19.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/51 
already done so be invited (subject to their budgetary constraints) to recruit job-seekers for 
projects under these programmes, provided this does not jeopardize existing jobs (e.g. selec­
tive collection of waste for recycling, lay-out, restoration and maintenance of green areas, 
parks, play-areas, nature and landscape conservation areas, restoration of the natural course 
of streams and rivers, recurvation, systematic large-scale surveys of air, water and soil pol­
lution, care of the needy, conservation of monuments, and so on).' 
Reasons 
Concrete goals for improving the environment and the quality of life should be laid down in 
order to provide guidance for both the private sector and the national authorities. 
Voting 
For: 3, against: 36, abstentions: 7. 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council on structures and 
procedures for the common policy in the field of science and technology containing draft 
Council Decisions dealing with 
I. Structures and procedures for the common policy in the field of science and 
technology 
II. Structures and procedures for the management and coordination of Community 
research development and demonstration activities 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 7 April 1983 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. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 7 April 1983 for 
an opinion on the draft Council Decisions dealing 
on the one hand with structures and procedures for 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro- the common policy in the field of science and tech-
pean Economic Community, and in particular nology, and on the other with structures and proce-
Article 198 thereof, dures for the management and coordination of 
No C 341/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12.83 
Community research, development and demonstra­
tion activities (•), 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 26 April 1983, instructing the Section for Energy 
and Nuclear Questions to draw up an opinion on 
the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by that Sec­
tion at its 82nd meeting on 9 September 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr de Normann, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting of 29 
September 1983 (210th plenary session of 28 and 29 
September 1983), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. The Committee in the main endorses the Com­
mission's proposals, and in particular supports: 
— the establishment of a Higher Policy Committee 
for Science and Technology, 
— the establishment of management and consulta­
tive committees (CGC's), 
— the dissolution of the Scientific and Technical 
Research Committee (Crest), the Committees by 
Sector and the Horizontal Committees listed in 
Annex 3 of the draft Council Decision. 
The Committee recognizes that no structural and 
procedural mechanism can be perfect. In the final 
analysis, success depends on the skill of the Com­
mission to select and manage and on the political 
will of the Council to support it. 
Whilst in the main endorsing the proposals, the 
Committee would however make some general 
remarks, indicate the criteria it applied in arriving at 
its opinion, and then make some specific observa­
tions on the proposals. These specific observations 
concern certain ambiguities and omissions which 
the Committee believes must be rectified. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee welcomes the review by the 
Commission of the existing mechanisms for decid-
(') OJ No C 113, 27. 4. 1983. ing on Community scientific and technical activities 
in general (through the framework programme) and 
on individual sectoral research action programmes. 
2.2. The Committee believes this is the right time 
to consider such changes in view of the new 
research and development strategy for the 1980 and 
in view of the new approach to Community research 
and development embodied in the proposed frame­
work programme (1984 to 1987). 
2.3. The Committee accepts that the existing 
mechanisms work, are understood by those who par­
ticipate in them, and have resulted in an effective 
network of contacts between the Commission and 
Member States and between Member States them­
selves at the scientific level. 
2.4. The outweighing disadvantages of the existing 
mechanisms stem from a rigid complex committee 
organization at Commission level, followed by a 
further committee mechanism at Coreper level. 
Overall the initiation of research activity from con­
cept to approval takes far longer than it should. 
3. Criteria for judging the proposed changes to 
structures and procedures 
The Commission has proposed major changes 
which require the deepest possible consideration 
before implementation. The Committee believes 
that the proposed changes should be judged against 
certain criteria: 
3.1. that the Community budget for research and 
development is spent efficiently on well prepared 
proposals: that Community research and develop­
ment is competently managed, reviewed periodi­
cally and actions recognized as ineffecitve stopped, 
3.2. that work is assessed and evaluated on com­
pletion and that the results of the evaluation are 
used in the definition of further programmes, and 
the reassessment of current actions, 
3.3. that procedures provide adequate and timely 
opportunity for national governments, industry, 
employees and other interest groups to express their 
views on the setting of research and development 
objectives, the formulation of the framework pro­
gramme and the major research action programmes. 
In particular, industry on which the Community 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/53 
relies for the implementation in the market place, 
needs to be consulted, 
3.4. that adequate provision exists for Member 
States to make their input to proposals at the prepar­
ation stage before the proposals are formalized by 
the Commission. This is to ensure that national pro­
grammes of research and national expenditure 
levels have been taken into account, 
3.5. that Member States be kept informed in broad 
terms of the progress of the major research action 
programmes, 
3.6. that the new procedures do not diminish the 
efficiency of the existing scientific network built up 
within the Community, 
3.7. that procedures are such that Member States 
are clear about the authority and required compet­
ence of their representatives on the Committees, 
3.8. that the new procedures are transparent, 
understandable and as free as possible from overlap 
and ambiguity: that each committee has clearly 
defined mandates, powers and responsibilities and 
that wherever possible grey areas are avoided, 
3.9. that the Commission adopt a policy of flexi­
bility with a mechanism established to ensure that 
ptocedures that do not work after a period of trial 
will be modified. 
4. Specific comments 
In the light of these criteria the Committee would 
make the following specific comments: 
4.1. Links to national research Policy 
The Committee recognizes that the framework pro­
gramme sets the guidelines for a large and increas­
ing financial commitment to the Community. It 
urges the Commission to make every effort to: 
— ensure that Member States have early warning 
of likely changes to financial commitments, 
— establish closer links between the Community 
policy and measures taken at national level, so 
that structures and procedures governing research in the field of science and technology 
can be mutually adapted as necessary. 
4.2. Definition of authorities 
The Committee urges that a clear definition of the 
respective authorities of the Commission, the CGC's 
and the HCST be drawn up. It believes there should 
be a financial level up to which expenditure deci­
sions can be made independently by the Commis­
sion within the framework programme and the oper­
ational yearly budgets. 
4.3. Re. the proposed Council Decision dealing with 
structures and procedures for decison-making 
(establishing the higher policy committee for 
science and technology) 
The Committee considers that certain aspects of the 
HCST require further consideration and clarifica­
tion. 
4.3.1. The HCST should be so constituted that 
Coreper will be prepared to accept its opinion with­
out recourse to the existing Coreper research group. 
It could then be accepted as a replacement for the 
existing two committees, Crest and the Coreper 
sub-committee. 
4.3.2. At first sight, the rotation of the chairman­
ship of the HCST in line with the Presidency of the 
Council would not seem to be in the best interests of 
the necessary continuity required by research and 
development. Having considered alternatives the 
Committee considers that for the time being the 
proposals regarding the chairing of the HCST is 
realistic. 
4.3.3. The HCST should be provided with clearly 
defined powers and responsibilities to enable it to 
give Coreper a comprehensive opinion on (i) the sci­
ence- and technology-policy and financial aspects 
of the proposals regarding the framework and 
research action programme; and (ii) on the specific 
content. Article 2 should spell out its mandate, and 
its powers and responsibilities with greater clarity. 
4.3.4. Without this clarity Member States will find 
difficulty in nominating representatives of the 
required calibre and in making necessary modifica­
tions to their domestic mechanisms (Article 3). 
4.3.5. Some link is needed between the HCST, the 
Commission and the CGC's. The Commission 
should give further thought to some formal link as 
an alternative to allowing informal links to develop 
as the new structures mature. 
No C 341/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83 
4.3.6. HCST should have a more clearly defined 
role in reviewing progress within the framework pro­
gramme. 
4.3.7. The relationship between the HCST and the 
JRC advisory body for both direct and cost-shared 
progranimes should be clarified. 
4.3.8. To assist in the achievement of the objective 
of improving industrial competitiveness, considera­
tion should be given to adding to the membership of 
HCST a non-governmental member from each 
Member State: certainly for framework considera­
tions and perhaps, too, an other occasions. 
4.3.9. As far as Article 5 is concerned: 
— guideline rules of procedure should be estab­
lished to cover the treatment of proposals on 
which unanimity cannot be achieved; 
— consideration should be given to strengthening 
the power of HCST for strategic assessment and 
evaluation if necessary by an independent team, 
— HCST should be given specific authority for 
controlling the information flow which it 
requires to discharge its responsibilities for both 
evaluation and assessment. 
4.4. Re. the proposed Council Decision dealing with 
structures and procedures for the management 
and coordination of research and development 
activities (establishing the Management and 
Consultative Committees (CGC's) 
The Committee considers that certain aspects of the 
CGC's require further consideration and clarifica­
tion. 
4.4.1. The CGC's powers and responsibilities 
should be spelled out with greater clarity in the draft 
Council Decision. 
4.4.2. Article 2 appears to lay overdue emphasis on 
the advisory duties of the CGC's at the request of 
the Commission and not enough on a clearly-
defined responsibility of a continuous nature. The 
purpose of the CGC's is stated to be to give a 
borough and sound view to the Commission which 
tvill form part of the Commission dossier to HCST 
and the Council. CGC's cannot discharge this duty 
if their work is intermittent at the option of the 
Commission. 4.4.3. The Commission should give further consid­
eration to the structure of special CGC's for FAST 
and other horizontal programmes. 
4.4.4. The proposed restricted number of the 
CGC's although less than that of the existing 
advisory committees, would require Member State 
representatives to consider a very wide range of 
scientific activity. This would militate against 
in-depth examination of Commission proposals 
which existing Advisory Committees on Programme 
Management (APCM) provide. This in turn would 
tend to reduce the influence which Member States 
have in the initiation and implementation of 
research and development programmes. The list of 
CGCs as given in the communication from the 
Commission and set out in the Annex should be 
modified to provide more adequately for research 
related to living and working conditions. 
The Committee urges that the Commission be asked 
to consider allowing Member States to vary at least 
one of the three representatives they send to CGC's 
in accordance with the agenda for any particular 
meeting. It would also urge that provision be made 
for the representatives to be accompanied by 
experts, who would not be permitted to take part in 
deliberations but who could provide information 
during the Sessions. This would ensure both contin­
uity and in-depth advice. 
4.4.5. The Committee believes that the Commis­
sion should also reconsider the composition of the 
Committees (Article 3). 
— it might be preferable for Member States to 
nominate their representatives for approval by 
the Commission (see 4.4.4 above, second para­
graph), 
— to ensure that industry has an adequate voice at 
this level, not all the representatives should be 
Member State Government employees. One per 
Member State should come from industry. This 
would help to emphasize a main purpose of 
research and development in the Community 
that scientific and technical strategy should be 
firmly geared to practical innovation, 
— it is also necessary to ensure that employees 
have an adequate representation at this level 
since their conditions of work and indeed of life 
are affected both directly and indirectly. The 
Committee urges that a mechanism to achieve 
satisfactory consultation be included in the new 
procedures. 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/55 
4.4.6. The Commission should be asked to spell 
out more clearly the procedures to be adopted 
within the CGC's. If this is not done, the procedures 
adopted by one CGC will rapidly diverge from 
another. 
The CGC's views have to be attached to the Com­
mission submission to HCST so they require some 
uniformity of operational ground rules if only to 
help HCST and the Council assess the strength of 
their advice. 
4.4.7. Although the evaluation procedure of 
research and development programmes is separate 
from procedures governing the CGCs, the Com­
mittee suggests to the Commission that it organize 
the flow of information in such a way that the 
CGC's can make use of it in their advice on new 
research action programmes. 
4.4.8. The Committee supports the Commission 
proposal for liaison between the CGC's and other 
advisory committees such as CODEST and CORDI. 
Done at Brussels, 29 September 1983. 4.5. Evaluation of results 
The Committee believes that an effective procedure 
for the evaluation of research and development 
results is essential. It understands that this evalua­
tion will be organized by the Commission using 
independent experts and involving Parliament and 
the Court of Auditors. It is aware of the draft Coun­
cil resolution on promoting the utilization of the 
results of Community-sponsored research and 
development (COM(83) 18 final and COM(83) 
526 final). 
It urges the Commission to ensure that procedures 
for assessment of work in progress and evaluation 
of work completed as a basis for further action pro­
grammes should be precise, effective and rapid. 
Specifically the results of the assessment and eval­
uation should be presented in a standard format as 
part of any proposals to renew existing programmes 
or initiate new related programmes. This infor­
mation is required at the earliest point in the decision-
taking process, i.e. by the CGC's. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC