ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
COM (88)291 
Vol. 1988/0100 
Disclaimer 
Conformement au reglement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1 er fevrier 1983 concernant 
l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communaute economique europeenne et de 
la Communaute europeenne de l'energie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifie en dernier 
lieu par le reglement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25.3.2015, p. 1), ce 
dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas echeant, les documents classifies presents dans ce dossier 
ont ete declassifies conformement a !'article 5 dudit reglement ou sont consideres declassifies 
conformement aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la decision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la 
Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les regles de securite aux fins de la protection des 
informations classifiees de l'Union europeenne. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning 
the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the 
European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1 ), as last amended by Council 
Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1 ), this file is open to the 
public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity 
with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with 
Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 
on the security rules for protecting EU classified information. 
In Obereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar 
1983 Ober die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europaischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und 
der Europaischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1 ), zuletzt geandert durch die 
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. Marz 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1 ), ist dieser Akt 
der Offentlichkeit zuganglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in 
Obereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden 
sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom) 
2015/444 vom 13. Marz 2015 Ober die Sicherheitsvorschriften fur den Schutz von EU­
Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen. 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM (88) 291 final 
Brussels, 24 June 1988 
REINFORCING COOPERATION BETWEEN EUREKA AND THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
(Communication from the Commission) 
I i i \ . \ 
REINFORCING COOPERATION BETWEEN EUREKA AND THE EUROPEAN COMUNITY 
1. Technological cooperation is a powerful factor in European integration. 
The success of our programmes such as ESPRIT, BRITE and RACE, the progress 
within the Eureka framework and in the European Space Agency, each 
demonstrates that the pooling of resources, efforts and talents as well as 
the sharing of risks, offers Europe a unique chance of making up lost 
ground and establishing..a-leading role in most of the new high technology 
sectors. 
With that end in view the Single European Act provides for different types 
of European cooperation -the Framework Programme itself, coordination of 
national policies, joint ventures and agencies, supplementary programmes 
and participations. 
THE ORIGINS OF EUREKA 
2. EUREKA was launched in 1985 as a new framework for fostering transnational 
cooperation in Europe on high technology R&O. 
Its essential features were a concentration on R&O closer to the 
market-place than Community programmes;· wider geographical coverage than 
the Community Call the EFTA countries and Turkey are members in addition to 
the Twelve); and a different institutional framework in which the 
initiative for projects came essentially from enterprises and research 
institutes. 
Governments concentrated on helping to provide the right policy framework 
in which such projects could flourish, without seeking to define priorities 
for research aimed at improving Europe's competitive position. 
THE COMMISSION'S ROLE 
3. From the outset the Commission has regarded Eureka as complementary to the 
Community programmes in R&O. 
But with the aim of speeding up the improvement in Europe's competitive 
position -notably in the context of competition between Europe, Japan and 
the USA -the Commission believes that this complementarity should 
henceforth be strengthened. 
It sees this as an important means of encouraging research close to the 
market and of associating non-Community European countries in Europe's 
cooperative efforts. 
. ' 
4. In its Communication to the Council of November 1986 1 the Commission 
outlined the first set of measures which it proposed to take in order to 
encourage synergy between Community programmes and Eureka projects, both on 
a case-by-case basis (though its involvement in specific projects) and in 
the wider context of the Community's responsibilities for fostering an 
economic and business environment favourable ~o the success of~~~­
transnational R&O ventures in Europe. 
' . •, ., ··-<· "?f ,..,~~!T;·~~:~,::•~·c·\ }tE·:!-~S-·JJofU~~:=·74 ... ~ 
S. The annex sets out what has been achieved so far on the basis of the 
approach adopted in COMC86) 664 final. It demonstrates that the Commission 
c.' is already involved directly in a number of important Eureka projects.· • 
'.J.1 . ... 
t", v ":·.·~. ';,;~. ,,;. i':.:·:,,·t•: ,,;;;'.:'':•L'.?Yl '!:,}~::::~::~ ~i,~\,~~•/~O?.~//i',;,~_:/,;''~;::· 
THE STRENGTHENING OF COOPERATION BETWEEN EUREKA ANO THE COMMUNITY THAT IS ~--
REQUIRED ..... -, ,·=.i ·• ,.,.•· · ~- ·. .<·ic,.,,,.c.. 
1 , !i~· l'.,·,:.:•l'· -:;~1.~-' ·r ti ·; l·\} 
6. But the time is now ripe to go fu~th~r:_~/~;:: -~··,:,(~r:~-~:•sJ,;(\~ ('<;:-•~·:1c·• .. d r,,) 
·,"b .. ,•~ ,l·,,•._•_,,;,•;. . .:1.:-:.f':,)'i·,"·1/j. ~.-.:J•;,,:I' ..... , rn~_-,,_-.. ~ h."'.•, .. '.~:i,·:~f·.~7)0 ,.;~q!.,r·1 .. ~!n t ' , ~-.. ,~ •1!';•4(\~-(,'if'l.f .,_ ~ 
Since the launch of Eureka and the Commission's first policy position in 
November 1986, several factors have altered the environment in which the 
Commission's guidelines were established: 
Ca) Eureka projects often cover fields in which the Community is already 
playing an important role. -. . . . . . ' .. . "',.,:,.;;• :·.-. . s -:-;.,, .. ,. nr r.--,,.M··",f<;;·t1.0- j ,.,:~:.:.~J ;"t./, . .,..,t ... , 
• :-··1;11·. >-. -· t l: r··:,1;.•,'l- ·-,;:~ i:»r.•:~---.,-,·•~ l~t•';, ~-.l:,,~';;\,,') ')··•~;~:);· ~f ",•: ;:•t;.~'i·".i•'.t,):l 
On the one hand, Eureka projects have been more heavily concentrated in the 
pre-competitive field that was foreseen fo 1985. > r::~-ild~,:; :· .' t 1 .1 :;•,:;,• ". d ;_ 
~~ .. :_r ·:.-~~ f~•.-.__•1;._;f.J,. ,~,,:,.,~ ,., .... ,. -t~. ·'- ._.~.:~·•••;'"(·'"~·•, v·~'"rnU':."1.r/,i:f) t~.e-(i! !;,Z")S.Jq .... :.~Jt···;;,m 
This is particularly clear.in the case of the large infrastructure projects 
CEUROTRAC and EUROfllAR in the field of the environment, COSINE in that of i 
information networks) which require public participation and a governmental_ 
framework.·, t,r. :' ; -..;;; . 1-: ,;, -·•• · -•·· 
This has also led to a larger call on public finance as well as sever• 10~ 
difficulties in attracting private finance •. ,,·?. :,,,1~ 2-;:-•~·r 1,·F~ ;·t:,vz n;.;i-,:,; nr 
~~.';~ t.i·~rrf1.r.l ")({•"tf;:;. ;_>::-l~i"t,~·· ,~ :, ... r,.~: ....... --::•"~~-.::;,:.~;:::if "];".7. j;.~~;:fJi- rl;"1·~~=-~:'~~~~·-~·-,.~ 01 
On the other hand; some of the larger Eureka projects or groups of projects._­
-such as PROMETHEUS (transport), EUROLASER, FAMOR (robotics) -are ·V 
directed at research areas where it is particularly important to define the ·1
,_ 
respective roles of the different actors if the risk of overlap is to be 
avoided • 
. -, t v . "• >·. '.-. ·, . ' .;. , ,;_ !'-{ :;-t·i ,J ~YJG E ~~n ;;;i.rl m. ?' :: c; '.. ;r'.~;t:? :;~;-\ ~ ;:;} \\:~:: ~'•.l:i;:~:;1 • f. 
Cb) The Community has adopted the Framework Programme. · 
.• ., ;:.;;, t· ..... '.'·t··: ...... \-,,,_:_.·•" ~·> 1J;1 ;:· :;:lJ fJ:1/i·v Ju~\., 
The Council has already adopted specific programmes of which the estimated 
· cost is equivalent to about 45% of the amount deemed necessary for the :~,,1. 
application of the Framework Programme; and other proposals covering more 
than a further 30% are already before the Council. These programmes aim 
principally to encourage cooperation in the pre-competitive or basic3~• 1' 
research fields. 1 The future orientation of certain Eureka project, notably 
those in their definition phases, is less clearly def;ned. -:;,' 1''; ':"' __ ,, 1'••_,,...,. 
1 COM(86) 664 Final, 20 Nov. 1986. ·, ~ 
. -The strengthening of ties between Eureka and the Community would help to 
establish a strategic vision linking pre-competitive actions with those 
close to the market. 
Cc) Europe needs to ensure rapid progress in sectors of crucial importance 
for the future, such as m1cro-electron1cs, aeronaut1cs, 
supraconduct1vity, biotechnology and the environment. In some of these 
areas Eureka projects are in preparation. One example of strategic 
importance in the field of micro-electronics is JESSI. 
Cd) EFTA countries are now more closely associated with the Community's R&0 
efforts as a result of bilateral agreements giving them access of 
various kinds to Community programmes, alongside their long-standing 
cooper,ation with the Community through the COST mechanism. 
The Commission considers that closer international cooperation in R&D, 
already mentioned in Article 130 N of the Treaty, is an important 
element in external policy. 
7. All these factors point to the conclusion that it would now be right to 
clarify the Community's objectives vis-a-vis Eureka and to reinforce the 
instruments applied in pursuit of them. 
The memorandum from the Presidency of the Council which was circulated to 
Member States in April 1988 sets out the arguments. 
8. Against that background the Commission considers that the Community should 
contribute more to the success of Eureka by measures in five fields: 
-practical steps to improve the links and to reduce the possible overlap 
with Community programmes; 
-financial participation in Eureka projects or project phases that are 
upstream of development for the market; 
-recourse to the possibilities offered by Articles 130 Land 130 M 
(supplementary programmes and participation); 
-measures to attract private capital to Eureka projects or project phases 
that are close to the market; 
-measures to improve the economic and business environment. 
<a> reinforcing the links and reducing the overlaps: establishing solid 
complementarity between Eureka and Community programmes in order to 
ensure continuity 
9. The Commission intends to ensure greater complementarity and continuity 
by: 
-redoubling its existing efforts to ensure that potential Eureka· 
participants are fully aware of the opportunities offered by Community 
R&D programmes (through ad hoe workshops, active involvement in Eureka's 
own information efforts etc); 
-working.directly with the national officials concerned to identify at the • 
earliest possible stages possible links with the Community programmes and 
ways in which the most effective synergy can be developed; 
-ensuring, through its participation in the steering committees of the 
larger Eureka projects that work programmes and procedures can be 
developed that·minimise the overlap with Community programmes. , 
10.All these actions will only be effective as long as the Commission receives 
timely and adequate information on projects. Without this it will not be 
.in a position to make its contribution under the most satisfactory 
conditions. 
(b) Helping to finance pre-competitive Eureka projects 
There are several posibilities for the Commission. 
~1.The Commission envisages direct participation by the Joint Research Centre 
in consortia presenting Eureka proposals, in those areas where it has the 
requisite skills and expertise. 
In line with its new focus on research that is more oriented towards the 
needs of industry, the JRC intends already to carry out four research 
projects in support of the Eureka environmental project EUROTRAC. 
Negotiations are also at an advanced stage for participation in a Eureka 
project on industrial safety. The Centre will be looking for all further 
opportunities to participate in these fields, as well as in the field of 
non-nuclear energy • . 
12.The Community's research programmes in specific fields are open to 
submissions for financial support from participants in Eureka projects in 
the areas concerned. 
Funding, normally on a shared cost basis, will be available for projects of 
a pre-competitive, pre-normative or non-competitive nature that are 
successful through the normal transparent selection procedures applying to 
the programmes concerned. 
·,; Within the existing restricted financial ceiling, however, the Commission 
is unable to participate financially in more then 15-20X of the proposals 
made to it. Moreover, the percentage is falling, with the Commission 
having to reject an increasing number of good proposals. 
13.The scope for financing Eureka projects in this way is therefore not large. 
The real solution is to increase the budget available for the Community 
programmes. 
The extra efforts in R&0 that will be required will be specified in the 
revision of the Framework Programme, in line moreover with the decision of 
the European Council of 11 and 12 February 1988 taken in the framework of 
the financial outlook for the period 1988-1992 (Chapter F, Page 28). 
This revisjon will be the right occasion for considering the replies to 
the challenges cited in paragraph 6c above. The Commission is ready to 
present a first outline of its ideas on this subject to the Council in the 
autumn. 
Cc) ,recourse to the possibilities offered by Articles 130 Land 130 M 
(supplementary programmes and participations). 
14.Supplementary programmes and participations were foreseen in the Single 
European Act as a means of enlarging the array of types of Community 
intervention, and of ensuring the necessary flexibility according to the 
actions envisaged. 
The advantages for the Community are essentially: 
-the scope for carrying out actions which do not necessarily interest all 
Member States but which nevertherless are in line with the main 
objectives of Community action; 
-the possibility of launching such actions going beyond those that could 
be financed form the Community's own resources and of mobilizing national 
financial resources beyond those foreseen in the Framework Programme. 
These forms of cooperation are particularly interesting in the context of 
'the Commission's efforts to encourage better coordination of national 
policies. They could also be used to support national actions in Eureka 
projects, notably in strategic areas such as micro-electronics, in 
particular the JESSI project. 
15.Recourse to complementary programmes for Eureka projects that are of 
interest for the Community and which require a special commitment by 
certain Member States, does not inevitably mean financial support. 
The Community's contribution could take the form of project management or 
technical assistance. 
Clearly the Commission could also intervene directly by means of the budget 
of the Framework Programme, provided that the projects concerned were 
linked to the objectives of the Framework Programme. y 
, .. :., 
,•: • ,A·: 
!Piiit'1Pfffi§?lfWST1Pl57W~PmTrrr:s 
16.In its first outline of the rev1s1on of the Framework Programme the 
Commission intends also to examine in detail the possible modes of 
intervention, in particular the possibilities offered by Articles 
130 Land 130 M. It will also examine the various loan possibilities. 
Cd) Mobilizing private finance 
17.The Commission has transmitted to the Council and to the Parliament a 
Communication outlining a series of measures to facilitate the financing of 
_ transnational technological cooperation in Europe. 
18.Several possibilities are envisaged: 
-the promotion of the investment fund EUROTECH CAPITAL, which would take 
shares in high-risk long-term, high-technology projects, could be a key 
element for the private sector. 
The Commission envisages an initial financial contribution from the 
Community. 
risk insurance for advanced technology projects, developed in close 
collaboration with Eureka. 
This would be a mechanism to be put in place by the private insurance 
sector. But the Commission is ready to make a financial contribution to the 
launching of a pilot project which would allow the promoters of advanced 
technology projects to benefit -over 5 years -from reduced insurance 
premia related to protection against certain risks. 
The financing of the pilot project will be accompanied by an information 
campaign by the Commission directed at all the interested parties 
(promoters, financiers, insurers, agents) and a programme of cooperation 
between the Commission services and the insurance companies to help risk 
evaluation. 
as already indicated in its Communication, the Commission also intends to 
contribute to better information on the financing needs of high 
technology projects. 
(e) Improving the economic and business environment 
19.Further progress towards completion of the Community's Internal Market 
Programme will help to improve the environment in which Eureka and other 
advanced technology projects can thrive. Moreover, the Commission insists 
on the need to improve the legal, fiscal and regulatory framework covering 
transnational cooperation between companies. 
Measures of particular importance in this context involve the prevention of 
new technical obstacles to trade; and the opening-up of national public 
procurement to general advertising, competitive tendering and 
non-discriminatory selection from tenders received. 
The same is true of the Commission's constructive approach in the 
application to high-technology projects of the Community's state aid 
rules; and a number of measures intended to develop a more rational system 
of intellectual and industrial property rights throughout the Community. 
The Commission will also continue to work closely with the EFTA countries 
in the discussions concerning joint measures on technical standards, 
intellectual and industrial property rights, state aids and public 
procurement which are already under way. 
These will be helpful in the context of Eureka projects involving 
participants from the Community and EFTA countries. 
CONCLUSIONS 
2O.The actions outlined above are important new initiatives in promoting 
synergy between the Community and Eureka, in reducing the risks of overlap, 
and in developing continuity between pre-competitive actions and those 
close to the market. They bear witness to the importance of the Community 
role. 
The further success of the Eureka venture will not however depend solely on 
the role which the Community can play. It would be unreasonable to suppose 
that the Community budget could shoulder the financial burdens for projects 
that require major public financial support, given the limited resources 
available under the Framework Programme. 
But the Commission is confident that the measures proposed will make a 
major contribution to the pursuit of the goal of improving European 
competitiveness which the Community shares with Eureka. 
The Council is therefore invited to endorse the actions proposed in this 
Communication. 
ANNEX 
EUREKA AND COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 
PROGRESS TO DATE 
1. Introduction 
1.1 The Communication itself outlines the new actions proposed' 
by the Commission to reinforce cooperation over the coming 
years. This more detailed annex reviews cooperation to 
date, in the light of the guidelines set out in the 
Commission's earlier Communication COM( 86) 664 final of 20 
November 1986. It 
0 recalls the essential features of the earlier 
Communication (paras 2.1 -2.3 >; 
outlines how EUREKA has evolved in the meantime 
(paras 3.1 -3.8); and 
summarises the actions taken by the Commission as a 
f9llow-up to COM(86)664 (paras 4.1 -4.7). 
1. 2 Appendix I provides summary information on some of the 
larger EUREKA projects. 
Appendix II summarises the involvement of the Commission 
in specific EUREKA projects. 
Appendix III and IV show the evolution of EUREKA projects 
since 1985. 
2. The Current Guidelines 
2.1 The Commission's earlier Communication drew attention to the 
similarities between EUREKA and the Community's own 
programmes as regards their main areas of research and their 
ultimate objectives (to help Europe master and develop 
advanced technologies essential to its future 
competitiveness). It also highlighted the main differences 
as regards: 
geographical coverage. EUREKA embraces all the EFTA 
countries and Turkey, as well as all the Member States 
of the European Community and the Commission 
(However, special arrangements have subsequently been 
negotiated with 5 EfTA countries which provide for q 
. ,. 2 
specific forms of cooperation with the Community 
programmes) . 
the institutional framework. Community R&D programmes 
from part of a strategic whole ( the Framework 
Programme) prepared with advice from experts from 
industry and research institutions and agreed by the 
Council of Ministers. Financial support from the 
Community budget is available under specific Community 
procedures, mostly on a shared-cost basis, with 
projects from all the Community countries competing for 
funding. 
The initiative for EUREKA projects, on the other hand, 
comes from the industrial and other partners concerned. 
Granting of EUREKA status is the exclusive 
responsibility of the Governments of the countries 
where the participants are situated,. once certain 
common criteria have been met. The projects are 
subsequently announced officially at regular meetings 
of the EUREKA Ministerial Conference. But there is, 
quite deliberately, no strategic framework, and no 
central EUREKA budget for project finance. 
Participants compete for public finance, where , 
required, from their own national authorities. 
the nature of the R&D work. The Community programmes 
are concentrated essentially on R&D upstream of 
industrial or commercial_,application for the market­
place. The aim behind EUREKA, on the other hand, was 
to stimulate projects that would lead directly to the 
development of products, processes and services with a 
market potential. It was also accepted, however, that 
EUREKA could embrace advanced technology projects aimed 
at the creation of the technical prerequisites for a 
modern infrastructure and at the solution of 
transboundary problems. 
2. 2 The Communication went on to outline ways in which the 
complementary features of the two frameworks for cooperation 
could be developed to mutual advantage through actions by 
the Commission: 
by establishing appropriate case-by-case cooperation 
arrangements for individual projects linked to 
Community programmes (notably, through technical 
assistance; by facilitating information exchanges and 
contacts between project participants; and by adjusting 
the technical objectives or content of planned 
Community programmes so as to take account of the wider 
needs of specific EUREKA projects>; 
• by Commission support for the definition 
harmonized implementation of common norms 
standards which would facilitate the marketing 
products resulting from EUREKA projects; 
through progress in the establishment of 
Community's Internal Market which would create 
right economic and business environment; 
by the Commission's examination of possible ways 
facilitating access to ·private sector finance,. and 
making available Commission expertise in the field 
information networks • 3 
and 
and 
of 
the 
the 
of 
by of' 
by applying the Treaty of Rome's rules on state aids i~ 
a constructive manner to R&D projects, recognising the 
need to encourage the growth of successful new products 
and services as well as the need to avoid trade 
distortion and unfair compe~ition in Europe. 
2.3 The Communication also envisaged the possibility in certain 
particularly suitable cases,-· of some financial participation 
by the Community in those EUREKA projects Cor phases of .such 
projects>, notably those of a pre-normative character*, 
which were submitted through the normal procedures for 
Community finance. 
* Pre-normative research provides the scientific and technical 
basis for the preparation of standards and technical 
specifications. I .. 
.; 
j ; 
; • ; (, 
" 
.. 3. How EUREKA has evolved 
(i) the project portfolio 4 
3.1 There are now 214* announced EUREKA projects, with an 
estimated cost of over 3. 8 milliard ECU**. Well over 800 
organisations are involved in these projects, around two­
thirds of them industrial and with a good representation in 
terms of SMEs (enterprises with less than 500 employees 
account for 50% of the industrial partners). 
3. 2 The projects are heavily concentrated in the fields of 
information technology, robotics and biotechnology, although 
the latest set of projects announced in Copenhagen show some 
shift away from information technology (see appendices III 
and IV). 
3.3 Few projects have an expected duration of 2 years or less, 
and every second project is expected to last more than 4 
years. Many of the projects, notably the larger ones, are still in definition phases, and it will be some time before 
results are available. 
3.4 Half of all projects are expected to cost less than 10 MECU, 
and in contrast to earlier tendencies there appears to be an 
increasing trend towards smaller, lower-cost projects. 
There are, however, a number of projects in the fields of 
communications, information technology, environment and 
transport that are expected to cost upwards of 50 MECU. 
Many of these are expected to take 5 -6 years or more to 
complete. A number of these projects are composed of a 
series of sub-projects and have become known within EUREKA 
as "umbrella projects". Appendix I lists some of these 
larger projects, with their estimated total costs and 
expected duration. 
* Including 54 projects (with an estimated cost for their 
definition phases of 360 MECU> announced at the EUREKA 
Ministerial Conference in Copenhagen on 16 June 1988. 
** This figure may underestimate total costs over the life-time 
of all the projects, since the data include only the costs 
of the definition phases for some projects. 
5 
3.5 Only limited information is available to the Commission 
about the financing of EUREKA projects. The latest 
information suggests, however, that on average some 35% of 
total funding is expected to be secured from public sector 
sources. But ~n the case of certain projects, notably those 
in the environmental field which are of a "non-competitive" 
nature and which do not aim to produce commercial goods and 
services, the share of public funding can be as high as 
100%. Officials from the Member Countries of EUREKA, with 
the support of the Commission, are actively examining how to 
encourage the flow of private capital from the banking 
system and venture capital companies. The results to date 
appear to have been modest, largely because of the nature of 
the EUREKA portfolio as it has developed. According to a 
recent analysis by the European Bankers Round Table, only 
13% of 190 projects analysed appear likely to qualify for 
private financing in the forseeable future: 52% may 
conceivably result in a commercially viable product; and 35% 
by their nature could not qualify for private finance. Here 
too, however, the situation may evolve as the EUREKA 
portfolio changes over time towards smaller and more 
product-oriented projects. 
(ii> the framework of cooperation 
3. 6 EUREKA aims as far as possible to create a "light" and 
flexible mechanism for interqovernmental cooperation, with a 
small Secretariat and a network of "National Project 
Coordinators" facilitating the exchange of information on 
projects and the identification at an early stage, of 
supportive actions requiring some form of involvement by 
Governments. Apart from their work on project development, officials responsible for EUREKA in the member countries 
have also been engaged, for example, in the examination of 
issues such as how to encourage private sector project 
financing; how to promote the interests of small and medium­
sized enterprises in EUREKA; and norms and standards. The 
arrangements, in which the Commission is participating 
actively, are evolving in the light of experience and 
developments in other international fora. 
3.7 Particular efforts are under way at present to ensure 
enhanced coordination between the participating Governments 
so as to facilitate the emergence of new projects. One 
important issue that has been identified within EUREKA is 
the need to ensure that the existence of different national 
systems and procedures for public financial support does not 
inhibit EUREKA projects (at present a project may be delayed 
until the public financing issues are resolved in all the 
· Member Countries concerned). 
3.8 The new Austrian Presidency of EUREKA plans to focus -CS 
6 
particular attention during the coming year .on measures to 
help project development and monitoring; on improving the 
general framework conditions for market-oriented 
international technological cooperation ( including further 
progress in the field of norms and standards>; and on better 
coordination of the various EUREKA projects in the 
transport field (including the links with the Community 
DRIVE programme). In each of these areas close liason with 
the Commission will be important. 
4. Actions by the Commission 
4 .1 Around half the announced EUREKA projects have links with 
the Community's R&D programmes, either deriving from 
Community projects, covering different stages of R&D on the 
same subject, or having some degree of overlap. Some 
involve the same industrial or other partners as Community 
projects*. This degree of linkage is high. As foreshadowed 
in COM(86)664 final, the Commission has therefore taken a 
wide range of actions in relation to specific EUREKA 
projects to reduce overlap and thus to contribute to the 
best possible use of scarce European research resources. A 
summary of Commission actions and involvement in some EUREKA 
projects is at Appendix II. These actions are discussed 
below, together with more general actions to improve the 
environment for the success of EUREKA projects. -4. 2 Actions to facilitate the emergence of EUREKA projects, 
building on the experience of Community programmes. The 
Commission has made specific efforts to make available to 
potential and present EUREKA participants information about 
the results of Community programmes and their planned future 
development. For example, joint workshops have been 
organised with partners from Community and EUREKA projects 
on BRITE subjects (eg lasers>, on HDTV and on COSINE**· The 
Commission has improved access to information on Community 
projects through the IES and EUROABSTRACT data bases. It 
has also taken steps to ensure that participants in good 
projects that are submitted to Community programmes but 
which cannot be adopted because they are too close to the 
market-place, are made aware of the opportunities offered by 
EUREKA. 
* Examples include EU005 -Membranes for micro-filtration 
which derives from BRITE 1566; EU20 EUREKA advanced software 
technology and EU43 EUREKA Software Factory, which derive in 
part from and build on the results of an ESPRIT project 
(PCTE>; EU109-PACA (absorption heat pumps>, which continues 
work initiated under the Community's non-nuclear energy 
programme. 
** A summary description of the projects cited, together with 
an explanation of the acronyms used, is given in Appendix II 
7 
4.3 Technica1 contributions to the definition phases of EUREKA 
projects that are downstream of Community projects. An 
example here is the adoption in the EUREKA Software Factory 
project of software interface standards developed under the 
ESPRIT programme. 
4.4 Help in the definition and organisation of the 1arger EUREKA 
projects whictt·are linked to CoDDDunity programmes, such as 
EUROTRAC, EUROMAR, COSINE, HDTV, PROMETHEUS. The Commission is represented on the Scientific Steering Committee and on 
the International Executive Committee of EUROTRAC; it 
attends meetings of the Board of EUROMAR; it is the leading 
partner and provides the Secretariat for COSINE. It is 
actively involved with the Steering Committee of PROMETHEUS 
and with participants in other EUREKA projects in the 
transport field, in the definition of priorities for 
research and an appropriate interface with the Comuni ty' s 
DRIVE programme. 
In the case of HDTV the Commission is active on a number of 
fronts to ensure the right environment for the success of 
the project by 
0 
0 encouraging consistency in the 
standardisation within Europe; ongoing work on 
ensuring, in liaison with industry and the Member 
States most directly concerned, the defence of E~ropean 
interests vis-A-vis ~third countries and in the 
international standards bodies; 
providing a framework (the HDTV 
together all the economic interests 
<radio, TV, cinema companies etc). Forum> bringing 
in the project 
4 . 5 Direct or indirect f inancia1 participation in some EUREKA 
projects, viz: 
COSINE. The Commission is currently meeting 20% (0.3 
MECU> of the cost of the definition phase; 
EUROTRAC. The Commission has accepted two sub-projects 
(LACTOZ and HALIPP) for funding of 2 MECU over 4 years, 
following the successful application made by the 
project participants to the Community's environmental 
programme. In addition the JRC intends to carry out 4 
of its projects within the EUROTRAC framework, at an 
estimated cost of some 7 MECU. .( 
•[ 
8 
FORMENTOR <expert system for dealing with major plant 
failures and security control). The question of direct 
JRC participation is currently under negotiation with 
the project participants. 
EUROCARE. 8 R&D contracts under the Community's 
programme on the effect of air pollution on historic 
buildings are linked closely to EUROCARE and represent 
a substantial indirect contribution. 
PROMETHEUS. The work programme is being developed in 
close liaison with the Community's DRIVE programme, 
which is to have a budget of 60 MECU for its pilot 
phase. The Community is making a substantial indirect 
financial contribution to PROMETHEUS, by financing the 
research on the infrastructure required for the 
operation of the "intelligent car"; 
HDTV. Three RACE projects*, costing together 16 MECU 
over 3 years, are an important complement to the work 
on HDTV. 
The Community is contributing to the achievement of the 
objectives of EU16 (ES2) through the participation of 
this EUREKA venture in ESPRIT activities. Important 
ESPRIT activities notably in the field of CAD, IC 
manufacturing equipments and automation are furthermore 
directly· relevant to the current objectives of EU127 
(JESSI). For this latter, moreover, consultations are 
in hand with the companies and the countries concerned 
to investigate ways of ensuring a fuller synergy of 
effort through a direct participation of the Community 
in the JESSI programme of work. 
4.6 "Supportive Measures•. Aside from involvement in specific 
EUREKA projects on a case-by-case basis, the Commission is 
playing a key role in the field of so-called "supportive 
measures"(cf para 2.2 above): 
0 by developing mechanisms to encourage a flow of private 
sector finance to high technology projects (including 
notably EUROTECH CAPITAL). Recent·Commission work in 
the field of risk insurance is an important complement 
to initiatives already under discussion and led by 
France within EUREKA. The Commission now proposes to 
finance the launching of a pilot insurance scheme. 
* HIVITS 1+2 -picture encoding and transmission 
DVT -digital video-images. 
9 
in the field of norms and standards the Commission has 
offered its services to EUREKA participants in the 
development and transmission of mandates on new 
technical standards to the European technical standards 
bodies (CEN and CENELEC). It systematically analyses 
EUREKA projects in order to identify when action may be 
required and has taken appropriate contacts with the 
participants involved. Thus far there are a small 
number of projects for which a specific need for 
European standards has been identified (eg. EUROTRAC, 
IHS, PROMETHEUS, ESF, HDTV and FAMOS) . In most of 
these cases the Commission is in the process of 
obtaining the detailed information required to 
establish mandates. Only in relation to the IHS 
< Integrated Home Systems> project has the Commission 
already been able to forward the necessary mandate. 
The Commission initiated a special workshop for EUREKA 
participants on standardisation which was held by 
CEN/CENELEC (the technical standards bodies)in Brussels 
in March 1988. 
in the field of competition policy the Commission has 
demonstrated its constructive attitude towards state 
aids for R&D projects i.n the application of the 
corresponding Treaty provisions to specific cases 
notified to it. In a number of cases it has granted 
exemptions under Article 92.3c and in one case (HDTV) 
an exemption under Article 92. 3b on the basis of the 
projects common European interest. 
4. 7 Financial and material support. The European Commission 
provides 13.7% of the budget of the EUREKA Secretariat and 
has seconded one of its own staff members to the 
Secretariat. It also contributed to the Secretariat's 
equipment in the early phases and set up the EUREKA project 
data base, which is now managed by the Secretariat. 
I .·-­f ,. 
:; J\PPJ.-:Nl>IX 1. 
LARGE -SCALE EUREKA PROJECTS 
Illustrative Examples (not exhaustive) are: 
EUREKA N° SUBJECT EXPECTED COST 
(MECUs) 
EU 7 
EU 16 
EU 37 
EU 43 
EU 58 
EU 95 
EU 102 EUROTRAC: 
experiment on trans 
port & transformation of 
trace elements in the 
troposphere 68 
Automatic design & 94 
production of custom 
chips 
EUROMAR: modern 164 
technologies for 
ecological exploration in 
European seas 
ESF: EUREKA Software 
Factory 327 
EUROPOLIS: Intelligent 128 
control of urban & inter 
urban traffic 
HDTV: compatible high 180 
definition TV 
EPROM: multi-megbit 404 
non-volatile memories DURATION 
72 
36 
108 
96 
84 
48 
60 
There are also two "umbrella" projects, which are composed of a 
number of related sub-projects with separate EUREKA status­
FAMOS (flexible automated assembly) and EUROLASER (application of 
laser technology> -each of which could cost in total upwards of 
200 MECUs over the next 5 years. The main stage of the EUREKA 
project COSINE, currently in its definition phase, is also 
expected to cost up to 200 MECU. 
. '( 
APPENDIX II 
COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN MAJOR EUREKA PROJECTS LINKED TO 
COMMUNITY PROGRAMMES. 
Subject 
l.ENVIRONMENT 
· · EUROTRAC : 
European experi­
ment on transport 
and transformation 
of environmentally 
relevant trace 
constituents in the 
troposphere over 
Europe. 
EUROMAR: 
development and 
application of 
modern technologies 
for the exploration 
of ecological r~­
lations and cause 
and effect chains Current Status 
Commission funding 
2 sub-projects (2MECU) 
through Community en­
vironment programme. 
Commission represented 
on Steering Committees. 
Coordinated work with 
related actions such as 
COST 611. 
Commission is a member 
of the EUROMAR Board, 
with a view to en­
suring coordination 
with planned Community 
programme on marine 
science & technology. Possible future 
development 
JRC proposes to 
carry out 4 projects 
within EUROTRAC 
.framework ( 7 MECU 
over 4 years). 
EC programme 
expected to deal 
with the more pre­
competi:ti ve stages . . ·..,. .: 
of work. 
in the seas of Europe. 
EUROCARE: 
European project 
on Conservation & 
Restoration. Commission participates Further coordination 
in EUROCARE Board of work with the 
meetings. The Commission Community programme 
Newsletter on Cultural on the environment 
Heritage is used free of (effect of air 
charge by EUROCARE for pollution on 
diffusion of information.historic buildings 
8 R&D contracts under and monuments). 
the Community programme 
on environmental protection 
are closely linked to 
EUROCARE. 
.l 
i 
I. t ':.' ,. 2.TRANSPORT 
PROMETHEUS: 
programme for a Euro­
pean Traffic System 
with highest effi­
ciency and unpreceden­
ted safety. DRIVE work programme 
established as comple­
mentary to PROMETHEUS. 
Commission takes part 
in the PROMETHEUS 
Steering Committee. 
Together with DEMETER: 
digital electronic mapping 
of Europe, 
CARMINAT:driver information 
system. 
EUROPOLIS:intelligent control 
system to aid urban & inter­
urban traffic. 
3.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
COSINE: cooperation on 
open systems networking 
in Europe. 
EAST:.. EUREKA advanced 
. software technology -
development of software 
engineering facilities. 
ESF: EUREKA Software 
Factory. 
JESSI: joint European 
Submicron Silicon Commission is lead 
project coordinator. 
Assures·Secretariat, 
provides 20% of fun­
ding of definition 
phase (-0.3 MECU). 
Commission closely 
involved in the work 
to date which relies 
heavily on the result 
of an ESPRIT project. 
Commission has par­
ticipated in mee-
tings with the partners Implementation 
of the DRIVE 
programme (60 
MECU over 30 
months). 
Further 
Commission in­volvement 
possible via 
the Framework 
Programme. 
(Commission 
examining a 
joint proposal 
from ESF/EAST 
consortia pre-
sented to 
ESPRIT II). 
Commission 
examining scope 
for improved 
synergy. 
concerned so as to ensure 
4.COMMUNICATIONS 
HDTV: compatible 
high definition TV. synergy with ESPRIT projects 
on micro-electronics. 
Commission actively in­
volved in support of 
this project through 
promotion of consistent 
work on standards in-Continuation of 
existing initia 
tives. Partici 
pation in the 
production of 
5.FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING 
FAMOS: Development 
of automated flexible 
assembly systems for 
an automated factory 
of·the future. side Europe; diplomatic 
action vis-a-vis third 
countries; contacts 
with international stan 
dards authorities. 
Indirect financial con 
tribution through 3 
RACE projects (16 MECU 
over 3 years). a high defini­
tion video clip 
, ( 0 . 5 MECU > • 
Possible finan 
cial.participa 
tion in SYNTH. 
TV project. 
Representatives of Further coordi 
Commission (BRITE & nation of work 
ESPRIT) with BRITE & 
have attended meetings ESPRIT. 
of the steering committee 
of FAMOS. FAMOS partici-
pants have taken part in 
Commission workshops or-
ganised through BRITE. 
I , 
,. 
It 
() 
·' ,.· I', I -'I ··1-· 
I I 
!., 11· .•. 
-u·, .... 
.. ,j_ 
i I 
I 
I 
! 
:-:n-1 ... 
I 
1 f:)• "' l'H0 . .11··1 :,: El IHEJCf\ 1"1tll"-IOM( F::; 1"1 Ct-h-"lt'.;tl IE 
( C 1. ltRJL ES: COM~ERENCE MlNl8lERIELLK 
) 
EtiVI [1(0 HOBOT COt1 1 .. ASEl't t1t~T l ttFOB T r-lf1NS nPPEN])JCE JJJ 
;-::~=::~89:l PBOJEfS/D()MAl NE 
~; 
S MAORID/87 1 
P BO.J l::T S/f)Qr·u-.1 t-1 E 
0 STOCl<HOLM/86 
I:' HO,J • .,.. DO Mt:-. 1 MES 
PHO.JETS/ l),C,MA I NE'. ... ... :: .. 
... ,.:.. 
I ___ _j 
•.·,,., 
11!-i" 
! 
i 
! 
i 
I 
16-t· 
I 
I I I 
:J 
I' I 
u 1M·t 
() i 
,J I I•: 
'J' It• 
< • . , 
r·, 
·1 ·' ·".''" 
fll O HODOT cor1 LASKB Mf-'\'I" I f'i:FOH T llAM8 
001·1,..._ I 1-iJi:8 ,-.PPEl'IJH C:E I. U 
[I l·IAMOt) F.: n .... ·rn,. 
PROJF..:T S/ CIOMA I N.t:: 
s 
~ LONDON/Of:, 
PROJETS/DOMAJ l'IF.: 
s 
[] ST OC KHO r..t"Vl:16 
P AO,J. /])OMA I N F.;8 
~ f1ADR I D . ..-'{;17 
l'BOJET:S/DOMAIINE: 
s 
BJ J<OBENHAVN/El0 
PRO,J E:T S,_.... DOMA I NE 
s 
N 
\,J