and enjoy the same opportunities for
development which the EU offers to mainland and remote
regions.

1.7.
In December 1997, the Ecofin Council declared that it
would protect and support the economic development of
islands.

(3) OJ C 167, 2.6.1997, p. 249.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/33

1.8.
On many occasions, the Commission itself emphasised
the need to address the specific problems faced by the most
remote or isolated regions, including islands. For example, in
the 10th Annual Report of the Structural Funds (1998) (1), the
Commission acknowledges the need for improved coordi-
nation in the future development of transport and cohesion
policy from the design stage and stated that in the new
programming period, the stress will be on improving access to
transport networks and the creation of sustainable and effective
transport systems which make balanced use of the various
modes. The ERDF and the Cohesion Fund will continue to
finance the trans-European networks (TENs).

1.9.
Already in its opinion on Disadvantaged island regions
of 2 July 1987 (2), the Committee expressed its concerns and
made some initial proposals on special measures for these
regions. The opinion subsequently had a positive influence on
the conclusion taken at the Rhodes European Council (3) in
December 1988. But it is only 9 years later, with the adoption
of the Amsterdam Treaty that the European Union paved the
way for new policy decisions and measures in favour of
islands.

1.10.
Since then, the Committee has repeatedly highlighted
the need for a change in EU regional policy so that island
regions are included de facto among Objective 1 regions. This
would enable the socio-economic inequalities and environ-
mental threats caused by their structural disadvantages and
weaknesses to be addressed and offset. Lately, in its Opinion
on The reform of the Structural Funds (4) of 10 September
1998, the Committee called for a large measure of flexibility
in establishing the criteria for regions’ eligibility.

1.11.
the new
However, The Committee deplores that
regulations governing the Structural Funds for the period
2000-2006 do not take into account the specific problems
faced by the island regions. In particular, most of the funding
will continue to be allocated on a purely statistical basis, i.e.
per capita GDP, which leaves little room, or no room at all, for
flexibility.

1.12.
In its opinion on the Sixth Periodic Report on the
social and economic situation and development of the regions
of the European Union, of 22 September 1999 (5), the Com-
mittee voiced its particular concern that, as shown by the

(1) COM(1999) 467 final, point 1.2.5, p. 24.
(2) OJ C 232, 31.8.1987.
(3) ‘The European Council recognizes the particular socio-economic
problems of certain island regions in the Community. It therefore
requests the Commission to examine these problems and submit,
if appropriate, any proposals which it deems useful, within the
financial possibilities offered by the Community’s existing policies
as they have been decided.’

(4) OJ C 407, 28.12.98.
(5) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 20.

report, the statistical definition of the EU regions — the NUTS
classification — could result in some disadvantaged regions
not qualifying for support.

1.13.
now wishes

In the light of what has been said, the Committee

(i)

to help design the necessary measures enabling island
regions to enjoy their fair share of development and thus
to contribute to implementing Article 158 of the Treaty
and the attached Declaration, and

(ii)

to start a thinking process for next programming period
of the Structural Funds.

This opinion should also be seen in the context of
1.13.1.
the preparation of the next Cohesion Report, provided for
under Article 159 of the Treaty, which the Commission will
publish by the end of this year.

1.14.
The Committee recognises that Article 158 of the
Treaty also applies to many other least favoured regions of a
different nature (for instance, some upland areas), including
rural areas. However, it believes that given their geographical
and natural dissimilarity, they should be dealt with separately.

1.14.1.
The Committee believes that the problems faced by
these regions also should be addressed since the new Treaty
and the reform of the Structural Funds, together with the
forthcoming enlargement, have created new uncertainties for
them too.

In a separate commitment, Article 299 (2) of the
1.15.
Treaty acknowledges the special difficulties faced by the most
remote, or outermost, regions of the European Union. It
specifically refers to the Azores, Madeira, the Canaries, and the
four French overseas territories, three of which are islands and
the fourth may be considered equally isolated from the main
parts of
the European Union. The issues related to the
implementation of Article 299(2) are not dealt with in this
Opinion since they will be addressed in the course of the
preparation of a separate opinion on the Commission Report
on The measures to implement Article 299(2) concerning the
outermost regions of the European Union (6).

