No C 333/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
made available, there must not be an across-the-board 
cut in allocations to activities. Some activities with small allocations would probably not be viable if they 
were thus cut. 
Done at Brussels, 27 November 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision revising a research programme to be 
implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the EAEC and EEC (1984 to 1987) 
(86/C 333/13) 
On 12 August 1986 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community and Article 170 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic 
Energy Community, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 November 1986 in the light 
of the report by Mr Vercellino. 
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 27 November 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. After a full preparatory debate on future devel­
opments for the JRC (COM(86) of 14 March 1986), 
the ESC was consulted on a practical proposal for a 
Council Decision (COM(86) of 30 July 1986), which 
modifies for 1987 the current multi-annual JRC pro­
gramme (1984 to 1987), pending the drafting of the new 
multi-annual programme in a year's time. 
The Commission points out that, in drawing up the 
latter programme, it will take account of opinions 
expressed for 1987 in the general context of Community 
research by the European Parliament, the Economic and 
Social Committee and the other consultative bodies. 
1.2. One cannot but appreciate the timely method 
adopted, which will make it possible to take immediate 
steps, in revising the 1987 programme, to adapt the 
JRC's activities, albeit partially, to: the guidelines and aims of the Technological Com­
munity and the Single European Act which modifies 
the Treaty in this field, and experimenting with 
new forms of research in the EEC including shared-
cost research, the EUREKA projects and others; 
2. defining the first important conclusions, correction, 
choices and urgent measures made necessary by the 
shock and the disturbing international scientific, 
technical, environmental, social and political reper­
cussions of the Chernobyl disaster. 
1.3. In drawing up its opinion on the 1987 pro­
gramme revision, the Committee first made a detailed 
appraisal of the situation at the various JRC locations 
and visited Ispra and Geel, where it discussed research 
and organizational matters with the persons in charge 
and staff. Drawing widely on all data and documents 
available, it then drafted its comments and proposals 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/55 
for 1987. These were placed in the new context and 
took account on a longer-term basis of the attendant 
implications for both the next JRC multi-annual pro­
gramme, currently in preparation, and the 1987 to 1991 
framework programme for technological research and 
development. Constant reference is made to both in 
the proposed 1987 revision—regarded as a 'transition 
phase'—as regards basic guidelines, policies, aims and 
priorities. 
1.4. This opinion is to be regarded as an initial 
Committee stance, to be followed in due course by a 
supplementary opinion once the Commission's pro­
gramme proposals for the subsequent period are 
known. 
1.5. For all these and other reasons the opinion will 
concentrate solely on the main facets of the programme 
and a number of points connected with the JRC's 
organization. For more specific matters and scientific 
or technical details, reference should be made to the 
report. 
1.6. Lastly, the opinion deals with only some of the 
problems arising out of the Chernobyl disaster, namely 
those of greatest relevance to the JRC's research activi­
ties, since, more generally, the Committee has set up a 
subcommittee which is currently undertaking a more 
careful and detailed analysis of the lessons to be drawn 
and measures to be taken after Chernobyl—a matter 
which not only concerns the safety of people and the 
environment, and the basic approach to the concept 
and management of nuclear energy and energy policies 
but extends to other vital aspects of the present and 
future of our societies and the human race as a whole. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee approves of the Commission's 
approach, which makes it possible, under specific con­
ditions, to revise and finance the 1987 work programme 
and paves the way for eventual adjustment to new 
requirements. However, it would point out that: 
— the build-up of events militates for clearcut guide­
lines and appropriate forceful policies from 1987 
onwards as opposed to mere cosmetic remodelling 
of programme activities or formal adjustments to 
meet financial dictates; 
— urgent steps are needed—and the requisite con­
ditions and prerequisites already exist—to draw up 
and finalize without delay the basic principles and 
goals of the next JRC multi-annual programme. 
2.2. The Committee intends, from the very start, to 
state its standpoint on three key preliminary points that determine and underpin the general and specific 
comments set out below: 
(a) the method of assessing the JRC's work and 
achievements with a view to consolidating the Cen­
tre and developing its role as laid down in the 
Treaties; 
(b) the need not to underestimate in any way nuclear 
safety or related measures in the light of new 
requirements and previous Committee contri­
butions and proposals; 
(c) general appraisal of the content and guidelines 
of the revised JRC programme for 1987, viz. the 
stronger and weaker features of the transition 
phase. 
2.2.1. Role and prospects of the JRC 
On the JRC's role the Committee takes note of the 
positive general assessment made by the Commission 
and other responsible bodies (cf. Annexes I and II to 
Commission document COM(86) 145 final) on the 
work and contribution of the JRC in Ispra, Karlsruhe, 
Geel and Petten. The Committee points out that the 
JRC has become 'a competent and neutral reference 
point recognized by industrial firms' and a useful 
research instrument which is entrusted with 'a central 
role in Community research strategy, based on activities 
arising from matters of public responsibility, extending 
across the borders of the Community's Member States'. 
Moreover, the Committee agrees with the statement 
that 'the time hascome to reexamine the JRC without 
preconceived ideas'. From a functional and operational 
viewpoint, it thinks it necessary to act in two main 
ways; first and foremost to consolidate the JRC's activi­
ties in fields where it excels, in line with the criteria 
listed below; secondly to identify the weak points of its 
activities and its operating defects, and correct them as 
soon as possible, associating interested sectors with 
the assessment of the work aimed at improving the 
competitiveness of industry. This is all the more true 
since, in the current situation, such defects can neither 
be passed over in silence, understated, nor used to 
justify savings which could be made elsewhere—let 
alone the weakening of the JRC—or an excessive 
reduction in direct advanced research carried out jointly 
by the countries of the European Community. 
At the same time there must be a guarantee that every 
ECU spent provides the best possible results for the 
Commission, and that the expenditure is of Com­
munity-wide scope and interest. To this end, the Com-
No C 333/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
mission should find a better way of assessing the effec­
tiveness of the measures which it decides to finance. 
Thus some of the criteria for development of direct 
research activity by the Commission and the JRC could 
be the following: 
— where such activities cannot be carried out better 
or more effectively by individual Member States; 
— where the Member States cannot achieve a particu­
lar useful objective of Community interest; 
— where the Commission has to act as an independent 
reference authority; 
— where the JRC can act as a stimulus and a coordi­
nator, within the field of shared-cost research. 
2.2.2. The ESC urges the need for nuclear safety 
There is a need to overcome or avoid any belittling of 
the JRC's role in the field of nuclear safety. In the 
current situation the JRC's role should be rapidly 
strengthened, in keeping with the spirit and the letter 
of the Treaties, and particularly of Chapter 3 of the 
Euratom Treaty. 
In this connection, the Commission's and the Council's 
attention is drawn to the fact that, in accordance with 
that Treaty, the Committee has repeatedly warned the 
highest Community authorities and the Member States 
— notably in 1977 and after the Harrisburg accident 
in 1979 — against nuclear risks, referring especially to 
safety measures at power stations and to protection of 
their staff and the population at large. 
Thus, in an opinion of 29 May 1975 on the technologi­
cal problems of nuclear safety, the Committee had 
requested that the Commission create 'the conditions 
necessary for the issuing of directives and regulations 
in this field, in order that it may thereby lay down 
minimum standards for all nuclear plants in the Com­
munity'. 
Two years later (April 1977), in a study of nuclear 
safety, the Committee stressed that in the nuclear field 
safety 'must be the overriding criterion when technical 
and economic decisions are taken'. This concerns wor­
kers and the public, and 'implies that decisions will also 
have to take account of environmental damage and 
long-term hazards'. 
At the time the Committee proposed the drawing-up 
of a fully-fledged nuclear safety code which would 'lay 
down minimum safety requirements for nuclear plants 
and for the protection of occupationally-exposed wor­
kers and the general public against radiation'. 2.2.3. Positive and negative aspects of the 1987 
JRC programme 
The revised JRC programme for 1987, as a bridging 
device between two multiannual programmes, rep­
resents an initial step towards adapting the JRC's activi­
ties to the new situation. Since, however, it is a partial 
compromise between differing needs, it is incomplete, 
and alongside changes which are far from negligi­
ble—e.g. reorientation of the JRC's nuclear safety 
activities, radiation monitoring, and adaptation of JRC 
structures to new needs—it also has weak points and 
inadequacies, which should be corrected as soon as 
possible—not only in the 1988 to 1991 programme but 
also in the programme for 1987. 
As will be specifed for the various sectors, the weak 
points are the reduction of work on non-nuclear energy 
sources, the lack of commitments to invest in substan­
tial scientific installations, the lack of clarity in the 
industrial support work on materials and structures, 
the savings to be made through restricting and freezing 
new recruitment, the inadequate information on the 
nature and scope of restructuring, etc. In other words 
the revised 1987 programme can be regarded as a useful 
bridge at this stage between the two multiannual pro­
grammes, but still too narrow and not substantial 
enough to prepare the way for the long-awaited full-
scale revival of research carried out for the Community 
by the JRC. 
The Committee takes the view that many of the points 
and orientations of the revised 1987 programme, are in 
their present form more consistent, practical and suited 
to present needs than the earlier indicative communi­
cation on the JRC (COM(86) 145 final) and the recent 
proposal for a framework programme of Community 
activities in the field of technological research and 
development (1987 to 1991) (COM(86) 430 final). 
3. JRC activities and initiatives after Chernobyl 
The Commission realises that its instruments in the 
R&D field cannot be solely or mainly market-orien­
tated, but should increasingly serve as a vigorous stimu­
lus to the integration and enlargement of technological 
development for civil purposes. 
In the light of these assumptions, the Committee feels 
that the proposals outlined by the Commission seem too 
timid and indecisive, and inappropriate to the concerns 
expressed and present needs. There does not appear to 
be enough direct research carried out for the EEC by 
common efforts in the JRC. 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/57 
3.1. Safety, environment, norms and standards 
3.1.1. The intention of the Commission document 
on future developments for the JRC was the transfer 
to JRC activities of the industrial promotion project 
—already posited as the basis of Community action in 
the framework programme. The revised programme 
proposed for 1987 seeks to implement this intention, so 
far implemented only through some adjustments to the 
current programmes (solar energy, industrial hazards) 
and in the planned activity in the field of advanced 
materials and reliability of structures. 
3.1.2. Hence there is the problem of avoiding a con­
flict — as if they were incompatible—between this new 
work and the JRC's activity as an independent public 
service on safety and environment. This conflict is 
unacceptable, especially since Chernobyl. It is necessary 
to define exactly the activities which should have pri­
ority or be strengthened, and to provide them with the 
necessary funds. 
3.1.3. While the Commission rightly stresses the pre-
normative aspects of JRC research and those aiming at 
the formation of an enlarged European market, one 
should also stress the fundamental point that the JRC 
is a suitable instrument for research which facilitates 
subsequent industrial development, but is essentially 
precompetitive. This use of the JRC is all the more 
appropriate since the Commission's industrial pro­
motion policy seeks to avoid widening the gap between 
European countries and between strong and weak 
industries, and to pursue the aim enshrined in the 
Treaties of ensuring economic balance. 
However, the JRC will have to go on taking an interest 
in the post-competitive stage of industrial development, 
which aims to mitigate the environmental impact of 
technology and protect the quality of life. 
3.2. Nuclear safety 
3.2.1. The serious accident which took place on 
26 April 1986 at Chernobyl created a 'state of urgency' 
with regard to nuclear safety. The Committee Chair­
man stated at the 237th plenary session, on 21 May 
1986, that the safety of the population must henceforth 
be the overriding aim of political leaders' thought and 
action. He added that everything possible should be 
done to prevent a similar disaster occuring in the Com­
munity, and to deal in a prompt and coordinated way 
with external disasters which may effect the Com­
munity. "While studies, debates and in-depth comparisons—both 
technical/scientific and socio-political—continue in 
Europe and throughout the world on the consequences 
of the Chernobyl disaster and the lessons to be drawn 
from it, some of the commitments which arise for 
research, and the JRC in particular, are to: 
— define and apply, at the Community and inter­
national levels, information, control and inter­
vention measures designed to prevent nuclear acci­
dents or to deal with them as efficiently and reliably 
as possible; 
— develop research in the field of nuclear and techno­
logical safety, and in general to draw up joint safety 
standards for nuclear power stations; 
— draw up joint standards on the permissible levels 
of radioactivity to which the population may be 
exposed. 
Particularly important in this context are the study 
and comparative analyses—already in progress—of the 
surveys and experience in various countries, before and 
after the Chernobyl accident, with regard to: 
(a) initiatives and measures to maximize the safety of 
currently operating nuclear power stations, concen­
trating on the intrinsic safety of the process itself 
rather than on preventive or after-the-event defens­
ive external protection; 
(b) possible measures for the temporary or definitive 
closure of older or less safe power stations; 
(c) possible suspension or scaling-down of the building 
of new power stations where they are regarded as 
insufficiently safe, or can be replaced by other 
sources of energy; 
(d) the correction of energy choices and policies. 
At present research must take account of the fact that 
between extreme, mutually exclusive opposing view­
points—for and against the peaceful use of nuclear 
energy—more differential and realistic positions are 
emerging, which bear in mind the various needs and 
possibilities and envisage measures and choices such as: 
improving the safety of nuclear plant for the population 
and the environment; a growing commitment to energy 
saving and more use of alternative energy sources; more 
controlled and limited use of nuclear energy; proposals 
for gradual phasing out of nuclear energy; reducing 
risks, and scaling down nuclear production for military 
purposes. 
3.2.2. There is also now a need—as the summit 
of industrialized countries held in Tokyo has already 
proposed—to draw up in the short term an inter­
national convention whereby the signatory States would 
undertake to make a report, exchange information and 
No C 333/58 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
coordinate action in the event of an alarm or of an 
accident. This should be done through closer cooper­
ation with the IAEA. 
3.2.3. In the EEC, the Euratom Treaty does not give 
the Community jurisdiction over safety regulations for 
nuclear installations, and experience has shown that 
the Member States intend to keep such matters entirely 
under national control. 
But, foreseeing the enormous scale of the efforts which 
States must make to ensure nuclear safety, and the 
international component of accident effects, the Treaty 
lays down that there should be a complete exchange of 
information and harmonization of standards on per­
missible radiation levels and safety systems. To this end, 
the Commission has equipped itself with a considerable 
complex of skills and instruments in the form of the 
JRC. 
3.2.4. After Chernobyl all the conditions are there 
for the Commission—exploiting and reorganizing the 
potential already available at the JRC—rapidly to 
resume its efforts to promote the development of studies 
and their harmonization both on safety of nuclear 
installations (design, construction, operating and main­
tenance) and on prevention, forecasting and mitigation 
of the effects of accidents. 
3.2.5. The accidents which have occurred to date 
have confirmed the incompleteness of risk analysis both 
with regard to the very complex accident sequences and 
with regard to the importance of the human factor and 
transnational effects. 
An improvement by the Commission in the methods of 
risk analysis would enable States to move more rapidly 
in accepting and respecting more effective standards. 
3.2.6. It is essential to reactivate efforts to obtain 
data on the consequences of accidents, to foresee the 
effects of radiation on the human organism and to study 
the distribution and concentration of radionuclides in 
the environment after an accident. 
3.2.7. It is also appropriate for the Commission to 
propose the setting up in the JRC, as envisaged by the 
Euratom Treaty (Chapter III, Article 39), of a health 
and safety documentation and study section. The tasks 
of such a section are already adequately specified in 
Articles 30 to 38 of the Treaty, and most of the necess­
ary skills are already to be found in the JRC. 
3.2.8. The Committee welcomes the information on 
the new radiation monitoring and assessment pro­
gramme (REM) provided in the revised programme for 
1987 (COM(86) 416 final). However, it would like to 
know more about the details of the projects and thinks it desirable for them to be coordinated with other 
international initiatives, both for 1987 and for sub­
sequent years. 
It is moreover, a cause for concern that the fission 
programme is being revised in such a way as to broaden 
it to cover data collection and management rather than 
purely technical and scientific activities. 
As regards the reorganization of the fast reactor safety 
programme, the Committee feels that the Commission's 
general policy on the development of these reactors 
must be clarified before any research project is laun­
ched. 
3.3. Renewable energy sources and energy savings 
The question of energy savings and renewable energy 
sources forms part of medium to long-term consider­
ations on the control of energy demand. Indeed, all 
currently available energy sources give rise to problems 
of social acceptability, linked to environmental pol­
lution in the short to long term, operational safety and 
security of supply. 
The Commission has recently identified as a realistic 
strategic objective for the end of the century a 25% 
reduction in energy consumption in European countries 
as a result of the development of techniques to improve 
efficiency in the use of energy. 
After the Chernobyl disaster there is ample justification 
for a 'great scientific mobilization' to intensify research 
not only on safety and environmental protection tech­
nology, but also on energy savings and renewable 
energy sources. In the current situation, it is impossible 
to endorse the partial abandonment of activities in this 
field—activities which should instead be revived and 
integrated with the industrial promotion phase. 
3.4. Nuclear-fusion technology and safety 
The Community is involved in a large-scale research 
and development programme, which is being carried 
on in various national laboratories, with coordination 
and encouragement from the Commission. 
In the field of nuclear fusion and plasma physics the 
EEC has promoted a number of experiments in various 
countries. Of these the most important is the JET 
project, which is being carried on by a European staff 
at Culham in the United Kingdom. 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/59 
The JRC provides a significant contribution in the field 
of technology, on which it has been working for more 
than 10 years, particularly on: 
— cooperation with the NET group in Garching, in 
the design of the NET machine, 
— experimental studies of new materials, 
— studies of safety and fusion. 
Of particular importance is the Council of Ministers' 
decision in July 1985 to install at Ispra a tritium-
handling laboratory for research on the safety and 
environmental impact of that isotope. This laboratory 
is planned to be operative by 1990. 
The development of fusion will require a series of 
nuclear experiments—both for the study of plasma 
physics and on the behaviour of the irradiated materials. 
Through the skills it has developed and through its 
characteristics, the JRC has suitable Community sites 
for some of these nuclear experiments, and particularly 
for devices such as IGNITOR and the intense neutron 
source. Finally, it would be useful to assess whether, as 
many experts maintain, a concentration of efforts in 
this field could lead to a considerable shortening of the 
time thought to be required for developing these energy 
sources. 
4. Conclusions 
4.1. Planning choices 
The Committee regards the following as the fields 
of activity on which Community expenditure is fully 
justified: 
— health and safety, 
— environmental protection and improvement of the 
quantity of life, 
— activities envisaged by the Treaty, 
— creation and maintenance of a single internal market 
(especially technological research, development and 
demonstration (TRDD) with a view to drawing up 
norms), 
— improving the competitiveness of industry, in some 
cases including its sources of supply and the use of 
energy. 
On the basis of these assessments the Committee feels 
that the Community now needs a strong and active 
JRC, which would be an exemplary centre on an inter­
national scale. The JRC must therefore be revitalized 
and reorganized as soon as possible as an instrument 
of direct research in the service of the Community and 
the Member States. 
On the strength of the results achieved, the skills of the 
staff and the experience acquired, the JRC is capable 
of achieving this aim in 1987 and subsequent years. This is all the more true since—as the members of the 
study group observed in the places visited—the main 
obstacles to its activity arise above all from the follow­
ing factors: uncertainty .and delay in Community decis-
iom-making; the fact that the JRC is not given enough 
independence and responsibility; frequent, sometimes 
contradictory changes in the aims assigned to it; excess­
ive bureaucratic checks on scientific and administrative 
management; rigid, inadequate or inappropriate assess­
ment and use of staff; inadequate funds and resources. 
The Committee takes the view that the Commission 
proposals only partially meet the requirements express­
ed above for proper use of the JRC as a common 
instrument of direct research. In particular, it agrees 
with the shift of emphasis to nuclear fission safety and 
the beginning of a new programme for monitoring and 
assessment of radiation in accordance with point 3 of 
the opinion. 
A negative aspect, however, is the idea of reducing 
activity in the field of non-nuclear energy and the 
lack of any planning for subsequent investments in 
significant scientific/technical establishments, such as 
those for nuclear fusion mentioned above. 
This is certainly not justified by the fact that 1987 is a 
transitional year; indeed, this makes it all the more 
suitable for sketching out future developments. 
Finally, the industrial support activity is left vague; it 
is mainly linked with the 'materials and structures' 
programmes, the nature of which is not sufficiently 
clarified. 
4.2, Role of direct research 
There should be a review of the tendency to quantitative 
restriction of JRC activities, which conflicts with the 
policy of entrusting it with additional tasks while main­
taining or increasing the earlier traditional tasks. 
To this end, the Committee proposes that direct 
research should be made less peripheral to Community 
activities as a whole. Under the guidelines envisaged in 
the Commission document, direct research would be 
reduced from 30% to 15% of the total from 1987 
onwards. 
The tendency to restrict the JRC is also confirmed 
in the part devoted to staff management. There the 
Commission announces its intention of reserving a 
number of posts for staff who will return to other jobs 
after a period of work at the JRC, and, in order to save 
ECU 3 million in two years, it plans to reduce the 
number of new staff whom it had been intended to take 
No C 333/60 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
on to reach the staffing level already assigned to the 
JRC by the Council of Ministers (and never achieved). 
This planning is not contradicted by the document on 
the revised 1987 programme. The Committee does not 
regard it as acceptable—in the present situation, and 
since the Community is committed to a full-scale revival 
of European research—to make savings by a freeze on 
recruitment. 
On the other hand, all measures to encourage the 
mobility of staff and their interaction with national 
bodies and firms are to be promoted, while respecting 
the staff's aspirations. In view of the Community's 
enlargement from six to twelve Member States, it is 
advisable to associate the newer Members closely with 
the JRC and give them priority should a new research 
establishment prove to be necessary. 
More generally, the Committee hopes that the Com­
mission will develop a policy of scientific cooperation 
with other regions of the world, through the JRC and 
in other ways. 
4.3. Coordination of JRC activities 
One of the main aims at this stage is to improve the 
integration of the JRC's activities with Member States' 
and industry's research efforts. 
But this certainly cannot be achieved if there is no 
clear definition of the conditions and procedures for 
cooperation, the staff working on Community research 
is reduced and there is no guarantee of the rights 
and supranational status—i.e. specific classification and 
recognition—of the researcher, of working conditions 
which encourage creativity, and of geographical/occu­
pational mobility, with corresponding rights and duties, 
including the possibility of reincorporation in the 
organizations from which the staff originated. 
Failure to create such conditions would weaken com­
mon efforts and impair the level, quality and effective­
ness of supranational technical/scientific coordination 
and cooperation. 
Effective strengthening and adequate restructuring of 
the JRC can be achieved by concentrating on more 
rational use of the staff already there, correcting the 
operating faults, increasing staff in the sectors which 
need it, and guaranteeing the rights of the researcher. 
An increase in the mobility of research staff is one of 
the aims to be pursued in order to improve the JRC's 
efficiency. But we should not forget or underestimate 
the fact that in social terms one of the basic causes of 
immobility is the inadequate social security arising from the lack of a real market. At this stage the proposal for 
a European Research Community should be clarified 
and quantified as a basic point of reference for the 
mobility of scientific staff, and for improving research 
conditions and working conditions. 
4.4. Structure of the JRC 
Although the structure of its own organizations is an 
internal matter for the Commission, the Committee 
would suggest a restructuring designed to encourage 
the initiative of researchers and to stimulate responsi­
bility and interest in carrying out the scientific work 
involved, through the formation of suitable, flexible 
working units. 
To this end, the Committee recommends to the Com­
mission and the Council a federated, more flexible 
structure which could consist essentially of the fol­
lowing: 
— Joint Research Centre and its management, 
— well-defined research institutes for the main fields 
of activity, avoiding any form of isolation and fav­
ouring mutual collaboration, 
— joint installations or establishments located if poss­
ible in a number of Member States, especially those 
which acceded recently, 
— flexible working units for the main subjects, includ­
ing functional research for carrying out significant 
projects, 
— a specialized service to develop contact, training, 
exchange of data and experience with national 
research centres, national and European economic 
and social groups, public opinion and bodies which 
give expression to it, by creating a data-bank access­
ible to all. These activities should aim to get the 
best out of an efficient JRC. 
To achieve these various aims the JRC should be struc­
tured in functional units which have a well-defined 
identity, functions and objectives, and which are finan­
cially transparent. 
Each unit should deal with a particular aspect of TRDD 
financed by the Community—health and safety, 
environmental protection, Treaty activities, activities in 
support of the internal market, and perhaps others such 
as promotion of industrial competitiveness. Each of 
these units should be managed by a competent and 
responsible person. 
The Commission document on the 1987 programme, 
while confirming the intention to restructure the JRC 
and especially the Ispra establishment, does not give 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/61 
enough information to enable one to assess whether 
it contributes to achieving the aforementioned aims. 
Positive aspects are the proposed new balance between 
management of projects and that of scientific depart­
ments, and the proposal to improve cooperation among 
the establishments. 
4.5. Detailed suggestions 
Still with a view to the greater efficiency, rationality 
and timeliness of the JRC's and Commission's activities 
in this field, the Committee wishes to make a few 
detailed suggestions and recommendations. These can 
be summarized as follows: 
Restructuring 
Rapid decision-making on institutional and operational 
aspects of effective restructuring of the JRC, not as a 
centre with two functions—nuclear and non-nuclear— 
which are difficult to reconcile, but as the Community's 
single, independent, Joint Research Centre composed 
of a number of complementary sectors, albeit with 
differing characteristics and capable of being adapted 
to the needs of the moment. 
Monitoring 
Awareness that the monitoring procedures set up by 
the Commission often cause waste of resources and 
frustation among the staff. If would be desirable to 
replace them with the delegation of responsibility to the 
heads of research units, while providing for subsequent 
checks. 
Research expenditure and budget 
Search for an acceptable and practicable alternative 
to the proposal to make savings at the expense of 
recruitment. To that end it would be desirable to disag­
gregate the JRC budget when new, including structural, 
guidelines are presented to the Council of Ministers. As 
with other Community activities, permanent personnel 
management, expenditure could be differentiated from 
specific appropriations or research activities and re­
allocated to the Commission's general operating 
budget, but not regarded as direct research expenditure. 
In addition, the JRC should be encouraged to take on 
Done at Brussels, 27 November 1986. staff seconded from national bodies in order to ensure 
close interaction between the JRC and such bodies. 
Utilization of research 
Better utilization and dissemination of the results of 
research work and related activities, assistance given 
to the various Commission departments and national 
research centres, cooperation with, and support given to 
the Member States and their industries, while improving 
planning with regard to public relations, which at pre­
sent takes up too much management time. These tasks 
should be carried out by improving the structure of the 
relevant departments. 
Staff and social problems 
Creation of a continuous and effective relationship 
between the JRC and the Economic and Social Commit­
tee, its specialized sections, the two sides of industry 
and other social groups within the Community, both 
on programmes and subjects of topical interest and on 
problems related to structure. 
The proposed decision 
The Committee points out that the text of the proposed 
Council Decision on the 1987 programme cites, above 
all, general and administrative reasons similar to those 
given for earlier programmes, without making enough 
mention of the most recent Community policies or the 
urgent needs arising from highly important factors and 
innovations such as: the new approach and aims of 
the technological Community; EUREKA; shared-cost 
research; the need to implement Article 3 of the Eura-
tom Treaty and to improve nuclear safety; the sections 
of the Single European Act relating to research; the 
effects of, and lessons to be drawn from, the Chernobyl 
disaster and other nuclear accidents, etc. 
The Committee does not seek to take the place of the 
responsible bodies in formulating the Decision, and it 
realises, for example, that it is difficult to cite the Single 
European Act when it has not yet been ratified by all 
the Member States. It therefore confines itself to raising 
this question, in the certainty that the Commission will 
find a way to update the text of the proposed Decision 
and strengthen the statement of reasons which 
accompanies it. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT