51994AC0761(02)

Opinion on:

- the Future of Community Initiatives under the Structural Funds,

- the Community Initiative concerning Urban Areas (URBAN), and - the Community Initiative on the modernization of the textile and clothing industry of Portugal (94/C 295/19)

On 15, 16 and 22 March 1994, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the Future of Community Initiatives under the Structural Funds; the Community Initiative concerning Urban Areas (URBAN); the Community Initiative on the modernization of the textile and clothing industry of Portugal.

On 20 December 1993, the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee instructed the Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning to prepare the Opinion.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning adopted its Opinion on 24 May 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Christie.

At its 316th Plenary Session (meeting of 2 June 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. In September 1993 this Committee adopted an Opinion (CES 771/93) on the Commission Communication entitled 'The Future of Community Initiatives under the Structural Funds` [COM(93) 282 final] in which strong support was expressed for the continuation of the concept of Community Initiatives. At the same time, the Committee endorsed the Commission proposal that the system of Community Initiatives be rationalized, both by discontinuing some Initiatives, and regrouping others - augmented where necessary by new initiatives - around five general themes, namely:

- cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation and networks;

- rural development;

- outermost regions;

- employment and the development of human resources;

- the management of industrial change.

1.2. In response to representations, the Commission has decided to add two further initiatives, to cover:

- urban areas;

- fisheries.

1.3. Finally, the Commission will introduce an initiative benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) under the Industrial Change heading.

1.4. In presenting this package of own-initiative measures, the Commission is steering a middle course between continuity and change. Several of the proposed initiatives are a continuation of the existing programmes. INTERREG will continue, and will incorporate the REGEN initiative, extended until the projects initially agreed upon have been completed. The LEADER initiative will continue, and LEADER II will attract a significant increase in funding over its predecessor. Similarly, the Commission will continue with Community Initiatives that address the problems of regions hit by the decline of the traditional industries - RECHAR, RESIDER, KONVER, RETEX - thereby building upon the contribution to industrial adjustment made by these programmes during the first phase of Community Initiatives.

1.5. This Committee has expressed its support for these programmes in the past, and reiterates it here.

1.6. In addition, the Community Initiatives will continue to address the range of complex labour market and industrial adjustment issues that confront the European Union. Individual initiatives under the employment heading will continue to promote the cause of disadvantaged groups in labour markets, including youth and the long-term unemployed. Further, a new initiative - ADAPT - will promote the adaptation of the labour force in the context of industrial change and will be linked to the new Objective 4 of the Structural Funds.

1.7. The Committee applauds the efforts of the Commission in devising initiatives which are innovative and which address complex and deep-seated problems of labour market and industrial flexibility. Such policies will contribute to improving competitiveness in the Union as a whole. At a time when the level of unemployment across the European Union is officially recorded as 11.6 %, representing in excess of 19 million citizens, it is wholly appropriate that new Community Initiatives be implemented which have the maintenance or creation of employment as their primary objective. As this Committee has noted in the past, the strength of Community Initiatives lies in their ability to respond speedily to emerging problems and in their capacity for establishing best practice mechanisms in the delivery of the appropriate public policy response. It remains vital that these initiatives continue to reflect a 'bottom-up` approach by ensuring the involvement of all relevant agencies - in particular the economic and social partners.

1.8. However, the Committee would stress that the application of Community Initiatives alone can only make a limited contribution to countering joblessness across the EU. The distinctive capability of Community Initiatives is that they pioneer innovative and exploratory policies the lessons from which can be applied generally in the EU. Consequently, it is essential that those Community Initiatives which are demonstrably successful are adopted and incorporated within a systematic framework of measures and extended beyond the Community Initiative programme. Ultimate responsibility for providing sufficient funding for strengthening successful programmes rests with individual Member States. The Committee urges that the relevant agencies within Member States, including local economic and social partners, in conjunction with the Commission, continue to monitor Community Initiatives and extend those programmes which are helping to reduce unemployment.

1.9. Community initiatives are only one amongst a number of EU programmes aimed at enhancing competitiveness and promoting growth and employment opportunities. Throughout 1993, in the wake of the European Growth initiative launched at the European Council in December 1992, a range of policy instruments has been devised to enhance employment, growth and competitiveness in the EU. The White Paper presented in December 1993 takes this process much further. The success of the many measures now aimed at improving employment and competitiveness, among which are certain Community Initiatives, will depend partly on the extent to which these measures are coordinated. The Committee urges the Commission in conjunction with Member States to consider what measures are necessary to ensure that the requisite degree of coordination is achieved.

2. General Comments

2.1. The financial provision for Community Initiatives amounts to ECU 13.45 billion over the period 1994-99. The financial perspective indicates that 62 % of the total funding will be allocated to Objective 1 regions. The decision to add two further themes to the five already proposed - Urban Policy and Fisheries - along with the inclusion of Community Initiatives to cover SMEs and the Portuguese textiles industry, means that the unallocated reserve now stands at ECU 1.6 billion, just under 12 % of the total. The Committee considers this to be an inadequate contingency reserve and is well below the 25 % contingency reserve originally proposed. Experience has demonstrated that unforeseen shocks to certain key sectors is a feature of contemporary economies and, within the financial perspective presented here, the Commission has very little ability to respond to such eventualities.

2.1.1. Although the Committee considers that the reserve as proposed is inadequate, it is essential that whatever reserve is available is not allocated to specific programmes at present, but remains available to the Commission to respond to unforseen events.

2.2. Notwithstanding the Committee`s support for the case set out for the proposed new Community initiatives, the Committee is concerned that the introduction of new programmes dealing with new areas, and the expansion of some of the existing programmes, might reduce the already meagre level of funding available for Initiatives in such a way that the critical financial mass necessary for the success of the various measures can no longer be achieved. This raises once more the question of the adequacy of the financial provision assigned to the Community initiative programme as a whole.

2.3. The Committee regrets that the Commission has, to date, been unable to provide the results of evaluation and appraisal exercises concerning the first phase of the Community Initiatives. Because many Initiatives are, by their nature, exploratory and innovative, it is essential that evaluations are available when necessary. The Committee considers that during the next phase of the Community Initiatives the Commission should provide regular assessments of the impact of the Initiatives. To assist in this, the Committee recommends that specific targets are established for each Community Initiative, where practicable, and that these targets are used as criteria - amongst others -for measuring the impact of the Community Initiative over time.

If on the basis of an evaluation, a Community initiative does not achieve the agreed objectives then it should be modified as appropriate or, if this is not possible, it should be discontinued.

2.4. The Commission has gone some way in rationalizing the programme of Community Initiatives by combining specific programmes under broader headings. Although the proposals will result in an increase, rather than a decrease, in the number of Community Initiatives under the next phase, these will now be focused on specific objectives. Not only should this improve the effectiveness of the programmes, it will make the process of monitoring and appraisal easier.

2.4.1. The Committee is concerned that by extending the geographical eligibility of certain of the initiatives beyond the areas normally eligible for assistance under the Structural Funds, the Commission proposals are compromising the unique contribution the Community Initiatives are able to make to promoting cohesion.

2.5. The Committee has stressed the importance of involving the economic and social partners in the implementation of Community Initiatives in accordance with the provisions laid down in the regulations governing the Structural Policies. Despite this, it remains the case that generally the economic and social partners are not involved in the process. The Committee urges the Commission to come forward with specific proposals that would ensure the involvement of the economic and social partners - for example, by providing technical assistance to the social partners. The cost of not involving the social partners is likely to increase as the Community Initiatives focus increasingly on employment and competitiveness issues.

2.6. The Committee is concerned about the shortage of time available after finalization of consultation on the present proposals for Community Initiatives for the preparation and approval of proposals in order that the first commitments may be made in 1994.

2.7. The Committee wishes, moreover, a modification of the procedures regarding the Community Initiatives within the framework of the structural funds, in order to make them simpler and more efficient.

3. Specific Comments

3.1. INTERREG II combines INTERREG I with the REGEN programme. Under the revised regulations, all internal and external terrestrial land borders are eligible for support. The Committee reiterates that as the primary aim of Community Initiatives is to strengthen economic and social cohesion, assistance under INTERREG II should be focused predominantly on areas normally eligible for assistance under the Structural Funds. Under the new proposals there is a risk that resources will be spread too thinly to make the desired impact on eligible areas.

3.1.1. The Committee is disappointed that the Commission has not accepted its recommendation that the INTERREG programme should also include inter-regional and transnational cooperation outside the border zones. There are considerable advantages associated with transnational cooperation, particularly between regions with similar productive structures, including cooperation with regions in neighbouring non-Member States (including Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries). The Committee does not consider that the present regulations offer sufficient scope for transnational cooperation on the scale necessary or between those regions which stand to gain most from such cooperation. The Committee would recommend that actions pertaining to transnational cooperation be brought within the framework of INTERREG.

3.1.2. The Committee welcomes the extension of eligible measures within the INTERREG II programme - education, health, media services, language training, spatial planning in border areas and measures complimentary to Trans-European Networks to enable border regions to benefit more fully from them. In each case this will increase the potential for self-sustaining economic development. This will be particularly true provided the participation of all local and regional agencies (public sector, private sector and the social partners) in devising and implementing policies and follow-up evaluations within a framework of partnership is assured.

3.1.3. The Committee regrets that the Commission has reinforced the exceptional nature of internal maritime border areas being eligible for assistance under INTERREG, although it welcomes the decision to include two new internal maritime border areas as eligible. The Committee is, however, concerned that where an internal maritime border is specially selected for INTERREG support, adequate steps are taken to ensure that this support does not undermine the relative competitive position of an adjacent region of the Union which is eligible for structural fund assistance under Objective 1, but which is excluded from the INTERREG programme. Moreover, in those cases where internal maritime borders have been deemed eligible for support under INTERREG, the Committee recommends that the Commission should ensure - as far as is practicable - that the benefits from INTERREG are evenly distributed throughout the area in question.

3.1.4. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal that two additional external maritime borders are to be covered by INTERREG II. However, no explanation is offered concerning the criteria used to decide the eligibility in such cases. The Commission should explain why other borders such as Sicily-Tunisia have not been selected.

3.1.5. The Committee agrees that in order to provide more flexibility, consideration should be given as to whether it would be more appropriate to allocate INTERREG assistance at NUTS II level. At all event, the Committee supports retaining a degree of flexibility within the INTERREG II programme to enable assistance to be available to non-border areas where this is necessary to ensure that border areas benefit from the programme.

3.1.6. The Committee notes that INTERREG II provides for completion of the energy networks started under the REGEN programme, but that there is no provision for new projects of this type to be started under INTERREG II. The Committee found no information to explain the proposal to bring to an end the REGEN initiative.

3.2. The LEADER I programme is being succeeded by LEADER II to which some ECU 1.4 billion has been allocated, of which ECU 900 million will be allocated to Objective 1 regions. The Committee welcomes the continuation of this programme. Rural areas within the EU will confront major challenges in the future and their prosperity will depend in large part on their ability to diversity into non-traditional activities.

The great strengths of the LEADER programme have been its flexibility and its emphasis on a bottom-up approach. It is vital that these elements are enhanced under LEADER II. In order to encourage the involvement of local community groups the Committee would welcome a greater degree of flexibility with respect to the administrative contributions that such groups have to make.

3.2.1. The Committee fully endorses the Commission position that greater responsibility for rural economic development strategies is to be transferred to local agencies as only local agencies have the necessary information concerning local conditions. It therefore welcomes the modified implementation procedures as proposed, which give a greater role to local participants - in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity - for devising and implementing programmes within a decentralized partnership incorporating all relevant local actors.

3.2.2. The criteria surrounding eligibility for assistance under LEADER II are broadly correct - namely, acquiring the skills needed to initiate an integrated local economic development strategy; increased emphasis on measures that are broadly innovative, that can serve as models, and that may be appropriate to other regions; measures that involve transnational cooperation; measures that promote networking between rural areas across the EU.

3.3. The REGIS programme aimed at assisting economic development in the Union`s outermost regions - the French overseas departments, Canary Islands, Azores and Madeira will continue with the funding for REGIS II being ECU 600 million. The Committee welcomes the continuation of this initiative. The Committee notes that the scope of REGIS II has been widened so that Poseidom, Poseican, Poseima measures eligible for Structural Fund support can be continued and so that measures financed under other initiatives such as Stride, Telematique and Prisma can be financed under REGIS, and that this should improve the efficiency of delivery of these programmes.

3.3.1. While not disputing the legitimacy of the REGIS programme, and the special needs of the presently eligible areas, the Committee regrets that the definition of ultra-peripherality has not been revised to render eligible for support the highly peripheral areas of the European Union within continental Europe. Peripherality has an important economic as well as geographical dimension, and many of the remoter areas within continental Europe are just as handicapped in economic terms as the far distant regions which presently qualify under the REGIS programme.

3.4. The Community Initiatives dealing with employment and the development of human resources are developed through three strands, two of which represent a revision to current initiatives and one being a new programme. The development of an integrated and more focused approach to addressing specific labour-market problems - encouraging flexibility, employment for disadvantaged groups, investing in human capital - has consistently found support in this Committee and the Commission proposals are, therefore, to be welcomed. The proposal to introduce an initiative specifically targeted at youth unemployment - YOUTHSTART - is particularly welcome.

3.4.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal to extend the NOW and HORIZON programmes. The problems of the socially excluded and disadvantaged groups in society remain acute. Community Initiatives offer a particularly appropriate means of addressing these issues, as long as social integration and rehabilitation measures are taken into account in the process. The Committee would stress that in no way should the extension of the NOW and HORIZON programmes compromise the access to assistance that the relevant groups also enjoy under the wider provisions applying to the Social Fund. The Committee trusts that charitable organizations and foundations will be involved in developing and implementing such programmes.

3.4.2. The Commission emphasizes four features which will characterize the employment and development of human-resources initiative - transnationality, innovation, a 'bottom-up` approach, and actions which reinforce Union policies and programmes. The Committee supports the Commission`s emphasis. In particular, the Community initiative should be distinct from national employment creation measures in the twelve Member States and should, as far as possible, continue to uncover novel solutions and approaches that are of general benefit across the Union. Once again it is worth emphasising that the full benefits of Community Initiatives can only be exploited if responsible national authorities are willing to extend and finance successful initiatives.

3.4.3. As this represents an integrated programme, considerable effort has to be given to ensuring coordination between the relevant sections within the Commission and between the Commission and the twelve Member States. Consequently, the proposal that action should be overseen by a single monitoring committee within each Member State is welcomed. Beyond this the Commission should provide detailed information about mechanisms whereby the desired cross-fertilization of ideas and transfer of experiences can be facilitated.

3.5. A key feature of the Commission`s proposals is the introduction of an integrated set of measures concerning industrial change. The Committee endorses the prioritization of this general aim.

3.5.1. The introduction of an initiative (ADAPT) directed at assisting workers and firms adapt to changing conditions governing competitiveness is particularly important at this time, as recognized in the reformed Objective 4 of the Structural Funds. Further, Community Initiatives are an appropriate medium through which to develop novel responses, and the Committee would stress that in this initiative the full involvement of the social partners is absolutely central to the success of the venture. Adapting to industrial change with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of firms requires the active participation of both sides of industry as well as specialist outside agencies. Consequently, modalities should be identified which facilitate maximum participation by the social partners in the design and implementation of individual programmes under the ADAPT initiative, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

3.5.2. The extension of the RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX and KONVER initiatives is welcomed. These initiatives are specifically targeted at the regions directly affected by industrial transformation. The Committee notes that these initiatives are set to be reviewed by 1997. This Committee suggests that careful monitoring of the circumstances surrounding the affected industries continues as a number of factors - for example the GATT agreement - may herald a further period of adjustment that will continue beyond that date.

3.5.3. The proposal to introduce a specific initiative for assisting the development of SMEs represents an attempt to gather together a number of strands which existed under previous initiatives. This is welcomed and is in accordance with observations made by the Committee in previous Opinions. The Committee notes that assistance will be concentrated on SMEs located within Objective 1 regions (80 % of the total), and that a wide range of measures will be eligible under this initiative and welcomes the flexibility inherent in this approach. However, such is the range of measures that assessing the viability of proposals brought forward, as well as appraising the effectiveness of the SME initiative as a whole, will be extremely difficult.