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee notes that the reference to ‘islands’ in
the second paragraph of Article 158 has been translated into
the various official languages of the European Union in such a
way that its meaning is ambiguous, and even contradictory,
from one language to another.

According to the linguistic version of the Treaty referred to,
insularity is either considered as a special case in its own
right, or as a mere geographical precision of little practical
significance.

(6) COM(2000) 147 final of 14.3.2000.

C 268/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

2.1.1.
It nevertheless considers that there would have been
little point in including a reference to islands in Article 158 of
the Treaty if it was not to recognise the specificity of the
permanent structural handicaps affecting islands. Declaration
No. 30 on island regions, adopted in Amsterdam at the same
time as Article 158, is absolutely unambiguous in this regard.

to NUTS II regions with a GDP below 75 % of the average.
Consequently, it will not be possible to compensate for the
lack of Community funding with national aid. Working aids,
currently allowed under Article 87.3 (a), will also be prohibited,
unless the guidelines are changed. This will affect many islands
very seriously, and could cancel out the initial successes
achieved by existing national or Community policies.

2.1.2.
Consequently, the Committee assumes that the cor-
rect interpretation of Article 158 is that island status is a source
of permanent structural disadvantage. As such, insularity is
factor which must be taken into consideration
a special
in addition to those factors (such as per capita GDP, or
unemployment rates) which are usually employed to assess
the socio-economic difficulties of the less favoured regions of
the European Union.

2.2.
In the light of the above, the Committee must express
its concern that island regions still do not receive proper
treatment by the European Union. The necessary measures
must be taken urgently at a time when the European Union:

1)

2)

has decided on the reform of the Structural Funds and
the adoption of new rules for the 2000-2006 period —
in which, from 2000 onwards very few island regions
will be considered as lagging behind in development and
therefore requiring special structural support;

is negotiating EU accession with a number of countries,
most of which have very low per capita incomes.
In addition, enlargement will entail additional spatial
problems for both new and existing Member States in
pushing eastward the centre of gravity of the European
Union.

The Committee also believes that

2.3.
the continuous
infrastructure development in the broader continental setting,
with the ever-increasing added value it generates, and the
blanket rules governing the internal market — which reflect
the mainland socio-economic environment in the way they
work — continually render island regions uncompetitive and
push them further behind.

2.4.
The reform of the Structural Funds fails to take account
of the island nature of these regions or of the permanent
physical obstacles to regional development. It restricts itself to
examining macroeconomic factors alone in determining the
eligibility of island regions. The Committee feels that the use
of the 75 % of GDP threshold, measured in purchasing power
parities, is very harsh, since in the light of the Amsterdam
Treaty island regions could benefit from special measures
tailored to their individual levels of development, so as to
compensate for their natural disadvantage.

2.5.
The Community enlargement policy will have the
effect of spectacularly increasing the relative level of prosperity
of the EU islands — at least in statistical terms. The much
lower per capita GDP of the countries presently seeking to join
the European Union will result in a lower EU average, thus
generating a relative increase in wealth of those regions which
are currently the most disadvantaged.

2.5.1.
Statistics demonstrate that in 2007 only 1 to 10 %
of the population of the 15 Member States would benefit from
objective 1 status. As a consequence, all the island regions
presently benefiting from Objective 1 status — with some
exceptions — will cease to be eligible, since they will math-
ematically overshoot the threshold of 75 % of the EU average.

2.5.2.
Therefore, the Committee believes that, in addition
to socio-economic criteria, other eligibility criteria will have to
be determined and taken into consideration when allocating
structural Funds support, such as the insularity criterion and
other criteria based on the constraints linked to the island
region status.

2.6.
In its opinion on the European Spatial Development
Perspective (ESDP) (1) of 9 September 1998, the Committee
underlined that enlargement will give added weight to the
problems already faced by the outlying regions of the European
Union (communications, transport infrastructure, access to
economic activities and public services, health and education
in particular, and so on) and will make it all the more
important to secure a new regional balance taking into account
the geographical diversity of the European territory, thus
making the principle of territorial cohesion an additional
strand to that of economic and social cohesion.

In the light of the above, the Committee is of the
2.6.1.
view that
the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP) agreed at the informal Council of Ministers for Spatial
Development
in May 1999, pays too little
attention to the islands and to the need to adopt an integrated
spatial development policy at both EU scale and national
level which takes due account of the specific geographical
characteristics and handicaps of the island regions.

in Potsdam,

2.4.1. Moreover, this situation will affect authorisation of
regional aid granted by the Member States, since the use of
such support under Article 87.3(a) is at present strictly limited

(1) OJ C 407, 28.12.98, p. 85.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/35

2.6.2.
This being the case, the Committee welcomes the
multiplicity of measures taken by the political, economic and
social players in the island regions and the large number of
projects which they have carried out. This action gives grounds
for hope and lays the foundations for concrete measures to be
taken at EU level (cooperation projects, exchanges, bench-
marking). The Committee would express its support,
in
particular, for the measures taken by the Islands Committee of
the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe
(CRPM) and the network of island chambers of commerce in
the EU.

3. General conclusions supporting policy adoption

3.1.
The Committee is convinced that the variety of the
approximately 450 inhabited islands in the EU means that all
forms of evaluation must be brought to bear on the problems
and needs of each island individually, and of groups of
similarly-sized islands.

Before launching sweeping assessments to determine

3.2.
policy, consideration must be given to

(a)

the distance from the nearest centre to which the island
or group of islands belongs (no sensible comparison can
be made between the island of Salamina, facing the port
of Piraeus, and Réunion in the Indian Ocean)

(b)

the climate (islands in the north of the EU) and

— subsequently, this new island approach should be consoli-
dated by a white paper containing an action plan, laying
down a specific timetable for action and providing
instruments to monitor performance, with economic and
social actors being fully involved at island and European
level.

— as an official body representing the economic and social
actors of civil society, the Committee could provide a
useful interface and assess, at European level, the practical
results of such action by means of a report which the
Commission would submit every two years to the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Com-
mittee and the Committee of the Regions;

— formulate and implement a benchmarking and assess-
ment pilot action for problems and needs arising from
island status in the EU with a view to preparing a
Community strategy to integrate the various relevant
European policies. While fully reflecting the diversity and
specific features and problems of islands, the pilot action
would provide a single focus for Community action,
based on full recognition of the principle that island
status represents a priority criterion for Community
efforts to boost competitiveness and the harmonious
development of the Union as a whole;

rationalise, strengthen and consolidate into on-going
actions information, training and valorisation networks
for innovative SMEs, ensuring due regard, based on the
island status criterion, to projects and initiatives with an
island-related element under Community programmes
and financial instruments such as:

(c)

population: Sardinia has 1 600 000 inhabitants while the
53 islands off the Irish coast together contain only 4 000.

— the Fifth RTD Framework Programme and its annual
work programmes, particularly for the CRAFT sub-
programme;

The Committee believes it essential and urges the

3.3.
Commission to:

— the SAVE energy efficiency programmes and the

Altener programme for alternative energy sources;

in terms of

— draw up a green paper, in consultation with economic
and social actors, mapping out a full-scale development
plan for Community island regions, starting by ident-
ifying,
the various Community policies
(transport and telecommunications, energy and the
environment, research and innovation, information and
training, education and culture, information society and
the new economy, health and sectoral policies in agri-
culture, fisheries, tourism etc.), mechanisms for joint
action by the various programmes. These mechanisms
could be implemented by setting up one-stop-shops for
EU islands with assistance directly from individual island
situations or groups of islands by means of an interactive
Internet platform, on the basis of their main character-
istics and needs, to integrate them into a technological-
innovative-training growth dynamic faster than that on
the mainland and progressively closing the existing gap;

— the new Interreg interregional cooperation pro-

gramme and the Leader programme;

— the MEDA Mediterranean cooperation programme

and the PHARE programme;

— the LIFE environmental programme;

— the forthcoming multiannual programme for SMEs;

— the Leonardo, Socrates and Raffaello education,

training and cultural programmes;

C 268/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

— the EIB and EIF financial intervention instruments;

— and, above all, present and future Community
programmes and initiatives for e-business, intangible
investments in the new economy and networks of
learning communities, together with arrangements
linking universities in remote regions to centres of
excellence and skill centres, and combating new
forms of social exclusion caused by computer
illiteracy.

The Committee would emphasise the urgency of
3.3.1.
such an integrated strategic framework for action as a means
of ensuring that economic and social cohesion takes root in
the island regions as well as on the mainland, and that they
can derive the full practical benefits of the process of European
integration.

4.

Proposals and recommendations

The Economic and Social Committee,

— whereas the need for the European Union to implement
an integrated policy for Community island regions,
designed to ensure effective economic and social cohesion
and equal opportunities for competition with all parts of
the European Union, counterbalancing the permanent
geographical, natural, economic, social and structural
handicaps affecting island regions,

— whereas the importance of the new Treaty of Amsterdam
with regard to the constitutional significance of the island
region status principle as set out in Article 158 — in
keeping with the oft-repeated views of the European
Parliament — which should be fully reflected in the
Community institutions’ political and legislative action,

— is convinced that benchmarking is essential for EU islands,
as part of a comparative study of competitive conditions

Brussels, 12 July 2000.

in the different island circumstances, with a view to
identifying the most appropriate levels for intervention
and islands’ coordination needs in order to ensure that
island regions enjoy equal opportunities in the single
market, thereby counterbalancing their in-built handi-
caps;

— stresses that the island status principle, as enshrined in
the Treaty, must be fully reflected in all Community
policies and instruments, as a factor in prioritising
actions, and believes that it should be included among
project selection criteria;

— considers coordination of island-related policy and action
to be crucial, together with intensified statistical data
gathering, monitoring of results and assessment of the
impact of Community measures on island circumstances.

Calls upon the Commission to:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

immediately launch an assessment and bench-
marking pilot action on EU island regions;

present a green paper outlining the strategic frame-
work for a EU island regions development plan, to
be incorporated into the European Spatial Develop-
ment perspective (ESDP) adopted at Potsdam;

follow this up with a white paper, containing an
action plan based on a timetable for integrated
measures for island regions, coordinated by a Com-
mission interdepartmental taskforce, also respon-
sible for managing the one-stop-shop for island
regions and the related interactive Internet platform;

associate the Economic and Social Committee to the
the integrated action plan for island
design of
regions;

submit a two-yearly report on the island regions of
the EU to the European Parliament, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions for an opinion.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/37

APPENDIX I

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Some features of the permanent structural problems of island regions

1.
The geographical area of the EU contains some 450 inhabited islands, accounting for 5 % of its land surface
and with a population of more than 14 million. Some are close to the mainland, while others are more remote and
widely scattered.

Island regions are parts of Member States entirely surrounded by the sea, without fixed link to the mainland:

2.
none of them is home to a Member State capital city (Eurostat definition).

From the administrative point of view, islands have different arrangements according to size and population.
3.
First, second and third level administrations are all present in some islands: others join together in small groups
around a larger island, together providing all levels of local government. Certain islands with first level government
belong to the second and third level administrative arrangements of mainland areas. Some particularly small islands
with minimal populations have no such administrative structure.

Islands are characterised by permanent disadvantages, which clearly distinguish them from mainland regions.

4.
These permanent disadvantages, with common characteristics although varying in intensity, include:

— isolation from the mainland;

— the higher cost of sea and air transport, communications and infrastructure on account of natural and climate-

related obstacles;

— restricted usable land area;

— limited fishery resources;

— restricted water supplies;

— restricted sources of energy;

— marine and coastal pollution;

— special difficulties in waste management;

— falling population, particularly of young people;

— coastal erosion;

— the shortage of a qualified workforce;

— the absence of a favourable economic climate for businesses;

— difficult access to education and health services.

Island economies also suffer from the small scale and seasonal nature of local markets. They often depend on a
5.
single economic sector (agriculture,
leaving them completely defenceless against market
fluctuations. Most island regions are particularly hard hit by a falling employment rate, which is not offset by
alternative job opportunities in other sectors. The result is a shift of the working population to other centres. The
steady decline in the working population entails a reduced demand for goods and services supplied by local
businesses, undermining the public and private sector economy. This cycle of decline weakens the economic and
social base of island regions, leading to depopulation.

tourism),

fisheries,

6.
This means that all island regions experience much greater difficulty in achieving a level of socio-economic
development comparable to the EU average or, when they have attained a reasonable level of prosperity, that they
have to strive much harder simply to maintain their existing level of development. In other words, while they are not
systematically the Community’s poorest regions, islands are nevertheless far more fragile and vulnerable, since their
natural and permanent constraints cumulate with, and tend to increase, the socio-economic problems which are
common to all regions.

C 268/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

7.
Islanders are proud of their origins and culture, and welcome visitors. Historical monuments and mediaeval
cities are preserved on numerous islands, and new archaeological finds are constantly unearthed. The history and
traditions linked with these monuments further enrich Europe’s historical fabric. Island living conditions are often
difficult for both inhabitants and visitors. Although island regions are varied, they must all face up to the problem of
their island status.

APPENDIX II

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

1) Third meeting to be held in the Autonomous Region of the Azores (Portugal) on Wednesday 15,

Thursday 16 and Friday 17 March 2000

At the Study Group meeting in the Azores and during the exchange of views which took place there between the
various interest groups, e.g. employers, employees, etc., it emerged that peripheral regions were coping well with
Article 299 and therefore agreed with the ESC Opinion on Article 158. They are calling for an additional instrument
to be made available, along with Article 158 for further developing island regions.

It is their opinion that the Commission and the Council of Ministers must set up a global programme and finally
issue a white paper, to take account of equal rights and equal opportunities in overcoming the structural disadvantages
associated with the island regions; these act as a constant brake on their economic and social development (as
recognized in Declaration No. 30 of the Amsterdam Treaty).

2) Fourth meeting to be held in Oban (Scotland) on Wednesday 12, Thursday 13 and Friday 14 April 2000

As part of the work carried out in preparing the Own Initiative Opinion, the Study Group visited two of the Islands
of the West of Scotland. The visit was hosted by the Argyll and Bute Council and Argyll and the Islands Enterprise
and both organisations gave evidence about Island life.

There are about 90 inhabited islands in the Highland and Islands Objective I area with a total population of 103 000.
Only three islands have a population of more than 15 000 people and two-thirds have fewer than 500.

During the visit the Study Group visited the Islands of Mull and Iona, took evidence from local Community Groups,
and held a hearing in Oban at which other Islands were represented and gave evidence.

The main issues of concern raised during the visit were Access and Transport, Infrastructure (roads, telecommuni-
cations), Education and Skills Training, De-population, Growing and Creating Businesses, Tourism, Agriculture and
Fishing.

3) XXth C.P.M.R. Islands Commission Meeting — KOS (Greece) — 11/12 May 2000

The Rapporteur attended the 20th meeting of the C.P.M.R. Islands Commission held in Kos. It is worth noting that
all participants expressed support for the work of the Committee on Island regions. The final declaration stated that
a white paper and a global programme at European level would help the islands to overcome their chronic problems
through an appropriate policy for the future and equal development opportunities.