Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "PRISM — Regional initiatives (Single Market Observatory)"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, economic and social cohesion, economic survey, single market

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘PRISM — Regional initiatives (Single Market
Observatory)’

(2001/C 116/01)

On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23 (3) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘PRISM — Regional initiatives (Single Market Observatory)’.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 September 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Pezzini.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 97 votes to one, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In 1999, the Economic and Social Committee’s Single
Market Observatory embarked on a European survey, known
as ‘PRISM’ (Progress Report ‘Initiatives in the single market’),
of the practical measures introduced by both national and
local authorities and socio-economic interest groups to adjust
to the new challenges of the single market (e.g. introduction
of the euro, sharper competition, new areas of cooperation,
and obstacles to information and cooperation).

— on the basis of the above,

list the EU political and
regulatory measures needed to encourage, back up and
develop those initiatives;

— ensure an original and practical ESC contribution to the
debate on the single market and the Internet: this will be
the ESC’s own specific initiative;

— in this way, consolidate the ESC’s role as mediator
between the socio-economic players and the EC insti-
tutions.

1.2.

The aims which the Observatory set for PRISM are to:

1.3.
In the view of the ESC Observatory, the measures
under consideration, which directly concern adjustment to the
European single market, fit into four categories:

— foster an innovatory, bottom-up approach to the single
market to supplement the traditional Brussels ‘top-down’
approach;

A.

Information and support

— promote and publicise best practice ‘in the field’;

net, training, media)

— effective user information (publications, symposia, Inter-

C 116/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

— targeted assessment of the situation vis-à-vis the single

market (studies, opinion polls, media).

B.

Problem-solving processes

— mediation to cope with obstacles and problems experi-
enced (approaches at national, transnational, European
levels; direct negotiation of solutions to specific prob-
lems).

C.

Partnership

2.5.
The PRISM programme will have examined at least
one region in every Member State (15-18) by the end of 2001,
as part of the Single Market Observatory’s general programme.
Steps should therefore be taken to draw up a work plan
focusing on a limited number of priority areas, with a view to
ensuring that the data collected are homogeneous and easily
comparable.

2.6.
A primary distinction must be drawn in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity in order to avoid examining
questions that are addressed at supra-regional level. On this
point, it would be useful to compare notes with the Committee
of the Regions.

— European partnerships to facilitate openness (twinning,

exchanges, cooperation, agreements, mergers)

2.7.
The choice of sample regions should be based not so
much on economic differences as on similarities, to facilitate
comparison of responses to similar problems.

— pooling of resources to sharpen competitive edge (centres,

sponsorships, SME clubs, linguistic back-up).

To further simplify the comparison, the four categories

2.8.
under point 1.3 should be applied to four priority areas:

D. Agreements and codes of conduct

— streamlining of administrative procedures
centres, mutual recognition, codes of conduct)

(one-stop

— agriculture;

— industry;

— environment; and

— enhancement of image to cope with competition (qualifi-
cations, certification, designation of origin, labels, dip-
lomas, charters).

— use of the Structural Funds.

Specific questions should be asked on the following

2.9.
points:

2. Approach to the work programme

The ‘Europe of the Regions’ concept highlights both
2.1.
the environmental and cultural diversity of the geographical
mosaic making up the European Union and the need for ever
greater cooperation.

— single currency publicity campaigns;

— employment promotion programmes; and

— competitiveness.

The rich array of traditions and social systems is
2.2.
extremely valuable but
to
establishing the single market or furthering European inte-
gration.

it does not always lend itself

2.10.
The appended questionnaire was put together on
the basis of the above considerations, and the following
observations were made in the light of the oral evidence and
replies received.

Some regions are already trying to find solutions, while
2.3.
others are leaving the problems to be addressed at national or
EU level.

3. General comments

The aim of this opinion is to identify best practice and

2.4.
determine the scope for disseminating it to other regions.

Not surprisingly, the responses to the questionnaire

3.1.
raised more criticisms than positive feedback.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/3

3.2.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that all those
concerned were working from the premise that, inconsistencies
and contradictions apart, regional initiatives adhere to two
fundamental principles: Community aid stimulates action, and
programme results are significant in bringing regions closer
together.

3.8.
In spite of the efforts made, the economic operators
and the European public alike are dissatisfied with the inad-
equate volume and regularity of information, resulting from
language and culture barriers, insufficient dissemination chan-
nels, and difficulties with bureaucratic jargon.

It is therefore certain that measures designed to boost

3.3.
cohesion have reduced regional disparities.

3.4.

The criticisms related mainly to:

— competition;

— EU enlargement;

— information;

— cooperation and partnership;

— decentralised management;

— the transparency of checks and inspections; and

— the value added of programmes.

Problems relating to competition persist owing largely
3.5.
to differences and shortcomings in the transposition of
European legislation into national law. Economic operators
need to enjoy fair competition conditions regardless of where
they do business.

3.6.
If major imbalances remain there will be a price to pay,
as the development gap between the Member States will grow,
to the detriment of the economic and social cohesion of the
EU.

There is therefore an urgent need for tighter rules, in
3.7.
order to reconcile development trends with a guarantee of
cohesion, especially in the light of the forthcoming enlarge-
ment of the EU.

3.7.1. While the political and social importance of enlarge-
ment is undeniable,
initially increase disparities in
development between regions and widen the gap between the
richer and poorer areas, though it is as yet impossible to tell to
what extent.

it will

3.9.
The vast majority of respondents were satisfied with
the instruments for partnership and consequent cooperation,
but they highlighted implementation problems arising from
conflicting interests, sometimes of a private nature, or fierce
opposition to the objectives of certain projects.

On a more positive note, all those who applied
3.10.
decentralised management, though in fact they are only a
minority, were appreciative of the benefits of less red tape,
simpler procedures, faster access to financing and more regular
controls.

3.10.1.
This was not the feeling however of the majority of
operators, still working under highly centralised rules and
indefinitely
procedures
obstruct programme implementation; the most serious com-
plaint concerned the lack of transparency in the results of
checks and inspections.

slow down and sometimes

that

3.11.
Lastly, the question of the value added of the pro-
grammes was a sensitive and complex one as it required
comparisons to be drawn and value judgements to be made.

3.11.1.
As the objectives of the PRISM project are clearly
stated, the replies can be studied in terms of programme design
mistakes to avoid:

— individual

initiatives not coordinated within a larger

framework;

— non-market cost-benefit ratio;

— scattered distribution of resources;

— little or no innovative content.

4.

Specific comments

The preaccession measures provided for under Agen-
3.7.2.
da 2000 will have to be stepped up in order to alleviate and
moderate this impact.

These comments relate specifically to the individual

4.1.
questions on the questionnaire.

C 116/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

4.2.

Impact of the single market

Most of the replies suggested that the best results were to be
seen in the economy and that the impact in social, administrat-
ive and cultural terms was as yet unclear but would be revealed
in the longer term.

4.3. Free movement

Difficulties were encountered primarily with the free move-
ment of persons and secondarily with capital; there did not
appear to be any particular problems with goods and services.

4.7.1.
Owing to their obvious general interest, a few large
scale projects have broad access to press and television and
sometimes have their own channels and media; the same is
not true for the others, however, with detrimental effects for
the economic operators, who cannot draw the full benefit
from market opportunities, for the users, who lack practical
information, and for image enhancement
in the face of
competition.

4.7.2.
Furthermore, note should be taken of a worrying
phenomenon mentioned by almost all the respondents: the
general lack of information on the euro, just over a year from
its launch.

4.4. Right of establishment

5. Conclusions

The cases referred to were few and far between and the only
difficulties noted were of an administrative nature.

4.5. Recognition of qualifications

The vast majority complained of serious difficulties in the
to low-skilled
the qualifications of semi-
recognition of
workers.

4.6. Structural Funds

There is a basic contradiction in this area in that programmes
offering financial assistance, especially when they relate to
infrastructural work, are considered more attractive, whereas
very little use is made of programmes that offer support
for training, coordination and basic services to benefit the
community, which should be of more interest to SMEs in
particular.

5.1.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that PRISM is
an ongoing programme that involves periodic surveys and
related hearings, and that the points made in this opinion are
the fruit of two hearings: a general one held in Brussels on
13 July 1999 and a more specialist one held in Lisbon on
24 February 2000.

The work done seems to suggest that the only definitive
5.2.
conclusion that can be drawn is that a list should be made of
the themes on which the Single Market Observatory should
conduct in-depth studies, with a view to making recommen-
dations and practical proposals to the European, national and
regional institutions.

The following list

5.3.
extended should the ESC consider it necessary:

is not exhaustive and may be

— access to and dissemination of information;

— updating of the competition rules;

— management decentralisation;

4.7.

Information media and channels

— standard criteria for identifying best practice.

With the exception of the earlier question on information
regarding access, the overall picture of information dissemi-
nation is depressing.

5.4.
In the light of the importance of PRISM’s first findings,
the project should be stepped up in order to keep pace with
developments in the single market.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/5

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

1. Questionnaire

1.1. What impact has the European single market had on the development of your region

— economically?

— socially?

— administratively?

— culturally?

1.2. What are the obstacles facing the social and economic operators in your region in terms of:

— the free movement of persons?

— the free movement of goods?

— the free movement of services?

— the free movement of capital?

1.3.

Are there obstacles to free competition?

1.4.

Is the right of establishment respected?

1.5.

Is the principle of the recognition of qualifications applied?

Have the resources available from the Structural Funds contributed to the completion of the single market in

1.6.
your region?

Please mention one or more measures taken in your region to take advantage of the opportunities offered by

1.7.
the single market, for instance:

— practical information for users (publications, symposia, training courses);

— targeted assessment of the situation vis-à-vis the single market (studies, opinion polls);

— European partnerships to facilitate exchanges (twinning, cooperation, agreements, mergers);

— enhancement of image to cope with competition (qualifications, certification, designation of origin, labels,

diplomas);

C 116/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

— pooling of resources to sharpen competitive edge (centres, sponsorships, SME clubs, linguistic back-up, research

projects, links with business nurseries);

— dedicated infrastructure for cooperation and exchange;

— institutional, technical and financial support for specific measures to encourage the region to open up to

Europe.

1.8.

Can you specify measures to remove obstacles to free trade, with regard to SMEs for instance:

— streamlining of administrative procedures (one-stop centres, mutual recognition, codes of conduct);

— credit facilities;

— fiscal measures;

— mediation to cope with obstacles and problems experienced (at national, transnational and European levels,

direct negotiation).

Taking account of your regional experience, what measures would you recommend be included in

1.9.
Community-level initiatives, e.g.:

— promotion of employment and mobility (training, qualification, closer approximation of social legislation);

— information on the euro;

— removal of administrative and tax barriers;

— competition between regions in the areas of social costs, taxation and public investment aid.

1.10. Would you be prepared to transfer your experience and initiatives to other European regions?