3.5.3.1. The Committee recognizes that the central thrust of Commission action with respect to SMEs is to provide help to established firms to enable them to improve their competitiveness within the international market-place. This Committee considers this to be the correct direction for policy. However, SMEs are assisted in various ways by other aspects of Commission policy, particularly policies from DG XXIII. Here again coordination between the relevant programmes is essential and modalities to ensure this should be devised as a priority of the next phase of Community initiatives.

3.6. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposals for introducing a Community Initiative addressing the problems of the urban areas. It is in those areas that some of the most severe problems associated with unemployment, social exclusion and poverty are to be found. Consequently, it is in those areas that innovative action is urgently required. Moreover, assisting urban neighbourhoods offers considerable scope for innovative measures which have an transnational character. Once again, however, the Committee urges that this aspect of Community action is coordinated with the existing range of Community and national measures to ensure maximum impact.

3.6.1. The Committee would urge that attention be given to the risk of urban aid encouraging population migration to urban centres, thereby worsening the initial problems. Further, economic and social cohesion requires that policies be centred on regions rather than cities and urban areas. While accepting that there is a case for urban assistance within the framework of the Structural Funds, such assistance as is provided should be targeted principally at centres within Objective 1 or Objective 2 regions and then only where such assistance can be shown to contribute to promoting cohesion.

3.7. The Committee acknowledges that the fishing sector faces a significant and deepening crisis, and that regions dependent upon fishing for their economic viability will be adversely affected by this crisis. Whilst welcoming the PESCA initiative, the Committee considers that the resources available will be insufficient to meet the problems these regions will confront. It is important that the PESCA initiative identifies possible measures to assist these regions, but it will be necessary for both the Commission and national authorities to increase the resources available to the appropriate measures as the adjustment foreseen under the Common Fisheries Policy unfolds.

3.8. The Committee recognizes the importance of introducing a Community Initiative on the modernization of the textile and clothing industry of Portugal, and supports the proposed initiative. It is particularly interesting in that the objective is to modernize an existing industry as well as to encourage diversification into other forms of economic activity. It might be that the lessons learned from the Portuguese situation could be applied more generally to other sectors with the objective of assisting their modernization as well. The Committee believes it to be essential that the proposed guidelines relating to this initiative are applied rigorously.

3.8.1. The Committee notes that a condition for granting Community assistance under this initiative is that undertakings will have to prove that they comply with national legislation on working conditions. The Committee proposes that the scope of this condition is extended to cover national agreements between both sides of industry. This will ensure that the position of the economic and social partners in the implementation of this Initiative is secured.

3.9. The Committee reiterates its request, which it has made on many occasions, for a Community Initiative programme regarding mountain areas. The problems that these areas face are different from those of the rural areas, for reasons already expressed by the Committee in previous opinions (1).

3.10. The Committee supports the proposal that Community Initiatives should, where appropriate, be managed within the framework of the CSFs, although recognizes that this will not be appropriate in all cases. This will ensure that these programmes are consistent with other aspects of structural policies. However it is particularly important to ensure that the essentially innovative character of the Community Initiatives is maintained. The Committee would urge the Commission to periodically assess the contribution that the various initiatives are making to the declared objective. This could be done by periodic reports in each of the seven general headings under which the initiatives are gathered. While there is widespread agreement that many of the initiatives in the previous phase contributed significantly to their declared objectives, the absence of precise evaluation not only made the task of appraising the initiatives more difficult, it bolstered the position of those wishing to abandon the principle of Community Initiatives.

Done at Brussels, 2 June 1994.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

(1) 'A Policy for Upland Areas` OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988.

'Amendment of the Structural Fund Regulations` OJ No C 201, 26. 7. 1993.

'The Future of Community Initiatives under the Structural Funds` OJ No C 304, 10. 11. 1993.

'Reform of Structural Funds` OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988.