'.,'. H.» >»« 
&S té COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93) 203 final 
Brussels, 12 May 1993 
SfesF*' 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
^_ ' z&* •COHESION AND RID FOUCY - SYNERGIES BETWEEN 
RBSBARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION POLICY" 
t«\-.•75^ 
m». 
9&Ù -• ' 
«J * 
g/ÂsC**^. .. 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO 
THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
"COHESION AND RTD POLICY - SYNERGIES BETWEEN 
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION POLICY" 
I. The situation 
LI The Cohesion Gap in the field of RTD 
1. Whereas differences in standards of living between Member States are in the 
range of one to three in terms of their order of magnitude (l), differences in gross 
expenditure on RTD are significantly greater. Absolute levels of RTD 
expenditure in Spain, Greece and Portugal are particulary low (2), though the rates 
of increase of government expenditure in favour of RTD have been substantial 
in recent years, from a low base, especially in Spain. This trend is further 
confirmed by looking at expenditure patterns on higher education in the different 
regions of the Community. 
2. Differences in availability of RTD specialised personnel are even more striking. 
In 1988, for example, Denmark had approximately the same number of RTD 
scientists and engineers as Greece and Portugal taken together (OECD 1992). 
France and Germany had three times more RTD personnel per thousand labour 
force than Spain and nearly twice as many as in Ireland. 
3. Differences in business expenditure on RTD are also very significant : expenditure 
on the effective dissemination of RTD results into the productive sector is 
extremely low in most of the less prosperous Member States, compared to the rest 
of the European Community. In the late eighties, in Greece and Portugal only 
one quarter of the gross domestic expenditure on RTD was performed by the 
business enterprise sector (OECD 1992), compared with an average of 
approximately 60% for the rest of the Community. 
4. This gap is confirmed by indicators of the employment of technologically and 
scientifically specialized personnel in business. Other indicators, such as patent 
applications and the technology balance of payments, also suggest that these 
countries in particular are badly prepared to reduce their dependency on low 
labour costs, and on activities with a low technological content. Moreover, a 
recent study by FAST suggests that firms and research laboratories in less 
favoured regions participate in only 5-8 % of networks of scientific co-operation 
within Western Europe (FAST (3), (4), 1992). 
5. The cohesion gap in the field of RTD can be as great within some Member States 
as between Member States in the Community. In Italy, if public non-university 
research and private research are grouped together, it will be seen that in the 
South the number of researchers per thousand inhabitants is only one seventh as 
high as in the Centre and North of the country (MURST report 1988). In the 
Member States least well endowed with RTD facilities, their facilities are mainly 
located in and around their capital cities or one other principal centre. 
6. There is also a significant gap between advanced countries and less prosperous 
Member States with respect to the level of state aid for RTD and Innovation. 
Advanced countries give these types of aids to business a high priority, but public 
aid for RTD and Innovation in less favoured regions is very considerably lower. 
While the percentage of State aid to RTD and Innovation to the manufacturing 
sector 1988-90 in the Community was 10 % of all aids, in Greece and Portugal 
these types of aids were around 1 % of all aids (SEC(92) 1384/2, EEC 1992). 
These low shares are, of course, compounded by low absolute levels of spending 
on aids to the manufacturing sector. 
7. This short analysis demonstrates the need to take a broad and integrated 
approach to reducing the various disparities just described. In the next two 
sections the way in which Community policy has responded in recent years is 
described, and this will, of course, be the point of departure for the consideration 
of future action in the second part of this Communication. 
1.2 The RTD Framework Programme 
8. The aid granted by the second Framework Programme for shared-cost actions in 
favour of the less favoured regions (Objective 1) amounts to 7.8 % of all the aid 
available. The level of participation in the third Framework Programme though 
not yet completed appears to continue the trend. 
9. Less favoured regions may encounter greater difficulties in participation in 
international research activity such as the Community Research Framework 
Programme. Since they are less favoured, it is evident that they do not enjoy the 
same access to resources nor possess the critical mass of richer regions. 
Peripherality can add to the cost of involvement in trans-national projects, while 
mobility/exchange of personnel is less easy to achieve. 
Smaller size of firms, the more limited range of research domains and the 
narrower range of sectors can inhibit the potential scope of participation. 
