No C 278/12 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24.11.  76 
enlarging  the Community,  seven  Member  States  made 
the minimum  necessary  changes;  the United  Kingdom 
and Ireland,  having  completely  different  systems, 
were  granted  temporary  derogations. 
1.5. The  opinions  of  governments  (and  of 
producers)  concerning  the  appropriate  relationship 
between  the specific  and  proportional  components  of 
the excise  duties  for the final  harmonized  structure 
are still  sharply  divided.  Repeated  consultation  by the 
Commission  with  government  tax  experts  during 
1973,  and  again  in 1975,  failed  to find  any 
compromise  agreement. 
1.6. Faced  with  the  necessity  to have  a Council 
Decision  on the specific  criteria  applicable  during  the 
next stage  before  1 July  1976,  i.e.,  12 months  before 
the expiry  of the first  stage,  the Commission,  despite 
the difficulty  of reaching  agreement  with  the national 
experts,  submitted  on 10 February  1976  a proposal 
for a Council  Directive  for  the  second  stage. 
Unfortunately,  the Council's  decision  was  not  taken 
within  the time  limits  the Council  had  set itself. 
1.7. This  current  proposal  merely  extends  the first 
stage  for a further  six months  from  1 July  1977  to 
1 January  1978.  It follows  that  the  Council  must 
make  its decision  concerning  the system  to be applied 
during  the second  stage. 
2. General  observations 
2.1. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  has 
repeatedly  expressed  the  importance  it attaches  to this programme  of harmonization.  It has  carefully 
analysed  and  given  its  opinion  on  proposals 
regarding  a 'definitions'  Directive  and  also  the 
proposals  for the second  stage  or subsequent  stages. 
It has recognized  the difficulties  involved  in reaching 
agreement  on such  complex  matters,  and has outlined 
suggested  approaches  which  might  lead  to agreement. 
The Committee  attaches  considerable  importance  to 
these  suggestions  which,  in its view,  may  help  in 
accelerating  the  establishment  of a true  common 
market  for  tobacco  goods.  It therefore  insists  that 
these  suggestions  should  be examined  as a matter  of 
urgency. 
2.2. The  Committee  has  approved  each  extension 
of the  first  stage  as requested,  but  with  increasing 
reluctance.  It believes  that  it must  now  seriously 
question  whether  the  political  will  really  exists  for 
the Council  to reach  a decision  to push  ahead  with 
the harmonization  programme.  For  this  reason,  it 
insists  that  the Council,  by 31 December  1976,  reach 
a definite  decision  on the  criteria  proposed  for  the 
second  stage  of harmonization,  bearing  in mind  the 
proposals  of the Commission  and  the opinions  of the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  European 
Parliament. 
Done  at Brussels,  29 September  1976 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a multiannual  research  programme  of the  Joint  Research 
Centre  1977  to 1980 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 147  of 29 June  1976,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 24 May  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
24.11.76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 278/13 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
141st  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 29 and  30 September  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in 
particular  Article  7 thereof,  and  to the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community,  and 
in particular  Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 24 May  1976  for an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
24 May  1976,  instructing  the Section  for Energy  and 
Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up  an  opinion  and 
a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its meeting  on 
3 September  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Schlitt, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 141st  plenary 
session  held  on 29 and  30 September  1976  (meeting 
of 30 September), 
Whereas  it is necessary  to implement  a common 
research  and  development  policy  in order  to attain 
the Community's  objectives; 
Whereas  the  Joint  Research  Centre,  through  its 
Multiannual  Research  Programme,  has  an important 
task to perform  in carrying  out this  policy, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a unanimous  vote: 1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  approves  the  programme 
proposed  by the  Commission.  It has  the  following 
comments  to make. 
1.2. The  Committee  notes  that  the programme  has 
been  drawn  up on the basis  of the 'Overall  concept 
for the next  multiannual  research  programme  of the 
Joint  Research  Centre'  which  the  Commission 
submitted  to the  Council  on 22 October  1975.  The 
guidelines  set  out  in this  earlier  document  have 
already  been  examined  by the Committee  in its Study 
of 25 May  1976  on the objectives  and  priorities  for a 
common  research  and  development  policy. 
1.3. The  Committee  notes  that  the  Commission 
has striven  to concentrate  on a few  research  and 
development  actions,  pursuing  those  which  are  of 
particular  relevance  to the Community.  Accordingly, 
60 % of the  future  activity  of the  JRC  will  be 
devoted  to energy  alone,  while  the remaining  40 % 
will primarily  be given  over  to 'work  of a public 
service  character'.  This  drive  accords  with  the 
Committee's  earlier  expressed  view  that  the only  way 
of making  effective  use  of the  limited  resources 
available  was  for the Commission  to restrict  itself  to 
a few  selected  actions  that  held  out  a promise  of 
success.  But  the  Committee  is aware  that  the 
disciplines  of the JRC's  scientists  and  the manner  of 
equipment  of  its  establishments  determines  the 
scientific  programme  to a certain  degree  and  makes  it 
harder  to switch  to new  actions.  The  Commission's 
endeavour  to concentrate  R&D  work  is borne  out 
by the fact  the JRC's  activities  have  been  compressed 
into 10 programmes  and  that  no more  than  roughly 
30 projects  are  to be pursued  as part  of these 
programmes.  This  represents  a substantial  drop  in 
the number  of projects.  The  Committee  also  thinks 
that the projects  are defined  more  precisely  than  in 
the present  multiannual  research  programme. 
1.4. Apart  from  a few  exceptions,  the  work 
planned  deserves  support  and  is capable  of making 
major  contributions  to R & D work  going  on in the 
Member  States.  However,  the  Community  has  not 
succeeded  in making  the JRC's  10 programmes  central 
to the research  and  development  work  being  done  in 
the EEC  in this  field.  In fact,  in order  to achieve  this 
goal,  considerably  more  resources  would  have  to be 
No C 278/14 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24.11.  76 
made  available  to the Community  so as to set this 
work  on a wider  basis  from  the outset. 
1.5. In  the main,  the fields  on which  the JRC  is 
engaged  are the subject  of concentrated  attention  in 
the JVIember  States.  This  means  that,  although  the 
JRC's  work  is valuable  and  important,  it is merely 
complementary  to the  R&D  being  done  in the 
Member  States.  The  Committee  considers  that  this 
situation  will  not  change  either,  so long  as only 
0-5 % of aggregate  public  spending  on R & D in the 
Community  goes  into  'direct'  Community  action. 
Accordingly,  the Committee  would  point  out  once 
again  that,  taking  the long-term  view,  Community 
research  in the JRC  may  only  become  worthwhile 
when  the R & D it carries  out takes  on the character 
of a focus,  and  the JRC  is allocated  the necessary 
resources.  In other  words,  the Member  States  should 
increasingly  transfer  their  responsibilities  and 
appropriate  funds  to the Community,  particularly  in 
the case  of large,  expensive  research  programmes. 
This would  also  allow  the smaller  Member  States  to 
participate  to a much  greater  extent  in large-scale 
R&D  activities. 
1.6. Moreover,  the Committee  considers  that  the 
Commission,  with  the help  of the JRC,  ought  to play 
a greater  (if not a central)  role  in inter-Member-State 
collaborative  R&D  projects.  The  variety  of 
structures  responsible  for carrying  out research  and 
development  in the Member  States  (and  even  in the 
various  regions  of the Member  States)  means  that  the 
duplication  of efforts  cannot  always  be avoided  in a 
number  of fields.  This  may  be useful  in some  cases, 
though  it cannot  be afforded  by the Community  in 
the case  of large,  expensive  R&D  projects. 
Therefore,  a rigorous  all-out  effort  should  be made  to 
coordinate  work  and  resources  under  the auspices  of 
the Commission. 
1.7. The  Committee  has  repeatedly  discussed  to 
what  extent  the JRC  should  carry  out  more  basic 
research  or more  applied  research.  In the past,  the 
Member  States,  time  and  time  again,  have  found  it 
difficult  to reach  agreement  on certain  areas  of 
applied  research  in the nuclear  field.  As a result  of 
this, there  has been  a demand  for the JRC  to become 
more  heavily  involved  in basic  research  in order  to 
avoid  these  difficulties  and remove  these  conflicts  of 
interest  from  the outset. 
The Committee  considers,  however,  that  discussion 
as to whether  more  basic  research  or more  applied 
research  should  be carried  out  has  become  less 
relevant  in the  meantime,  since  the  demand  for 
applied  research  has  increased  strongly  due  to the 
advent  of  new  areas  for  research,  such  as environmental  protection  and  energy.  As a result, 
there  should  in future  be little  room  for  the 
difficulties  that  cropped  up in the past.  The  pressing 
problems  in connection  with  environment  protection 
and energy  have  themselves  inevitably  drawn  more 
attention  once  again  to applied  research.  Capacity 
can be found  for this  in the JRC,  since  it has  the 
equipment  and  the expertise. 
1.8. The  Committee's  views  on  the  present 
proposal  for a multiannual  research  programme  of 
the JRC  accord  with  the abovementioned  ESC  Study 
on the  objectives  and  priorities  for  a common 
research  and development  policy. 
1.9. In  this  connection,  the Committee  has  noted 
the Commission's  plan  to offer  five-year  contracts  in 
future.  It welcomes  the  Commission's  drive  for 
mobility  amongst  scientific  staff.  Two-year  contracts, 
as used  hitherto  for new  staff,  are, in the Committee's 
view,  too short  for a number  of research  projects. 
Furthermore,  two-year  contracts  are not sufficiently 
attractive  to hold  highly  talented,  young  scientists. 
The best  incentive  for keeping  young  scientists  at a 
given  establishment  for a certain  time  is provided  by 
the work,  prestige  and  performance  of  the 
establishment,  a high  level  of scientific  equipment, 
suitable  remuneration  and  well-conducted  R&D 
management.  The  Committee  believes,  however,  that 
the planned  five-year  contracts  cannot  be an effective 
instrument  for the JRC  unless  new  members  of staff 
can assume  that  their  contracts  will  be extended  if 
they prove  their  worth. 
1.10.  In  addition,  the  Committee  welcomes  the 
Commission's  proposed  'rolling  programme'.  This 
boils  down  to a review  of research  and  development 
work  every  three  years  to see whether  each  project 
should  be continued,  modified  or curtailed.  The 
Committee  considers,  however,  that  such  a procedure 
is not  likely  to be an enduring  success  unless  the 
research  work  carried  out  can  be subjected  to the 
most  objective  assessments  and checks  possible. 
1.11.  The  Committee  has  a number  of specific 
comments  on the various  aspects  of the programme. 
In line  with  the  structure  of the  Commission's 
document,  these  are  made  under  the  following 
headings: 
— 1. Guidelines. 
— 2. Description  of the programme. 
— 3. Resources  required  and  implementation. 
24.11.  76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 278/15 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Guidelines 
2.1.1.  The  Commission  sees  the JRC  as fulfilling  a 
threefold  role  in the context  of Community  policy  on 
science  and technology,  namely: 
— 1. Carrying  out work  of 'central'  significance  to 
the Community, 
,— 2. Providing  a Community  public  service  to users 
of R & D, 
— 3. Providing  back-up  services  for the formulation 
and implementation  of  Community  sectoral 
policies. 
2.1.2.  The  Committee  while  supporting  this  view, 
would  have  liked  to see the criteria  used  in selecting 
the 10  specific  programmes,  together  with  the 
importance  attached  to each  criterion,  spelt  out  in 
somewhat  greater  detail.  In addition  to those 
mentioned  by the Commission,  the  criteria  should 
include: 
— work  on which  joint  effort  is likely  to lead  to 
major  cost  and/or  time  savings, 
— work  on  which  there  is a fundamental 
convergence  of  Member  States'  underlying 
interests  in a joint  effort, 
— work  which  is likely  not only  'fully  to exploit  the 
present  skills  of the centre'  but  also  to actually 
strengthen  the JRC's  future  role and reputation  in 
R & D in the Community. 
2.1.3.  Notwithstanding  a number  of  critical 
remarks  in the  general  part  of this  opinion,  the 
Committee  welcomes  the fact  that  the funds  for the 
JRC's  work  are to be quite  a bit higher  than  those 
for the  current  four-year  Programme.  Thus,  the 
proposed  four-year  Programme's  allocation  is to be 
increased  from  215  million  units  of account  to 
roughly  374  million  units  of account.  Even  after  the 
higher  personnel  and other  costs  due to inflation  have 
been  taken  into  account,  the  planned  increase  in 
funds  should  be large  enough  to ensure  the scientists 
can work  to optimum  effect.  Since  staffing  levels  will 
remain  roughly  unchanged,  the increase  will  be used 
mainly  for scientific  equipment  and  improvements  to 
infrastructure. 
2.2. Description  of the programme 
2.2.1.  Reactor  safety 
2.2.1.1.  The  Committee  approves  the proposal  for 
the focus  of the work  to be nuclear  safety.  A total  of 
approximately  48 % of resources  is to be earmarked 
therefor.  Under  this  head  comes,  not  only  reactor safety,  but  also  plutonium  and  actinide  research, 
nuclear  materials  and  radioactive-waste  management. 
The Committee  has  repeatedly  dealt  with  the 
subject  of nuclear  safety,  and it is pleased  to see,  in 
view  of the  increasing  build-up  of nuclear  energy, 
that the  Community  too  is making  a considerable 
contribution  in this  field  within  the framework  of 
intensive  Member  State  programmes.  The  Committee 
is pleased  that  the  funds  earmarked  for  this  have 
been  increased  considerably,  viz.  from  some  21-7 
million  units  of account  to approximately  91 million 
units  of account. 
2.2.1.2.  The  Committee  is also  pleased  that  the 
programme  includes  the  study  of a number  of 
potential  faults,  an aspect  of vital  importance  for 
reactor  safety.  In fact,  the studies  in question  are not 
only crucial  from  the point  of view  of operating 
safety  but at the same  time  take  up points  that  are 
continually  cropping  up in public  debate  and  are 
considered  to be of particular  importance  for reactor 
safety  proper  (loss  of coolant  and  core  melt-down). 
The Committee  is delighted  that  one  of the biggest 
research  instruments  in the Community,  namely  the 
'Essor'  reactor,  is going  to be able  to play  an 
important  role  here. 
2.2.1.3.  The  possibility  that  work  in this  field 
might  well  bring  the  still  widely-differing  safety 
philosophies  of individual  Member  States  closer 
together  is another  aspect  that  is regarded  by the 
Committee  as being  of importance. 
2.2.1.4.  Identical  safety  conceptions  may  lead  to 
identical  safety  standards  and  norms,  and  these  in 
turn may  be of help  in overcoming  the  technical 
barriers  that  still  exist  between  Member  States  in 
nuclear  technology,  too. 
2.2.1.5.  In  order  to be able  to make  an all-round 
assessment  of R & D projects  in this  sector,  it would 
have  been  useful  if the  programme  had  contained 
some  indication  of the extent  to which  the proposed 
activities  are an extension  or modification  of projects 
already  part  of the current  four-year  programme.  It 
would  have  helped,  for example,  if we had  been  told 
why technical  assistance  for nuclear  power  station 
operators,  for  which  appropriation  of 61 million 
units  of account  have  been  included  in the present 
four-year  programme,  has been  dropped. 
2.2.2.  Plutonium  fuels  and  actinide 
research 
2.2.2.1.  The  Committee  supports  the  R&D 
programme  in the field  of plutonium  and  actinide 
research  and  notes  that  some  members  of the JRC's 
General  Advisory  Committee  have  expressed 
reservations  about  individual  projects.  In view  of the 
No C 278/16 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 24.11.  76 
importance  of plutonium  as a nuclear  fuel,  the 
Committee  would,  however,  like  to see  the  JRC 
establishment  in  question  intensify  its  research 
activity  even  more.  Nevertheless,  the  Committee 
wonders  what  contribution  this  particular 
establishment  can  make  to the  study  of current 
problems  connected  with  the  increasing  production 
and use of plutonium,  and  the possible  effects  thereof 
on the environment. 
