No C 332/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development programme in the field of marine science and technology 
(1990-1994) 
(90/C 332/10) 
On 6 June 1990, in accordance with Article 130Q(2) of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee on the abovementioned proposal. 
The section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which had been instructed to 
prepare the Committee's work on the matter, drafted an Opinion on 7 September 1990 
(Rapporteur: Mr Campbell). 
The Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion at its 279th plenary 
session (meeting of 19 September 1990). 
1. Introduction 2. Comments 
1.1. A first specific research and technological devel­
opment programme in the field of marine science and 
technology was decided by Council on 20 June 1989 (*), 
to cover the period 1989-1992. The Committee 
expressed its support to the programme in the Opinion 
it adopted on 22 February 1989 (2). 
1.2. The new framework programme for Com­
munity activities in the field of research and technologi­
cal development (R&TD) (1990-1994), decided by 
Council on 23 April 1990 (3), makes provision under 
line 3—'Environment'—for a new programme in the 
field of marine science and technology (MAST II), with 
a budget of 104 million ECU, compared to the 
50 million ECU allocated to the first programme. 
1.3. Its broad objective is to contribute to the acqui­
sition of 'a good knowledge base and reliable forecast­
ing techniques in order to work out long term manage­
ment and protection strategies for the marine environ­
ment'. 
1.4. The content of MAST II is similar in many 
respect to MAST I. It is, however, a new additional 
programme to MAST I reflecting the increased empha­
sis on environmental research in the third framework 
programme and the evident need for an increased pro­
gramme as a result of the large number of useful project 
proposals received in the one year since MAST I was 
approved. 
1.5. The geographical coverage of MAST II will be 
extended to include northern Atlantic and Polar sea. 
This meets one of the suggestions made in the Commit­
tee's Opinion on MAST I. 
1.6. The Committee endorsed the proposals for 
MAST I and reaffirms its support for MAST II subject 
to comments below. 2.1. The relationship between MAST I and MAST II 
is not made clear in the Commission's proposal. The 
analysis of the two programmes is as follows: 
Period 
Total finance 
Part I basic and 
applied marine science 
Part II coastal 
science and engineering 
Part III 
marine technology 
Part IV 
supporting initiatives 
Dissemination and 
exploitation 
Administration MAST I 
1989-1992 
50 million ECU 
30-35% 
15-20% 
30-35% 
10-15% 
Nil 
8.25% MAST 11 
1990-1994 
104 million ECU 
1,04 million ECU, 
see below) 
45-50% 
15-20% 
30-35% 
Nil 
1,04 million ECU 
5% 
(M OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 30. 
(2) OJ No C 75, 23. 3. 1989, p. 11. 
(3) OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 28. 2.2. The Committee understands that MAST I and 
MAST II are separate programmes under the second 
and third framework programmes. Nevertheless the 
continuity, which is essential for productive research, 
will be ensured by a continuation of projects begun 
under MAST I, an enhancement of the most important 
of these projects under MAST II and the initiation of 
a range of new projects. 
2.3. This appears to be the correct way to manage 
the two programmes. However, the Committee is still 
concerned about the very large potential content of 
the programmes and would emphasize the need for a 
positive system of management within the Commission 
and its advisers to assess project proposals, allocate 
contracts, monitor progress, disseminate results of suc­
cessful projects and terminate decisively less useful pro­
jects. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/39 
2.4. The Committee regrets that there has been insuf­
ficient time between MAST I (which is a pilot pro­
gramme) and MAST II to assess and apply the experi­
ence of MAST I. Such experience, as it is gained, should 
be applied progressively over the programme period of 
MAST II. 
2.5. In the course of its work the Committee received 
illustrations of work in progress in marine research 
throughout the Community. It accepts that a detailed 
inventory of all this work would be difficult and expens­
ive to produce. 
It does, however, emphasize the need to apply the 
principle of subsidiarity between the Community and 
Member States, avoiding duplication and using the 
limited funds of MAST I and II, first to initiate new 
areas of research with a broad Community interest, 
bringing together major marine research establishments 
and second, to encourage work in less-favoured regions 
of the Community whilst respecting scientific and tech­
nical quality, thus enhancing their research capabilities. 
The exceptional procedure provided for in Annex III 
to the proposal should be used where appropriate. 
2.6. Whilst the Committee welcomes the extension 
of the area of application of MAST II to the Northern 
and Western oceans, it is concerned that there shall 
be a reasonable balance between Northern maritime 
regions, with their obvious wide scope for research, 
and the equally urgent problems of Southern seas, par­
ticularly the enclosed seas of the Mediterranean where 
a global strategy is needed. 
2.7. The Committee agrees that the greater financial 
provision for MAST II is justified on the basis of 
environmental need. It accepts that both MAST I and 
II are concerned with research designed to gain know­
ledge of the fundamental ecosystems and the control of 
the more harmful effects of tides, etc., and that this 
knowledge will be applied to more specific projects 
within the environmental research programmes. The 
link with such programmes connected with river efflu­
ents, fisheries, C02, oil spillage, etc., should be clearly 
identified as early as possible in each MAST project 
where appropriate. Any link, which may exist between 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. a MAST project and a parallel project in a programme 
outside the framework programme (e.g. a EUREKA 
project) and with national programmes should also be 
established. 
2.8. Part IV of MAST I contained a provision for a 
number of very important supporting initiatives in the 
efficient use of resources. This section no longer appears 
in MAST II. The work should not be brought to an 
end and the Committee is assured that provision is 
made for this work in the three parts of MAST II. 
Nevertheless, the Committee would prefer to see this 
important work identified as a separate section within 
the total programme. 
2.9. The Committee would reiterate its concern that 
projects should not be limited too rigidly to precompeti-
tive research. Much of the work under MAST I and II 
must, by its very nature, be concerned with acquiring 
knowledge of the long term movement of seas, sedi­
ments and discharges into the seas with a broad appli­
cation in many industries related, for example, to fish­
ing, hydrocarbon extraction, environmental control, 
marine mineral resources' exploitation, etc. However, 
there are areas such as coastal protection works, instru­
mentation and application of equipment where useful 
research can be carried out very close to competitive 
use. These should be encouraged. 
2.10. The Committee is pleased to note that the 
total increase in total programme commitment has been 
achieved with a reduced percentage reduction in admin­
istrative costs. 
2.11. Once again the Committee regrets that 
Article 5 concerning the mid-term review makes no 
mention of the Committee's right to receive and com­
ment on the report and the proposals for any necessary 
changes. Within the Committee there are members with 
a wide experience of research and technology and it is 
essential that the right and competence of the Commit­
tee be formally recognized. Apart from the benefit to 
be obtained from such professional experience, there is 
a legal requirement contained within Article 130Q of 
the Treaty for the Committee to be consulted on pro­
gramme revision. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE