No C 56/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
APPENDIX 
(fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure) 
During the discussions in the Plenary the following motion for amendment was defeated: 
After point 3.3, Chapter I (C), insert a new paragraph making the same point as 3.2.2. 
Reasons 
This is a problem in railway transport as well as road transport. 
Voting 
For: 21. Against: 36. Abstentions: 25. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Framework Programme of 
Community activities in the field on research and technological development (1990 to 1994) (*) 
(90/C 56/11) 
On 16 August 1989 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 130q (2) of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee 
for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for the 
preparatory work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 3 november 1989. (Rapporteur: Mr 
de Normann.) 
At its 271st plenary session (meeting of 15 november 1989), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted unanimously the following opinion. 
1. Summary and general considerations 
1.1. The Committee recommends that the Council 
adopts the Commission proposal for a Framework 
Programme of Community activities in the field of 
research and technological development (1990 to 1994) 
(COM(89) 397 final) for a sum of ECU 7 700 million 
deemed necessary over the five-year period, subject to 
a further interinstitutional agreement covering the years 
1993 to 1994. 
1.2. The Committee has taken into account the sup­
porting papers tabled by the Commission both in 
advance of and subsequent to the issue of the third 
Framework Programme proposal. 
1.3. The Committee supports the concept of a rolling 
programme of R&TD which will enable work to be 
concentrated in essential and effective areas, will enable 
the reduction of removal of non-essential or ineffective 
work and the introduction of new work as it becomes 
necessary. 
(') OJ No C 243, 23. 9. 1989, p. 4. 1.4. It urges that the rolling programme approach 
should be adopted also for future framework pro­
grammes in order to provide essential continuity of 
work, and to reduce the time required to agree and 
implement the individual programmes. 
1.5. The Committee considers that the existing sys­
tem of finite framework programmes results in artificial 
breaks for financial reasons and in uncertainty about 
the funds available for the continuation of worthwhile 
projects. 
1.6. It believes that there will be an opportunity to 
introduce certain strategic adjustments and new concept 
into the rolling framework programme at an earlier 
stage and appreciates that the introduction of an over­
lap in the year 1990 to 1992 enables the funding to be 
increased from the beginning of that period. 
1.7. It emphasizes that the successful implementation 
of a rolling programme must involve a strong mana­
gerial discipline which will necessitate stopping pro­
grammes as well as starting them. 
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/35 
1.8. The Committee regards the global sum of ECU 
7 700 million proposed for 1900 to 1994 as a ceiling 
figure. It notes Article 1 (3) of the proposal which 
states that the budgetary authority shall determine the 
available funds for each year. It notes that the amounts 
deemed necessary for the implementation of each spec­
ific programme shall be the subject of two Council 
decisions covering the periods 1990 to 1992 and 1993 
to 1994 respectively. 
1.9. The Committee feels nevertheless that the pro­
posal to commit a Community budget of ECU 10 825 
million in total, together with further funds supplied 
by contractors for shared cost and concerted action 
programmes is submitted in an atmosphere of techno­
logical isolation from the overall policies for the Com­
munity. 
1.9.1. The Committee would like to see the R&TD 
policy and the strategy to achieve it made an integral 
part of Community policies including the improvement 
of the quality of life, the achievement of cohesion and 
the principle of subsidiarity. 
1.9.2. The Committee believes that the Council 
should ask the Commission to set up a small strategic 
body to be appointed by Council to overlook the R& 
TD policy and strategy in the light of overall Com­
munity policies and strategy over a 10 to 15 year hor­
izon. This strategic body should be chaired by an emi­
nent figure independent of the Commission. 
1.10. The Committee emphasizes the need for full 
and effective mid-term reviews called for by the second 
and the proposed third Framework Programmes. It 
believes these must form a basis for the activities 
described in Annex II of the proposal. 
1.11. The Committee also draws the attention of the 
Council to a number of requirements for which it will 
be looking when individual programme proposals are 
referred to it under Article 130q (2) of the Single Euro­
pean Act. 
1.11.1. Some of these requirements will need action 
by the Commission in advance, notably a policy for 
third countries, an assessment of the optimum relation­
ship with Eureka, a reconsideration of the treatment of 
intellectual property, a formal mechanism for utiliza­
tion of results and a new approach to technical com­
munication at a general level. 
2. Mid-term reviews 
2.1. Article 4 of the Council Decision of 28 Septemb­
er 1981 (*) calls for a mid-term review of the second Framework Programme on the basis of which the Com­
mission shall make proposals for revision. 
This review gave rise to three main documents: 
— the first report on the State of Science and Tech­
nology in Europe (COM(88) 647 final of 29 
November 1988), 
— the report of the Framework Programme Review 
Board (forwarded to the Commission in June 1989), 
— a communication from the Commission entitled A 
framework for Community R&TD actions in the 
90s (SEQ89) 675 final of 13 June 1989), 
in the light of which the Commission felt that strategic 
adjustments were necessary, which would require more 
than a simple revision of the current Framework Pro­
gramme which would be limited to the two years 1990 
and 1991. 
2.2. The Committee agrees with the Review Board 
that the Commission has achieved real progress in the 
attainment of the 1987 to 1991 Framework Programme 
declared objectives and that management and adminis­
tration have responded well. 
2.3. The Commission has replied to the report of the 
Review Board and has incorporated a proportion of its 
recommendations into its current proposal. 
2.4. Nevertheless the Committee considers that the 
Council should ask the Commission to provide a full 
and in-depth mid-term evaluation to include an analysis 
of value for money spent, programme by programme, 
an estimate of likely achievements from promising pro­
grammes and a post-mortem on programmes stopped 
for lack of promise. 
2.5. The Committee would like to see the resulting 
information used by the Commission to produce a 
simple account of their R&TD activities which would 
be comprehensible to citizens of the Community (see 
section 19). 
2.6. The Committee emphasizes the value of the mid­
term evaluation and the discipline demanded to prepare 
for it and emphasizes the value of Article 5 of the 
current proposal which calls for a review in 1992. 
3. The relevance of the Commission R&TD frame­
work programme to the Community policies strat­
egy and objectives 
(!) OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 1. 3.1. The Committee considers the third Framework 
Programme proposal is technologically isolated. For 
No C 56/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
instance, it fails to set the R&TD proposals in the 
context of the various needs for the improvement of 
the quality of life and to propose global projects aimed 
at effective solutions which will require political will 
of the Community to implement them. 
3.2. The Committee believes that the Community 
should now begin to plan to move towards the creation 
of a single science and technology space. The present 
mosaic of Member States acts against achieving an 
optimum output from R&TD expenditure in compari­
son with USA and Japan. The lack of a single agreed 
plan made in the full knowlegde of national and 
regional policies acts against the Community interest 
to a greater extent than discrepancies in funding. 
3.3. The Committee considers that the current and 
proposed Framework Programme rely to a large extent 
on 'bottom-up' proposals. It would like to see in 
addition a complementary 'top-down' approach which 
begins with the definition of a Community R&TD 
policy and strategy based on agreed criteria, identifying 
the work that should be done at Community level 
in the light of Member State existing and projected 
progammes, fixing urgencies and priorities and finally 
estimating the funding necessary. 
3.4. Certain areas of R&TD which affect the quality 
of life such as environmental problems in meteorology, 
climatology and oceanic science are best tackled on a 
global scale. 
3.5. The proposal appears to lack a global project for 
an effective mechanism for diffusion of the technology 
which is already available as well as that which will be 
generated uy the current and proposed programmes. 
3.6. In the Treaty establishing the European Econ­
omic Community, Article 2 states: 
'The Community shall have as its task, by establishing 
a common market and progressively approximating 
the economic policies of Member States, to promote 
throughout the Community a harmonious development 
of economic activities, a continuous and balanced 
expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated rais­
ing of the standard jf living and closer relations 
between the States belonging to it.' 
3.7. The Committee considers that these five objec­
tives all form part of a single overall objective, to 
improve the quality of life of all citizens in the Com­
munity. Within this single overall objective, the Section defines a whole series of secondary objectives, some of 
which will be conflicting and which will need to be 
balanced to meet the overall objective. 
3.8. In its communication entitled A framework for 
Community R&TD actions in the 90s the Commission 
identifies two objectives designated as the 'challenges 
of 1992'. 
3.9. The first objective is defined by Article 130f as 
the Community aims to strengthen the scientific and 
technological basis of European industry and to encour­
age it to become more competitive at international 
level. 
3.10. In so far as the achievement of this objective 
will secure employment, raise the standard of living 
and strengthen the economic base of the Community, 
it contributes actively to the material well-being and 
hence quality of life of all citizens. The Committee 
considers this to be an objective to achieve an active 
improvement resulting from the creation of wealth. 
3.11. The second objective is to improve the quality 
of life by means of the achievement of a cleaner and 
safer environment, better health-care education and 
training, more efficient and safer production and trans­
port systems, more wholesome food products. 
3.12. These two objectives will conflict at certain 
times in certain areas. The first objective will be carried 
out in the private sector to a considerable extent. The 
second objective in that it is an overall wealth consumer 
will be largely carried out either in the public sector or 
by the private sector within a national or regional 
regulatory mechanism. Improvements in the quality of 
life will inevitably involve the achievement of a balance 
of objectives which will not always be compatible. 
3.13. The Committee considers that the Commission 
has not given an explicit commitment to the quality of 
life as an overall objective permeating the thid frame­
work programme proposal despite the emphasis given 
to it in its communication entitled A framework for 
Community R&TD in the 90s and the frequent opinions 
of the Economic and Social Committee. 
3.14. It urges the Commission to propose a direct 
active orientation of R&TD towards the enhancement 
of the quality of life with the complementary objective 
of creating new market products. 
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/37 
3.15. The Committee supports the views expressed 
by the Framework Programme Review Board, whose 
report states that 'the Framework Programme should 
ideally be based on a series of well-defined long-term 
strategic objectives that European research ought to 
pursue. This in turn implies an agreed overall European 
strategy, with a set of socioeconomic, political, scien­
tific and broader cultural objectives.' 
3.16. The Committee suggests that each and every 
proposal for expenditure on research and technological 
development covered by the Framework Programme 
should include a quality of life impact assessment. The 
Commission would be required to use proper consulta­
tive procedures to complete the questions posed. 
4. The need for social research 
4.1. The Committee emphasizes that it is already 
accepted that human social factors are critical in 
research, innovation and coping with competitive chal­
lenges. It believes that it is clear too that policy decisions 
at as variety of stages determine whether the state of 
technology in use have a malign or benign impact on 
the quality of life. Sililarly human interaction and policy 
decisions to an extent derive from social and cultural 
factors which are insufficiently understood and inad­
equately researched. 
4.2. Economic well-being involves a high level of 
competitiveness for Community industry, the satisfac­
tion of new needs with new products and a minimum 
social consequence in terms of unemployment, destruc­
tion of the environment and upset of the cohesion 
between Member States. 
4.3. The Committee believes that a revised Frame­
work Programme should reflect a balanced view of all 
these factors, notably technical feasibility, economic 
desirability and social acceptability. The balance will 
not be the same in each Member State. A Framework 
Programme should take this into account and must 
include social cohesion within the Community as an 
important objective. 
4.4. These requirements emphasize that the social 
research aspects of the programme will need to be 
strengthened. 
4.5. The Committee considers that social research 
will need to take its place alongside the areas of: 
— science and engineering, 
— medical and health research, 
— agricultural research, — environmental research, 
— research on the working environment and the health 
of workers, 
as a research field and as a major factor in promoting 
the effectiveness of all research. 
4.6. Social research is not a last stage examination 
of scientific advance. It must be invloed at an early 
stage when priorities for programmes are being evolved. 
5. The key principles of subsidiarity and cohesion 
5.1. The Committee believes that a Community pol­
icy and the strategy to achieve it rest upon certain key 
principles which include subsidiarity and cohesion. 
5.2. The Committee supports the principle of 
cohesion to Community policy and strategy. 
5.3. Member States have differing technological 
requirements, differing technological resources avail­
able to meet them and differing levels of science and 
technology. The technological imbalance between one 
Member State and another is growing. 
5.4. R&TD can contribute significantly to the cor­
rection of this imbalance: 
— by encouraging access in alle Member States to a 
first class level of R&TD. There must be no second 
class research. There must be quality criteria for 
R&TD, 
— by deliberate efforts to achieve a Researchers' Euro­
pe in which there is an optimal climate for human 
and scientific potential development based on 
mobility, laboratory linkage interchange and on 
training, 
— by encouraging technological transfer of results, 
— by programmes designed to tackle the problems of 
less favoured regions and areas of industrial decline. 
5.5. The Committee also emphasizes the direct and 
effective contribution made to economic and social 
cohesion by the training activities provided for in some 
specific research programmes. These activities play a 
key role in enabling Member States less well-equipped 
in terms of research infrastructures and scientific per­
sonnel to participate more fully in the research pro­
grammes and therefore make a significant contribution 
to narrowing development gaps between Member 
States. 
No C 56/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
5.6. The Committe realizes that a number of centres 
of excellence exist in Member States and there could 
be a tendency to encourage them to take a major share 
of work on an ever increasing basis. This would result 
in the most competent researchers being increasingly 
drawn to them and their facilities growing in pro­
portion. 
5.7. The Committee would encourage the Com­
mission to try to redress the balance by the deliberate 
creation of new centres of excellence spread throughout 
all the Member States. This could involve a specific 
programme to identify embryonic centres which would 
be encouraged to grow. 
5.8. The Committe suggests that the Council ask 
the Commission to propose a programme with this 
objective. 
5.9. The principle of subsidiarity demands that the 
Community Institutions should not arrogate to them­
selves functions which can be performed efficiently at 
national, regional or local level. 
5.10. The Committee regards this as a fundamental 
principle which should apply throughout the Com­
munity and not least to R&TD activities. The Com­
munity therefore should leave to lower levels the oper­
ations which these can effectively perform, and which 
otherwise would greatly distract it. The Community 
will thus be able to carry out with greater freedom, 
power and success the tasks appropriate to it alone 
because it can effectively accomplish these, according 
to its needs and those of the Member States. 
5.11. The Committee believes it is necessary for the 
Commission to define clearly what it means by the 
principle of subsidiarity and to formulate a set of cri­
teria against which programme proposals will be 
assessed. 
6. Financial considerations 
6.1. The second Framework Programme for R&TD 
has two vears (1990 and 1991) to run. It commits ECU 
3 125 million for the period 1990 to 1992. 
6.2. The Committee supports the Commission pro­
posal that this programme should be completed in 
accord with its commitments, subject to the usual pro­
gramme assessment and evaluation. 
6.3. The third Framework Programme for R&TD 
proposes a further commitment of a ceiling of ECU 
2 700 million for the same period subject to approval 
of the programmes submitted. 
6.4. The two Framework Programmes will commit 
funds concurrently for the three years 1990 to 1992. 6.5. The Committee supports this increase from ECU 
3 125 million to a ceiling of ECU 5 825 million on the 
basis that the actual increases approved will be based 
on sound programme proposals backed by effective 
assessment and evaluations. 
6.6. The Committee urges the Commission to fix 
criteria for value for effort in terms of manpower and 
finance and only to spend on programmes which satisfy 
these criteria. 
6.7. It believes that funds should be requested to 
satisfy sound and necessary R&TD proposals rather 
than that proposals should be formulated to meet the 
funding available. 
6.8. The Committee endorses the principle that actu­
al expenditure should be related to the importance and 
quality of the detailed proposals for activities which 
will be submitted to Council for final decision at the 
level of specific programmes covering the periods 1990 
to 1992 and 1993 to 1994 (Article 2.3 of the Commission 
proposal). 
6.9. The Committee notes that this ceiling of ECU 
5 825 million commitment for 1990 to 1992 is in accord 
with the interinstitutional agreement for that period ('). 
6.10. The third Framework Programme proposes a 
commitment of ECU 2 400 million for 1993 and ECU 
2 600 million for 1994 subject to Council decisions for 
each specific programme. 
6.11. The Committee notes these figures which show 
an increase over the preceeding years and regards them 
as indicative and subject to a further interinstitutional 
agreement. 
6.12. The proposed ECU 7 700 million refers to 
Community financial means. However a considerable 
proportion of the programmes will be shared cost with 
a Commission commitment of less than 100% or con­
certed action in which the Commission commitment is 
marginal. 
6.13. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
estimates the total amount which will be committed 
under the Framework Programme proposal, year by 
year from 1990 to 1994 and expresses it as: 
— a percentage of total Community budget, 
(') Under the interinstitutional agreement of 29 June 1988 finan­
cial perspectives were set for the years 1990 to 1992 (OJ No 
L 185, 15. 7. 1988). An increase of ECU 2 400 million for R& 
TD activities was agreed, to which the Commission has 
applied an inflation rate of 3,5% making the total sum to 
ECU 2 700 million. 
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/39 
— a percentage estimated of the total R&TD funding 
of the Member States. 
6.14. The Committee believes that it would be ben­
eficial to secure an indicative R&TD ceiling expendi­
ture by the Commission for the years ahead to 2000 
and hopes that the next interinstitutional agreement 
will provide it. 
7. The proposed activities 
7.1. The second Framework Programme is 
implemented through 37 specific programmes with their 
corresponding budget allocations. These constitute a 
financial straight jacket on flexibility and the ability of 
the Commission to respond to the results of programme 
assessment by increasing or reducing recources or even 
stopping unpromising programmes. 
7.2. The third programme reduces the number of 
specific programmes to six very wide areas of activities 
subdivided into 29 subgroups. 
7.3. The Committe assumes that each of the six 
activities will form the basis of an individual proposal 
to Council for the Years 1990 to 1992 and again for 
1993 to 1994. 
7.4. The Committee foresees difficulties in the over­
lap years of 1990 to 1992 between the rigid second 
Framework Programme and the more widely defined 
third programme. 
7.5. The Committee recommends that the Council 
ask the Commission to seek a compromise based not 
so much on modifying the extent of each area of activity 
but more on a more flexible funding approach. The 
Committee has drawn attention to this need in past 
opinions. 
7.6. The Committee draws the attention of the 
Council to the considerable problems of management 
and of the organization of the advisory committees 
which the Commission will experience in effecting a 
smooth transition from the second to the third frame­
work programme. It welcomes the suggestion that the 
Commission will consider the use of outside manage­
ment consultants. 
7.7. It urges that the Commission use this oppor­
tunity to forge closer links with the Member States with 
the objective of moving closer to a single science and 
technology space. 
7.8. The Committee also welcomes the opportunity 
to introduce certain strategic adjustments and new con­
cepts into the rolling Framework Programme at an earlier stage and appreciates that the introduction of 
an overlap in the year 1990 to 1991 enables the funding 
to be increased from the beginning of that period. 
7.9. The Framework Programme proposes six areas 
of activity: 
Information and communication 
technologies 
Industrial and materials technologies 
Environment 
Life science and technologies 
Energy 
Human capital and mobility 
Total ECU 
millions 
3 000 
1 200 
700 
1000 
1000 
700 
7 700 % 
39 
15,6 
9 
13 
14,4 
9 
100 
7.10. The Committe does not consider that sufficient 
data has been provided in the Commission proposal 
and its supplementary working paper to enable it to 
comment in detail on the work proposed under each 
activity, the funding deemed necessary for that work 
or the balance of funding proposed for the six activities. 
It reserves its opinion on the work content of each 
activity until the Commission makes proposals made 
under Article 2 (3) of the new framework programme 
proposal. 
7.11. The Committee considers however that the 
Commission could offer some degree of clarification by 
showing for each area of activity, subgroup by sub­
group, and year by year; the sums committed under the 
second Framework Programme together with the sums 
deemed necessary under the third Framework Pro­
gramme. It considers further more that it would be 
helpful to add the further funds committed or expected 
to be committed by shared-cost contractors. 
7.12. The Committe believes that an evaluation of 
funds expended to date in each activity group and 
subgroup together with a forecast of the likely utiliza­
tion of the results expected and their cost-benefit would 
assist in an objective assessment of the proposal. 
7.13. Information and Communication technologies 
7.13.1. The Committee feels that the area to be 
covered is all embracing and does it not have sufficient 
information to judge whether the Commission is pro­
posing to cover ground that has already been covered 
elsewhere (USA, Japan), the so-called 'catch-up' R& 
TD or whether the successful outcome of the proposals 
would result in European leadership. 
No C 56/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
7.13.2. However it is concerned that the other areas 
of work under the third Framework Programme appear 
almost to be the structuring of a whole new generation 
of the industry. The Committee therefore would like 
to see the utilization plan for this work together with 
associated programmes outside the third Framework 
Programme and making greater use of Eureka pro­
grammes such as Jessi. 
7.13.3. The Committee emphasizes the need for the 
organization of an effective and rapid standardization 
procedure in this field and it urges that full use be 
made of JRC resources and of the European standards 
organizations. 
7.14. Industrial and material technologies 
7.14.1. The Committee supports the objectives of the 
proposed activity in Industrial and Material technol­
ogies to rejuvenate European manufacturing industry 
and to increase its competitiveness. It queries neverthe­
less the balance between the activity on information 
technologies and the other advanced technologies which 
form now or will form in the future the basis of many 
traditional manufacturing industries and of agriculture. 
The Committee looks to a reevaluation of the Brite-
Euram(1) Flair (2), and Bridge (3) programmes. 
7.14.2. The Committee points out the importance of 
new areas of material technology such as superconduc­
tivity and advanced materials which can arise rapidly 
and especially at technology interfaces. It expects the 
Commission to build a degree of flexibility into the 
programmes in order to be in a position to respond 
rapidly to indications thrown up by basic reseach. 
7.14.3. The Committee cites the example of the 'cle­
an car' in the Commission proposal by which it assumes 
that the Commission is referring to the numerous tech­
nologies which need to be developed and integrated in 
order that the automobile industry of the Community 
should remain in a competitive position. 
7.14.4. The Committee notes the approach to indus­
trial competitiveness now undertaken in Japan whereby 
a continuing series of micro-incremental advances lead 
to a steady development of better quality products at 
lower prices. The strategies of this nature should be 
analysed and where promising utilized. 
7.15. Environment 
7.15.1. The Commission proposes the expenditure 
of 9 % of resource on environmental work. At face, 
this might appear to be less than adequate but the 
(•) OJNoL98, 11.4. 1989, p. 18. 
(2) OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 18. 
(3) OJ No C 70, 20. 3. 1989, p. 1. Section notes that a proportion of the research work 
under the 'Energy' heading will be concerned with 
'clean' technologies as will some of the industrial and 
material technologies. 
7.15.2. The Committee emphasizes the need for the 
Commission to attempt an overall strategy for the 
Community to take account of all the existing work in 
the Member States. This will only come about by 
cooperation and coordination and will involve a reap­
praisal of the existing structure of advisory committees. 
7.16. Life sciences and technologies 
7.16.1. In this acitivity the Committee draws atten­
tion to its comments on quality of life as an overall 
objective. It urges the Commission to take specific note 
of the needs of the handicapped, the sick and the elderly 
as well as the requirements for basic biotechnology, 
agricultural and agro-industrial reasearch, biomedical 
and health research in both the industrial and public 
domains. 
7.16.2. The Committee also draws the attention of 
the Commission to the need for a clear policy to balance 
research into the pathogenesis of disease with health 
research to improve the standards of health in the 
Community and the economic consequences of actions 
taken. 
7.16.3. The Committee support the inclusion in the 
proposal of work on the life sciences and technologies 
for developing countries. 
7.16.4. The Committee emphasizes the extreme 
importance of information and communication in this 
activity and urges that the units of the Commission 
such as CUBE (4) are adequately funded to achieve their 
objectives. 
7.16.5. The Committee draws attention to the ethical 
nature of some programme decisions in this activity 
and refers to the opinion which it expressed on this 
subject (5)(6). 
7.17. Energy 
7.17.1. The Committee notes the amplification of 
the proposal for the activity on energy provided in the 
working paper but it feels that a breakdown of work 
into the categories of energy generation (subdivided into 
fossil fuels, renewable sources of energy and nuclear 
energy), novel processes (hydrogen and other liquid 
fuels, fuel cells, photovoltaics) is necessary. 
(4) Concertation Unit for Biotechnology in Europe. 
(5) OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, p. 47. 
(6) OJ No C 159, 26. 6. 1989, p. 26. 
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/41 
7.17.2. The breakdown should also identify the work 
committed and proposed on the various aspects of 
safety and the work which is environment related (zero 
emission power). 
7.17.3. The Committee urges the Council to ensure 
that the Commission work on safety is extended to 
all types of nuclear power plants. It believes that the 
Commission has a special duty to ensure international 
awareness and understanding of methods used to assure 
and verify the safety of numerous plants, and has a 
special task to focus all aspects of technological advance 
to bear on nuclear safety. To do this the Commission 
must take a prominent position in all discussions at 
European and international level. 
7.17.4. The Committee does not question the organ­
izational relationship between the DGs concerned with 
research, development, demonstration and policy in the 
energy field but it would like to see proposals laid out 
in their entirety rather than put forward separately by 
Directorates-General. In particular this would ensure 
continuity between R&TD and the demonstration 
phase. 
7.17.5. The Committee believes that the Framework 
Programme does not give sufficient emphasis to the 
work directed towards energy problems of the less 
developed nations. 
7.17.6. The Committee would also like to be assured 
of a close link to the Thermie programme (ECU 700 
million) for 1990 to 1994 which the Committee sup­
ports. To this extent a more detailed breakdown of 
Thermie into hydrocarbons, coal, renewable energy 
and energy efficiency would help an overall review of 
Commission proposals (1). 
7.18. Human capital and mobility 
7.18.1. The Commission states there is a major 
increase in both absolute and relative terms in the funds 
allocated to the management of intellectual resources 
(compared to the second Framework Programme), to 
include a major programme of mobility and research 
training of young researchers at post-doctoral level. 
7.18.2. The Committee has emphasized the import­
ance of the criterion of a single S&T space in the 
Community on a number of occasions and in particular 
in two information reports on The importance of R& 
TD to SMES and Training and employment of research 
workers in the European Community. 
7.18.3. The Committee feels that there is no cause for 
complacency. The factors which give rise to movement 
include the state of science in the Community and elsewhere and their relative qualities of life for 
researchers. The Commission forecasts a shortage of 
young researchers due to appear in the 1990s. 
7.18.4. The Committee will consider the individual 
proposals when they are made but it recognizes some 
problems which will need to be addressed when the 
specific programme is submitted to Council for 
approval. 
— centres of excellence are currently concentrated 
among the northern Member States and are at an 
earlier stage of growth among many of the Mediter­
ranean States. An immediate exercise would there­
fore concentrate researchers at these northern insti­
tutions to the detriment of some Member States, 
— certain Member States and notably the UK may fare 
badly from a potential drain of researchers to the 
USA if researchers move in from Community Mem­
ber States, 
— there appears to be an element of over emphasis of 
direct Community involvement and funding. If the 
principle of subsidiarity is followed, the Community 
needs to seek to influence and catalyse the scientific 
community in the Member States, but to restrict 
itself to the minimum central action. 
7.18.5. The Committee believes that the action the 
Commission does decide to carry out should be con­
sidered for organization on a concerted action basis or 
at the most on a shared-cost basis. 
8. Scientific services and the management of Com­
mission resources 
8.1. The Committee considers that a seventh activity 
should be included in the new framework programme 
under the heading 'Scientific services and the manage­
ment of Commission resources'. 
8.2. This would encompass the following essential 
tasks: 
— the formulation of a Community R&TD policy 
strategy and plan in cooperation with the 12 Mem­
ber States, maintaining and amending it continually 
in the light of available information, 
— the coordination of objectives in strategic areas 
throughout the Community, 
— the operation of forecasting and monitoring activity 
at present carried out under Monitor (2) on a pro­
gramme basis, 
(!) OJ No C 10, 22. 4. 1989. (2) OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 38. 
No C 56/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
— the operation of a social unit and to coordinate the 
preparation of social impact analysis and to be 
responsible for promoting necessary work in the 
social sciences (see paragraph above), 
— an evaluation unit to operate on a continuous basis 
the evaluation activities, 
— the assessment and evaluation of the R&TD stra­
tegies of other trading blocs and nations. 
8.3. This overall activity should be created to stand 
separately from the other six activities and its costs 
should not be allocated to those activities although they 
would fall within the global proposal. This seventh 
activity would be horizontal and this would be the only 
location in which the overall R&TD activity of the 
Community and the 12 Member States would be con­
sidered as a single entity. 
9. The principles which should underlie Commission 
R&TD proposals 
9.1. The Committee feels that the Commission 
should identify and clearly state the principles which 
are to be applied in selecting proposals for R&TD 
work. 
9.2. In the course of a number of its opinions on 
R&TD proposals the Committee has identified the 
following 15 principles: 
9.3. Subsidiarity with regard not only to the distinc­
tion between Community and Member State working 
level but also to the location of work between Member 
States according to their particular strengths. 
9.4. The Commission should perform the functions 
of information, analysis, forecasting, catalysis and 
stimulation and only as a last resort, expenditure on 
programmes to achieve the objectives which are agreed 
with Member States. 
9.5. The Commission must promote cohesion to off­
set the effect of political division into Member States 
with differing economic levels and hence with different 
R&TD structures. To this effect the Commission 
should encourage new centres of skill in Member States 
which will assist in training and regional collaboration. 
9.6. The Commission should find a way to integrate 
a 'top-down' approach arising from the results of a 
concerted Member State/Commission analysis and 
strategy with a 'bottom-up' approach arising from the 
work of the advisory committees. Proposals should be 
formulated in full knowledge of the extent of Member 
State activity. 9.7. The Commission must organize and implement 
a consultation process with industry for workers and 
consumers in addition to the scientific community. 
9.8. The Commission must encourage the formation 
of a three-dimensional S&T space in the Community 
in which links are created between Member States 
(and their regional activities) between R&TD levels 
(industry, higher educational establishments, research 
institutes) and between scientists. 
9.9. The Commission must find a way to maintain 
the flexibility of funding in response to programme 
assessment while assuring reasonable security of their 
contractors in shared-cost and concerted-action pro­
grammes. It is essential that successful programmes 
can be reinforced and less-promising ones reduced or 
terminated. 
9.10. There must be selectivity and concentration in 
order to arrive at a limited number of programmes 
which are of adequate size, allocated to the most effec­
tive centres of skill in the Member States, have clearly 
stated objectives which can be subsequently evaluated 
for their achievement and which are cost-effective. Sel­
ectivity must be based on priority and importance in 
consultation with and after consideration of Member 
States' R&TD programmes. 
9.11. The Commission should use its funds as lever­
age to enhance the effects of Member States' expendi­
ture. 
9.12. Work should be returned by the Commission 
to national, regional or inter-regional ownerships as 
soon as practicable and cost-effective. 
9.13. All programmes should be subject to evalu­
ation. This evaluation should be tailored to individual 
programmes. Too much scientific resource should not 
be tied up in peer group evaluation and that a simple 
and effective set of evaluation principles needs to be 
produced by the Commission. 
9.14. No programme should be approved without a 
utilization plan for successful results. 
9.15. When appropriate programmes proposed 
should be accompanied by a quality-of-life impact 
assessment. 
9.16. Programmes should be based on a new 
approach to pre-competitiveness and the further devel-
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/43 
opment of successful results considered in the light of 
Eureka projects and other options. 
9.17. A satisfactory solution to problems raised by 
intellectual property in the specific proposals should be 
offered. 
9.18. The Committee stresses the importance of con­
sultation with the social partners, industry and workers 
at every stage of the R&TD programmes. 
10. The definition of precompetitive work 
10.1. The Committee notes an apparent variation in 
the interpretation of the 'precompetitive requirement' 
between the activities described. It assumes that this 
arises from a change in the application of the 50/50 
principle on which shared-cost contracts are based; as 
a result of this change, Commission funding is reduced 
as the project approaches the competitive market place 
(regressive funding). This 'regressive funding' principle 
would apply only if the results of a project were used 
commercially for profit. 
10.1.1. The Committee urges the Council to demand 
from the Commission a clear statement of this modified 
approach to precompetitive conditions which takes into 
account the need for the Community to remain competi­
tive with other blocs such as the USA and the Pacific 
rim nations. 
10.2. The Committee emphasizes the important role 
which the Eureka approach could provide and urges 
the Commission to consider its potential of closer coop­
eration. 
10.3. The Committee urges the Council to consider 
in advance the areas to which R&TD is directed in 
terms of financial support, taxation, external duties, 
standards and regulations by the Community and its 
Member States. Preparatory work will be needed to 
ease the path to the market of innovative products and 
technologies. If this work is not done at the right time 
much of the benefit of successful R&TD may be wasted 
or overtaken by competitors. 
11. Utilization of R&TD results 
11.1. The Committee considers that the Commission 
has always given insufficient attention to the diffusion 
of technology and that it is necessary to review and 
strengthen its efforts. 11.2. The Committee endorses the preamble to the 
proposal which states that dissemination and enhance­
ment of the results of R&TD activities are essential 
elements in the process of innovation, in particular for 
SMEs and hence a global initiative should be under­
taken which will apply to all activities in the field of 
R&TD. 
11.3. The Committee notes Article 4 of the proposal 
which states that the financing of activities related to 
the utilization of the results of specific programmes 
shall be brought about by bringing together sums allo­
cated to these activities according to a percentage to be 
determined for each specific programme. 
11.4. The Committee does not consider that Article 
4 provides for an adequate utilization mechanism. It 
believes that the Commission should be asked to review 
the requirements and to come forward with the 'global 
initiative'. 
11.5. No R&TD programme should be put into 
effect without a coherent and credible utilization pro­
gramme to take effect in the event of results which meet 
the programme objectives. 
11.6. Such a utilization programme should estimate 
time and cost of each of the clearly defined steps which 
would take the results into the market place or into 
public use. 
11.7. An estimate of the optimum approach to the 
protection of the intellectual property including cost 
and time scale should be provided. 
11.8. Each R&TD programme should be 
accompanied by a quality-of-life impact assessment. In 
particular any ethical considerations should be clearly 
delineated. 
11.9. The programme should be accompanied by an 
analysis of the importance of successful results to SMEs 
and how the optimum benefit to SMEs would be 
secured. 
11.10. The Committee does not wish to comment on 
the organization within the Commission best suited to 
achieve these objectives. It wishes however to suggest 
that utilization usually succeed best when there is a 
continuous line from research to practical use. Wher­
ever possible a handover from one DG to another or 
from one programme to another or indeed from one 
funding provision to another should be avoided. 
No C 56/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
12. Eureka 
12.1. The Committee endorses the support for and 
involvement in the activities of Eureka by the Com­
mission. These activities form part of the downstream 
element of the Community's R&TD strategy. The 
Commission proposes to reinforce its relationship with 
Eureka as an instrument of minimum limitations for 
downstream development in areas which are close to 
the competitive border. 
12.2. The Committee notes that Article 130m of 
the Single European Act permits the Commission to 
participate in the R&TD activities undertaken by sev­
eral Member States, including participation in the struc­
tures created for the execution of these programmes. It 
encourages the Commission to participate accordingly 
in relevant Eureka projects such as the Jessi programme 
on microelectronics and the high-definition television 
programme. 
12.3. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
should issue a review of its relationship with Eureka 
and the opportunities which it provides in utilization 
proposals. It envisages a more frequent consideration of 
Eureka in the utilization plan which should accompany 
programme proposals. 
13. International policy 
13.1. The Committee identifies the need for a clear 
statement on R&TD international policy and the future 
role of third countries by the Commission. The exist­
ence of a policy is of importance to industry and affects 
not only its competitiveness but its overseas investment 
activity and the siting and strategy of its R&TD. 
13.2. The Committee supports a policy in which 
Community programmes are opened to EFTA States 
when clear mutual advantage can be established in 
anticipation of the European economic space of 
18 nations arising from work on the harmonization of 
standards by the European standards organizations. 
13.3. The Commission should consider bilateral 
cooperative agreements in R&TD with certain 
countries in the eastern bloc with a view to involving 
these countries when the time is ripe in COST projects. 
13.4. The Committee supports the Commission in 
its approach to the problems of the lesser developed 
countries. 13.5. Consideration should be given to the position 
of the Community major competitors, the USA and 
Japan, in the R&TD strategy especially with regard to 
the eligibility of their Community operations for fund­
ing and the utilization of intellectual property resulting 
from Community funding. 
13.6. The Committee supports the Commission 
efforts to achieve transparency in its work but warns 
that, at hte same time, some security of forward think­
ing and of evaluation of results needs to be considered. 
14. The role of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
14.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission 
proposal to use the JRC to provide an impartial and 
independent expert opinion for the benefit of all Com­
munity policies and to act as a technical conscience for 
the Commission throughout its activities. It should 
provide technical data which will be required by all the 
relevant Directorates-General of the Commission as a 
basis for their regulatory activities and in the derivation 
of policy. This will assist the Commission and the 
governments of Member States to balance the require­
ments for the protection of the health and safety of 
citizens (and of animals) and the preservation of the 
environment with the demands for deregulation and 
minimum bureaucratic control. 
14.2. The Committee notes that it is not the intention 
of the Commission to propose a major programme of 
exploratory (basic or fundamental) research for the JRC 
under the new Framework Programme. This decision 
accords with the principle of subsidiarity under which 
such work is preferably done by the higher educational 
centres of the Member States. 
14.3. The Committee is aware of the proposal for 
work by the JRC for private or public external third 
parties put forward as an interim solution to current 
problems. However the Commission believes that as 
other responsibilities develop the proportion of work 
in this area should be progressively reduced. The Com­
mittee does not regard such activity as right and proper 
for a Commission laboratory once the necessary redis­
tribution and reorganization of staffing has been 
achieved. 
14.4. The Committee believes that instead the JRC 
should concentrate its work in a limited number of 
areas which are best covered at Community level. 
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/45 
14.5. It should work on nuclear safety on a continu­
ous basis to provide a clearing house and forum wherein 
Member States which have retained their nuclear option 
can meet those which have abandoned it and provide 
information about nuclear protection, radioactive 
waste and other matters affecting the health and safety 
of all citizens. 
14.6. It should provide similar forum and clearing 
house for industrial safety covering major industrial 
incidents such as run-away reactions, explosions, leaks 
to atmosphere and so on. Such information will provide 
Member States with an independent and scientific basis 
for regulatory action based on scientific knowledge 
which will be welcomed by industry and workers and 
which will reassure citizens. 
14.7. It should provide technical support in the form 
of common testing and measuring methods and their 
interpretation for the European Environmental Agency 
and should be considered as the pivot of a Community 
regional contribution to a world-wide programme of 
global change. 
14.8. It should act as a focal point in a series of 
laboratory networks covering a whole range of prenor-
mative activity, environmental protection, health, 
nuclear and industrial safety, food purity, pyarmaceuti-
cal testing and the testing background to the essential 
requirements of the new approach Directives. The 
Committee supports the JRC initiative in this respect 
in the area of structural mechanisms and believes this 
should be extended to other areas of building research, 
especially structural stability, fire testing, thermal and 
acoustic insulation. 
14.9. The Committee recommends that the JRC 
should be allowed to initiate and participate in shared-
cost and concerted-action programmes appropriate to 
its experience and resources. 
14.10. The Committee recommends that careful 
attention be given to the allocation of the costs of the 
JRC within the Framework Programme in recognition 
of the horizontal dimension of its work and in order 
to reduce any inhibitory effect on the allocation to it 
of tasks which it is best equipped to perform. 
15. The prenormative dimension 
15.1. The Committee endorses the incorporation of 
a prenormative dimension in the Community R&TD 
activities in order to guarantee the scientific and techni­
cal basis necessary to establish adequate norms and standards and hence to facilitate the completion of the 
single market and provide a response to the Com­
munity's responsibilities in the fields of environment, 
health and safety. In the Committee's view this will 
help to meet the overall objective of the improvement 
of the quality of life. 
15.2. There is a need for a common set of regulations 
for the Community, based on scientific knowledge. This 
must be preferable to a series of individual Member 
State regulations not always based on the latest scien­
tific knowledge. 
15.3. For industry it makes sense to have a single 
Community set of requirements for the safety and test­
ing of medical, health and food products, for the protec­
tion of consumers and the public. Industry will be able 
to bring new products to the market place more surely, 
more cheaply and more quickly. This becomes increas­
ingly relevant as the cost of R&TD for new products 
rises and the time required for testing eats into the 
period of protection of the market provided by the 
patent legislation. 
15.4. A single set of Community requirements estab­
lished by the Commission would be regarded as inde­
pendent and unbiased. 
15.5. The Commission R&TD effort also has a role 
to play in the establishment of standards for the single 
market. It is clear that there is no possibility that the 
thousand of national standards will be harmonized into 
European standards by 1993. Reliance will have to 
continue for many years on the mutual recognition 
of certification and testing procedures and methods 
incorporating in sensitive areas the essential require­
ments for health and safety provided by the new 
approach Directives. 
15.6. In the environmental field, the Commission 
can take a major step towards a world approach to 
environmental problems by coordination the Com­
munity approach. To make effective regulations to 
protect the environment an advanced scientific base 
involving R&TD is essential. Greater understanding of 
natural phenomena of the land, the oceans and the 
biosphere is vital. Member States should pool their 
resources in a Community effort within the Framework 
Programme. 
15.7. Nuclear safety is antoher area in which work 
should be done centrally within the Community. 
15.8. In certain areas the coordination of work will 
need to be extended beyond the Community and will 
extend to cooperation with other blocs in Europe, 
No C 56/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90 
America and the pacific. This applies especially to 
nuclear safety and environmental knowledge. 
15.9. Standards are ineffective unless there is a 
method of verification for their requirements. It is fun­
damental that whether there are harmonized European 
standards or not, there must be mutually accepted 
methods of testing resulting in certification. 
15.10. The facilities of the Commission in collabor­
ation with those of Member States can make a rapid 
and effective contribution to this by undertaking a 
review of Member State methods of test, establishing 
reference samples and correlating the Member States 
tests against the common reference. 
16. Intellectual property 
16.1. The Committee asks that the Commission back 
the Framework Programme proposal with a fresh look 
at the effects of intellectual property provisions on the 
effectiveness of R&TD. 
16.2. Two areas require urgent consideration: 
16.2.1. In the utilization of the results of R&TD, 
the requirement to grant only non-exclusive licences is 
unrealistic and inhibitory. 
16.2.2. The need for the harmonization of test 
methods and acceptance criteria throughout the Com­
munity to reduce the time and cost required for the 
market development of new products. 
17. European cooperation activities 
17.1. The Committee believes that the European 
cooperation activities such as the European Space Agen­
cy and CERN have an important role to play in the 
Community R&TD strategy. 
17.2. The Commission should take an overall view 
of the requirements of the Community in specific areas 
covered by these organizations, and should plan an 
overall strategy for the Community, taking into account 
the activities of the individual Member States. 
17.3. Article 130m of the Treaty provides for this and 
the Committee considers that the Commission should 
make full use of it. 18. Small and medium-sized enterprises 
18.1. The Committee notes that other than in the 
preamble to the proposal, the importance of the involve­
ment in R&TD by SMEs and the dissemination of 
information to them is not emphasized. 
18.2. The Committee draws the attention of the 
Commission to its information report on the import­
ance of R&TD to SMEs and urges the Commission to 
prepare a communication covering this field of interest 
to inform those involved of the latest Commission 
thinking and to stimulate discussion. 
18.3. In particular the Committee draws to the atten­
tion of the Commission (as it has done in the past) 
to the small business innovation research programme 
(SBIR) of the USA as an approach to government-
funded R&D in the belief that a close study of this US 
initiative by the Commission could lead to a proposal 
for a comparable network of such operations in the 
Community. 
18.4. The stratetic programme for innovation and 
technology transfer (Sprint) (J) has been approved with 
an expenditure of ECU 90 million over the period 1989 
to 1993 (in comparison with an expenditure of 
ECU 18,6 million for the previous four years). It lies 
outside the Framework Programme. The programme 
aims to help SMEs to gain faster access to new technol­
ogies from other Member States by means of grants for 
joint ventures to help with international consultancy 
costs. 
18.5. The Committee believes that the Commission 
should consider to what extent the Value (2) and Sprint 
programmes overlap and whether they should have a 
common administration within the Framework Pro­
gramme. 
19. Generation of awareness through communication 
19.1. The Committee draws attention to the need 
for the Commission to improve its communication tech­
niques in order to achieve a level of awareness at all 
levels which will be vital to the success of its R&TD 
activities. 
19.2. At the technical level the Committee endorses 
the comments of the Framework Programme Review 
Board that an information exchange service is needed 
(!) OJ No L 112, 25. 5. 1989, p. 12. 
(2) OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 23. 
7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/47 
to speed development and lower costs within the R& 
TD Community. 
19.3. At all levels a simple and more widespread 
review of R&TD activities is needed to show where 
funds have been expended and the results that have 
Done at Brussels, 15 November 1989. 
Opinion on: 
I. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DECISION ON 
THE ATTAINMENT OF PROGRESSIVE CON­
VERGENCE OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 
DURING STAGE ONE OF ECONOMIC AND 
MONETARY UNION 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes 
the proposal for a Council Decision on the attainment 
of progressive convergence of economic performance 
during stage one of economic and monetary union 
(COM(89) 466 final of 13 October 1989). 
(*) OJNoC283, 9. 11. 1989, p. 6. been achieved. This will help to generate a perceived 
view of Commission competence and urgency. 
19.4. The Committee urges the Council ro ask the 
Commission to come forward with an adequate and 
cost-effective proposal which could be brought into 
operation quickly. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
1.2. On various occasions the Committee has called 
for a revision of the Council Decision of 18 February 
1974 on the attainment of a high degree of convergence 
of economic policies, because this Decision has hardly 
been applied in practice (2). 
1.3. A higher degree of convergence of economic 
development and improved coordination of economic 
policy would seem more necessary than ever in the 
light of the completion of the internal market and the 
commitment to begin the first stage of economic and 
monetary union on 1 July 1990. 
(2) See in particular the Committee's opinion on the Com­
mission's 1988/89 Annual Economic Report, OJ No C 23, 
23. 1. 1989. — the proposal for a Council Decision on the attainment of progressive convergence of 
economic performance during stage one of economic and monetary union and 
— the recommendation for a Council Decision amending Decision 64/300/EEC on cooper­
ation between the central banks of the Member States of the European Economic 
Community (l) 
(90/C 56/12) 
On 22 October 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposals. 
The Section for Economic, Financial and Monetary Questions, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 November 1989. 
The rapporteur was Mr Meyer-Horn, the co-rapporteur Mr Drago. 
At its 271st plenary session (meeting of 16 November 1989) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by a very large majority, with two abstentions.