10. The participation of certain countries or regions varies according to different 
specific programmes of the RTD Framework Programme. In relation to individual 
research topics, the share of the funds of the Second Framework Programme for 
shared-cost actions allotted to the regions of the Objective 1, varies from 0.6% 
for the programme "Radioactive waste" up to 32.1 % for the "Coordination of 
agricultural research". Overall, Objective 1 regions participated to a greater or 
lesser degree in 31.9 % of all research projects. Clearly Objective 1 regions 
already have both the interest and the capability to meet excellence criteria in 
certain research areas, though not in all of them. 
11. As regards implementation, particular mention should be made among various 
measures already envisaged to assist Objective 1 regions, of the third additional 
year for scholarships in the programme "Human capital and mobility",encouraging 
the return to the country of origin; of the measures taken in the new programme 
VALUE (5) to encourage the participation of all the regions in the Community 
Programmes; and of certain special provisions available to the SMEs (feasibility 
studies in the programme BRITE-EURAM (6) and special ESPRIT (7) actions 
which are particularly important for the less-favoured regions). 
Those measures should help to overcome the difficulties encountered by the 
absence of large industries in these regions. 
12. To take fuller account of the principle of cohesion in the formulation of overall 
policy and specific RTD programmes, the second Framework Programme was 
evaluated by a group of experts (8) which concluded that the Framework 
Programme made an important contribution to cohesion, especially : 
by reducing the isolation of scientists; 
by creating links, by improving credibility, by fostering closer 
communication, and by creating confidence; 
by establishing a framework of 'learning by doing' for all the partners 
taking part or linked to its activities. 
13. The less prosperous Member States themselves submitted recommendations for 
taking better account of cohesion, in particular on the occasion of the Research 
Council held on the 29 April 1992. These recommendations, which have been 
considered in the preparation of the fourth Framework Programme, can be 
summarized as follows : 
- a degree of modulation and flexibility has to be ensured in financing rates and 
in the definition of eligible expenditure. 
- the problems of the traditional sectors in the economy, and of the small and 
medium-sized enterprises, have to be taken more into consideration. 
More particularly they urged a greater recognition of the needs of the least 
prosperous countries in the definition of priority actions for Community research. 
1.3 The impact of the Structural Funds: 1989-1993 
14. As is shown in annex, the total amount of Community Structural Funds support 
for RTD and innovation-related measures, including telecommunications, is 
estimated for the period 1989-1993 at nearly 4 billion ECUs (1989 prices) out of 
a total availability to the Structural Funds of 60,3 billion ECUs. However, there 
are very considerable differences between Member States as to the proportion of 
Structural Fund resources that they have chosen to allocate to RTD-related 
activities throug Community Support Frameworks (CSFs), as is also illustrated in 
annex. 
15. In general, Member States responsible for Objective 1 regions, where the cohesion 
gaps are the greatest, have concentrated their resources on building up RTD 
capabilities rather than on stimulating demand for research by the productive 
sector. They have tended to focus on the financing of infrastructures and 
equipment for research outside the firm, often in academic institutions or public 
sector research institutes. That, and the very variable degree of their overall effort, 
has led the Commission to propose a number of technology-related Community 
initiatives in addition to national proposals, amongst which particular mention 
should be made of STRIDE (9) and EUROFORM (10). The former has the 
objective of further developing regional research capabilities, to encourage a 
greater participation in programmes of international excellence and to strengthen 
efforts to stimulate and support the direct involvement of the productive sector 
in RTD activities. The EUROFORM initiative is intended to develop, for its part, 
international cooperation to meet new kinds of multidisciplinary training needs 
linked to technology. 
Other initiatives proposed by the Commission have a strong technology content, 
in the fields of the environment (ENVIREG (il)), renewable energies and energy 
efficiency (VALOREN (12)), quality infrastructures and business services 
(PRISMA (13)) and the use of advanced services linked to telecommunications 
networks (STAR (14)and TELEMATIQUE (15)),and also INTERREG (^(cross-
border cooperation) as well as LEADER (17) (rural development), which contains 
a number of projects related to IT and Technology structures. 
1.4 Conclusions 
16. In conclusion, in the less prosperous regions, it may be necessary to look again at 
the balance between basic research and applied research, and at the balance 
between research and its effective dissemination into productive activity. Equally, 
it may be necessary to give more attention to developing the awareness and 
involvement of the private sector, bearing in mind the predominance of small and 
medium-sized firms, and the lack of appropriate support structures and business 
services, for the financing of innovation. Both the fourth RTD Framework 
Programme and the next round of programming for the Structural Funds offer 
new opportunities to meet that challenge as is explained in the following sections. 
The combined action already constitutes a very substantial part of the recent 
increase in RTD-related expenditure in Objective 1 countries, and is likely to 
continue to be essential during this decade. 
II. The Principles of Policy 
17. The Treaty on European Union places the strengthening of economic and social 
cohesion among the fundamental objectives of European union (Article B), 
alongside the completion of the internal market and the establishment of an 
economic and monetary union. Accordingly, all Community policies have to take 
into account the objective of cohesion from the stage of their formulation, and not 
only at the time of their implementation (Article 130 B). Elsewhere, the Treaty 
on European Union also states that the Community has as its objective to 
strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to 
encouraging it to become more competitive at international level, (Article 130 F), 
and also to foster better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of 
innovation, research and technological development (Article 130 Title XIII). 
Moreover, in the Treaty the role of vocational training in facilitating adaptation 
to industrial change is acknowledged together with the stimulation of cooperation 
between undertakings, research centres and universities (art. 123,127 and 130). 
18. From the Treaty adopted in Maastricht the general and non-sectoral character of 
the objective of economic and social cohesion clearly emerges. The various 
common policies are called upon to contribute to this objective. However, each 
common policy keeps its characteristics, its specific character and its rules. The 
Maastricht text states this explicitly for RTD policy, the cornerstone of which 
remains scientific excellence. 
The Community competitiveness is conditioned by its RTD performance in the 
overall European industry. 
This means that besides activities aiming at the promotion of leading edge 
technology, there is a need for activities aimed at improving the whole of the 
industrial system. In this respect it is important to integrate effectively the RTD 
policy into the cohesion objective. 
This will allow the promotion of RTD capabilities in the less favoured regions and 
will let them benefit also from the advantages of research and technological 
development and in this way contribute to the excellence objective. 
Both policies are therefore complementary and any action aiming at establishing 
a more favorable framework for the participation of the less favoured regions to 
the RTD Community programmes, will lead to the improvement of their 
capacities at the highest level of scientific excellence and will thus contribute to 
the underlying objective. 
The Structural Funds, the specific task of which is to pursue economic and social 
cohesion, play a complementary role both in assisting the less favoured regions to 
bring their RTD capabilities, including human resources, closer to the best 
Community's standards and in promoting the transfer of the technologies 
developed into the productive sector. 
Thus, in implementing the main objectives of the Structural Funds, the 
Commission shall ensure, within the framework of partnership, coordination and 
consistency between assistance from the funds and assistance provided from the 
resources of the Community research budget (18). 
According to the provisions of article 130f of the Treaty of European Union it is 
clear that activities under the Community research programmes as such can not 
be funded by the Structural Funds. 
Ill The Future Approach 
III. 1 A new opportunity 
19. As was recalled above, the cornerstone of the Community RTD Framework 
Programme is the principle of excellence, but the Treaty of European Union as 
also makes it clear that, for this policy as for all others, cohesion aims should be 
taken into account. 
20. The challenge is to develop an integrated approach which develops synergies 
between the RTD Framework Programme and the Structural Funds while 
respecting the identity of each policy. Thus, the Structural Funds contribute to 
developing capabilities within the less favoured regions which can facilitate their 
participation in the RTD Framework Programme. The RTD Framework 
Programme, mainly trough the diffusion of technologies, the mobility of 
researchers through networking and by the balance between research activities 
contributes to reducing disparities in RTD capabilities. 
21. It is the right moment to take stock on the future approach. The négociation of 
the next round of structural funding from 1994 onwards will begin shortly. The 
Structural Funds in the framework of partnership and to the extent that Member 
States so desire, could reinforce their present action in the field of RTD and 
innovation. As regards the RTD Framework Programme the Commission has put 
forward principles for future actions, the main targets and types of measures. This 
provides a basis for Member States to prepare for the fourth Framework 
Programme and an opportunity to prepare an integrated approach. In the next 
two sections, possibles ways in which this integrated approach could be achieved 
could be explored by building on the synergies between the two policies 
concerned. 
III.2 The Fourth RTD Framework Programme 
22. It is clear that actions within the RTD Framework Programme should reflect the 
need for cohesion. All four activities are asked to contribute, the first two in 
general, the latter two more specifically. For the First and Second Activities the 
less prosperous Member States are looking, first of all, fora measure of continuity 
in the funding of research, technological development and demonstration 
programmes in which they have already demonstrated their relative competence 
and interest. But they will also be able to take advantage of some of the changes 
of emphasis which are proposed, for example: 
a/ improving communication and awareness of actions including electronic 
networks related to linguistics, for information interchange among health care 
institutions, for distance learning, and for industrial co-operation more 
generally. 
b/ retention of research topics as well as the addition of new actions in which less 
favoured regions perform well, such as: 
the new accent within environment on the management of soils and water, 
and to prevent desertification, 
the identification of new orientations for the agricultural sector and of rural 
development matters. 
the use of renewable energies and the promotion of energy-efficient 
growth. 
23. The Commission intends to review the effectiveness of its promotion and 
information actions in favour of the less favoured regions relating to the First and 
Second Activities with particular reference for the productive sector in those 
regions and including the assistance to create consortia. This will be 
complemented by additional measures taken in its higher education and training 
programmes. 
24. The most relevant opportunities appear in the Third and Fourth Activities of the 
fourth RTD Framework Programme. It is intended to increase the resources for 
these two Activities and their share of the RTD budget will rise from 9.8 % to 
10.6 %. These Activities concern interventions in the following fields : 
- the dissemination and the application of the results of the Community activities 
of research, technological development and demonstration. 
- the stimulation of training and the mobility of research workers throughout the 
Community. 
25. In the Third Activity particular attention will be given to promoting cohesion in 
the less favoured regions. In practice, the Commission considers that this implies 
the following: 
a/ the Commission's services will organise and support access to international 
expertise for the design and evaluation of technology diffusion networks in the 
less prosperous regions. Proposals which are promising but which are not yet 
at the necessary standard of excellence will be the subject of an offer to 
strengthen them in partnership, so that the necessary basis for their acceptance 
is established wherever possible. 
b/ special attention will be given to regions in which SMEs are the predominant 
form of economic organisation within the proposed fund for the integration of 
technologies by SMEs, 
c/ similarly, actions to promote the interface between research and the scientific 
community will mainly concentrate on regions and sectors where the diffusion 
of information is felt to be less effective at present, 
d/ a special effort will be made in favour of traditional sectors of the economy, for 
example through the promotion of innovation and technology transfer, 
e/ actions will be taken to encourage less favoured regions to exchange 
experiences with more advanced regions on the design and implementation of 
measures to raise the capacity of their SMEs to absorb technology, 
f/ the flexibility should exist to finance through the RTD Framework Programme 
the purchase of equipment and software directly related to the development 
of networks for the dissemination of technology, in addition to the current costs 
of running the networks. The Commission intends to encourage the setting up 
of European Economic Interest Groups (EEIGs) as a preferred method of 
organising networks between the richer and less prosperous of the Community. 
26. As regard the Fourth Activity the Framework Programme will envisage special 
actions such as; 
- The possibility of one additional year of financing for the scientists from LFRs 
to encourage the return to their country of origin. 
- Particular financing of "visiting professors and scientists" coming from 
advanced regions and wishing to make a sabbatical year in less favoured 
regions. 
- Where a scientist is returning home to a laboratory and there is participation 
within a community network, there will be a possibility of additional financing 
of equipment for the laboratory concerned. 
- The researchers from LFRs will have a selection priority for the 
Euroconferences and for the access to big Science and Technology centres. 
Besides those, other additional ideas that could be taken account of are; 
a) scholarships to encourage a reverse brain drain from the richer regions 
towards the less favoured regions, offering more attractive terms than for 
mobility between the more prosperous regions. 
8 
b) initiatives to propose to researchers in the less favoured regions particular 
scientific and technical networks or university twinning arrangements which 
it might be appropriate for them to participate in. 
c) priority being given to action in favour of the creation of industry-academia 
networks. 
27. For each of the above actions within the Third and Fourth Activities, the 
Commission, in partnership with the less prosperous regions, will actively promote 
their participation and will regularly evaluate the progress made with a view to 
adapting its accompanying actions as necessary. For example, this could imply a 
regular review of the effectiveness of measures to encourage the return of young 
scientists to their country of origin in the case of the less prosperous Member 
States, to be undertaken in partnership with the Member States concerned. 
28. The less prosperous Member States, to make full use of these new opportunities, 
may wish to consider and synchronize their own RTD policies and their 
concordance with their specific development problems. 
III.3 The Structural Funds 
29. A second new opportunity arises through the Structural Funds. A further 
substantial increase in resources available for commitment by the Structural Funds 
has been agreed, particularly for the four least prosperous Member States for 
which commitments for Structural purposes are foreseen to double for the period 
1993-1999(19). Also the Commission has proposed a number of modifications to 
the regulations governing the Structural Funds which would give new emphasis to 
support secondary and higher education, and for improving research and 
technology development capacities in the less favoured regions. 
30. More specifically, because of the significant contribution to development made by 
research and technology development, the Commission is proposing in the revised 
Structural Funds regulations to make the following explicit references to this 
sector: 
Article l,e) of Regulation N° 4254 as proposed by the Commission foresees the 
financing by the ERDF of RTD actions including those contributing to the 
implementation of multiannual framework programmes in this domain. 
In relation to the ESF, Article 1, 3 b) of Regulation N°4255 as proposed by the 
Commission foresees the reinforcement of human potential in matters of research, 
of science and technology, in particular postgraduate training, training of 
managers, technicians and other personnel in research centres, and by the transfer 
of know-how in relation to the operation of the labour market and the 
development of human resources. 
These proposals imply for the ERDF, measures to improve the capability of the 
eligible regions to achieve greater participation in the Community's RTD 
Framework Programme, for financing the transfer of technology, and for the 
introduction of innovation in firms. For assisted regions, the ESF identifies the 
boosting of human potential in research, science and technology in research 
centers as well as in companies as an important aim. 
Moreover, provision is made for ESF support for promoting links between 
education establishments and firms in order to promote new technology. Actions 
could also be envisaged under the new Objective 4 to facilitate the adaptation of 
workers to industrial change and to changes in production systems. 
31. If they are to take full advantage of these new opportunities, it is desirable that 
Member States should set precise goals to reduce disparities in the field of RTD 
and examine the overall contribution that the Community can make by utilising 
the various sources of funding available, in particular from the RTD Framework 
Programme, from the Community's Structural Funds and from the Community's 
education and vocational training programmes, so as to obtain the maximum 
impact. 
For the Structural Funds, the starting point for the next programming period is 
the preparation of plans for Objective 1 to 5. It must be stressed, however, that 
the Structural Funds do not intervene in favour of RTD for its own sake, but as 
one important means of promoting economic development, higher productivity 
and competitiveness and thereby narrowing existing disparities. Measures to 
improve the mastery of technology change as one of the most important 
contributory factors to economic progress should be accorded higher priority; but 
funding for RTD related actions, like any other sector, will have to demonstrate 
that the economic development impact in the regions is in keeping with the 
resources deployed. 
32. Within the plans drawn up for the next period of Structural Fund intervention, 
synergies with the multiannual RTD framework programmes can be looked for 
in relation to pre-competitive research, technology dissemination and innovation 
and higher education in the fields of science and technology. 
As regards pre-competitive research, the Structural Funds will continue to be 
available to fund RTD infrastructure and equipment complementary to the first 
Activity of the fourth Framework Programme. To a limited degree, the Structural 
Funds might undertake to meet part of the operating costs of RTD centres whose 
creation or development has been funded in the previous period. They may also 
fund some research projects directly relevant to the economic development of the 
region concerned. However, it is important to avoid second-class projects. It may 
be necessary, therefore, to ensure that national selection processes properly reflect 
criteria agreed at Community level, and in particular provide for strengthened 
international peer review procedures, drawing on the experience of the 
Community's RTD Framework Programme. 
33. A successful technology dissemination policy will be based on a detailed analysis 
10 
of the specific local economic situation and of the interests and requirements of 
the productive sector in the area, and be compatible with a broader policy 
framework designed at a national level. The effectiveness of public policy, 
including Structural Funds interventions, depends on the quality of the 
partnership between public authorities and the principal RTD actors in the 
regions, and on an ability to integrate national and international dimensions. 
The Commission is therefore willing to provide technical assistance through the 
Structural Funds for developing regional research and technological development 
strategies in the context of the preparation of the next round of the CSFs in 
partnership with the Member States. 
The Structural Funds are likely to continue their efforts in support of innovation 
and technology transfer, for example by the development of technology centres, 
of advanced business services based on telecommunications, by the upgrading of 
technological skills, by improving educational and vocational training facilities and 
by the promotion of finance for technological innovation, and more generally by 
the modernisation of the firm including the incorporation of information 
technologies. They could give greater emphasis to the integration of generic 
technologies (20) in the productive sectors of the less favoured regions. All of 
these actions imply possible synergies with the RTD Framework Programme and 
indeed with other technology related actions such as the COMETT (21) or the 
ERASMUS (22) programme. 
34. Turning to initial education, training and mobility for researchers and other 
scientifically and technologically qualified personnel, the amendments proposed 
to both the ERDF regulation concerning investment in education in Objective 1 
regions, and to the ESF regulation concerning training and secondary and higher 
education systems within Objective 1,2 and 5(b) areas, offer scope for synergies 
in particular with the fourth Activity of the fourth RTD Framework Programme. 
As in other cases, achieving synergy requires cooperation in the planning and 
implementation phases between the various authorities, bodies and institutions 
concerned within the Member States and between the responsible departments 
of the Commission. 
35. Finally it should be recalled that the European Council meeting in Edinburgh 
concluded that 5% to 10% of commitment resources available to the Structural 
Funds should be set aside for Community initiatives in the next planning period. 
The Commission intends to issue a Green Paper in the near future, to seek 
opinions on the directions Community initiatives should take in the next 
programming period, from 1994 to 1999. 
IV. Conclusions 
36. Narrowing disparities, both in general economic and social terms and in RTD 
terms, strengthens the Community, bolstering the growth and stability of the 
11 
internal market and improving overall competitiveness. 
Therefore, the Commission considers necessary to reduce the RTD gap which 
characterizes the less favoured regions and which is an obstacle to their 
development. 
37. Significant progress will be made in the fourth RTD Framework Programme in 
terms of the incorporation of cohesion goals in the formulation of its Activities 
and especially the Third and Fourth Activities, and this is also reflected in the 
proposed balance of funding in favour of technology dissemination and human 
capital and mobility. This being said, a large part of the responsibility for making 
a success of the fourth RTD Framework Programme must lie with the Member 
States with less favoured regions themselves, who must bring forward proposals 
of the necessary quality. 
38. The action of the Structural Funds is managed at Member State level and the 
success of the RTD actions which they cofinance depends even more than in the 
case of the RTD Framework Programme on the programming and 
implementation undertaken at a decentralised level. Developing an integrated 
approach involving Structural Funding and the RTD Framework Programme 
implies strengthening in some cases co-ordination between departments within 
national and regional administrations, and partnership of the public sector with 
the private sector. Within overall budget choices adequate provision should be 
made for developing technological capabilities including related measures for 
education and vocational training. However, those responsible for RTD policies 
will need to specify more precisely the development goals, including goals for the 
regional distribution of RTD capabilities they expect to attain. For its part, the 
Commission will further strengthen cooperation within his own services. 
39. The Commission feels that greater use could be made of technical support co-
financed by the Structural Funds in the design, implementation and evaluation of 
RTD strategies, infrastructures and programmes, drawing in particular on the best 
practice in highly performing economies. The challenge is to promote scientific 
partnerships and technology exchange between public sector and private 
organisations and companies in the advanced regions and those in the assisted 
regions, as well as amongst less developed regions themselves, both through the 
RTD Framework Programme and the Structural Funds. 
40. Finally, Article 130H of the Treaty offers an opportunity for cooperation between 
Member States to develop RTD capabilities on a wider basis than Community 
financed actions above. The Commission is ready to provide a forum in which 
such cooperative action between Member States could be discussed, if Member 
States consider that could be useful. 
12 
EXPLANATORY NOTES 
(1) In 1988, the average index of GDP per inhabitant (PPS) of the 10 weakest regions 
in the EC was 45 (Europe 12 = 100) compared with 151 for the 10 strongest 
regions (EEC 1991). 
(2) In 1988, for example, government RTD (financing as a percentage of total budget 
did not reach 1% in Ireland, Portugal or Greece (EUROSTAT. 1992), compared 
with a Community average of 3,24 %. 
(3) FAST Prospective Dossier : "Science, Technology and Social and Economic 
Cohesion in the Community". "Archipelago Europe -Islands of Innovation". Vol. 
18, Ulrich Hilpert, May 1992. 
(4) The objective of FAST is to conduct global analyses in the long-term of Science 
and Technology development and their interactions with the social and economic 
changes in the Community and outside. 
(5) Value - Diffusion and Valorisation of Community RTD results (Council Decision 
of 20th June 1989). 
(6) Brite-Euram stands for basic research in industrial technologies for 
Europe/European research on Advanced materials (follow-up programme in the 
O.J. of 25.09.1991). 
(7) Esprit stands for specific research and technological development programme in 
the field of information technologies (1990-1994) (O.J. L 218 of 6.08.1991). 
(8) "Evaluation of the effects of the EC Framework Programme for Research and 
technological Development on economic and social cohesion in the Community". 
Caraça Report. CEC September 1991. (EUR 13994). 
(9) Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and Development in Europe 
(O.J. C 196 of 4.8.1990). 
(10) Development of Community dimension for vocational training and employment 
promotion measures (O.J. - C 327/03 of 29.12.1990). 
(11) Community Initiative concerning the environment (O.J. C 115/03 of9.05.1990). 
(12) Community Initiative for the development of certain less favoured regions of the 
Community by exploiting endogenous energy potential (O.J. L305/6of31.10.1986). 
(13) Community Initiative concerning the preparation of enterprises for the Single 
Market (O.J. C 33/9 of 8.2.1991). 
(14) Community Initiative for the development of certain less favoured regions of the 
Community by improving access to advanced telecommunications services (O.J. 
L 305/1 of 31.10.1986) 
(15) Community Initiative for regional development concerning services and networks 
related to data communication (O.J. C 33/7 of 8.02.1991). 
(16) Community Initiative concerning border areas (O.J. C 215/4 of 30.08.1990). 
(17) Community Initiative for rural development (O.J. C 73 of 19.3.1991). 
(18) See Article 3 in the Regulation EEC N° 4253/88. 
(19) Conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council meeting at Edinburgh 
11-12 December 1992. 
13 
(20) Generic technologies are defined as those technologies whose impact has an effect 
on a whole range of other technologies used by the productive system, and hence 
the whole industrial system ("Research after Maastricht: an assessment. A 
strategy." EEC, 1992). 
(21) Community actions programme in Education and Training for Technology (O.J. 
L 13 of 17.01.1989). 
(22) European Communities Action Scheme for the Mobility of university students. 
14 
ANNEXES 
1. RTD indicators for the European Community 
2. Estimates of EC Structural Funds commitments for RTD and innovation related 
measures 1990-1993 
3. Estimated percentage of Structural Funds assistance for RTD and innovation 
related actions in the Community Support Frameworks (1989-1993). 
4t 
RTD INDICATORS FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
MEMBER STATE 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 
EUR12 *** GDP PER HEAD 
EUR12 = 100 
1990 
105 
139 
128 
35 
69 
115 
66 
103 
102 
35 
93 
100 GERD AS X OF GDP 
1990 
X 
1.69 
1.54 (2) 
2.81 
0.47 (2) 
0.87 (4) 
2.42 (4) 
0.91 
1.38 (4) 
2.06 
0.50 (1) 
2.21 
2.00 EUR12 = 100 
85 
77 (2) 
141 
24 (2) 
44 (4) 
121 (4) 
46 
69 (4) 
103 
25 (1) 
111 
100 BERD AS X OF GDP 
1990 
X 
1.23 
0.85 (2) 
2.02 
0.10 (2) 
0.52 (4) 
1.48 (4) 
0.55 
0.77 (4) 
1.11 (4) 
0.12 (1) 
1.47 
1.30 EUR12 = 100 
95 
65 (2) 
155 
8 (2) 
40 (4) 
114 (4) 
42 
59 (4) 
85 (4) 
9 (1) 
113 
100 PERCENTAGE 
OF GERD 
PERFORMED 
BY THE 
BUSINESS 
ENTERPRISE 
SECTOR 
1990 
73 
57 (4) 
72 
22 (2) 
60 (4) 
61 (4) 
61 
56 (4) 
56 
25 (1) 
67 
65 GOVERNMENT 
R&D FINANCING 
AS X OF 
TOTAL BUDGET 
1988 
1.40 
2.28 
4.11 
0.60 
2.19 
6.91 
0.98 
1.85 
2.50 
0.98 
2.83 
3.24 TOTAL 
R&D 
SCIENTISTS 
AND ENGINEERS 
(OR UNIVERSITY 
GRADUATES) 
PER THOUSAND 
LABOUR FORCE 
1989 
4.4 (3) 
3.8 
5.9 
1.4 
2.2 
5.1 (3) 
5.0 (3) 
3.2 (3) 
4.0 
1.1 (1) 
4.6 (1) 
4.2 BUSINESS 
ENTERPRISE 
R&D 
SCIENTISTS 
AND ENGINEERS 
(OR UNIVERSITY 
GRADUATES) 
PER THOUSAND 
LABOUR FORCE 
1989 
2.4 (3) 
1.5 
3.8 
0.2 
0.6 
2.3 (3) 
1.3 (3) 
1.3 (3) 
1.6 
0.1 (1) 
2.8 (3) 
2.2 
1) 1988. 
2) 1989. 
3) 1990. 
4) 1991. SOURCE : 
EUROSTAT CEC 
1992 SOURCE : OECD 1992 SOURCE : OECD 1992 SOURCE 
OECD 
1992 SOURCE : 
EUROSTAT CEC 
1992 SOURCE 
OECD 
1992 SOURCE : 
DERIVED BY DGXII 
FROM OECD DATA 
1992 
*** Note : 
EUR12 - Luxembourg (G.D.) is not included.RTD data for Luxembourg (G.D.) are not available. 
GDP : Gross Domestic Product. 
GERD : Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D. 
BERD : Business Enterprise Expenditure on R&D. 
n 
ESTIMATES OF EC STRUCTURAL FUNDS COMMITMENTS FOR RTD AND 
INNOVATION RELATED MEASURES 1989-1993 
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES MECUS 
Community Support Frameworks 
Objective 1 (1989-93) 1113 (1) 
Objective 2 (1989-91) 306 (1) 
Objective 2 (1992-93) 232 (2) 
Objective 3&4 (1989-92/93) 453 (3) 
Objective 5b (1989-92) 32 (4) 
Other Programmes 
(IMP, PEDIP, ...) 202 
Community Initiatives 
STAR (1989-91) 624 (5) 
STRIDE 400 
TELEMATIQUE 200 
OTHERS (PRISMA, 
EUROFORM, LEADER....) 226 (6) 
TOTAL ESTIMATE 3788 (7) 
Source: CEC Services (1989 prices) 
(i) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) Including figures on RTD and innovation related measures in the relevant axes in Objective 1 and 
Objective 2, and also any RTD elements from other axes. It also includes PRODEP. 
Figure estimated on the basis of 1989-1991 allocations. 
With respect to 1993, data is available only for Spain. 
Figure only taking into account specific measures devoted to RTD. This amount does not consider 
the RTD and innovation actions included in the sectoral measures. 
Figure relating to the remaining funding for the period 1989-1991. 
Figure estimated on the basis of the allocations of Operational Programmes covering 44% of the total 
(3200MECU) for PRISMA, EUROFORM, NOW, HORIZON, LEADER, REGIS, REGEN, 
RECHAR, ENVIREG and INTERREG. 
This figure represents some 6% of the total Structural Fund allocation for the period 1989-1993. 
Note 1: These measures cover a wide spectrum of RTD and innovation related actions such as information, 
Science Parks, infrastructures, Universities, training programmes, construction of new RTD centres, 
laboratory equipment, technology transfer centres, research/industry links, demonstration projects. 
Note 2: Some earlier Community Initiatives (VALOREN, RESIDER, RENAVAL), other programmes such 
as POSEICAN or POSEIMA, and the funding of the five new Lander and East Berlin in the RFA 
are not included. 
/Jf 
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS ASSISTANCE 
FOR RTD AND INNOVATION RELATED ACTIONS1 
IN THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT FRAMEWORKS 
(1989-1993) 
COUNTRIES OBJECTIVE 1 OBJECTIVE 2 
Belgium - 13.3 
Denmark - 12.8 
Germany - 14.1 
Greece 1.9 
Spain 2.0 9.7 
France 1.1 10.7 
Ireland 4.0 
Italy 4.9 20.9 
Luxembourg - 0.0 
Netherlands - 7.9 
Portugal 6.5 
U.K. 2A 513 
EUR 12 ^6 93 
Source: CEC 
These measures cover a wide spectrum of RTD and innovation related actions such as information, Science 
Parks, infrastructures, Universities, training programmes, construction of new RTD centres, laboratory 
equipment, technology transfer centres, research/industry links, demonstration projects. 
Note: The ratios were estimated based on figures covering ERDF, ESF and EAGGF and include figures on RTD 
and Innovation related measures in the relevant axes in Objective 1 and Objective 2 and also any RTD 
elements from other axes. The IMP, PEDIP and PRODEP are also included. However, old Community 
Initiatives (STAR, VALOREN, RESIDER, RENAVAL), and new Community Initiatives (STRIDE, 
TELEMATIQUE, EUROFORM...) are not taken into account. The CSFs for Objective 2 (1992-1993) and 
the funding for the five new Lander and East Berlin in the RFA are not included. 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 203 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 10 is 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-252-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-55917-9 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg