24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/15 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision to adopt a first multiannual programme 
(1988-1993) for biotechnology-based agro-industrial research and technological development, 
ECLAIR!1) 
(88/C 134/07) 
On 15 January 1988 the Council asked the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130 Q of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, for an Opinion 
on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which had been instructed to 
prepare the Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 4 March 1988. The 
rapporteur was Mr De Tavernier. 
At its 254th plenary session (meeting of 23 March) the Committee adopted the following 
Opinion unanimously. 
The Committee approves the Commission's proposal 
in principle. It would, however, stress that beneficial 
effects can only be expected to accrue from the ECLAIR 
programme if account is taken of the reservations set 
out below and of the proposals which are put forward 
with a view to making the programme more specific, 
more innovative and a more effective stimulus. 
1. The linkage between the ECLAIR programme and 
other related programmes: 
1.1. The ECLAIR programme put forward by the 
Commission comes under Action No 4 'Exploitation 
and Optimum Use of Biological Resources' of the 
Framework Programme 1987-1991 for Community 
Activities in Research and Technological Development, 
R&TD (2). This Action consists of three parts: 
'4.1. Biotechnology; 
4.2. Agro-industrial technologies; 
4.3. Competitiveness of agriculture and manage­
ment of agricultural resources.' 
1.2. Although the ECLAIR programme is part of 
Action 4.2 it has close links with the other programmes 
coming under Action 4. Furthermore, this programme 
constitutes only the first part of Action 4.2 since it is 
to be complemented by a programme dealing with food-
industry technology. 
1.3. The Committee adopted an Opinion on the 
revision of the multi-annual programme in the field of 
biotechnology on 27 January 1988. The Commission 
has not yet drawn up proposals with regard to the 
second part of Action 4.2 and Action 4.3. These pro­
grammes are not outlined in either the biotechnology 
programme or the present proposal, which clearly 
makes it difficult to make any assessment of the con­
tents of the ECLAIR programme. For the same reasons 
it is impossible to place the programme in the wider 
context. 
(') OJNoC63, 5. 3. 1988, p. 7. 
(2) OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 5. 1.4. The present agro-industrial action programme 
also interfaces with the Community 1984-1988 pro­
grammes on agricultural research, adopted by a 
decision of the Council on 12 December 1983 and 
amended by a decision of 19 March 1987. In November 
1987 the Commission sent the European Parliament 
and the Council a report on progress made with the 
activities provided for under these programmes which 
have now been under way for four years. In its report 
the Commission stated, inter alia, that it had up to that 
point been impossible to make a proper evaluation of 
the programmes. These programmes are nonetheless in 
many respects closely related to or may even overlap 
with several of the development projects put forward 
in the ECLAIR programme. The Committee therefore 
wonders to what extent the programme to be presented 
under the action entitled 'Competitiveness of agri­
culture and management of agricultural resources' will 
differ substantially and meaningfully from the rest. 
1.5. The Committee points out that the agricultural 
sector is explicitly mentioned in other chapters of the 
outline programme and is directly covered by several 
programmes coming under other research actions, e.g. 
Action No 1 ('Quality of life'), Action No 6 ('Science 
and technology for development') and Action No 8 
('Improvement of European cooperation in the field 
of science and technology'). In spite of the copious, 
explanatory comments accompanying the ECLAIR pro­
gramme, the linkage of form and content between the 
present programme and those coming under other 
actions concerning agriculture is not adequately 
brought out, and is especially not demonstrated in a 
clear and systematic way. 
1.6. The Committee has the impression that with 
regard to this whole subject the decision-making and 
managing bodies do not have an overall view of all 
the various programmes. Coordination between linked 
programmes also appears to be inadequate. There is 
therefore clearly a real danger of an explosive growth 
in administration and expenses. 
1.7. The Committee therefore wonders whether the 
Commission should not place greater emphasis on coor-
No C 134/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
dination. There is also a need to define the aims of the 
proposed programme more clearly. 
1.8. A welcome feature, however, is that the Com­
mission itself considers it desirable that, in order to 
ensure good coordination with the other related pro­
grammes, the Management and Coordination Advisory 
Committee (CGC) for biotechnology-based agro-indus­
trial research and technological development, which 
will assist the Commission in defining and preparing 
the development activities and management of the pro­
gramme, will include representatives of the other CGC's 
concerned, in particular the biotechnology CGC, and 
of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research 
(SCAR). 
1.9. The Commission's intention to arrange in future 
regular and systematic contacts with the consultation 
bodies concerned in the field of biotechnology and 
agricultural research is also undoubtedly a step in the 
right direction. 
2. Risk evaluation and environmental aspects of the 
ECLAIR Programme 
2.1. As in the case of linkage and coordination, the 
approach in dealing with the risk and environmental 
aspects of the programme is not sufficiently clear and 
systematic. From this point of view, too, there is an 
urgent need for better coordination of the various pro­
grammes that are in hand—fundamental biological 
research, agro-industrial technology, food industry 
research and development (R&D), actions to improve 
the quality of life (health and environment). The recent 
development of biotechnology and the new possibilities 
it offers have given rise to great hopes but also to deep 
fears. In order to prevent these fears from degenerating 
into irrational panic or blind rejection of the new tech­
niques, R&D initiatives in the whole area of biotechno­
logy should take the health and environment factor into 
account as an intrinsic aspect. Issues relating to safety 
at work must also be taken into consideration in parallel 
with the development of biotechnology. 
2.2. The Committee notes that in these matters the 
Commission is also beginning to appreciate the need 
for greater coordination between the various depart­
ments and directorates-general concerned and for more 
systematic risk evaluation and consideration of the 
environmental factor. 
2.3. In the future it would be desirable for the Com­
mission to include in its proposals for particular 
biotechnological projects an appendix dealing with risk 
evaluation, the measures to be taken to protect public 
health and the direct links with ecological consider­
ations. 3. Overview, structure and content of the ECLAIR 
programme 
3.1. The Committee holds the view that if the 
ECLAIR programme is to be regarded as 'sufficiently 
useful and innovative', it has to meet certain criteria. 
3.1.1. As has already been stressed, the programme's 
content needs to be clearly delimited. The field covered 
by the programme has to be defined sufficiently pre­
cisely vis-a-vis the fields covered by related pro­
grammes, though there have to be links between them. 
The Community is involved, in one way or another, 
with a mass of biotechnology projects. There is there­
fore a need for a proper inventory of these projects, 
over and above a list of the various research actions 
under which they come. A systematic survey is required 
which would perhaps take the form of a specific coordi­
nation programme. 
3.1.2. One might also expect the proposed activities 
to reflect to a certain degree the importance of the 
individual sectors of Community agriculture. EEC gross 
agricultural product breaks down as follows: arable 
farming about 20%, market gardening 20%, stock 
raising about 60%. In addition to the approximately 
130 million ha used for agriculture, another 60 million 
ha is given over to forestry. Probably all these sectors 
have equally important technical and economic poten­
tial and problems. 
3.1.3. There are, of course, both 'traditional' and 
'modern' aspects to agro-industrial R&D. Further selec­
tion to achieve higher quality fibres in flax, hemp, etc., 
better organic composition of oilseed rape, more lysine 
in barley, and so on, is a fascinating and worthwhile 
pursuit. In this respect a programme like the ECLAIR 
programme should rather have as its first objective the 
improvement of information, coordination and interac­
tion between the developed and less-developed regions 
of the Community. 
3.1.4. Furthermore, there are more innovative lines 
of research than those proposed by the Commission, 
such as the search for biodegradable pesticides and 
packaging materials, microbial applications to reduce 
the use of nitrogenous and other chemical fertilizers, 
better products to combat soil exhaustion, the use of 
genetic manipulation for the preparation of vaccines, 
energy from biomass, integrated forestry management, 
etc. Coordination and/or activation of this kind of 
research could give the ECLAIR programme and related 
programmes a more innovative dimension. 
3.1.5. Another important criterion is the extent to 
which certain ecological problems are taken into 
account. There is an ecological dimension to some of 
the areas mentioned in the previous paragraph. Better 
24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/17 
processing of organic manure, particularly pig manure, 
is an agricultural and ecological problem for which 
appropriate solutions are being sought in several areas 
of the Community. Achieving sufficient humus build­
up so as to prevent soil exhaustion is a European as 
well as an African problem. 
3.1.6. Finally, there are the specific socio-economic 
aspects, including economic viability, which is stressed 
in point 3 of the Commission document (Programme 
Overview). All other things being equal, the new pro­
cesses need to be demonstrably more economically 
efficient than the old ones aiming at the production of 
new products to satisfy new and emerging needs so as 
to achieve especially the objective of rural development. 
Care also should always be taken to explore and under­
stand the local socio-cultural climate in order to facili­
tate the introduction of biotechnology especially into 
rural areas. 
3.2. On the basis of the criteria enumerated in 3.1 
the Committee has a number of serious reservations 
as to the content of the programme proposed by the 
Commission; it is concerned about: 
3.2.1. The relative downgrading of coordinating 
activities in favour of more direct project participation; 
3.2.2. The uneven distribution, in the overall plan, 
of research projects between arable farming, market 
gardening, stock farming and forestry; 
3.2.3. The programma's tendency—at least as 
regards industrial aspects and agricultural production 
for industrial uses—to stick too much to the beaten 
track at the expense of more innovative approaches; 
3.2.4. The insufficient weight given to ecological 
issues in research projects; this applies to both the 
choice of projects and the prevention, within any given 
project, of any detrimental effects on the environment; 
3.2.5. Insufficient evidence of the economic viability 
of some of the projects, particularly the whole crop 
harvesting procedure described in point 4.3 of ECLAIR. 
If at a later stage a project proves to be not sufficiently 
viable, it must be ensured that the economic miscalcu­
lation does not have a disastrous effect on the weakest 
link in the agro-industrial chain, namely the raw 
materials supplier, and possibly social side-effects. 
4. Intellectual property in biotechnology 
4.1. The Commission considers that 'significant pro­
gress' has been made on regimes for intellectual prop­erty in technology. The Committee has serious doubts 
about this. 
4.2. The agro-industrial area covered by ECLAIR 
is covered by existing national patent laws and by 
provisions on breeders' rights, and often by both 
together. The Committee stresses that a lot of contrac­
tual problems may arise in the absence of properly 
adapted Community legislation. 
5. Participants in research projects 
5.1. The Committee is pleased that industrial and 
agricultural enterprises, co-operatives, research insti­
tutes or universities will be able to participate in 
research projects, as this will favour co-operation 
between such bodies. 
5.2. The Committee also approves the special effort 
to involve small and medium-sized enterprises in the 
programme. 
6. Financing of the ECLAIR programme 
6.1. Some 80 million ECU from the Community has 
been earmarked for implementing the programme. The 
Committee points out that 105 million ECU have been 
set aside for the whole of the 'Agro-industrial technol­
ogies' chapter of the Framework Programme, which 
leaves only 25 million ECU for the food technology 
programme supplementing ECLAIR. 
6.2. But the Committee notes that direct partici­
pation by the food industry in ECLAIR has not been 
ruled out. 
7. Competitiveness and the impact on jobs 
The Committee repeats its reservations in point 3.2.5. 
It also wonders why the agro-industrial workers' organ­
izations were not specifically consulted during the talks 
with supposedly representative organizations. 
8. Ethical aspects of modern biotechnology 
8.1. Biotechnological R&D in specific areas such as 
the agro-industrial field is often carried out as part of a 
wider biotechnological study. The Committee therefore 
feels it appropriate to point out in this narrower context 
that the ethical aspects must be borne in mind in funda­
mental research and in many aspects of applied science. 
It may be assumed that biotechnology is developing 
along similar lines in both the Member States and the 
rest of Western Europe. 
No C 134/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88 
8.2. The Committee urges the Commission—which 
has in any case already taken the initiative—to press 
for the necessary consultation of the Council of Europe 
and of other bodies. In preparing and directing its own activities the Community should be extremely attentive 
to the grave warnings repeatedly sounded by higher 
moral authorities. 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on a specific common measure to 
encourage the development of agriculture in certain regions of Spain [}) 
(88/C 134/08) 
On 25 January 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 3 March 1988. The rapporteur was 
Mr Quevedo Rojo. 
At is 254th plenary session (meeting of 23 March 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. The Committee agrees that agricultural develop­
ment should be promoted in disadvantaged areas of 
Spain, but would reiterate its criticisms, already voiced 
when similar proposals were put forward for Italy and 
France, of the method proposed by the Commission 
(See Opinion of 14 March 1986) (2). 
(!) OJ No C 25, 30. 1. 1988, p. 8. 
(2) OJ No C 118, 20. 5. 1986, p. 13. 2. The Committee believes that the various represen­
tative organizations in the area should be involved in 
all the various stages of implementation of the planned 
measures. 
3. The Committee considers that during the fourth 
year of application of the programme the Commission 
should not only inform the Council of the progress of 
the common measures, as laid down in Article 6 (2), 
but also the Economic and Social Committee. 
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT