16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/13
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision introducing a supplementary Community measure for
the eradication of brucellosis, tuberculosis and leukosis in cattle (*)
(87/C 68/08)
On 10 November 1986 the Council, acting in accordance with the provisions of Articles 43 and 19 8 of
the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, asked the Economic and Social
Committee for an opinion on the abovementioned proposal.
The Committee appointed Mr Storie-Pugh as rapporteur-general and instructed him to prepare its
work on the matter.
On 16 December-1986 during its 242nd plenary session held on 16 and 17 December, the Committee
adopted the following opinion with no dissenting votes and 3 abstentions.
The Committee approves the draft Decision.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1986.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT
(>) OJ No C 292, 18. 11. 1986, p. 2.
Opinion on local employment initiatives
(87/C 68/09)
On 19 December 1985 the Economic and Social Committee, acting on the fourth paragraph of Article
20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on local employment initiatives.
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 13 November 1986 in the light of the report by Mr Roycroft and
Mr Roseingrave.
At its 242nd plenary session (meeting of 17 December 1986), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 108 votes to 6, with 23 abstentions:
1. General comments remains difficult to assess, as does the measurement of
economic activity generated.
1.1. The Committee notes that the widespread increase in
local employment initiatives (LEIs) in recent years must be
seen in the context of the parallel unemployment crisis which
has developed in Europe during the same period. The net
'job-creativeness' of LEIs and their impact on local labour
market conditions are therefore clearly of primary
importance. Yet the total number and quality of jobs created
1.1.1. On the one hand, the projects summarized in the
report, and the fact that many LEIs tend to develop in areas
where, apparently, the 'optimal business mix' is lacking,
would indicate that LEIs can:
— 'create' new local jobs;
— 'save' local jobs;
No C 68/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 3. 87
— induce a community or cooperative commitment to
developing further local job initiatives;
— open up new and existing markets for goods and services,
including social and recreational services;
— provide initial or transitional training experience for local
young people;
— grow from a local sense of solidarity;
1.1.2. On the other hand, there is insufficient aggregate
quantification of:
— the job displacement factor (undermining the market and
jobs elsewhere);
— the job substitution factor (steady jobs replaced by
sub-contractual work);
— the grey area in which some (e.g. certain 'alternative')
projects operate and the macro-economic effects of
this on official revenue and expenditure on
employment-creation policy as a whole;
— the large number of employees or 'contributors' in
'alternative' projects who were or who are regularly
employed in the first place, but seek a different
socio-cultural outlet.
1.2. The Committee has repeatedly referred to the-need
for social cohesion and solidarity as essential elements for
employment growth (J).
1.2.1. It can be seen in this respect that LEIs and
community-based prime-mover groups can indeed help to:
— stimulate initiative and commitment at local level;
— transform distressed communities into 'opportunity'
areas;
— -stabilize, involve and integrate disadvantaged or
marginal groups in the local community;
— improve and promote local public facilities, services,
products and the environment.
1.2.2. However, an unbalanced or indiscriminate
approach to such LEI development has risks and might
help to:
— remove or reduce social initiatives at other levels or in
public spheres of responsibility;
(') See for example ESC opinions on social developments in the
Community in 1983 and 1984 (OJ No C 307, 19. 11. 1984;
O J N o C 2 1 8 , 2 9 . 8. 1985).
— induce an over-optimistic and over-committed attitude
among some vulnerable and motivated individuals,
eventually at their own personal expense;
— build up an enclosed 'commune' or isolated approach
among marginal groups;
— conceal dangerous or even areas of activity bordering on
the criminal among problem groups.
1.3. The multiplicity and confusion of legal forms, or
sometimes semi-legal forms, with which LEIs have developed
in the European Community is indicative of their indigenous
and often precarious nature.
1.3.1. Inhibiting factors in this connection include:
— the absence in some Member States of a clearly defined
and sufficiently broadly based flexible legal framework
conducive to the promotion of varying forms of LEIs;
— specific legal difficulties in some Member States for
new groups of self-employed persons who are not
professionally qualified or recognized;
— difficulties in other Member States where persons
wishing to form a worker cooperative are either not
legally catered for or are classified as being self-employed
and therefore excluded from unemployment and sickness
insurance cover;
— unfavourable legislation on the size and structure of
worker cooperatives, or on fiscal and subcontracting
incentives;
— difficulties for workers' takeovers of bankrupt
enterprises, insolvency practice often not involving the
employees concerned and usually dominated by the legal
issue of how to mediate between debtor and creditors
rather than how to rehabilitate the firm in a new
form;
— over-rigid bankruptcy regulations;
— particular legal problems for 'alternative' projects in that
their non-ownership, 'neutralized capital' structure,
often accompanied by variable 'social' incomes and a
'communal' social protection system, raises difficulties in
terms of recognition, registration and liability.
— national or local political climates which are not at times
conducive to creating the partnership essential to starting
up new enterprises;
— the over-centralized bureaucratic demands.
16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/15
1.4. It is recognized that there are many different
approachaes to establishing LEIs. LEIs moreover are
sometimes considered as a more motivating form of
employment than 'traditional', mass-corporate, models in
both the private and public sectors.
1.4.1. Whilst registering that motivation, creativeness
and job satisfaction-performance in general can be achieved
in such conventional undertakings, it is equally worth
emphasizing that:
— LEIs can bring out the creative and entrepreneurial
talents of individuals;
— LEIs can give persons involved a certain stimulating sense
of local .identity and of being of service to the local
community;
— LEIs can promote a motivating sense of solidarity and
joint effort in place of the sometimes alienating or
semi-conflictual worker/management practices under
'traditional' forms of ownership;
— LEIs can provide a non-profit oriented, enterprising and
productive form of self-expression and can perhaps
'retrieve' some persons living on the margins of society
from becorning completely alienated and from falling
into a completely clandestine form of activity;
— LEIs can usefully combine professional and managerial
training with sheltered market conditions.
1.4.2. There are also inherent risks and dangers, and
these include:
— the fact that some LEIs provide lower standards of pay,
working conditions (particularly in the case of young
persons), insurance cover and job security, and that their
lifespan sometimes appears to be short;
— the general absence of, and at times antipathy towards,
formal trade union structures and representation within
LEIs, and the danger of earnings and working conditions
thereby being downgraded still further;
— the high degree of 'self-exploitation' in 'alternative'
undertakings and the possible danger of accentuating the
'black economy';
— the risk of training standards not being properly
monitored or recognized after a period of employment in
an LEI.
It is also necessary to point out that:
— some unemployed persons look to LEIs simply in order to
get a job, irrespective of other potential motivating
factors or risks possibly connected;
— at the same time not all unemployed persons have the
necessary aptitude, skills, motivation or desire to try to
become 'new' entrepreneurs or cooperators;
— not everyone in such a position, especially those with
immediate family obligations and responsibilities, feels
free to risk short-term or dwindling personal financial
resources or 'collateral' in order to experiment in LEI
activity;
— some persons prefer to work in larger, perhaps less
vulnerable, private and public undertakings.
1.5. Start-up aid and finance facilities for potential LEI
promotion now available in the Member States, include:
— enterprise allowance grants and loans;
— 'hand-holding' advice agencies providing support
structures and financial and managerial assistance in
order to help LEIs move confidently towards viable forms
of self-sustaining employment;
— business and banking promotion of local enterprise
agencies, together with loans, secondees and advice
facilities for LEI start-ups in collaboration with local
authorities;
— much more use of the financial and marketing facilities
and resources of the private sector;
— trade union advice, funding and training facilities;
— cooperative based or credit union based loans, grants,
guarantees and other facilities for promoting local
co-ops.
— State-sponsored 'on-the-job' training and wage subsidies
for young people;
— business management training schemes;
— local temporary work subsidies for young unemployed
persons;
1.5.1. Notwithstanding such schemes, key problems
remain, for example:
— difficulties in arranging and financing feasibility
studies;
— the rather rigid position of banks and public financial
institutions at local and national levels with regard to
taking risks in the direct financing of specific LEI
projects;
— a lack of relevant and clear information getting through
to the localities on how to apply for and gain access to
relevant national and Community funds;
— the lack of involvement of these local communities in
decisions concerning the distribution and use of
No C 68/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 3. 87
Community monies available, and the continuing
problem of some central governments delaying
distribution of and 'clawing back' such monies for the
national exchequer;
— the specific difficulties encountered in this connection for
workers over the age of 25 in that 75 % ESF funding for
job and enterprise training schemes and subsidized
placements throughout the Community must be for
young people under the age of 25;
— the sudden loss of entitlement to unemployment benefit
and related forms of assistance, in most systems, with the
tentative taking up of a self-employed activity;
— the difficulties which 'alternative' projects have in raising
capital, given their 'non-ownership' structure;
— difficulties in the development of LEIs in those regions
which have cross-frontier obstacles.
2. Conclusions/proposals
2.1. The Committee recognizes the useful and at times
vital role which LEIs have to offer, particularly in local and
regional areas with acute unemployment problems. From a
local or microeconomic point of view, LEIs can generally be
identified as being advantageous and socially desirable. From
a macro-economic point of view, LEIs cannot be seen as a
panacea to mass unemployment. Their aggregate
job-creative impact remains unclear.
2.2. Local intiatives tend to be induced and helped along
as part of a local climate of community commitment,
involvement and collective self-reliance. Prime-mover groups
are often crucial in this respect.
2.3. Whilst more specific forms of support for LEIs could
indeed aim at maximizing their job-related potential and
social usefulness, official attention should not be diverted
from the need for macro-economic employment measures
and policies. Nor should excessive attention and resources be
diverted towards the promotion simply of experimental
lifestyles. Sustainable jobs and the improvement of local
social conditions ought to remain the essential focuses for
supporting LEI development.
2.4. Such support needs to be based on a partnership of
understanding between LEI prime movers and the statutory
public bodies and local authorities in order to guarantee
standards and uphold democratically accountable provision
of basic public services. The involvement of the social
partners is also essential in order to help stimulate local
enterprising attitudes and to help ensure proper working
conditions and fair competition.
2.5. Member States and the European Community need
to put together a more comprehensive and less inhibiting
legal framework conducive to the promotion of varying
forms of LEIs.
2.6. The Committee once again stresses that such LEI
development must not lead to a diversion into the 'black
economy'. Likewise there must be no exploitation of
unemployment based on undeclared labour or at least on
working conditions which may lead to unfair competition. It
is therefore important to create the right political and
administrative attitudes which help unlock human resources
whilst at the same time to apply certain conditions for a rapid
and limited transitory phase towards proper working
standards and norms, both in the public and private
sectors.
2.7. The Committee puts forward the following specific
proposals:
2.7.1. Member States ought to calculate and provide the
Community with reliable data on the net job-creative impact
of LEIs and how more sustainable jobs might be promoted in
our local economies.
2.7.2. Member States should not frustrate but instead
encourage local groups, communities and regions to secure
an appropriate participation and some say in the distribution
and use of Community and a range of funds available for the
economic and social development of their own areas, notably
through the promotion of LEIs.
2.7.3. In addition to the need for a more appropriate
functioning and financing of the European Social and
Regional Funds, the feasibility of a new, credit-based,
European Employment Fund ought to be given
consideration, with a view to encouraging growth and
employment in all possible fields, as already outlined in the
Committee's opinion on 'social developments in the
Community in 1985' (J).
2.7.4. 'Up-front' financing of viable LEIs could be
facilitated by the use of substantial single grants paid out at
the start of a project which could be used in some instances to
prepare professional feasibility studies to make projects more
acceptable to potential funders. Financial institutions,
together with the social partners, might also consider how
they could better provide guarantees for viable projects.
(!) Economic and Social Committee document of 17 September
1986, points 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 (OJ No C 328,
26. 12. 1986).
16. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 68/17
2.7.5. The Community ought to promote the setting up
of professional advisory services for LEI development, and
build on and further encourage the useful 'networking' and
information role of ELISE. Better use should also be made of
guidance and written material available.
2.7.6. All persons employed or self-employed in LEIs
ought to have access to State support in the form of
unemployment benefit and other social insurance benefits
both in cases of failure and of temporary inactivity.
2.7.7. Workers' take-overs of insolvent or bankrupt
enterprises could be facilitated by formally involving them in
the liquidation procedures and by preventing an
(uneconomic) shut-down of a factory by means of a jointly
agreed care and maintenance contract procedure or through
appropriate legal procedures in court, the interests of all
parties concerned being taken into account with prime
consideration being to maintain viable jobs.
Done at Brussels, 17 November 1986.
1. Introduction
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee has for a
number of years concerned itself with the subject of
integrated development operations, in the firm belief that
underdeveloped and particularly run-down areas need
coordinated integrated help from various Community
instruments and national development measures.
1.2. On 30 April 1980 the Committee unanimously
approved a report by Mr Bornard on the Lorraine region.
1.3. In 1982 Mr Bornard produced another report, on
integrated operations as a whole. The. main document dealt
2.7.8. The role of the social partners in stimulating LEIs
and ensuring proper working conditions could be organized
through the setting up, Europe-wide, of local and regional
tripartite committees composed of:
— employers, workers and representatives of other
socio-professional groups;
— local government representatives;
— local prime mover groups and representatives of LEI
projects.
Such Committees could jointly aid, advise and constructively
monitor the progress of LEIs emerging in their own
communities, also as regards any ancillary employment
resulting from large-scale infrastructure schemes provided
for by the Council to support production activities and
employment.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT
with the general problems facing integrated development
operations, whilst the appendices, drawn up by
co-rapporteurs Mr Masprone(1), Mr Hall (2), Mr
Ognibene (3) and Mr Kolbenschlag (4) presented an analysis
of the operations already underway in Naples and Belfast and
examined a number of proposed schemes for other areas.
1.4. Following a proposal by various members of the
Section for Regional Development, the Committee
subsequently produced an information report on an
(») On Naples.
(2) On Belfast.
(3) On disadvantaged rural areas.
(4) On the Bavarian forest.
Opinion on the criteria and efficiency of integrated operations
(87/C 68/10)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy