18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/13 
Opinion on the amended proposal for a Council Decision amending, with regard to the 
accession of Spain and Portugal, Decision 82/752/EEC on the adoption of a European 
Economic Community research and development programme for a machine translation system 
of advanced design (Eurotra) 
(96/C 207/06) 
On 20 March 1986, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned amended proposal. 
The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 April 1986 in the light of the report by 
Mr Brassier. 
At its 237th plenary session (meeting of 21 May 1986), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion unanimously. 
1. Preliminary remarks 
1.1. In Decision No 82/752/EEC of 4 November 
1982 ('), the Council adopted a research and development 
programme for a machine translation system of advanced 
design (Eurotra), with the object of obtaining simultaneous 
high-quality translations rapidly and economically in all 
the official languages of the European Community. 
1.2. On 25 February 1981 (2), the Economic and Social 
Committee approved this programme, saying in its opinion 
that its success would be 'crucial to the reduction of 
language barriers.' But the Committee drew attention to 
the social and cultural repercussions that such a pro­
gramme could have in the long term. 
1.3. Decision No 82/752/EEC lays down the total length 
of the programme as five and a half years, divided into two 
stages of two years each followed by a third stage of 18 
months. On the completion of the initial, preparatory stage 
at the end of 1984, the Commission began to implement the 
second stage on basic and applied linguistic research in 
January 1985. 
1.4. It is estimated that ECU 27 million will be needed to 
carry out the programme, of which ECU 16 million will 
come from the Community budget and ECU 11 million 
from national contributions. 
2. Content of the proposed decision 
2.1. The aim of the present proposal is to include 
Spanish and Portuguese in the Eurotra programme and 
enable the two new Member States to take part in the 
programme's implementation. 
2.2. The Commission is proposing (i) that the pro­
gramme be extended by 18 months — 12 months for the 
first stage and six months for the second — and (ii) that the 
total financing for the programme be raised by ECU 18 
(!) OJ No L317, 13. 11. 1982, p. 19. 
(2) OJ No C 138, 9.6. 1981, p. 3. million — of which ECU 11 million would come from the 
Community budget and ECU 7 million from national 
contributions. 
2.3. The Committee approves the proposed extension of 
the Eurotra programme by 18 months and the increase in its 
funding. But it would like to make some comments. 
3. General comments 
3.1. Decision No 82/752/EEC adopting the Eurotra 
programme explicitly requires that the proposed machine 
translation system should be capable of handling all official 
languages of the Community. 
3.2. The Committee considers that, as well as the legal 
obligation involved, extension of the programme would 
fulfil a double need which was already a basis of the 
Council Decision of 1982: that of preserving the richness 
and variety of the European languages, which are the 
expression of Europe's cultural diversity, while eliminating 
the associated obstacles to communication and trade. In 
particular, the success of the Eurotra programme will 
enable all the Member States of the Community to benefit 
from the development of telematics and communication 
and information networks. 
3.3. The Committee thus reaffirms its support for the 
Eurotra programme, as expressed by the ESC opinion of 25 
February 1981, and is pleased at the success of the 
programme's first stage, the aims of which, according to 
the opinions of the Scientific and Technical Research 
Committee (CREST) and the Eurotra Advisory Committee 
on Programme Management (ACPM), have been achieved 
both from the scientific and organizational point of view. 
3.4. The Committee feels that the extension of the 
Eurotra programme is a tangible expression of the principle 
of equal treatment for all the official languages of the 
European Community. It is concerned at the high risk of 
discrimination developing against Spanish and Portuguese 
if a decision is not taken rapidly. The Committee notes that 
such a situation could lead to the programme being 
No C 207/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
delayed, which might require an additional extension 
beyond the 18 months initially proposed. The Committee 
therefore asks the Council to take a decision rapidly on the 
extension of the Eurotra programme. 
3.5. The Committee would also like the Commission to 
look into the possible repercussions of the present situation 
on the programme, which it felt, if everything went 
smoothly, could begin in autumn 1986. (The Commission 
felt that at least six to nine months would be required to set 
up the necessary machinery for implementing the programe 
in Spain and Portugal). 
3.6. The Committee supports the Commission's call for 
increased funding, in view of the cost of the measures to be 
carried out and the work involved. 
3.7. The Committee would stress that the Commission 
has an essential management and guidance role to play in 
view of the decentralized nature of the Eurotra programme. 
Successful implementation of the programme as a whole 
depends on the resources available to the Commission for 
carrying out its duties. The Commission's requests for 
additional staff are justified by the inclusion of two extra 
languages in the programme and the involvement of two 
new Member States in its implementation. 
3.8. The Committee wishes to draw attention to the 
social repercussions of developing a machine translation 
system. It would refer here to the information report on the 
new technologies - Community research and development prepared by the Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions 
(16 January 1985), which states that the concept of a 
technology-oriented society would only be socially ac­
ceptable if specific assurances were given that attention 
would be paid to the consequences of technological 
development for workers and the population as a whole. 
This means in particular that information, consultation 
and negotiation procedures should be put into effect before 
any machine translation system is introduced. 
3.9. The Committee considers that the development of 
machine translation should not lead to a fall in the number 
of translators needed because each translation, whether 
done by machine or not, will have to be revised afterwards, 
and the use of machines should lead to increased demand 
for translations. But the nature of translation work could 
be permanently changed, as has already been pointed out in 
the ESC opinion of 25 February 1981. The Committee 
therefore regrets that there has still been no examination of 
any measures to ensure the necessary adaptation of 
translation work to the development of machine trans­
lation, and insists that such an examination be carried out 
as soon as possible. 
3.10. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the use 
of machine translation should not, under any circum­
stances, lead to language teaching being discouraged or 
hampered, because, if the peoples of the European 
Community are to be brought closer together, it is essential 
that language teaching be continued and developed. 
Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the EC shared-cost research, development and demonstration programmes 
(86/C 207/07) 
On 19 December 1985 the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth 
paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to prepare an own-initiative opinion on 
the abovementioned programmes (l) 
(') Shared-cost contract research is research in which the Commission shares the cost of the programme with 
the contractor or contractors involved. Such research is also called 'indirect action' or 'cost-sharing'. In this 
area the Commission uses three types of research contract: — shared-cost contracts: Commission share 
maximum 50%: — marginal cost contracts: restricted to universities and higher educational 
establishments where the Commission share can rise to 100 % of the additional costs arising from the 
research: — contract of association : examples are the Jet, Fusion and Radiological protection programmes.