2.2.3.  Nuclear  material  and  radioac-
tive  waste  management 
2.2.3.1.  Likewise,  the Committee  also  unreservedly 
offers  its  support  to  the  programme  on  the 
management  of nuclear  materials  and  radioactive 
waste.  In fact,  there  is still  a real  need  for 
considerable  research  and  development  in the field  of 
radioactive  waste.  Radioactive  wastes  come  in 
different  forms  — liquid,  solid  and  gaseous  — and 
within  these  categories  they  can  be  of  low, 
intermediate  or high  levels  of activity.  In all the 
bigger  Member  States,  a large  number  of more  or less 
comprehensive  programmes  are  at  present  in 
operation  for  the  purpose  of studying  individual 
problems  and  their  optimum  solutions.  Appropriate 
programmes  are  also  being  run  by the  NEA.  And, 
finally,  Member  States  of the Community  are making 
efforts  to establish  close  cooperation  with  the USA. 
In view  of the fact  that  the Member  States  all have  a 
common  interest  here,  the Community  ought  to be 
involved  in all these  activities.  In the opinion  of the 
Committee,  radioactive  waste  still  offers  ample  scope 
for effective  Community  work  in collaboration  with 
the JRC.  Bearing  in mind  the  'central  role'  of this 
sector,  the  funds  committed  are  inadequate,  even 
though  it must  be admitted  that  they  are an increase 
on appropriations  for the previous  Programme. 
2.2.4.  Solar  energy 
2.2.4.1.  The  proposed  programme  is primarily 
designed  to support  the  indirect  action  programme 
adopted  by the Council  on 22 August  1975  as part  of 
a series  of energy  R&D  projects  which  had  earlier 
been  favourably  received  by the  Committee.  The 
Commission  regards  these  R&D  projects  as being 
part of a long-term  energy  policy  strategy.  The 
Committee  welcomes  the programme  on solar  energy 
in so far as it provides  a back-up  to work  carried  out 
in the  Member  States.  It also  considers  that  the 
relevant  appropriations  indicated  in the  Annex  are 
adequate.  The  Committee  wishes  to point  out, 
however,  in this  connection  that  a number  of 
different  studies  carried  out  in the  meantime  show 
that probably  the  most  economical  way  of making 
use of solar  radiation  in the Community  involves  the 
utilization  of low-temperature  collectors  for heating 
purposes  and  for warming  water.  On the other  hand, 
biological  and  chemical  processes  are not considered 
to be economically  viable  for  the  time  being.  The 
Committee  wonders,  therefore,  whether  it would  not be possible  to drop  projects  in these  fields  and 
concentrate  more  on R & D work  in the  field  of 
low-temperature  collectors. 
2.2.5.  Hydrogen 
2.2.5.1.  The  Committee  likewise  approves  the 
proposal  to carry  out a number  of projects  at a cost 
of 16-46  million  units  of account  in support  of 
indirect  action  in the field  of hydrogen  research.  The 
Committee  welcomes  the  fact  that  the  Commission 
has taken  on a special  role  by having  been  assigned 
the function  of project  leader  within  the  framework 
of the  International  Energy  Agency's  programme.  A 
re-examination  of  this  highly  forward-looking 
programme,  when  all the projects  are due  to come  up 
for revision  after  a period  of three  years,  would 
appear  to be opportune. 
2.2.6.  Conceptual  studies  on  thermo-
nuclear  fusion  reactors 
2.2.6.1.  This  programme,  which  is of small  size  (14 
staff,  2-5 million  u.a.),  is closely  linked  with  the very 
large  indirect  action  programme  on thermonuclear 
fusion  on which  the Committee  has  already  given  its 
opinion  {*). Approval  for  studies  in this  field  was 
already  given  in principle  in the Committee's  opinion 
of 28 November  1974  on the proposed  revision  of the 
previous  multiannual  research  programme.  However, 
when  the four-year  programme  is revised,  a question 
that ought  to be examined  is whether  it would  not be 
better  if this  research  were  carried  out  by indirect 
Community  action. 
2.2.7.  High  temperature  materials 
2.2.7.1.  The  programme  is  essentially  a 
continuation  of the work  which  was  finally  assigned 
to the Petten  Establishment  of the JRC  in the latter 
half of  its  current  four-year  programme.  The 
Committee  commented  favourably  on the  proposals 
on 27 February  1975  (2) though  it now  draws  attention 
once  more  to the  importance  — from  the point  of 
view  of ensuring  progress  on the  various  advanced 
technology  fronts  — of developing  materials  resistant 
to high  temperatures.  The  Committee's  basic  thinking 
is that  since  Petten  has  now  become  the focal  point 
for this  type  of research,  increasing  staff  numbers  and 
expanding  facilities  is a feasible  proportion.  This 
would  enable  Petten  to become  a genuine  centre  of 
activity  in this  particular  R&D  field  and  act as the 
driving  force  behind  all  the  work  done  in the 
Community  in this  sector. 
2.2.8.  Environment  and  resources 
2.2.8.1.  The  Committee  is very  much  in favour  of 
this programme  which  comprises  four  projects: 
(>) OJ No C 35, 16. 2. 1976,  p. 19. 
(2) OJ No C 108,  15. 5. 1975,  p. 52. 
24.11.76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 278/17 
— 1. Atmosphere. 
— 2. Water. 
— 3. Chemicals. 
— 4. Renewable  resources  (agricultural). 
The Committee  touched  on these  topics  in its opinion 
of 27 November  1975  on the Community's  indirect 
R&D  programme  on the environment  (1). It is worth 
emphasizing  here  once  more  that  the  environmental 
studies  entrusted  to the JRC  are of common  interest 
even  though  they  are focused  on a small  number  of 
projects.  This  not  only  justifies  a Community 
approach  — it renders  it increasingly  necessary.  The 
Committee  also  considers  that  certain  projects  in the 
agricultural  sector  should  be  maintained  in the 
JRC's  programme,  with  a special  study  being  made 
of the  question  of the  high  level  of integration  in 
agriculture. 
2.2.9.  Measurements,  standards  and 
reference  techniques 
2.2.9.1.  The  heading  covers  both  nuclear  and 
non-nuclear  measurements.  The  JRC's  work  on 
standards  and  reference  materials  is important  from 
the viewpoint  of the  removal  of technical  barriers. 
The programme  is largely  intended  to support  the 
research  programme  for  reference  materials  and 
methods  (Community  Bureau  of Reference)  (indirect 
action)  on which  the  Committee  gave  a favourable 
opinion  on 27 November  1975  (2). 
2.2.10.  Service  and  support  activities 
2.2.10.1.  The  Committee  endorses  the programme, 
which  covers  a variety  of services  and  support 
activities  designed  to help  the Commission  and  other 
external  bodies.  The  activities  are: 
— 1. The  high  flux  reactor  (HFR). 
— 2. Informatics. 
— 3. Training  and  education. 
— 4. Safeguards  (Euratom  Treaty). 
— 5. Technical  evaluation  in  support  of  the 
Commission. 
The Committee  considers  that  these  projects  meet  the 
Commission's  requirements.  They  will  be  of 
considerable  help  in enabling  it to carry  out  the 
different  tasks  facing  it. 2.3. Resources  required  and  implementation 
2.3.1.  Duration 
2.3.1.1.  The  Committee  hopes  that  the  Council 
will directly  approve  the  entire  programme  for  the 
full four-year  period  from  1 January  1977  to 31 
December  1980.  Immediate  approval  will  ensure  the 
necessary  continuity  of research  projects  and  is 
absolutely  vital  where  the  work  of the  JRC  is 
concerned.  Delays  in approving  programmes  in the 
past have  continually  aroused  feelings  of considerable 
insecurity  both  in scientists  and  other  members  of 
staff and  also  in all  the  partners  and  bodies 
concerned  in the  Member  States.  The  current 
four-year  programme  successfully  put an end  to the 
unfortunate  procedure  that  prevailed  from  1967  to 
1972  whereby  the  budget  was  approved  on  a 
year-to-year  basis.  The  second  four-year  programme 
now in  operation  should  be  instrumental  in 
enhancing  the  reputation  of the  JRC  and  ensuring 
that it plays  a decisive  role  in future  Community 
research  and  development. 
2.3.1.2.  The  introduction  of a rolling  system 
whereby  the  final  year  of the  1977  to 1980 
programme  would  become  the  first  year  of the 
following  programme  (1980  to 1984)  is a welcome 
new feature.  As intended  by the  Commission,  this 
system  should  strengthen  continuity  whilst  allowing 
generous  time  for the prograrhme-making  process.  At 
the same  time  the rolling  system  will  also  provide  the 
opportunity  for  making  a thorough  examination  of 
individual  projects  and  their  findings.  Given  the 
limited  funds  available  and  the  big  demand  for 
research  and  development  capacity,  this  examination 
should  be carried  out  in a critical  spirit  and  the 
Commission  should  not  hesitate  to abandon  projects 
which  can  no longer  be jusified  when  compared  with 
other  activities. 
2.3.2.  Financing 
2.3.2.1.  The  Committee  approves  the proposal  for a 
four-year  budget  of 374-4  million  units  of account 
based  on the  value  of the  unit  of account  as of 1 
January  1977  and  on a technical  evaluation  of costs 
under  the  economic  conditions  effective  during  that 
period.  Efforts  must  be made,  however,  to ensure 
that adjustments  due  to inflation  are  made  in 
sufficiently  good  time  to allow  research  work  to 
carry  on unimpeded. 
2.3.3.  I'mplementation 
(M OJ No C 35, 16. 2. 1976,  p. 29. 
(2) OJ  No C 35, 16. 2. 1976,  p. 23. 2.3.3.1.  The  Committee,  while  it has  no specific 
comments  to  add,  endorses  the  Commission's 
No C 278/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 24.11.76 
changes  on  the  internal  management  of  the 
programmes. 
2.3.3.2.  On  the  question  of external  relationships, 
the Committee  has several  comments.  The  JRC  must 
continue  to strive  towards  better  communications 
with  the Community  at large.  Public  appreciation  of 
the work  being  done  at the  Centre  is essential  to 
guarantee  its  long-term  future,  and  to create  a 
favourable  climate  for  the  future  transfer  of 
appropriate  activities  from  national  responsibility  to 
the JRC.  Specifically,  there  should  be better  reporting 
and publicity  for successful  ventures. 
2.3.3.3.  The  Committee  also  believes  that  there 
must  be closer  links  between  those  responsible  for 
the programmes  and  the potential  users  of the results 
obtained.  The  Committee  therefore  calls  for  the 
creation  of committees  with  appropriate  represen-tation  of industrial  users  and  consumers  to advise 
the Commission  and  the  Council.  Their  task  would 
be to identify  the  needs  for  new  technology  in 
a given  sector  and  to suggest  ways  in which  these 
needs  could  be met.  In this  context  it should  be 
examined  to what  extent  it is possible  to draw  on the 
experiences  of User  Requirement  Boards  in the 
United  Kingdom.  A possible  alternative  solution 
would  be  to broaden  both  the  functions  and 
membership  of the existing  Advisory  Committees  on 
Programme  Management  (ACPM)  in order  to allow 
them  to fulfil  this role. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 September  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the establishment  of common  rules 
for certain  types  of carriage  of goods  by road  between  Member  States 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 1 of 5 January  1976,  page  28. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 October  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  75 of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
141st  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 29 and  30 September  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  75 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 20 October  1975  for 
an opinion, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 October  1975  instructing  the  Section  for 
Transport  and  Communications  to draw  up  an 
opinion  and  report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Heimes,