No C 354/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 85 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multi-annual research action 
programme on materials (raw materials and advanced materials) (1986 to 1989) C1) 
(85/C 354/05) 
On 27 August 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above 
mentioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 December 1985, in the light of the 
Report by Mr de Normann. 
At its 232nd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 December 1985) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously, with two abstentions, adopted the following opinion: 
1. The Committee endorses the proposal for a Council Decision to adopt a multi-annual 
research action programme on raw materials and advanced materials (1986 to 1989). 
2. The programme 
The programme consists of four areas of work involving shared-cost research programmes as 
follows: 
Four-year period 
1986-1989 
Primary raw materials 
Secondary raw materials 
Wood as a renewable raw material 
Advanced materials 
Total EC budget 
30 000 000 
21 750 000 
20 000 000 
38 000 000 
109 750 000 (in ECUs) 
Share provided 
by contractors 
26 000 000 
20 000 000 
18 000 000 
35 000 000 
99 000 000 
208 750 000 
in addition: 
Use of lignocellulose containing by-products and other plant residues for animal feeding 
carried out by means of coordination at Community level 250 000 
Total charge to budget heading: 
Materials Article 730 110 000 000 
3. General comments 
3.1. The research proposed must be of high quality in 
order to maintain the credibility of Community research. 
The Committee notes that the programmes have been 
devised after the widest possible consultation with industry 
research associations and academia in Member States. The 
Committee has seen a detailed programme description (2) 
3.2. The research must be appropriate to Community 
action when measured against the framework program-
(!) OJ No C 220, 30. 8. 1985, p. 3. 
(2) Doc XII 396/85 me's scientific and technical objectives (3) as well as by the 
application of its selection criteria (4). The Committee is 
satisfied that the proposals meet the objectives but it would 
like to see the Commission pay further attention to meeting 
the selection criteria. The criteria for shared-cost program­
mes are amplified in the Economic and Social Committee's 
Information Report on shared-cost research. 
3.3. The method of funding the research from Com­
munity funds — JRC programmes, shared-cost program­
mes, concerted action programmes — is appropriate. In 
particular where new programmes are a continuation of 
(3) Annex I, Council Resolution, 25. 7. 1983 (OJ No C 
4.8. 1983) 
(4) Annex II, loc. cit. 208 
31. 12. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 354/7 
existing programmes there must be positive reasons for 
continuing Community funding as shared-cost work rather 
than in the form of concerted action programmes. (See 
comments on the individual programmes below). 
3.4. All the research undertaken must show the best 
possible value for money for the Community as a whole 
and for the individual Member States. The European 
Council agreed in March to an increase in the Community 
resources for research and development. The present 
proposal for 110 million ECU is a slight increase over the 
current programme of 85 million ECU (ECU value 1986). 
The Committee considers that the increase is justified 
providing that the proportion relative to overall funds in 
the framework programme remains about the same. 
The Committee considered the estimation of value for 
money and the criteria which should be used to measure it. 
The Committee would like the Commission to attempt to 
work out a set of objective criteria for this purpose. 
The Committee points out the need to establish that funds 
already spent in earlier and current programmes have made 
a useful contribution. This is referred to under evaluation 
below (point 4). 
3.5. The Committee emphasizes that research in this 
area can only prove its value for money if carried through to 
a practical conclusion in the market place whatever its 
objective under the seven headings in the framework 
programme. 
The Committee draws attention to the need for consul­
tation with the social partners in deriving practical 
programmes and for the need to ensure that there are plans 
to follow up success in the form of utilization plans, 
however broad these may be initially. This is also amplified 
in the abovementioned information report on shared-cost 
programmes. 
3.6. The Committee applauds the interest shown by 
Community authorities in the technical problems as­
sociated with recycling, but sees the need for a general 
study of the economic and environmental constraints 
affecting recovery, this being the preliminary stage that 
determines the volume of secondary raw materials to be 
recycled. 
3.7. Assessment and evaluation 
3.7.1. The only evaluation of the current programme by 
non-beneficiary persons of various disciplines drawn from 
industry, research associations and academic fields which 
the Commission has been able to provide, covers the 
Community's primary mineral raw materials programme 
for the period 1978 to 1981. This evaluation concluded that the objectives of the programme had been met but that the 
budget allocation was not commensurate with the scope 
and number of projects supported. Recommendations were 
made for future programmes, calling for a coherent 
European research policy on raw materials 'and for a 
research policy to determine the relative levels of support 
which should be applied to the general upgrading of 
expertise within the Community as opposed to the more 
easily justifiable areas of immediate economic importance'. 
3.7.2. The Committee encourages the Commission to 
comment on these recommendations in its proposal to the 
Council. 
3.7.3. The Committee also received a Summary Status 
Report (April 1985) on the Raw Materials Programme 
1982 to 1985, outlining some of the results obtained to date. 
This is in the nature of an internal assessment of the current 
programmes. Although helpful, such an assessment is not a 
substitute for a peer evaluation of work by non-
beneficiaries. 
3.7.4. The Committee urges the Council to impress 
upon the Commission the need to do its utmost to provide 
evaluations which are as recent as possible when asking for 
funds for further work in the same areas. This might be 
accomplished in some cases by writing programmes in 
stages amenable to intermediate evaluation. Such evalua­
tions should have a number of objectives including: 
1. assessment of value for money; 
2. verification that the quality of the work upholds the 
credibility of Community R&D programmes; 
3. check that the results lead to some practical outcome; 
4. recommendations for further programmes. 
3.8. The opinion of the Scientific and Technical 
Research Committee (CREST) 
The Committee notes that the CREST opinion (October 
1985) was in general favourable, especially for the work on 
secondary raw materials and advanced materials. 
The Commission has set out the principal topics in the 
Research Action Programme which would be of possible 
interest for Spanish and Portuguese scientific and industrial 
organizations. 
3.9. The opinion of the Advisory Committee 
The Committee supports the Advisory Committee's view 
that the resources available might be insufficient to cover 
No C 354/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 85 
all the work proposed. This must be borne in mind at the 
final programme definition stage. 
3.10. Coordination of related programmes within the 
Commission 
The Committee urges the Commission to ensure that the 
relationship between all relevant R&D programmes is 
reviewed at programme formulation and thereafter on a 
routine and regular basis to ensure that value for money is 
being obtained by the optimum use of available resources. 
3.11. Relation to the BRITE-Programme 
The Committee is satisfied that the advanced materials 
work proposed and the programme on industrial tech­
nologies (BRITE) has been clearly and separately defined: 
— the advanced-materials programme concerns the 
creation, production and characterization of advanced 
materials, 
— the BRITE programme on industrial technologies 
concerns the use of materials. 
3.12. Coordination with related programmes of Member 
States 
The Committee is concerned lest work should be proposed 
which is more advantageously left to individual Member 
States. The Committee would therefore like to have seen a 
section in the proposed Directive describing the work done 
by the Member States on the subjects covered, both in terms 
of expenditure and in programme definition. 
It recommends that in the course of the consultation with 
Member States to define work areas, the Commission 
should tabulate a brief summary of the relevant work to be 
placed in the proposal to the Council. 
3.13. The Economic and Social Committee Information 
Report on European Community Shared-cost 
Research, Development and Demonstration Pro­
grammes 
The Committee asks that the Commission give consider­
ation to recommendations in the abovementioned report 
with regard to: 
1. Criteria for the selection of work programmes to give 
best value for money (Section 2.3.); 
2. The necessity for coordination with industry (Section 
2.5.); 
3. Pre-contract activity by the Commission and the 
selection of contractors (Section 2.6., 2.7.); 
4. Funding of programmes (Section 2.8.); 5. Subsequent utilization of results (Section 2.13.). 
The important aspect of transnational cooperation in 
putting together shared-cost programmes, is emphasised in 
the above report. The Commission have prepared 'selected 
examples of transnational cooperation in the R&D 
programmes of raw materials'. The Committee supports 
this approach in the new proposal. 
4. Specific comments 
4.1. Primary raw materials (minerals) programme 
The Committee supports this programme as strategically 
important for the Community. For such work to be 
effective, the Committee feels it needs to be continuous and 
not subject to fluctuation of level of effort arising from 
changing economic circumstances. 
4.2. Secondary raw materials programme 
The Committee fully supports this programme which it 
feels is appropriate to Community objectives, not least the 
protection of the environment and the enhancement of the 
operations of regional authorities. However, the Commit­
tee feels that greater importance should be given to the 
recycling and utilization of waste and of secondary raw 
materials. 
The Committee suggests that the Commission consider 
using some of the available funds to promote semi-
technical plant operations to establish the technical 
feasibility of new techniques and demonstration (pilot) 
operations to establish their commercial feasibility. These 
demonstration projects might follow the lines already 
established for energy projects by the Commission. 
4.3. Wood as a renewable raw material programme 
The Committee supports this programme, providing it 
does not include wood as a source of energy. It gives 
priority to the high technology proposals on wood 
production (Research Area I), comparison to harvest, 
storage and transport (Research Area II). It prefers work on 
wood as a chemical feedstock to wood as a structural 
material. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
examine the use of Member State centres of excellence for 
utilization and demonstration projects for work under this 
programme. 
4.4. Advanced materials programme 
The Committee supports this as a worthwhile programme 
not only in metallic materials but especially in engineering 
ceramics and composite materials. It recognizes that 
31. 12. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 354/9 
research and development in these areas is vital as a base 
from which to develop market-led products and process at 
the innovation stage, whatever the outcome of the 
discussions on the European Technological Community 
and the Eureka proposals. 
4.5. Concerted action programme on the use oflignocel-
lulosis containing by-products for animal feeding 
The Council decided on this concerted action programme 
on 2 April 1984 (1) for a four-year programme. The 
Committee approved the proposal on 29 February 1984 (2). 
It is integrated into this proposal in order to be extended 
until its end in 1988. 4.6. Article 2 — Transfer of funds from one sub-
programme to another 
The Committee notes a permitted variation of 15 % in the 
final appropriation for any subprogramme from the 
original appropriation set out in the Annex. 
The Committee welcomes this in the light of previous 
recommendations by the Committee for flexibility in fund 
allocation to take account of unforeseen developments in 
the course of research programmes. 
4.7. Article 4 — Review 
This Article proposes that the programme shall be reviewed 
at the beginning of the third year. 
The Committee would suggest instead: 
'The programme shall be reviewed and where possible the 
results evaluated independently at the beginning of the 
third year'. 
The Committee does not feel the need to comment further. 
(!) OJ No L 103, 16. 4. 1984. 
(2) OJ No C 103, 16. 4. 1984. Article 5 
report Annual progress reports and coordination 
The Committee feels the relevant reports should also be 
communicated to the Committee. 
Done at Brussels, 18 December 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 64/432/EEC as regards 
the definitive arrangements made in relation to enzootic bovine leukosis as laid down by 
Directive 80/1102/EEC 0) 
(85/C 354/06) 
On 15 November 1985 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, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the 
subject, adopted its opinion on 5 December 1985 in the light of the oral report by Mr Storie-Pugh. 
At its 232nd plenary session (meeting of 18 December 1985) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote.