Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

- the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area", and

- the "Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area"

(2001/C 260/02)

On 30 April 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 166(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 June 2001. The rapporteurs were Mr Bernabei and Mr Wolf.

At its 383rd plenary session (meeting of 11 July 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted unanimously the following opinion.

1. Summary

1.1. Summarising here the detailed analysis and conclusions which are described in the following text and which are derived from the strategic objectives decided for instance at Lisbon and Stockholm, the Committee recommends the following:

- setting an increase of about 50 % in the overall Community RTD& D Budget as a medium-term political goal for the period beyond FP6 (6th Framework Programme) and appealing to Member States and industry to act likewise on their part;

- reallocating some specific financial resources envisaged for FP6, combined with a modest increase from EUR 17500 million to EUR 18930 million of the budget;

- ensuring the continuity of the existing RTD& D programme and minimising the risks associated with the introduction of new untested structures and instruments;

- applying both the current and proposed new instruments for FP6 in parallel: together they should become elements to be selected flexibly in a bottom-up approach and further developed according to the needs of the individual elements of the various thematic actions;

- remodelling of FP6 around three main targets, as the Commission proposed, but with the following modifications: Target one should contain the long-term thematic priorities/actions, Target two short- and medium-term projects and Target three permanent activities;

- restructuring the three Targets around five specific blocks of actions:

- long/medium-term priority goals (thematic actions)

- inter-action research/innovation, SME incremental research/networking/start-up facilities and new regional initiative

- human resources mobility

- international cooperation

- coordination of permanent activities and infrastructures

- introducing a specific heading "energy and transport" in the thematic actions to give more emphasis and visibility to the energy and transport problem, and particularly - in view of sustainable development - to renewable energy systems (including storage and distribution) and to energy savings (EUR 1500 million);

- strengthening the Euratom Programme accordingly by aiming at safer nuclear energy, including production, transport and storage of nuclear waste, and by enhancing the development of the fusion option (fission EUR 350 million, fusion EUR 950 million);

- defining in more detail new instruments like networks of excellence, integrated projects and actions under Article 169 and addressing control, decision processes, in/out dynamics and potential conflicts of interest, while preserving toolbox instruments such as the present FP5 ones;

- accompanying new instruments with measures for tuition, training and feasibility/exploratory studies;

- structuring new instruments on the main principles of transparency and equal access in order to avoid closed shops, non-neutral sub-calls and absorption of all financial resources by only a few large projects and networks;

- harmonising the Community programme with the various national programmes by introducing a sufficient number of appropriate bodies and corresponding scientific/technical advisory groups, but

- avoiding the exclusion of new ideas and options and narrowing the diversity of RTD& D objectives and instruments within each individual Member State;

- focusing on leading-edge and longer-term research activities, including such enterprises and SMEs;

- underlining the need to increase over the present level the participation of SMEs in FP6, in particular through cooperative research and collective research (EUR 700 million allocation);

- developing a clarity on industrial and intellectual property rights ("IPR") for activities under Art. 169 and the opening of national programmes; instruments like a "memorandum of understanding" between participating Member States could be considered;

- supporting planning, development and operation of research infrastructures as an integral element of the European Research Area (ERA);

- combining new instruments with other Community ones like regional funds to support the transnational regional development of clusters, networks or infrastructures;

- supporting the trend - expressed by new instruments - to decentralise and strengthen self-organisation and self-administration and also transferring credits - which could amount to 7 % of the budget - required for creating and maintaining related structures;

- applying the principle that new measures should not lead to an overall increase in bureaucracy but that they must reduce the cost and management burden of projects;

- underlining the importance of human mobility for academia-industry relations, for developing the ERA, for including Candidate Countries and international cooperation with allocation of 1/3 of mobility credits directly to specific thematic actions;

- supporting a strategic intelligence network within the ERA for monitoring and control of quality, excellence, transparency and the development of new perspectives;

- enhancing the scientific visibility of JRC institutes and their role by creating/appointing scientific advisory/supervisory panels of independent high-level experts (selected for instance by EURAB), similar to analogous procedures of the excellent scientific institutions in Member States;

- considering the possibility of creating a new European Agency for RTD& D Management, under the direct responsibility of the Commission, for project proposals under the threshold of EUR 10 million.

2. Background

2.1. For many years, guided by the principle of subsidiarity, the European Commission has been supporting Research, Technological Development and Demonstration ("RTD& D") at European level by means of so-called Multiannual Framework Programmes of the European Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

2.2. The EU remit in this area derives directly from the EC Treaty, specifically Title XVIII (Research and Technological Development), Articles 163 to 173 and Title II (Provisions for the Encouragement of Progress in the Field of Nuclear Energy Articles 4 to 11 of the Euratom Treaty.

2.2.1. Some of these Articles read:

- ... strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international level, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other chapters of this Treaty;

- ..., encourage undertakings, including small and medium-sized undertakings, research centres and universities in their research and technological development activities of high quality; ...

- implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooperation between undertakings, research centres and universities;

- promotion of cooperation in the field of Community research, technological development and demonstration with third countries and international organisations;

- The Community and the Member States shall coordinate their research and technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Community policy are mutually consistent;

- ... to promote and facilitate nuclear research in the Member States and to complement it by carrying out its own programme of research and training;

2.2.2. They are thus complemented by, for example, Title XVI (Industry), Article 157; Title XIII (Health), Article 152(1); Title XIX (Environment), Article 174; and Title XVII (Cohesion) of the Treaty. Further guidelines are the European Charter for Small Business adopted by the FEIRA Council, the need for a secure and safe energy supply as laid down in the Green Paper COM(2000)769 of the Commission, and the need for safe food and products.

2.3. In January 2000, the Commission issued its Communication "Towards a European Research Area" outlining its policy towards this goal.

2.3.1. As the main motivation for the need to significantly strengthen RTD& D within the EU, the Commission quoted several extremely disturbing facts, among others:

- The average research effort in the EU is currently only 1,9 % of Europe's GDP, as against 2,8 % in the USA and 2,8 % in Japan. What is more, this gap seems to be increasing.

- In terms of employment, researchers account for only 2,5 in every thousand of the industrial workforce in Europe, against 6,7 in the USA and 6 in Japan.

2.3.2. Responding to the above Commission Communication, the Committee prepared an in depth Opinion(1) sharing the worries expressed. The essence of this Opinion - relevant also to the present paper - can be summarised as follows:

- The Committee emphasises the crucial importance of RTD& D for prosperity, social progress, ensuring competitiveness and safeguarding the future of Europe.

- The Committee appeals to governments, industry, the Council and the European Parliament to step up their support for RTD& D, to strengthen scientific/technical education and training at school and university, and to make career prospects rewarding enough to attract the most talented people.

- The measures/instruments proposed provide important means of reaching this goal.

- However, to establish a structure that encourages initiative, creativity and innovation, it is important to have a trial period during which the measures/instruments are implemented.

- Administrative procedures for application, award, reporting etc. must be simplified and standardised for the institutions involved so that total costs for applicants are minimised.

- Obstacles must be removed in order to improve and strengthen the interplay between basic research and product- and process-oriented development crucial to innovation.

- Effective incentives must be provided to promote mobility of scientists and engineers between industry (including SMEs), universities and research centres.

2.4. The commitment of the European Councils of Heads of State or Government, in particular since the Lisbon summit, and the Councils of Research Ministers (Resolutions of June and November 2000) and the European Parliament (resolutions on the European Research Area), strengthens the political basis for Community.

2.4.1. The objectives set in this context by the Council and Parliament can be summarised: establishment of a European research and innovation area with a view to job creation and economic growth; effective coordination of activities of the Commission, Member States and economic players; improving future RTD& D while maintaining the current programme's achievements.

2.4.2. On 21 September 2000, the Committee adopted an Opinion on "Follow-up, evaluation and optimisation of the economic and social impact of RTD: from the Fifth Framework Programme towards the Sixth Framework Programme"(2) where it:

- stressed the need for a Community strategy based on a core of shared priorities and focusing on a much more limited number of actions through a technological offensive capable of harnessing the strengths of the European system;

- defended the Commission's role in "coordinating and guaranteeing the cost-effective operation of the strategic intelligence cycle, controls on quality, excellence and transparency ..."

2.4.3. The March 2001 European Council in Stockholm confirmed the strategic objective for the next decade as decided in Lisbon: "to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion". Such a strategy "includes promoting new technologies by strengthening the Community research and development policy and making particular efforts in new technologies, especially biotechnology." In June 2001, the European Council in Göteborg emphasised in particular the relevance of RTD& D for Energy and Transport.

2.5. In October 2000, the Commission issued a further Communication(3), which gave more details on the intended specific "instruments" to be developed for that purpose.

2.6. The present Commission proposal builds upon the above mentioned papers and contains essentially (i) proposals for the measures/instruments required for implementing and structuring the European Research Area (ERA) and handling the RTD& D Programme, (ii) proposals for its thematic activities and the allocated budget, and (iii) the proposed programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

3. The Commission proposal

3.1. The present Commission Communication comprises two different elements, namely:

- firstly, the structure, architecture and measures/instruments of these programmes;

- secondly, the main topics/envisaged actions to be supported.

3.2. In the proposal, the Commission identifies as the main structural aims:

- integrating European research

- structuring the European Research Area

- strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area.

No indication is given of consultation and management bodies as used, for instance, in the 5th Framework Programme.

3.3. As the main instruments for integrating European research, the Commission proposes:

- networks of excellence;

- integrated projects;

- EU participation in research programmes of the Member States carried out jointly (opening of national programmes).

Moreover, there are further instruments for collective research and cooperative research activities of SME, measures for innovation, fellowships for mobility, grants for research infrastructure and for science & governance initiatives, and grants for coordination and policy coherence.

3.4. The main principles applied by the Commission for the proposed new Framework Programme are:

- concentrating on a selected number of priority research areas;

- directing various activities so as to enable them to have a more structuring effect on research activities in Europe through a stronger link with national, regional and other European initiatives;

- simplifying and streamlining implementation arrangements on the basis of the indicated intervention methods and envisaged decentralised management procedures.

3.5. In accordance with its mission of providing scientific and technical support for EU policies, the Joint Research Centres (JRC) - along with their specific programmes as indicated by the Council Resolution of 16.11.00(4) - "will focus on priority themes relating to the formulation and implementation of sectoral policies" with "a strong European dimension" and "in close cooperation and by networking with scientific circles, national research organisations and business in Europe".

3.6. As regards the proposed criteria for selection of priorities and themes for EU intervention, the principle of "European added value" (EAV) is retained as the basic rule, assessed by ex-ante evaluation as well as the ex-post evaluation of actions. The criteria for EAV cover cost and scale beyond a single country (critical mass), the importance of collaboration in economic terms and complementing expertise in the various countries.

3.7. In respect to the financial resources proposed, the maximum overall amount for both the 6th Framework Programme EC and the 6th Framework Programme Euratom is EUR 17500 million

of which EUR 16270 million for EC FP6 (13700 in the previous EC FP5). Breakdown:

- 12855 for the implementation of research, development and demonstration programmes (10843 in the previous EC FP5)

- 600 for the promotion of cooperation with third countries and international organisations in RTD matters (475 in the previous EC FP5)

- 300 for the dissemination and exploitation of the results of EC RTD activities (363 in the previous EC FP5)

- 1800 for improving human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base (1280 in the previous EC FP5)

- 715 for the Joint Research Centre/EC activities (739 in the previous EC FP5)

and EUR 1230 million for Euratom FP6 (1260 in the previous FP5). Breakdown:

- 200 for nuclear fission (191 in the previous Euratom FP5)

- 700 for nuclear fusion (788 in the previous Euratom FP5)

- 330 for the Joint Research Centre/Euratom activities (281 in the previous Euratom FP5).

4. General comments

4.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's Proposal for the European Community and Euratom RTD& D framework programmes, usually named FP6.

4.1.1. Considering the proposed budget, however, the Committee is seriously concerned that the total volume foreseen will not suffice to reverse the trends indicated under 2.3.1 and to fulfil the strategic aims of the Council as quoted under 2.4.3.

4.1.1.1. Therefore, the Committee recommends setting an increase of about 50 % as a medium term political goal for the period beyond FP6, while appealing to Member States and industry to act likewise on their part.

4.1.1.2. Respecting the present financial constraints, however, this level of increase is not yet reflected in the recommended corrections to the overall FP6 budget and its allocations as outlined in point 12 and 13. Instead, only minor and specific reallocations are recommended, the arguments and details of which will be given later in the text.

4.1.2. The proposed measures/instruments provide a new and ambitious approach to FP6 and are part of the effort to establish the ERA, which the Committee has already been able to endorse.

4.2. The Committee considers that in principle such an approach deserves full endorsement. It is vital to make the Treaty provisions effective in relation to the practical integration of national and European research and innovation efforts.

4.3. On the other hand, the Committee is concerned as to how the continuity of the existing research actions and programme will be ensured. In that sense, the Committee must draw attention to the risks associated with the - particularly abrupt - introduction of new and as yet untested concepts and measures/instruments. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that experience be gained with the new structures and instruments and that during FP6, the old and new instruments should be used in parallel, thus providing a sufficient trial period.

4.4. Therefore, the Committee also recommends that the proposed new instruments, together with those presently used, should become elements of a tool-box, to be selected flexibly and - as a result of future experience - further developed according to the specific requests and benefits of the individual thematic elements of the programme.

4.5. The Committee is pleased to take note of the ongoing discussions on the different instruments and their specific characteristics and problems.

4.6. The Committee feels that one criterion for introducing and applying measures/instruments should be to secure a coherent, transparent and user-friendly approach.

4.7. The Committee is also concerned with the problem of ensuring that the Candidate Countries obtain a fair chance of participating in the ERA and the associated RTD& D programmes on an equal basis.

4.8. Convergence towards a Single Market and a single currency within the EU must be accompanied by convergence of research and innovation policies towards an effective joint EU effort. There should not be 15 + 1 parallel, fragmented RTD& D systems without harmonisation, integration and the formation of complementary systems.

4.9. However, the Committee urges that wealth of diversity should be maintained as an advantage in global competition and as a breeding ground for new ideas.

4.10. The aim should be to make full use of past experience and to ensure sufficient continuity while avoiding radical changes harmful to research activity in academia and industry. This means exploring future policy options consistent with the above and with the principles of subsidiarity and cohesion.

4.11. The Committee also supports further objectives established by the Treaty, which are, for example:

- full integration between Community RTD& D policy and all the other Community policies, cooperation with third countries and international organisations, and promotion of training and mobility of researchers;

- simplification of decisions: the new decision-making process of the Amsterdam Treaty will give the Commission a more significant role in defining the framework programme (due to the qualified majority vote procedure in the Council together with a consultation procedure on specific programmes).

4.12. Moreover, the Committee recommends focusing on leading-edge and longer-term research activities in undertakings and promoting the scientific, technological and industrial profile of Europe's regions, with the help of SMEs in particular. This would promote a free and attractive area of mobility for researchers between Member States, research-business mobility, attracting researchers to Europe, and re-launching an intense "science and society" dialogue(5).

5. The Committee's view on the principles and objectives of the new Framework Programme

5.1. The Committee takes note that the EU policy, confirmed at the Lisbon and Stockholm Councils, for sustainable development, more and better employment, more and better cohesion, also includes some aspects which indicate differences from its major world partners and have implications for the Community's RTD& D policy (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).

5.1.1. The Committee underlines the necessity to include the aim of sustainable development in the long term objectives.

5.2. The Committee wishes to emphasize as an essential aim of the new FP6 to make the RTD& D efforts "European" at all levels and to prevent any attempt at re-nationalisation and "closed-shop" perspectives for Community research and innovation policy.

5.3. To this end, the Committee underlines the need to strike the right balance between competitiveness and policy support, concentration and comprehensiveness, focus and flexibility, short term and long term aims, basic and applied research, established and emerging items, top-down and bottom-up, simplification and complexity, decentralisation and Europeanisation, change and continuity.

5.4. In particular, the Committee draws attention to two basic aspects and an associated problem:

- there should not be a narrowing of the diversity of RTD & D objectives and instruments within the Member States;

- a trial and transition period is needed for the proposed new instruments and approaches, adapting instruments to the requirements of the programmatic objectives.

5.5. The Committee emphasises the following basic aspects:

- integration of national, Community and European efforts;

- a balanced top-down and bottom-up approach for the coordination of RTD& D/Innovation policy;

- implementation of Chapter XVIII and of other relevant chapters of the Treaty;

- continuity of FP4 and FP5, to assure proper transition;

- respect for transparency, equal access and treatment;

- concentration on more long term thematic priorities and on focused mobility;

- emphasis on SMEs/innovation/technology transfer/regions;

- visibility and coherence of international cooperation;

- networking of large/medium infrastructures throughout the Community;

- streamlined and simplified procedures avoiding any form of re-nationalisation;

- simplified and low-cost procedures for small/medium sized projects/networks as against closed-shop regimes;

- integration of both small/medium newcomers and scientifically and technologically less-developed regions and relevance of target-tailored projects;

- cohesion of an enlarged Europe.

5.6. The Committee proposes to complement the main principles for FP6 proposed by the Commission, i.e. concentration, structuring effect, simplification, by the following ones:

- visibility of the EU's efforts;

- coordination and strategic cycle controlling quality and excellence;

- problem-orientated long term goals and problem-solving short term actions both for academia and industry;

- preservation of both basic research as the source of new concepts and resulting technologies and applied research and innovation to foster a fully inter-active process;

- efficient and responsible financial management.

6. Structure of the new Framework Programme

6.1. The Committee takes note of ongoing discussions and endorses the restructuring of FP6 around the three main targets, as proposed by the Commission:

1. Target one: integrating European Research,

2. Target two: structuring the ERA,

3. Target three: strengthening the foundations of the ERA,

but with the modifications described below.

6.1.1. Target one should address long term thematic priorities, be ready to admit other long term priority areas but shift the following four fields towards other targets:

- Citizen and Governance: ongoing present-day action;

- Anticipating EU needs: mainly incremental research for short/medium term structural action;

- JRC activities: mainly supporting other EU policies and furthering assessment and coordination;

- Actions for new emerging problems: a reserve fund dedicated to multi-thematic and inter-disciplinary areas strengthening present and future ERA initiatives.

6.1.2. Target two should incorporate short/medium-term projects and actions as well as networking. For the Committee, this target should include:

- Inter-action of Research/Innovation;

- Human resources mobility;

- SME incremental research/networking/start up and other facilities;

- New RTD regional initiatives.

6.1.2.1. The "Science and Governance" theme should be linked to "Citizen and Governance" and moved to Target three, together with "Large and Medium Research Infrastructures".

6.1.3. Target three should cover ongoing actions constituting a common strategy for present and future actions with both internal and international outlook:

- Coordination of RTD& D activities;

- Large and medium-sized research infrastructure;

- Anticipating emerging EU needs;

- JRC activities supporting ST policies and assessment;

- Distributed strategic intelligence networking;

- Science, Citizen and Society, including socio-economic research;

- International cooperation.

6.2. In the Committee's opinion, all these activities must be organised in accordance with Title XVIII, Articles 164 and 165 of the Treaty under the following specific group of actions:

- Target one organised as a single specific Group of actions but articulated in sub-programmes for each of the six long-term thematic priorities;

- Target two organised in two specific Group of actions: one covering "Human Resources Mobility" and the other "Research/Innovation Interaction", "SME Incremental Research/Networking/Start up/and other facilities" and "New RTD Regional Initiatives";

- Target three organised in two specific of actions: one covering "International Cooperation" and one all other ongoing actions such as "Coordination of RTD& D activities", "Large and Medium-sized Infrastructure", "Anticipating the EU emerging needs", and "Science, Citizen and Society".

JRC activities are covered by one specific Group of action and by Euratom.

6.3. To meet the requirements of the above targets, the Committee recommends the introduction of a sufficient number of bodies representing stakeholders with an efficient and relevant scope. A particular aim is to ensure sound harmonisation between the several national programmes and the European programme. In the same vein, the Committee is in favour of a network of scientific/technical advisory groups parallel to these bodies, together with corresponding national advisory groups for monitoring, assessment and forward-planning of European and national efforts, however without delaying the evaluation, selection and financing process or narrowing the diversity of the objectives and instruments within the Member States.

6.3.1. The Committee proposes the creation of trainer platforms both for political and administrative authorities and decision-makers, and scientific/technical/industrial qualifications. The basis for building such platforms should be transparency and feedback, assuring dynamic in the selection process of top level representation and advice.

7. The first specific group of actions on long/medium-term priority goals (thematic actions)

7.1. In the Committee's view, FP6 must preserve the coherence, homogeneity and equilibrium of the thematic priorities; this means that the first group of actions must be focussed on a few scientific and technological aims, drawn from problem-orientated long-term aims, such as safety of products/food and the relevant production processes.

7.1.1. The Committee, while endorsing the proposed European Added Value criteria, thinks that these must be complemented by economic and social aspects, visibility, excellence, geopolitical cohesion and innovation potential. Without weakening its own recommendations made later in this text (and particularly in Table 13), the Committee would prefer to receive more information on the arguments and criteria applied so far by the Commission when optimising the relative distribution of the budget which is allocated to the different specific thematic areas of research, in particular in view of the general goal of European competitiveness, prosperity and welfare.

7.2. Taking note of the recent Commission's Proposal on the Specific Programme(6) which addresses the thematic actions of FP6 plus Euratom in more detail, the Committee reserves its in-depth assessment on the thematic actions for its future Opinion on this Proposal of the Commission. Therefore, concerning the thematic actions,, it presents in the following section a short, headline-type of compilation only, without justifying its choice in any detail.

7.3. Already at this stage, however, the Committee proposes structuring somewhat differently the thematic actions which fall under the first specific group of actions. This suggestion is guided by two sets of considerations, i.e.

- grouping together related objectives

- emphasising the energy and transport problem.

7.3.1. Considering the vital and unique role of energy for our living conditions and economy, the Committee feels that the FP6 and Euratom-Programme are of special importance in view, for example, of the serious warnings made in the "Green Paper"(7), and the corresponding recent Opinion(8) of the Committee, stating that:

- the EU will become increasingly dependent on external energy sources; enlargement will not change the situation; based on present forecasts, dependence will reach 70 % in 2030;

- at present, the EU is not in a position to respond to the challenge of climate change and to meet its commitments, notably under the Kyoto Protocol;

- in comparison with the 1990 value, the energy related CO2-emissions of Europe-30 may increase by 30 % by 2030.

7.3.1.1. In its recent Opinion on the Green Paper, the Committee stated that the most important measure for reducing the risks associated with energy supply and other risks is to ensure the most diverse and balanced possible use of different types and forms of energy, and that RTD& D and the 6th Framework Programme are crucial here. The Committee recommends also including the RTD& D funds provided by the ECSC Treaty.

7.3.1.2. As regards transport, the improvement of Europe-wide interoperability of modes of transport and the serious problem of traffic congestion is fundamental. The Committee underlines the necessity of achieving clean, efficient and time-saving transport technologies.

7.3.2. Thus the Committee proposes introducing a specific headline for energy and transport where visibility and more emphasis (and the financial means of EUR 1500 as quoted under point 13) should be given to RTD& D for energy and transport, but in particular into renewable energy systems, including storage, distribution and energy saving/conservation. Also, the Euratom programme (see point 12) should be strengthened in view of the gravity of this problem.

7.3.2.1. The Committee feels that the goal of sustainable energy supply requires more support for research, development and dissemination of technology on:

- clean and renewable energy sources;

- safer nuclear energy, including the production, transport and storage of nuclear waste (see point 12).

7.3.3. Consequently, accounting also for the European choice for sustainable development as confirmed at the Stockholm Council, the Committee recommends (for the first specific group of actions) the following modified list of thematic actions and complemented list of key words.

- Genomics and biotechnologies for health, including bio-geno safety, biomedicine, neurosciences, epidemiology and public health, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, environment related diseases, immunity and infection(quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and international cooperation );

- Information society technologies, including digital safety, educational multimedia and contents, convergence of new mobile/Internet/satellite communications, electronic and mobile commerce, integrated business management, industrial information technology, working life, e-government, "value constellation", magneto-electronics, superconductors, new sensors and processors/storage systems, electroceramics, quantum computers (quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and international cooperation );

- Nanotechnologies/process/product/intelligent new materials including product/process/materials safety, hybrid technologies, misosystems, micro-actuators, bio-sensors, intelligent manufacturing, multi-functional intelligent nano-systems (quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and international cooperation);

- Energy and transport, including energy security and safety, transport safety, clean fossil fuel, micro-turbine/fuel cells, combined technologies, renewable energies, their storage and distribution, hydrogen technologies, fuel cells, high quality travel time, intermodular traffic transportation, intermodality, intelligent logistic systems, clean transport, standards harmonisation (quotas foreseen for mobility, SMEs and international cooperation);

- Aeronautics and space, including aerospace safety, noise reduction, reduction of greenhouse gas emission, integrated avionics, GMES, Galileo, inter-sectoral linked technologies (quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and international cooperation);

- Global environment, agriculture and natural resources, including food safety, environmental safety, water & soil safety, global climate change, desertification, floods, natural catastrophes, natural and cultural heritage, environmental friendly agriculture & forestry, food and fish quality, oceanography & marine technologies (quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and international cooperation).

7.4. Access systems - measures/instruments - under the new Framework Programme

7.4.1. Generally, the Committee feels that the discussions concerning FP6 should be mainly focussed on the needs of future research in the different scientific and technical fields, while the measures/instruments and their final financial volume should be developed and adapted to these needs in a flexible way.

7.4.1.1. In particular, the current FP5 instruments should be maintained as complementary or alternative options, to be chosen according to the needs of specific thematic aims.

7.4.2. Following the Commission's proposal, three major measures/instruments for distributing funds and organising RTD& D for the thematic priorities are foreseen in the 6th Framework Programme:

- Networks of Excellence

- Integrated Projects

- Activities based on Art. 169.

7.4.2.1. Based on information provided by the Commission proposal, the Committee does not yet feel able to give a final assessment of the new measures. Rather it recommends developing a more detailed definition of the proposed measures/instruments. Nevertheless, the Committee presents some general and basic considerations for this purpose.

7.4.2.2. New measures should not lead to an overall increase in bureaucracy. Additional administrative loads for applicants should be as low as possible. While the Committee admits that programmes will be regularly subjected to evaluation and measures taken to encourage participation by SMEs or other small research entities from all EU regions, the positive aspect of more autonomy for networks and projects should not be offset by an increased administrative load.

7.4.2.2.1. The Committee is happy to note the Commission's intention to provide access to FP6 for any qualified organisation or group.

7.4.2.3. During the initial exploratory phase which characterises the introduction of such a novel concept, a balance has to be struck between sufficient freedom and flexibility on the one hand and simple but clear rules on the other. It will be important to allow for continuous feedback between the Commission and the scientific players involved.

7.4.2.4. The Committee stresses that the new instruments for thematic priorities should increase the participation of firms, research centres and universities, in particular of new participant entities of the Candidate Countries. The nature and size of instruments should be designed in such a way as to concentrate European efforts on the thematic priorities but at the same time to allow newcomers and new SMEs to be part of or initiate new proposals, even as main contractors playing a leading role.

7.4.2.5. The principles of transparency and equal access should be taken into account when structuring the new instruments in order to avoid closed-shop circles, unclear and non neutral sub-tenders, the absorption of financial resources by a few large integrated projects and networks of excellence precluding new ideas and new options.

7.4.3. Networks of excellence

7.4.3.1. While the concept of "networks of excellence" is supported in principle, by the Committee, a number of delicate aspects have to be considered when setting up such networks and the consequences taken into account.

7.4.3.2. The very concept of "centres of excellence" and "networks of excellence" has to be seen as a dynamic instrument to be developed and approached with great sensitivity, recognising that the standing of any institution may change with time and scientific excellence is a subtle quality.

7.4.3.3. The Committee repeats its recommendation that the candidates for networks of excellence should be selected and set up on a competitive basis with the aim of achieving high quality; the working rules should be developed so as to account for what has been said above.

7.4.3.4. Responsibilities must be clearly defined in respect of both the technical coordination of all the research strands and of budgetary powers, so that the synergistic effects of these networks of excellence can be harnessed.

7.4.3.5. With the above in mind and based on the positive experience with scientific self-organisation if carried out in a well-defined and transparent process, the Committee supports the Commission's intention of having the networks of excellence and the integrated projects administered autonomously by the participants to a large extent.

7.4.3.6. The Committee recommends that not only coordination activities should be considered but also research activities, which are part of the common working plan. It also acknowledges that the programmes will be defined on the basis of research themes and general objectives and not on the basis of fixed and predefined results. The proposals and later results will have to be evaluated according to the accepted rules of the technical/scientific community, acknowledging in particular novel ideas and approaches. However, before setting up such a network of excellence it is necessary to check carefully whether the field of research justifies the extra cost of this kind of organisation, i.e., whether added value can really be expected.

7.4.3.7. As far as applied or product oriented research is concerned, each joint programme of activity within a specific network should be structured using plans addressing the different aspect related to the build up of the virtual centre of excellence (i.e. the development and use of electronic information for virtual and interactive works; exchange and mobility; joint use of infrastructure; ...). These plans, with defined and measurable intermediate objectives, must be checked by the Commission in order to ensure a correct control of the network growth.

7.4.3.8. An in/out dynamic mechanism for the entities participating in the network should be established on the basis of the network performances. The selection of the incoming partners should be under the Commission's responsibility; large excellence networks should be tutored and controlled directly by the Commission. In addition, for medium-size/small excellence networks, leadership by small entities should also be allowed; in this case, simplified procedures of tutoring and evaluation could be foreseen.

7.4.4. Integrated projects

7.4.4.1. In certain fields of RTD& D, "Integrated Projects" can be the appropriate management and funding instrument. This appears to be the case where the size and structure of the projects require a well-coordinated joint approach between industry, research centres and academia, and where well-established cooperation networks already exist. The Committee is convinced that the experience resulting from FP5 must be preserved, thus also providing a wider choice of size and characteristics.

7.4.4.2. However, the selection criteria for integrated projects must be clearly defined, while the financial volume should not be such a criterion. Since it is foreseen by the Commission that coordinators of integrated projects will be able to announce calls for proposals and to select additional project partners on their own account, integrated projects will take on more the character of programmes than of projects. Therefore the usual project criteria will not be adequate. For instance, the task and position of the project coordinator will have to be defined in a way which guarantees neutrality and avoids or controls possible conflicts of interest (which could occur if he is both a working partner and also responsible for the selection of additional projects).

7.4.4.3. The Committee also addresses and questions the administration of integrated projects. Should the administrative load, which has been taken on by the Commission up to now, be transferred to project coordinators or to programme agencies? In both cases the administration costs for project coordination should be funded at 100 % and not at 50 %, otherwise only large entities will be able to coordinate integrated projects. Moreover, while the Commission would be relieved from the relevant administrative burden, which previously had been part of its mission, the required additional financial volume accounting about 7 % of the total budget is not included in the budget of the FP6! The Committee feels that this should be the case (see 13).

7.4.4.4. The Committee welcomes the idea of adapting the project plan during the project's duration. This offers the chance to take the latest results and new developments into account. However, in the Committee's view, the use of external advisory bodies may create difficulties concerning IPR (intellectual property rights).

7.4.4.5. While the Committee has drawn attention above to some points needing clarification, the following remarks may contribute to structuring the proposed instrument "Integrated Projects" in the future:

- The objectives and sub-objectives of "Integrated Projects" should be clearly defined and measurable in order to permit evaluation of the intermediate results.

- Modification of the initially declared objectives must be agreed with the Commission. The project plan should be based on a problem-tackled approach, and also include the socio-economic aspects.

- Integrated Projects should be controlled and tutored directly by the Commission, with a mechanism similar to FP5.

- "Integrated Projects" should also permit leadership by small entities (except what is mentioned in 15).

- Small projects within the thematic priorities, with dedicated calls, should be provided, in particular for SMEs and other small entities.

7.4.5. Article 169 activities

7.4.5.1. Article 169 of the Treaty allows the Commission to participate in programmes carried out jointly by several Member States.

7.4.5.1.1. Article 169 stipulates: "In implementing the multiannual framework programme the Community may make provision, in agreement with the Member States concerned, for participation in research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of those programmes."

7.4.5.2. In principle, the rules of this Article can become a powerful instrument for the coordination of national programmes and for the development of ERA.

7.4.5.2.1. Therefore, the participation of Candidate Countries must also be ensured.

7.4.5.3. However, the legal rules for applying this new instrument require further clarification. The Committee recommends that the Commission define the procedures in more detail. Especially, it should be clarified whether each activity must undergo a separate co-decision process with EP and Council. The Committee takes note of the Commission Communication on the Framework Rules for implementation under Article 169.

7.4.5.4. Equally the very discussion process between Member States should be described in more detail, so that initiatives can be taken. The Committee feels that the definition of topics and the formation of consortia should start as a bottom-up process, to be approved/confirmed by the required decisions of the Member States and the EU Parliament.

7.4.5.5. In addition to Art. 169 activities, the Commission proposes "opening of national programmes" as a further funding instrument for the third group of activities. The Committee believes that "opening of national programmes" can become a further useful instrument for developing the ERA, applied to both third group and also first group of actions. However, it is not yet sufficiently clear what such an instrument could mean in practice.

7.4.5.5.1. Therefore the Committee feels that there is need for further clarification concerning the decision-making processes and structure of such initiatives. In particular, the role of the Commission in project selection and programme control should be defined.

7.4.5.5.2. Here too the participation of Candidate Countries must be ensured.

7.4.5.6. As far as the initiative of joint national programmes under Article 169 is concerned, this must be part of a package of voluntary initiatives by the interested Member States, in order to ensure a geo-political balance of initiatives financed by the EU budget.

7.4.5.7. A clear perspective of industrial and intellectual property rights ("IPR") related to these initiatives must be developed. The Committee recommends considering instruments like a "memorandum of understanding" between participating Member States.

7.4.5.8. Project partners should also come to an agreement on the exploitation and commercialisation of the results in conformity with the interests of the Community as a whole and with the interests of those Member States where the project participants have their legal base.

7.4.6. Accompanying measures

7.4.6.1. Apart from the accompanying measures provided for in the Commission proposal (i.e. conferences, workshops, diffusion of information, evaluation and follow-up activities) the Committee recommends including the following measures:

- Feasibility/explorative studies in order to provide a basis for new ideas for possible new research lines (within the thematic areas). The Committee proposes launching short term projects in order to explore various new ways of approaching the same problems, to stimulate creativity, excellence and innovation which can provide a test basis for the "ex-ante" clusters.

- Tuition. The Committee recommends the training and selection of Commission tutors to accompany the core groups responsible for running the new instruments.

- Training. Measures must be foreseen for training the members of core groups for their new responsibilities (i.e. organising "ex-ante" clusters, enlarging partnership, managing the projects).

8. The second group of actions on research-innovation/SME incremental research & other facilities/new regional initiatives

8.1. The Committee considers it essential that, in line with the European Charter for small firms adopted by the European Council, European integrated efforts for the interaction of research and innovation, incremental research for short-term problem solving, and the new Regio RTD& D Innovation Initiative are clearly and transparently identified and fostered.

8.1.1. The Committee subscribes to the following statement made by the European Council: "We will strengthen existing programmes aimed at promoting technology dissemination towards small enterprises as well as the capacity of small business to identify, select and adapt technologies".

8.1.2. The Committee underlines the need to enlarge and enrich the participation of small businesses in the 6th Framework Programme beyond the present level of 20-22 %, ensuring appropriate resources both as a quota of a minimum 15 % of dedicated financial resources in the first group of actions and as specific resources within the actions of the second group focused on incremental short-term research (not restricted to the defined long-term priorities, but based on a bottom-up approach) to be financed with EUR 700-800 million (i.e. cooperative research and collective research). This short-term action should cover RTD& D excellence projects in order to foster the number of SMEs participating in research.

8.1.3. In addition to this, the Committee underlines the importance of ensuring that Research/Innovation interaction makes tangible improvements in Europe's innovation performance by working towards a more coherent policy and regulatory environment in the EU.

8.2. As for the sub-group dedicated to Research/Innovation interaction, the Committee believes that these actions must be fostered and rationalised so as to coordinate the dissemination and exploitation activities within the FP6. The actions of European Networks, in line with the recommendations of the Committee's Opinion(9), must build up efficient proactive interfaces between research and firms, firms and finance, and research and finance, during the entire research/innovation process, from the moment of a project's conception.

8.2.1. The actions should be clearly focused on those customers where the highest leverage effects can be achieved and where the core competencies can be used the best. Particularly, the networking of stakeholders in the European innovation system (i.e. technology parks, incubators and RTD& D angels) and the economic and technological intelligence activities must have priority. For this harmonisation of national/regional innovation programmes, instruments and measures and the creation of national branches of CORDIS (run by Member States), should give a clear and transparent overview of and easy access to all the European innovation systems, particularly services of assistance on technological transfer, IPR protection, the use of the future Community Patent system, and access to risk capital and start up facilities.

8.3. The SME-Incremental Research sub-group plays a key role in promoting problem-solving short-term research, development and transfer of new technologies into industrial and commercial success. This is the ultimate aim of the Lisbon agenda targets as well as the creation of an integrated research area and of the actions laid down in the EU and EURATOM framework programmes.

8.3.1. Along these lines, the Committee would like to stress the need for bottom-up open actions with dedicated resources to be added to the quota dedicated to SME participation in the actions on long-term objectives. These should be for all SMEs which represent the vital source of innovation in Europe both for sustainable growth and for more and better jobs and cohesion.

8.3.2. The two main activities of cooperative research and the new collective research are useful tools for strengthening European competitiveness and ensuring sound economic and social development of the Union. The Committee recommends that these actions cover both the long-term technological priority objectives as also other fields.

8.3.2.1. As far as cooperative research is concerned, the Committee points out that the size of the projects must be variable and allow for the full development of prototypes. The activities must be coordinated centrally but administrative procedures and evaluation mechanisms kept simple. Tutoring measures must be foreseen by the Commission in order to prepare and assist small business on the way to present and run larger projects or clusters of projects.

8.3.2.2. Concerning the new area of collective research, the Committee stresses that this new formula must be flexible in order to allow industrial associations and Chambers of Commerce as well as other groupings such as industrial districts and EIGs representing the interests of SMEs to take part in a project as main contractor. Even in such case, tutoring, training and "take-up" actions must be foreseen, especially for larger projects.

8.4. A new RTD& D transnational regio Initiative must be provided by the FP6 in order to:

- reinforce the regional structure of RTD& D Europe, to enable rapid diffusion of knowledge at regional level,

- foster a mix of specialisations and complementarity approaches between the regions of the Union,

- improve research and application of appropriate user-friendly information society technologies,

- create networks of excellence of learning-communities including less-developed and/or peripheral regions,

- provide sound mapping, assessing and forecasting facilities for decision-makers at regional level,

- tutor firms, research centres and universities in providing feasibility awards, financial networks, spin-off facilities,

- establish GRID systems among firms, research centres and universities at inter-regional level,

- play a role in external inter-regional RTD& D efforts with the neighbouring Mediterranean, Balkan and ex-Soviet Union areas,

- coordinate, interface and optimise joint actions with the relevant Structural, Cohesion and Safard and Ispa Funds, Phare and Tacis activities and EIB-EIF actions.

8.4.1. The RTD& D regional dimension should also play a useful role in developing new FP6 instruments such as integrated projects, networks of excellence, joint programmes under Art. 169 as well as the collective research instruments. Regions can promote, tutor and cluster regional participation in specialised sectoral schemes; they can develop inter-regional networks of excellence into virtual centres across Europe in order to provide measuring and testing prototypes and quality management as well as networking of industrial districts; they could promote joint regional programmes in research, innovation, technology transfer and technological benchmarking.

8.4.2. In particular, the RTD regio Initiative must develop schemes of complementary measures to foster the ERA by enhancing cooperation with the other Community instruments outside the FP6, especially within the Structural Funds(10) and the EIB/EIF.

8.4.3. These complementary measures could provide for the creation of a "Rotation Financial Fund" to cover gaps in different timing and procedures which in the past prevented synergetic use of FP instruments and structural ones.

9. The third group of human resources mobility actions

9.1. The activities proposed by the Commission under this heading are intended to support the development of abundant and excellent human resources in all regions of the Community by promoting transnational mobility. Its purposes are the training of scientists and especially female scientists, the development of expertise, the transfer of knowledge, in particular between different sectors, supporting the development of excellence and helping to make Europe more attractive to third country researchers.

9.2. The Committee supports the Commission statement: "Promoting transnational mobility is a simple, particularly effective and powerful means of boosting European excellence as a whole, as well as its distribution in the different regions of the EU. It creates opportunities for significantly improving the quality of the training of researchers, promotes the circulation and exploitation of knowledge, and helps to establish world-class centres of excellence that are attractive throughout Europe. A critical mass of action undertaken at EU level in this area, and in relation to human resources in general, conducted at level, will inevitably have considerable effects".

9.3. According to the Commission's proposal, the specific "mobility" activities, in the whole field of science and technology, will take the following forms:

- global support measures for universities, research centres, businesses and networks, for the hosting of European and third country researchers;

- individual support measures for European researchers for the purposes of mobility to another European or third country and for top-class third-country researchers wishing to come to Europe;

- mechanisms for return to the countries and regions of origin, as well as professional (re-integration) mechanisms, in particular linked to the granting of overall and individual support;

- financial contribution to national or regional programmes in support of researcher mobility open to researchers from other European countries;

- support for European research teams of the highest level of excellence, more particularly for leading edge or interdisciplinary research activities;

- scientific prizes for work of excellence carried out by a researcher having received EU financial support for mobility.

9.4. The Committee feels that these are very important aims which also follow its previous recommendations and should be fully supported. The Committee draws particular attention to the aim of also

- supporting the mobility of researchers and of research teams between the present Member States and the Candidate Countries

- enhancing inter-action between academia and industry (in both directions)

- supporting mobility with and in particular from top-class third countries (e.g. USA or Japan).

9.5. However, the Committee also recommends that one third of the mobility budget proposed by the Commission (i.e. EUR 600 million) should be shifted and linked directly to the thematic priority actions promoted within the FP6 and the Euratom Programme. This switch is intended to strengthen further the provisions for mobility already included there: this re-allocation is reflected in the revised financial table proposed by the Committee.

9.6. The Committee urgently recommends taking immediate action to remove the administrative, fiscal and social security obstacles to the inner-European mobility of scientists, engineers and researchers which still exist, and to establish a European-wide career framework for these professions.

10. The fourth specific group of actions on international cooperation

10.1. The Committee would stress that international cooperation and relations with third countries must not be considered in the next Framework Programme, as a sporadic and optional element within individual programmes but should represent an autonomous specific Group of actions with its own budget of EUR 400 million. A similar quota of dedicated financial resources (2 %) must be included as such in the first Group of actions concerning each of the thematic technological and scientific priorities.

10.1.1. The Committee is strongly persuaded that, especially in the framework of growing globalisation, the European Research Area needs to be opened up in order to stimulate cooperation with the Associated Countries as well as with all the other relevant third countries. This needs with clear, visible and on-going actions and objectives within a specific identified group on the basis of reciprocal interest for the Union too, as well as coherence in Community external policy and action.

10.2. According to the Committee, several lines of action must be identified and provided with dedicated resources.

10.2.1. On the one hand cooperation mainly with the following:

- Mediterranean third countries, with the aim of supporting the creation of a "Euro-Mediterranean Research Area" in the context of the Barcelona process towards a Free Trade Area.

- Latin American and Asian Third countries, especially Mercosur countries within the process towards a Free Trade Area and countries with whom cooperation agreements have been signed;

- third countries of the ex-Soviet Union area, taking into account the positive INTAS experience as well as the presence of the Moscow Science and Research Centre which is supported by the Community;

- third countries of the ACP Convention and South Africa where special cooperation links have been developed and where specific joint research actions are needed to fight against diseases, in particular AIDS and tropical diseases;

- third industrialised and emerging countries that represent a critical area of cooperation in the framework of globalisation.

10.2.2. On the other hand cooperation mainly with

- Australia, Canada, Japan, USA

- other highly developed countries.

10.3. The Committee considers that the joint actions above must be developed on the basis of clear analysis of opportunities and needs, identified in terms of technological development and scientific excellence with priority for areas near at hand and for those moving towards closer association with the Union, safeguarding mutual advantage as well as contributing towards solving common problems.

10.4. The Committee lays great stress on the advantages of opening up the networks of excellence and the "Integrated Projects", on the basis of mutual interest and human resources mobility, to researchers from third countries, in particular Japan and USA, and to provide, where relevant, appropriate return-fellowships. The Committee recommends that particular efforts be made to encourage international cooperation between SMEs, with measures for the promotion of technological joint ventures, especially within the Mediterranean, ex-Soviet Union and Mercosur countries.

10.5. The Committee recommends clear visibility and easy access for this specific group of actions together with consistency with Community external relations, aid and development cooperation and economic assistance policies as well as with Members States' policies on these fields.

11. The fifth specific group of actions on coordination of ongoing activities and infrastructure

11.1. An essential element for scientific and technological progress is the development and availability of novel and appropriate instruments and infrastructure. The Committee therefore welcomes and backs the Commission proposal to include research infrastructure in FP6. Examples of medium- and large-scale infrastructure are databases and animal model collections in the field of life science, or large-scale radiation sources for exploring the structure of (for instance biological) matter showing clear evidence of a contribution to the EU's future competitiveness.

11.2. Given the significance of this for success with the ERA, the Committee suggests that FP6 should also part finance the attendant planning, development, investment and running costs.

11.3. The Committee draws attention to the importance of large-scale facilities for regional development. Therefore, regional funding should also be made available.

11.4. The Committee believes that the new approach to research and innovation foreseen for the ERA requires a strategic intelligence network, quality control and transparency with clear and evolving perspectives.

11.4.1. The changing nature of technology, new patterns of communication and interaction amongst ever more numerous actors within the ERA bring the need for strategic monitoring, evaluation and forecasting.

11.4.2. Specifically there is need for

- a network of Distributed Intelligence (D.I.) for research and technological innovation at European, national and regional levels to monitor technological evolution and to identify openings in the internal and global markets;

- promotion of joint projects of Strategic Intelligence between different communities;

- development of interfaces between science and technology on the one hand and industry and the general public on the other to help sustain policy-makers through bottom-up processes.

11.4.3. The Committee recommends providing a specific budget line of 100 M Euro for the action "Distributed Strategic Intelligence Network" to support the development of systematic measures under the 5th specific group, including interaction between the various RTD& D entities and also with the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville.

12. Multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area

12.1. The EU action, as proposed by the Commission, will cover the following main fields:

- fission technology and radiation protection

- fusion energy research

- JRC activities.

12.1.1. In line with point 7.2 above the Committee presents in this section a short, headline-type of compilation only without commenting or justifying its choice in any detail, and reserves in-depth assessment for its forthcoming Opinion on the Commission Proposal on the Specific Programmes.

12.1.2. The Committee also repeats its comments of 7.3.1: that more emphasis and visibility must be given to energy requiring the development of all possible options and including a significant commitment within the Euratom programme. In its recent Opinion on the Green Paper on Energy(11), the Committee stated: "The EU's research framework programmes must continue to support research into nuclear power, including in particular fusion, by means of extensive international cooperation. These efforts are important both for developing the technologies of the future and retaining an essential level of know-how."

12.1.3. Since major changes in fossil fuel availability will intervene only later, and since world-wide energy consumption is expected to grow further, the Committee expects the energy problem to be at its most serious in the second half of the century.

12.2. The fission and radiation protection activities cover:

- waste treatment and storage: long term in deep geological strata, new concept and technologies to produce less waste or reduce its hazards (e.g. partitioning or transmutation);

- safety and security: existing reactors (also Candidate Countries!), new generation reactors, monitoring, decommissioning, control of fissile materials and control of non-proliferation.

12.2.1. The Committee notes that fission presently supplies 35 % of electricity in Europe, does not emit CO2 or other "climate change" gases, but is not politically desired/accepted in all Member States because of safety and waste. The Committee also recalls the existing nuclear power stations in the Candidate Countries and in their immediate neighbourhood for which the EU - and European industry - must develop a policy and appropriate technical and scientific expertise and solutions, and refers to recent plans of Russia and the USA to develop advanced types of reactors and build a large number of new power stations.

12.2.2. The Committee therefore endorses the proposed RTD& D fission programme, but feels strongly that the budget will not be sufficient for the proposed objectives. It therefore recommends allocating EUR 350 million to the fission programme (see point 13).

12.3. As far as the fusion activities are concerned, they cover

- realising the "Next Step" (ITER) intended to demonstrate the scientific feasibility of fusion power;

- exploiting JET and existing installations in support of the Next Step and developing technologies and concepts (e.g. the Stellarator) essential for optimising the techniques for a commercial fusion power station.

12.3.1. The Committee points out that the use of fusion power is a novel method and that a fusion power station - depending on the required RTD& D support - is expected to become operational towards the middle of this century, with great advantages concerning safety and minimising nuclear waste and with practically unlimited fuel supply.

12.3.2. Therefore, the Committee endorses the objectives of the fusion programme as proposed by the Commission and outlined under 12.3. Considering, however, that such an ambitious and international RTD& D programme also requires specific actions and broad support by Member States, including the necessary basis of infrastructure, expertise and human resources, the Committee is concerned that the proposed budget is incommensurate with the stated objectives and recommends allocating EUR 950 million to this part of the programme (see point 13). It is worth-while repeating earlier comments of the Committee, i.e. that in the spirit and structure of the EU fusion programme, the principles of the ERA have already been applied.

13. Financial resources and their distribution for FP6 and FP6 (Euratom)

>TABLE>

13.1. Where the Commission transfers administration to other bodies like agencies or project coordinators, the respective above budget lines have to be increased by 7 % (see 7.4.4.3).

13.2. The Committee's proposal is in line with the increment for research expenditure provided in the Lisbon Summit, in particular in the light of the fast integration of the Candidate Countries and of the participation of associated third Countries.

14. The activities of the Joint Research Centre

14.1. The Committee has always acknowledged the importance of the role and activities of the Joint Research Centres in providing customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies. The Committee has insisted on the JRC's strategic inter-institutional role to help decision-makers with neutral and independent contributions and forecasting at the service of citizens' safety, providing expertise not only to Commission services but also to the other Institutions, such as the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee itself.

14.2. The Committee underlines that, in response to the ERA initiative, the JRC is contributing significantly to a common scientific and technological basis of reference for policy and has a long tradition of maintaining a healthy flow of resources and facilities for researchers and top level scientists as well as of developing high added value networks inside and outside the Union and of fostering cooperation with industry, especially with small and medium-sized enterprises.

14.3. The Committee is persuaded that the JRC has to concentrate its activities the following priorities:

- food safety and health

- environment and sustainability

- nuclear safety

- public security and the fight against fraud

- technological forecasting

- training and mobility of resources

- international cooperation

- scientific and technological reference systems

- participation in research networks

- EU enlargement and Mediterranean cooperation.

14.4. The Committee underlines that, to fulfil its important tasks, the JRC has to be provided with appropriate financial and human resources: in the Committee's opinion, the JRC must be provided with EUR 750 million for EC FP6 and EUR 330 million for Euratom FP6 and must be able to maintain the present level and quality of human resources. Given the increasing role played by science and technology in the political arena, the functioning of the JRC is expected to become even more important in the future, as is the case with the current debate on science and governance. In this respect the Committee believes that the role of the JRC can be amplified once it operates as the EU focal point of a pan-European research network, as a knowledge integrator and bridge between policymakers and organised civil society.

14.5. The Committee would point out that by their very nature, direct actions are most suited to providing research services on a short-term basis, as is often required by policymakers: the FP6 must clarify the links between direct and indirect actions given the synergy that can result.

14.6. The Committee proposes enhancing the scientific visibility of the JRC institutes by appointing scientific advisory/supervisory panels of independent external high-level experts selected/appointed by EURAB, similar to the procedures within scientific institutions of Member States.

15. Simplifying procedures: Decentralisation of systems and limits

15.1. The Committee underlines the need for management procedures to be faster, simplified and user-friendly, but at the same time clear, transparent and neutral. Equal treatment and equal access to participants whether large or small has to be ensured.

15.2. The Committee, in its Opinion of 21 September 2000(12), also stressed the need for differentiated procedures concerning large projects where project leaders will have to take over many tasks currently performed by the Commission, and for medium-sized projects where other solutions may be appropriate.

15.2.1. Along this line, the Committee recommends that the Commission consider the possibility of creating a new European Agency for RTD& D Management. This Agency should remain under the direct control of the Commission in order to avoid any tendency of re-nationalisation.

15.2.2. For larger project proposals exceeding the threshold of EUR 10 million, the Committee recommends that the Commission itself continue to provide the same mechanisms as currently enforced.

15.3. The European Agency together with national/regional agencies could provide tutoring and accompanying measures as foreseen under point 7.4.6.1.

15.4. Any new management procedure must be conceived so as to reduce the present costs and the heavy administrative constraints of projects, since currently administrative costs are typically 7 % of the global cost of each project. Any new procedures must therefore lead to a lower percentage in order to preserve the maximum budget for research proper. Shifting the cost and the burden of project management to the core group of main contractors does not change the situation, since these costs have to be 100 % financed by the EC budget in any case.

15.5. The time-lag between selection of a proposal and signing of the contract should not exceed 6 months.

15.6. The provisions concerning IPR must be clear and pre-defined in order to

- exploit results rapidly and fully;

- create spin-offs and set up new firms;

- capture larger quotas on the global market.

Brussels, 11 July 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2001, p. 70.

(2) OJ C 367, 20.12.2000, p. 61.

(3) COM(2000) 612 "Making a reality of The European Research Area: Guidelines for EU research activities (2002-2006)".

(4) OJ C 374, 28.12.2000, p. 1 - Council Resolution of 16 November 2000 on making a reality of the European area of research and innovation: guidelines for the European Union's research activities (2002-2006).

(5) ESC Opinion on the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973 "Science, society and the citizen in Europe", OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 151.

(6) COM(2001) 279 final.

(7) COM(2000) 769 final.

(8) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 45.

(9) Opinion on RTD& D Expenditure and SMEs (rapporteur: Mr Malosse).

(10) Especially INTERREG III Strand A and C, RISI-IRISI actions, ERDF Innovative Actions 2000-2006, URBS...

(11) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 45.

(12) OJ C 367, 20.12.2000, p. 61.

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Structure of the 6th Framework Programme Modifications proposed by ESC

Financial resources and their distribution for FP6 (Total EUR 18930 million)

>PIC FILE= "C_2001260EN.002302.TIF">