Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:

- the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision adapting for the second time Decision No 1110/94/EC concerning the Fourth Framework Programme of Activities in the field of Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (1994-1998)` and - the 'Proposal for a Council Decision adapting for the second time Decision 94/268/Euratom concerning the Framework Programme of Activities in the field of Research and Training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998)` (96/C 337/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision adapting for the second time Decision No 1110/94/EC concerning the Fourth Framework Programme of Activities in the field of Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (1994-1998)` and the 'Proposal for a Council Decision adapting for the second time Decision 94/268/Euratom concerning the Framework Programme of Activities in the field of Research and Training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998)`

and the fact that these two Proposals are set out in a single document (COM(96) 12 final) ();

Having regard to the decision to consult the COR on this matter taken by the EC Council on 29 March 1996, in pursuance of the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to its decision on 18 July 1995 to direct Commission 7 'Citizens' Europe, Research, Culture, Youth and Consumers` to draw up the relevant Opinion;

Having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 129/96 rev.) adopted by Commission 7 on 23 April 1996 (Rapporteur: Mr Geisel);

Having regard to Articles 130f, 130g and 130i of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

adopted the following Opinion at its 13th Plenary Session on 12 and 13 June 1996 (meeting of 13 June).

1. Introduction

1.1. One of the objectives of the Community is to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and encourage it to become more competitive at international level, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other chapters of the EC Treaty.

1.2. With a view to achieving the abovementioned objectives, the Community carries out the activities listed below which complement the activities carried out in the Member States:

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

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

- dissemination and optimization of the results of activities in Community research, technological development and demonstration;

- stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Community.

1.3. All the activities of the Community are set out in a multiannual framework programme. The framework programme is to be adapted or supplemented as the situation changes. The framework programme is to be implemented through specific programmes which are to be developed within each activity and which are to define the detailed rules.

2. General comments on research and technological policy

2.1. Research and technological development are of fundamental importance for the international competitiveness of the EU and future growth opportunities. Sustained economic growth brought about by innovation has a positive effect on employment and without such growth it will not be possible to reduce unemployment, guarantee adequate employment and create new jobs. This fact has already been clearly brought home in the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. Promotion of research and technological development thus represents an investment in the future.

2.2. Therefore, the Committee of the Regions (COR) once again highlights the importance of the EU's efforts to promote R& D.

2.3. The Council's Decisions of 26 April 1994 made provision for a review of the fourth EC research, technological development and demonstration (RTD) framework programme (1994-1998) and the Euratom framework programme (1994-1998). On the basis of the criteria laid down in these Decisions the maximum overall amount for the fourth EC framework programme could be increased by ECU 595 million to ECU 11 641 million and the maximum amount for the Euratom framework programme could be increased by ECU 105 million to ECU 1 359 million

2.4. As a result of the accession to the European Union, of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, funding was increased by 6,5 %. Applying this same multiplier to the amount of supplementary funding would raise the level of supplementary funding to ECU 745 million.

2.5. In view of the budgetary constraints, however, the Commission proposes a total increase of ECU 700 million for both the fourth framework programme and the Euratom programme.

3. Specific comments on the increase in the funding for the Fourth Framework Programme and the Euratom Framework Programme

3.1. Following the first calls for proposals, which were published between December 1994 and March 1995, more than 99 % of the funds earmarked for 1995 were committed.

3.2. The initial trends, according to the Commission, are: a massive response to the calls for proposals; a greater involvement of industry in most programmes; a fundamental improvement in quality; a general increase in the scale of the proposals; and greater mobilization of enterprises around promising projects.

3.3. One problem, according to the Commission, is that not all high-quality proposals can be funded at the moment. For example, despite an increase in the budget, funds are available for only 9 % of biomedical proposals and only 20 % of proposals in the field of information technology and telematics applications.

3.4. The Commission also criticizes the general tendency towards spreading research funds too thinly, with the all too frequent result that projects are of sub-critical size. Against this background the Commission regards the links between research and technological development on the one hand and growth and employment on the other as providing the starting point for the establishment of task forces which would constitute an effective interface between research programmes and the needs of industry and society.

3.5. Therefore the Commission started in 1995 to establish a number of task forces which, by acting as interfaces between research programmes and the needs of industry and society, will specifically address the future demands facing research and technological development in the EU. The Commission calls for the proposed additional funding of ECU 700 million to be allocated to the following task forces:

3.5.1. Task force on aeronautics (ECU 165 million)

Aeronautics exerts a knock-on effect on the acquiring and mastering of a very broad range of leading-edge technologies and of know-how, which are applicable to other sectors. The demonstration and application of key technologies through an integrated programme at EU level can therefore make a crucial difference to the aeronautical industry whose survival depends upon cooperation on a European scale. The Commission recommends a selective reinforcement of and improvement in the synergy between certain activities under the first area of activity of the framework programme.

3.5.2. Task force on educational multimedia (ECU 125 million)

In the information society education and training must, in addition to the traditional tasks, prepare citizens for using the new communication tools. Vigorous efforts in terms of research, development and demonstration will, however, be needed to translate this know-how and these technological breakthroughs into practical achievements. It is necessary to face up in particular to the pressure of competition, to build on Europe's cultural and linguistic diversity and to prepare for a new generation of multimedia educational products and services by the end of the century.

Efforts will focus on the coordination of Community programmes and their complementarity with national initiatives.

3.5.3. Task force on automobile RTD activities (ECU 130 million)

The aim in developing clean vehicles is to reduce the damage caused by emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases and other adverse effects of traffic. The motor-vehicle sector is a key sector of the European economy. European industry will have to find rapidly the technological solutions, which will allow the mobility expectations of the citizens of the Union to be met in a sustainable way, whilst increasing the European motor industry market share. Greater efforts in the field of research and coordination in Europe will have a considerable impact on employment and training.

3.5.4. Task force on transport intermodality and interoperability (ECU 90 million)

At present there is a significant lack of integration between the different modes of transport. Alongside cleaner car and truck technology, greater use will have to be made of the environmentally friendly and less congested modes, notably rail. This requires a better integration of the different modes of transport. In order to realize the significant market potential that exists, more progress is also needed on the provision of information and technologies for integrated transport services. On-going research activities and expertise need to be better coordinated. Tangible results will have to be achieved in terms of reduced congestion and enhanced EU competitiveness.

3.5.5. Task force on the environment and water resources (ECU 85 million)

This task force will focus on quantitative and qualitative aspects of water management. The global water industries' market is set to triple in the next 15 years. The initial analysis of research needs indicates that additional effort and more strategic targeting in international research cooperation is required. Despite water management being essentially a local activity, there are several themes of common interest where a Community approach is amply justified as a matter of efficiency.

3.5.6. Task force on nuclear safety (ECU 105 million)

This topic is critical in terms of its potential environmental impact. It is also a very urgent issue, especially in Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS States. It is an area in which the EU has an excellent level of know-how but it is also an area in which research work needs to be better coordinated. In the Commission's view most of the allocation should be assigned to improving nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS States.

3.6. In the Commission's view the three further task forces listed below should be given only a coordinating role and should not receive any further funding for this purpose.

3.6.1. Task force on life sciences: vaccines and viral diseases

Vaccine development demands transnational leadership and resources as well as the adoption of multi-disciplinary approaches within the life sciences. The reorganization of the vaccine market, strong competition from the US and Japan and the emergence of new producers represent a challenge to Europe which can be met only if there is a substantial development of European R& D capacity. The pharmaceutical industry has been and still is a pivotal sector in European industry.

3.6.2. Task force on trains of the future

These activities are designed to ensure that rail systems take greater account of users' needs. The objective is to identify and overcome the shortcomings of the market and barriers to full exploitation of the potential of this mode of transport. By reducing transport costs and boosting the activities of supply industries, a contribution will be made towards making industry more competitive.

3.6.3. Task force on maritime systems

The maritime industries operate throughout the world and have to face strong international competition. In recent years technological development and cooperation have enabled the European industries to increase their competitiveness and productivity. Technological progress is crucial to the success of this industry, which is of major importance in Europe.

3.7. Apart from the Commission, the European Parliament has also given some thought to the establishment of task forces. In addition to the topics selected by the Commission, the European Parliament attaches particular importance to research into alternative sources of energy, especially solar energy, and the detection of landmines by means of microwaves.

4. Conclusions

4.1. General conclusions with regard to R & D policy

4.1.1. Given the importance of research spending as the basis for a forward looking economic approach, the topping-up of R& D funds is necessary in the eyes of the COR. In this context the COR would point out that, even with the proposed increase, the goal set by the EU of spending 6 % of its overall budget on research is still far from being achieved. The COR also calls upon the Commission a) to undertake an assessment of the focus and regional emphasis of the research policy pursued hitherto and b) to identify the implications for the Fifth Framework Programme.

4.1.2. Bearing in mind the Council decision, the COR draws attention to the need to assess all the activities which have been carried out so far under the Fourth Framework Programme and calls for the corresponding assessment reports to be submitted without delay. The COR would point out in particular that the additional funding for the Third Framework Programme was also based on a review of each specific programme's financing.

4.1.3. Notwithstanding its call for assessments to be made of all the individual programmes carried out under the Fourth Framework Programme, the COR endorses the Commission's policy of not allocating the extra funds on a pro rata basis to the existing research programmes but of concentrating on a number of key issues. Accordingly, the COR firmly supports the establishment of task forces and thinks that the work of these task forces should be focused on research and not on marketing. When working with these task forces on a trial basis, it will also be possible to check whether they will be suitable for the Fifth Framework Programme, without prejudging the issue. The COR calls upon the Commission to consult the Committee in good time in future when defining the contents of the research programmes and responsibilities of various task forces. The Commission should also endeavour to engage in dialogue with regional and local authorities, the universities, other scientific research bodies and the industries concerned, in particular small and medium-sized businesses.

4.1.4. The COR does, however, believe that a part of the extra funds should be spent on ensuring the effectiveness of existing programmes. It would draw particular attention to the TMR programme (stimulation of training and mobility of researchers), which provides support for exchanges and cooperation between researchers and helps to strengthen regional cooperation.

4.1.5. The COR deplores the fact that no clear explanation has been given as to how the funding earmarked for the individual task forces is to be allocated to the specific programmes and areas of activity. It is not clear, for example, how the sums set aside for telematics' applications are to be divided between the individual task forces. The COR calls on the Commission to provide a conclusive and readily comprehensible breakdown of the distribution of funding and thereby ensure greater transparency.

4.1.6. The COR also wonders whether the task force approach is compatible, in the medium and long term, with the existing programme structure. This question arises in particular with regard to the distribution of the task-forces' funds between the various programmes.

4.2. Appraisal of the task forces

4.2.1. The COR welcomes the fact that the task force approach has been translated into reality in the Commission's proposal; a new aspect of the EU research and technology policy is therefore to be put to the test. The COR particularly endorses the aim of the task forces, namely to strengthen the competitiveness of EU industry by concentrating research efforts.

4.2.2. The COR notes that the selection of topics for the task forces is based primarily on a policy decision taken by the Commission, rather than on a consensus reached with the EU Member States and the European Parliament, as is required when the framework programme and the specific programmes are drawn up.

4.2.3. The COR recognizes, however, that the Commission has taken account in its proposal of the need to maintain and strengthen the competitiveness of EU industry. This applies, in particular, to the task forces on aeronautics, automobile RTD activities and transport interoperability. The COR therefore calls for these task forces to be allocated the level of funding proposed by the Commission.

4.2.4. In the COR's view, the topic of nuclear safety is particularly important because of the need to protect human life and the environment and especially in the context of Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS States. The COR thinks, however, that part of the additional funding should be allocated to other areas, such as research into non-nuclear forms of energy sources.

4.2.5. The COR attaches much greater significance than the Commission to the task force on life sciences/vaccines and viral diseases. This is because of the task force's importance for industry and health. Unlike the Commission, the COR therefore proposes not only that the coordination role of this task force be strengthened but also that part of the additional funding be allocated to this area of activity.

4.2.6. The COR would point out with regard to the task force on educational multimedia that the Member States or the regions are responsible for education. It therefore calls for strict observance of the subsidiarity principle and urges the Commission to examine whether, in the light of this standpoint, the proposed increased funding for this purpose is necessary. As regards vocational training, the COR calls for (a) the participation of the competent authorities at Member State level and at regional level and (b) coordination with other EU programmes. In addition, the multimedia sector is already part of the ongoing IT programme.

4.2.7. The proposed task force on the environment and water resources is still being set up and is therefore not in a position to present any useful results. Accordingly, the Commission document fails to indicate to what extent this task force needs to carry out research which justifies extra funding. However, the COR thinks that specially targeted research funding should be provided, especially for water supply systems which exploit solar energy. The Mediterranean area in particular would benefit from this.

4.2.8. The COR notes that the Commission thinks that research into future railway and maritime systems needs to be coordinated more closely and has set up task forces within its ranks for this purpose.

4.3. Financial perspective

4.3.1. In view of the unclear financial situation at the moment and especially the uncertainty as to whether the desired level of funding is available within the current financial perspective, the COR would urge that before the funds are allocated steps be taken to clarify how funding could take place and what resources could be used for this purpose.

4.3.2. Since considerable savings have been made in other areas of the budget, e.g. the agricultural sector, the COR explicitly calls for the transfer of funds from one heading to another, with priority being given to the promotion of research. This would highlight the value of investing in the future. For this reason the COR fails to understand why the Commission has reduced the extra funding from ECU 745 million to ECU 700 million.

4.3.3. If, despite all the efforts to transfer funds, the extra funding for the Fourth Framework Programme and the Euratom Programme is much lower than planned, the COR would urge that these funds be allocated to only a small number of task forces. This will enable the task force approach to be thoroughly tested.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 115, 19. 4. 1996, p. 1/13.