Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission: Inventing tomorrow - Europe's research at the service of its people` (97/C 133/06)

On 5 September 1996 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Union, on the 'Communication from the Commission: Inventing tomorrow - Europe's research at the service of its people`.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 February 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 343rd plenary session (meeting of 26 February 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 97 votes to one with two abstentions.

1. Recommendation of the Economic and Social Committee

The Committee

having regard to

1.1. the Commission's preliminary guidelines for the Fifth Framework Programme (), initial Member State reactions and recent statements by the European Parliament, IRDAC, ESTA and the European Science Foundation, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of European research, already alluded to in assessments of earlier framework programmes;

1.2. European research's positive contribution towards incorporating the scientific community, creating more than 100 000 corporate link-ups, and to progress in various leading-edge sectors;

1.3. the globalization of the market place, and the gathering pace of innovation giving instant, widespread access to new technologies, and the ensuing rapid obsolescence of same;

1.4. the lack of a commonly-shared strategy within a framework consistent with other Community policies, to enable the Community to rise to the challenge posed by its main competitors via joint research efforts and a faster transition from research to innovation to the market;

1.5. the serious weaknesses of European research as regards efficiency, participation, time to market, and technological cohesion;

1.6. the increasing complexity in the implementation of Community research policy, caused by the accession of new Member States and the mushrooming of decision-making procedures;

1.7. European research expenditure, equal to 2 % of GDP, and allocated as follows: 9 % to non-Community European research policies; 4 % to the framework programme and 87 % allocated independently by the Member States;

1.8. the ensuing need to undertake a major reappraisal of the framework programme's linear research model; this appraisal will bring out the general lack of coordination and strategic scenarios and highlight the unfeasibility of continuing with scatter gun measures, particularly in view of future EU enlargement and limited national and Community finances;

1.9. the need to provide adequate solutions to citizens' needs in terms of employment, quality of life and the competitiveness of the European system;

recommends

1.10. a major search for innovative proposals capable of mustering the support and political will of all those involved in research around medium- long-term strategic objectives;

1.11. a new philosophy rooted in an integrated system which prevents scattering of limited resources by creating synergies between European research, Community research and major RTD projects where Member States consider joint action important;

1.12. going beyond cosmetic changes in the Community framework programme, which leaves its basic shape, management procedures, decision-making procedures and arrangements unchanged;

1.13. full implementation of Title XV of the Treaty on European Union, with particular regard to Articles 130k, 130l and 130n as an integral part of the framework programme;

1.14. a thorough overhaul of European research as regards framing strategic scenarios, identifying priorities, new structures, greater flexibility, improved access, clearer assignment of responsibilities and assessment of results, with improved management, simplified procedures and more efficient back-up arrangements;

1.15. the development of a financial/tax environment conducive to intangible investment in research and training;

and calls for

1.16. the immediate implementation of a European technology and industrial assessment mechanism, with a network for the systematic exchange of standardized information relevant to EU research and technological innovation, and basic figures which give a concise overview of the measures adopted by individual Member States and by the European Union;

1.17. the use of a bottom-up approach, based on these scenarios, in defining priority areas and concentrating on areas in which Community research makes a substantial contribution towards solving the problems of society, industry and individuals referred to in point 6.12.2.

1.18. future framework programmes to have a pyramid structure, with horizontal actions at the base, cross-sector research and cross technology problem-solving at the centre, and, at the apex, major, 'open variable geometry` priority projects, of strategic interest for European competitiveness, employment and social affairs;

1.19. coherence of the entire research action via an integrated approach to promote, in each individual research project, interaction with important strategic issues and horizontal actions;

1.20. Community competition policy to be made compatible with the international competitive objectives of technological innovation, skewing it towards a 'goal-based` approach rather than simply conforming with rules;

1.21. the promotion of important strategic projects by implementing the provisions of Articles 130k, 130l and 130n, and providing a proper legal and institutional framework, a guaranteed, declared system of incentives, arrangements for the protection of industrial property in a package to guarantee geopolitical economic balance and cohesion;

1.22. the definition of a limited number of problem-solving areas, to provide improved streamlining and target common priorities linked with major strategic projects, thus providing new coherence for existing specific programmes and a whole range of research work, speeding up application of results and raising the public profile of Community added value;

1.23. horizontal actions to be considered as a common pool of resources with an automatic tie-up with major common projects and 'problem solving` work, thus providing a systematic link between SMEs and Community RTD work via a one-stop access procedure. The same relationship should be achieved between the academic world, the scientific community and industry, via human-resource exchange programmes; and with the outside world through international cooperation;

1.24. all levels of research to include instruments to encourage demonstration as an integral part of the research-innovation-market sequence;

1.25. better coordination of European research with non-Community European cooperation vehicles and with Structural Fund support for innovation, and with other Community instruments for education and training policy, cooperation and external relations, especially Tacis, Phare and MEDA;

1.26. a thorough overhaul of the Commission's internal organization, setting up inter alia units for coordination within the research structure and with other schemes;

1.27. the activation of more flexible, simple and transparent access and management procedures, with three uniform procedures for the three levels of action in the pyramid. In particular, a one-stop access procedure must be provided for each of the three horizontal actions, together with back-up measures to pave the way for proposals targeting priority areas within 'problem solving` research work and/or major projects of common interest;

1.28. increased funding for Community research, thus providing a secure financial future for multiyear programmes, and for other policies with an R& D strand;

1.29. a more rational use of framework programme funds, which will provide a critical mass for the apex of the pyramid, greater flexibility as to the level of Community participation in 'problem solving` research activities - as required under the GATT agreements - and allocation of a bigger share of aggregate funding to horizontal actions.

2. Introduction

2.1. Each of the four successive framework programmes has marked a decisive step forward in Community research. The objectives have been progressively sharpened and the resources available have been substantially increased; in financial terms the annual budget has grown from ECU 380 million in 1981 to ECU 3 200 million in 1996.

2.2. The Council and European Parliament decision that doubled the resources of the fourth framework programme compared with its predecessor could not have been adopted if a sizeable majority of research protagonists and clients, and indeed public opinion had not been convinced of the efficiency of the Community's research system.

2.3. With the definition of an outline for the fifth framework programme imminent, in view of the formal presentation of its proposals scheduled for March/April 1997, the Commission has presented some preliminary reflections in two recent communications: 'Inventing tomorrow: Europe's research at the service of its people` () and 'Towards the Fifth Framework Programme: additional material for the policy debate` ().

2.4. At the same time the Member States started an internal debate to formulate their own respective positions. The European Parliament has also adopted a report on research in the 21st century. Similarly, IRDAC, ESTA and the European Science Foundation have produced studies on the subject.

2.5. A comparative reading of all these documents brings to light a degree of consensus on the strengths and weaknesses of European research. These strengths and weaknesses remain much as they were identified in the documents analyzing the previous Commission framework programmes. The Committee has itself repeatedly stressed () the need for a complete rejig of European research procedures in order to bring them into line with the changes in competition and the global marketplace.

2.6. These analyses do not, therefore, come up with much that had not already been pointed out many years ago in some cases about the failings of the Community's main strategic instrument for European RTD, the Framework Programme, except insofar as it has been realized that it is no longer possible to put off a revision in order to increase the European added value through a system at the service of European citizens, common strategic planning, and more effective and transparent procedures for definition, access and management.

3. The strengths of Community research

3.1. European research has encouraged the integration of the European scientific community and hence - within its budgetary constraints - helped boost the Community's industrial competitiveness.

3.2. Over the years, increasing participation in European research programmes by businesses, research centres and end-users in different Community countries has led to more than 100 000 link-ups being established in Europe, many of which have subsequently developed into business partnerships.

3.3. Undeniable achievements in certain key areas, such as the sequencing of the yeast genome, parallel processors, telecommunications standards, and the first nuclear fusion experiments, have borne out the enormous potential of research projects which combine European scientific excellence with tightly targeted funding.

3.4. European research has contributed significantly in framing EU technical standards conducive to the development of compatible systems and in providing greater scope for joint projects.

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Long-medium term strategic needs

Global market and citizen satisfaction

Package

of large scale

transnational

projects

Problem solving

-

Community programmes

SME-Innovation programme

-

International cooperation

programme

-

Human resources training

and mobility programme

Local markets & citizen satisfaction

Short-term needs

>END OF GRAPHIC>

4. Its weaknesses

4.1. Decision-making: The EU has grown from ten to fifteen members and decision-making procedures for the framework programmes have proliferated accordingly: there are currently four - the co-decision procedure for the adoption of the framework programme, the consultation procedure for the approval of specific programmes, the cooperation procedure to determine the rules for participation and the procedures laid down under Articles 130k, 130l and 130n of the EU Treaty. This complexity leads to inefficiency and delays and the implementation of research policy is held back. The Commission's annual internal budget procedure, a perennial source of inter-institutional conflict, is a further complication. Advantage should be taken of the IGC to simplify this mechanism, by reducing the number of procedures, without prejudice to transparency or democracy.

4.2. Coordination between RTD and other Community policies and between Community and national RTD policies is inadequate; there is a lack of integration which would minimize duplication of work and promote pooling of the resources and structural and scientific skills required in order to form the critical mass which is a prerequisite to keep the system on a par with its major competitors.

4.3. The use of technologies to achieve the major strategic objective which meet the needs of citizens, industry and society, requires greater resources in order to ensure that Community level intervention reaches a threshold of effectiveness; the costs of demonstration are generally ten times greater than those of research.

4.4. Subsidiarity: The lack of adequate mechanisms to frame basic strategical scenarios to guide the coordination and targeting of European and national research work on goals which presuppose a systematic collective effort has made it difficult to implement the subsidiarity principle fully and hence calculate and give a sufficiently high profile to European added value. Indeed, the pump-priming mechanisms of the framework programme are ineffective unless, when the market requires it, they can raise significant additional resources at the various levels of subsidiarity, well above and beyond the 50 % figure for financial co-participation. In essence, subsidiarity and coordination are two faces of the same coin.

4.5. Efficiency: Community research has seen rampant growth in the number of sectors for intervention and the ossification of the linear process resulting in programmes becoming self-perpetuating. This accentuates the tendency for programmes to be too broad and inflexible, and to extend their scope. Another defect is the failure to rationalize bureaucratic and compartmentalized management structures, aggravated by the lack of fast and systematic exchange of information which would ensure interoperability, transparency and visibility. The management techniques used for the specific programmes have not been updated and remain essentially unaltered since the days of the second framework programme, while spending and the number of projects has tripled. Administrative and staffing expenditure has thus spiralled, reaching 7 % of the total research budget.

4.6. Participation: The complicated procedures governing access to Community research have made it difficult for businesses (especially SMEs) and end-users to increase their level of participation and thereby ensure that research activities are targeted on innovations that match society's need for new products and processes. However, small businesses, and particularly microenterprises, are a vital support for sustainable growth and employment, in both niche production sectors and 'classic` sectors. In certain sectors a very small proportion of the proposed projects is selected for funding, and even high quality projects suffer rejection. This has effectively led to a massive increase in the cost of preparing proposals compared with the eventual expenditure on accepted projects.

4.7. Time to market: The innovation 'paradox` is demonstrated by the discrepancy that exists between Europe's scientific potential and its performance in terms of innovation. Scientific results and technological achievements take far longer to be transformed into industrial and commercial successes than in competing countries where pressure for a return on the investment means that innovation hits the market place more rapidly. Figures for Triad patents registered in different technological sectors highlight Japan's dominance in advanced technologies, the strength and influence of the USA across the board and, conversely, the growing importance of traditional sectors in Europe, where patenting costs are much higher.

4.8. Concerning the technological cohesion of the European system, the geographical remoteness of the less-favoured regions is compounded by the lack of structures and infrastructures connected to the rest of the EU network, and by technology gaps which are even bigger than the social and economic disparities. The absence of synergies between the framework programmes and the RTD structural funds makes it more difficult for individuals from these regions to take part in Community research programmes, and they could end up missing out on the development trend.

4.9. The employment situation in the Community, the indicators of relative competitiveness, the prospect of enlargement from 15 to 25 countries and the state of national finances vis-à-vis the Maastricht criteria, and hence that of the Community as a whole, do not leave much scope for scatter-gun, uncoordinated, untargeted intervention, with access that is so rigid, compartmentalized and opaque that it frequently discourages entrepreneurs (particularly SMEs) from participating in research which has real prospects for innovation. In conclusion, we do not have a common strategy, coherent with other Community policies, which is capable of providing an effective response to Europe's major competitors in terms of common research effort (3 % of GDP for Japan, 2,5 % for the USA, 2 % for the EU) and in terms of accelerating the research-innovation-market process. At the moment, the European innovation 'paradox` operates wholly to the disadvantage of our continent.

4.10. There is a particular need to encourage company-based research. This requires tax and a financial environment that favours intangible investment, in order to increase the proportion of GDP dedicated to company-funded investment in research, as is currently the case in the US. European weakness in this field is borne out by the fact that the share of GDP devoted to company research, save for a few sectors, e.g. chemicals and pharmaceuticals, is on average less than 38 % of the corresponding figure for the USA and less than 55 % of that for Japan.

5. The changed international context

5.1. It is now universally acknowledged that withstanding international competition and responding to citizens' needs hinge on the most effective use being made of resources allocated to RTD.

5.2. This factor has now become critical in maintaining and strengthening capacity for economic development and employment growth against a backdrop of two closely linked phenomena: the globalization of markets and the near-instantaneous spread of the new technologies which are the major driving force behind globalization and the acceleration of innovation.

5.3. Europe invests a lower proportion of its financial resources (expressed as a proportion of GDP) in RTD than the USA or Japan, and the number of Japanese researchers as a percentage of the population is nearly double that in Europe. This disadvantage is aggravated by two further handicaps. Failure to coordinate research programmes and strategies at every level has resulted in duplication of work and impeded the pooling of resources. Compartmentalization into 15 different national RTD systems means that globalization is less a feature of the EU's single market than outside it. A wholehearted innovation culture must be developed, with training schemes which encourage people to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the framework programmes, by making access procedures more user-friendly.

5.4. In this context a major reappraisal of the linear research model used for the framework programme seems necessary. This update should aim inter alia to concentrate human and financial resources on shared objectives based on European-level strategic planning, and to provide mechanisms for rapid and widespread use of research results right from the earliest stages of RTD programmes.

6. Towards the fifth framework programme

'Europe does not exist to provide something to hide behind`

Jacques Delors, 3. 12. 1996

6.1. Given the current limitations on resources and the present mechanisms that encourage further fragmentation, it is necessary to either:

- scale back the ambitious aims of the framework programme, leaving it solely as a vehicle for promoting networking between those involved in Community research, with adjustments to its management and procedures that will improve the mechanisms for diffusion and exploitation of research results, or

- create a system which focuses national, European and Community endeavours on binding, jointly approved strategies for raising the overall standard of European research and speeding up the transition from research to innovation to the market.

6.2. Objectives disproportionate to the resources and instruments available, and to the real political will to achieve them, could provoke disaffection or even hostility towards a system perceived as inefficient, opaque and showing no signs of contributing to employment or the quality of life, despite the investment of what to European citizens are very large sums at a time when they are acutely conscious of the need for careful financial management and of the sacrifices that they are being called on to make for the sake of strengthening the EU.

6.3. Furthermore, the failure to come up with economic or commercial successes and real answers to citizens' needs (in terms of new products and job creation) will burden future generations with an ungovernable employment technological and economic deterioration.

6.4. It is therefore necessary to launch a major search for innovative proposals capable of harnessing the support and political will of all those involved in research around medium- long-term objectives.

6.5. It is not enough to simply 'window-dress` the framework programme, leaving unchanged its basic shape, management procedures, decision-making procedures and mechanisms.

6.6. It is necessary to act decisively and propose procedural solutions which ensure that Treaty articles 130k, 130l and 130n are genuinely used to integrate national, Community and European research. Otherwise, EU RTD activity will be relegated to a mere extra source for revenue, as an alternative or in competition with national sources. This will erode the value added by Community RTD.

6.7. This does not mean abandoning the subsidiarity principle, or changing the balance of power between the different levels. However, given the current situation, citizens' requirements must be met through innovative and much enhanced interaction and integration between national, European and Community work, all funded by those citizens.

6.8. It is thus imperative that European research should be reorganized in terms of strategic planning, identification of priorities, a new structure, greater flexibility, wider accessibility, simplified procedures and more effective support mechanisms.

6.9. Failure to redefine the mechanisms of the framework programme with a view to a realistic European research policy based on a common competition strategy, means an ever-growing risk of a gradual diminution or even elimination of Community action in key sectors of the development of Europe's economy and employment.

6.10. European added value for competitiveness and employment in a system at the service of citizens

6.10.1. While the framework for research policy set out in Titles XIII and XV of the Treaty on European Union stands, objectives, structures and methods need to be updated to make them competitive with those of America and Japan. Major synergies between public and private research are being generated continent-wide by the major American programmes SEMATECH (Consortium on semiconductor technology), TRP (Technology reinvestment project), CRADAs (Cooperative research and development agreements), MEP (Manufacturing Extension Programme), ATP (Advanced Technology Project), and SBIR (Small Business Investment in Research). In Japan, where public investment in research expanded 7 % in 1996, the Science and Technology Council has launched a ten year basic plan for medium- and long-term scientific and technological research focused on a range of common objectives.

6.10.2. A new philosophy of research in Europe is thus needed; although the subsidiarity principle must be respected it should not be a barrier between Community and national policies.

6.10.3. This new philosophy needs to be rooted in a vehicle which prevents scattering of limited resources by creating synergies between European research, Community research and major national RTD projects where Member States consider joint action important. This would mean that all research activity would be channelled towards common strategic objectives, while in accordance with the subsidiarity principle its implementation would be carried out at the most appropriate level. On the basis of this new philosophy all RTD activity, at whatever level, would have to be conceived and carried out within a European dimension.

6.10.4. A European-level strategy and shared aims are a prerequisite for maintaining a competitive edge in advanced technologies which can make a positive contribution to job creation and the satisfaction of citizens' needs.

6.11. Common strategic planning

6.11.1. Community forecasting work is currently entirely based on indicators supplied by national sources or by other international bodies such as the OECD. The EU has no system for exchanging information relevant to research and technical innovation in a standardized form, to underpin transparent, fast and effective strategic planning so as to facilitate common decision-making at business, regional, national and Community level.

6.11.2. It is necessary to set clear, visible objectives, enjoying across-the-board support, for resolving the problems of citizens, industry and society, viz.: quality of life, health and the environment; the information society, multimedia education and training; sustainable development and a boost to job creation; industrial competitiveness; advanced energy systems; sustainable mobility and intermodality; people-friendliness and advanced infrastructure of the urban environment, rural and coastal areas; the factory of the future; technological cohesion in terms of investment and innovation; protection of our architectural and cultural heritage.

6.11.3. European-level technology and industrial assessment procedures should therefore be set up, along with a network for the systematic exchange of standardized information relevant to EU research and technical innovation, and trend charts similar to those used by the European Employment Observatory, which would give a overall view at any given time of the measures taken in each Member State and at Community level, enabling systematic comparisons to be made.

6.11.4. Such planning would be indispensable for the subsequent preparation of a truly competitive Community RTD strategy, devised as a framework recommended to, rather than imposed on, those involved in technological development and innovation.

6.11.5. The involvement of all the national bodies in such planning would not [sic] make it easier to reach a consensus on Community RTD priorities, which would encapsulate the real added value of European involvement.

6.12. Identification of priorities

6.12.1. As the Commission document recognizes, greater care needs to be taken when areas for priority treatment are chosen, 'concentrating on those areas where Community research can play a decisive role`. However, until now, the selection of research subjects has been a top-down process, with citizens and those actually involved in research sometimes only peripherally involved.

6.12.2. It would be more appropriate for the EU to provide the bare bones of the system, with those involved in research in both public and private sectors given the task of selecting the key areas for research on which Community, national and private resources should be concentrated, on the basis of available technological forecasts and taking account of pre-set criteria including priorities for industrial and social objectives and cohesion.

7. The new structure

7.1. When considering the real scope for new structures for the framework programmes attention should be given to the obligations and opportunities offered by the Treaty, particularly in Titles XV (Research and technological development) and XIII (Industry).

7.2. As regards obligations, the Treaty on European Union calls for the complete integration of research and development policy with all other Community policies, with the primary objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of the Community industry-services complex to sharpen its competitive edge at international level and make the fullest use of the opportunities offered by the single market. In particular, Community competition policy needs to be reworked to make it more compatible with the aim of improving international competitiveness through technological progress and innovation, putting greater stress on 'goal-based` attitudes than on simply complying with rules.

7.3. The integration of national and Community policies is laid down in Article 130g, with particular reference to programmes promoting cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities, international cooperation, the dissemination and optimization of results, and the stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers.

7.4. Article 130h calls for coordination between national and Community policies, while Articles 130k, 130l and 130n outline as yet untapped opportunities for supplementary programmes, joint undertakings and Community participation in research programmes undertaken by several Member States.

7.5. Given these obligations and opportunities, it seems to be time to choose a new vector-based structure for Community research that will bring together all levels of European, national and regional research to work towards common priorities, thus finally ensuring that the Treaty is applied effectively and consistently.

7.6. European research spending is running at 2 % of GDP. Of this total, 9 % goes to non-Community European level initiatives and 4 % to the Framework Programme; the remaining sum is allotted independently at national level. This new structure should enhance the role of Community research as a catalyst for closer integration of national and European RTD.

7.7. This new model for the framework programme could be drawn up as a vectorial pyramid:

7.7.1. Three horizontal activities would form the base:

- support for innovation and technological demonstration, and the promotion of SME involvement in research work;

- involvement of participants from areas bordering the EU in Community research projects;

- training and researcher mobility, particularly between industry and academia, promoting a strong European identity.

7.7.2. The emphasis should be on cross-sector and cross-technology research, which maintains some continuity with the actions set up under the current framework programme, but allows a stronger focus on priority problem-solving areas, avoiding the current situation where Community research is fragmented into a multitude of specific programmes which often overlap but rarely interact.

7.7.3. The apex would consist of major projects on priority subjects which are of strategic interest for European competitiveness, employment and social affairs. These would be 'open variable geometry` affairs, in that they would involve the Community and whichever Member States wished to take part in projects to preserve economic and social cohesion, under the terms and provisions indicated by the Committee in its earlier Opinion on research policy coordination ().

7.8. In order to move from the downbeat European innovation 'paradox` towards positive achievement in economic, commercial, and employment terms, the market and the satisfaction of citizens' requirements needs to be built into the highest and lowest levels of the pyramid. At the apex, the major projects of common interest need to be developed from the bottom up, involving all the players in the research-innovation-market process within the sectors chosen as major strategic objectives at Community level. The projects that form the base of the pyramid need to provide mechanisms for the rapid transformation of research results into commercial successes, reducing the delays, costs and risks involved.

7.8.1. The coherence of the entire research action must be ensured through an integrated focus on aspects of relevance to the major strategic themes and on horizontal actions, which harness international, demonstration, innovative and human-resources dimensions to the Community's major strategic choices.

7.8.2. Progress could be made towards such an objective by awarding 'compatibility premiums` for those national projects which operate broad functional synergies with the common European strategy.

7.9. The apex of the pyramid: the major strategic projects

7.9.1. This new structure could be a concrete answer to the Commission's general guidelines. If research is to be targeted more closely on the market and hence meet the needs of the citizen and create jobs, the prerequisites are concentration and coordination. It would thus seem appropriate to establish synergies between procedures under the current framework programme and the variable geometry schemes mooted in Articles 130k, 130l and 130n, as well as to provide for link-up with the COST and Eureka programmes, allowing for interaction with Member States and the research community as a whole, with the focus on priority objectives which are strongly market-oriented from the outset.

7.9.2. The feared marginalization of those Member States that have limited research capacity in certain sunrise industries, which lies behind the strong resistance to the establishment of Commission task forces, could be overcome by sharing out various of the major strategic projects to ensure geopolitical and economic balance within the scope of the procedure proposed earlier by the Committee in its 1995 opinion on the coordination or research policy.

7.9.2.1. Furthermore, Community financial co-participation would guarantee open and impartial (at least as far as the Community element is concerned) access to research activities for businesses, research centres and universities of all Member States. The option of carrying out major strategic research projects at Community level could also be encouraged by competition rules which treat it as a necessary condition for complete compatibility with Community standards.

7.9.3. Some examples of concentration and coordination, such as the fusion sector, exist, but the harmonization of research strategies is the outcome more of a political calculation than of any systematic practice. Coordination should instead spring from an updated strategic system which will enable the all European research to be targeted on major projects with common objectives of those Member States that are interested enough to direct a significant proportion of their national research towards the challenges of global competition within a unified framework.

7.9.4. Concentration and coordination, by multiplying and bringing together financial and human resources both inside and outside the Framework Programme can achieve a critical mass of coherent actions, capable of reaching the major objectives of quality, innovation and technical excellence set for research policy under the Treaty.

7.9.5. In order to trigger the mechanisms defined in Treaty articles 130k, l and n the Community would have to provide an adequate legal and institutional framework and a guaranteed and declared system of incentives to simplify the identification of common themes, provide exemptions from Community competition law, define the context for industrial property protection and commit the resources required to start projects in the form of feasibility studies and coordination structures both within and outside the framework programme.

7.10. The centre of the pyramid: cross-sectoral areas and inter-technology problem solving

7.10.1. In each of the areas of technology into which the framework programme would be divided, increased rationalization and targeting on common priorities linked with major projects of strategic importance could provide a new coherence to the whole range of research work, speed up application of results and help give Community activity a higher profile, for instance in terms of European added value.

7.10.2. Indeed, 'problem-solving` technologies can be applied in many sectors and consequently provide solutions for a wide range of users, though they need to be underpinned by adequate basic and general research into issues of relevance to future conduct of economic and social initiatives. They can thus gain very wide distribution, and enhance the competitiveness of the entire industrial system. Instead of being dedicated to a comprehensive series of specific subject areas, the centre of the pyramid would serve as an open space for multi-disciplinary research into the problems faced by society, businesses and the citizen. This would allow continuity of application with the fourth framework programme, but with more room for bottom-up mechanisms and for breaking down the barriers between different subjects.

7.10.3. The needed connection between the major strategic projects and the 'problem-solving` research fields could be provided through a matrix-based system offering multidisciplinary and interactive links between the individual projects and the Community's major research options.

7.11. The base of the pyramid: the horizontal activities

7.11.1. The horizontal activities should be seen as a common pool of resources with automatic links and synergies with the major joint projects and problem-solving work.

7.11.2. Such systematic linking must enable a close bottom-up relationship between SMEs and Community RTD work with a one-stop procedure. The same relationship should be achieved between the academic world and public and private scientific research on one hand and on the other both industry (through human resource exchange programmes), and the outside world (through international cooperation).

7.11.3. In particular, participation by SMEs and human capital in problem-solving research targeted on the Community's strategic objectives will ensure a link with the major projects at the apex of the pyramid, thus helping to guide innovation towards satisfying society's future needs.

7.11.4. The need for a single market in innovation - an indispensable and intrinsic element of the European internal market - brings with it a need to adopt a horizontal programme for SMEs and innovation, taking on board the recommendations contained in the Committee Opinion on the Green Paper on innovation (), that takes an integrated approach to research conception, management and evaluation and is subject to a Commission ad hoc coordination unit (). Such an integrated approach must use automated mechanisms to activate structural fund intervention in support of innovation (Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation), the SME, Adapt and Leader II initiatives, and national and regional structural assistance. The recent establishment of a new European stock exchange for small growth-enterprises (EASDAQ) could also serve to accelerate the innovation process, by simplifying access to venture capital.

7.11.5. Equally, there is a need to activate the international dimension of innovation via closer interaction with the schemes for cooperation with Europe outside the Community, particularly COST and Eureka, given that during the ten year life-span of the latter the average size of projects has been massively reduced; the major strategic projects have all but vanished, while at the same time participation by SMEs has grown sharply ().

7.11.6. To stimulate active participation and the acceptance of new technologies by those - both companies and end-users - involved in the innovation process, it would be worth incorporating mechanisms for fostering demonstration at all levels of research; such demonstration is a vital element in the process of moving from research to innovation to the market.

7.11.6.1. Similarly, it is necessary to cover the organizational, management, marketing, financial and legal aspects (including the protection of industrial and intellectual property) of research, in order to shorten the 'time to market` of research findings.

7.11.7. The confirmation of the international role of European research, in conjunction with the phenomenon of globalization, could make a real contribution in bringing together and further involving the EU's neighbouring areas, thus helping the CEEC in their moves towards EU membership and the Mediterranean countries to form a large free trade area. In particular, a research programme targeted on the major technological aims of European competitiveness would enable the production and marketing sectors in these countries to be brought up to the level of those in the EU, thus aiding integration.

7.11.8. Furthermore, given that two thirds of innovations and scientific discoveries originate outside the EU, and that the expanding markets which enable new products to be produced commercially are mainly outside Europe, there is a need to develop interaction between European innovation activities and international cooperation initiatives and to integrate actions supporting Community research and innovation projects into the Community's cooperation programmes such as Tacis, Phare and MEDA within the scope of precise strategies targeted on each important regions (Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, Latin America and Asia). These should be consistent, visible and have mutual benefits, and should be defined with full participation by industrial end-users from both areas.

7.11.9. Moreover, the establishment of a strong community of highly qualified scientists from the academic world and industry - particularly SMEs - will require a trainee/researcher statute () to be created, in order to facilitate mobility in experience-swapping networks. Encouragement should be given to laboratory networking and technology-dissemination centres - for reasons including cohesion - in order to lay the foundations for the medium- to long-term competitiveness of the European system as a whole. Here the Committee would mention the Commission's Green Paper on education - training - research: obstacles to transnational mobility, which is currently the subject of an ESC opinion. Intangible investment in both research and training is vital if we are to focus on Man as the key player in development.

7.12. More flexible and transparent procedures

7.12.1. For the purpose of tailoring research work more closely to the future development of technological and scientific knowledge, more flexible and transparent access and management procedures are needed. Specifically, the need for simplification and transparency means that there should be a standard procedure for each of the three layers of the pyramid.

7.12.2. The current arrangements for problem-solving research are split up between various Commission Directorates-General, each with its own procedures for the presentation of proposals, negotiation of contracts and implementation of those accepted. A more uniform and centralized approach might allow a considerable saving in human and financial resource terms for participants who are frequently obliged to split cross-sector projects up in order to present them under different specific programmes.

7.12.3. It seems clear that the internal structure of the Commission's RTD departments needs to be changed radically to make it compatible with the vector-based strategy and the integrated approach. Such a reform could also help to rationalize and clarify the Community message, and make it more transparent.

7.12.4. As far as the horizontal actions at the base of the pyramid are concerned, this might be an appropriate juncture to rationalize the current procedures by setting up one-stop access for each of the three areas and support machinery which will help steer proposals towards the appropriate high priority areas of problem-solving research and/or major projects of common interest which have a favourable legal and financial situation.

7.12.5. It could be appropriate to draw up common criteria for the selection of the major European projects under a package deal so that they take account of the need to boost European industrial competitiveness, promote economic and social cohesion and offer clear prospects for rapid economic recovery and an upturn in employment.

7.12.6. To this end declarations of intention must be drawn up for each individual major strategic project, to be signed by the Member States, the Commission and all other public and private bodies involved and submitted for political endorsement after discussion among the Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament.

7.12.7. Under the heading of coordination procedures, the reduction to three or four problem-solving areas and to the three horizontal programmes should lead to a reduction in the numbers of programme committees and open up greater scope for interaction between these and CREST without weighing down research with yet more management and bureaucracy. In particular, representatives of CREST and the committees for the horizontal programmes should automatically sit on the committees for the problem-solving areas.

7.12.8. There is, moreover, a need for coordination units, for interconnections within the vector-based research structure and between the latter and other relevant policies and instruments of the Community. These should serve as 'facilitators`, paving the way for synergies in financial, legal, fiscal, management and operational procedures at Community and national level.

8. Finance

8.1. The Committee has repeatedly endorsed the case for allotting greater financial resources to Community research under the common budget, stressing that research and technological innovation are a key factor in sustainable development, job prospects and the international competitiveness of the EU. It is thus vital that the financial perspective for the fifth framework programme should be established as early as possible in order to give a level of certainty to the multi-annual programming and enable the allocation of funds to the maximum levels set by the Edinburgh agreements, i.e. two thirds of Title III (internal policies) of the appropriate financial perspective.

8.2. At the same time, an adequate financial perspective needs to be ensured regarding Community resources allocated to other policies with a significant research and development component.

8.3. When considering the allocation of resources, the apex of the pyramid will require a sufficient proportion of the available funds, since this would have a knock-on effect, activating a sum between five and six times greater.

8.4. The budget for the 'problem-solving` fields should be managed with tried and tested mechanisms, but taking advantage of the scope offered by the GATT agreement to increase the upward flexibility of Community participation, particularly in areas regarding innovation and demonstration.

8.5. The horizontal programmes should receive a higher proportion of total common resources than at present. In this instance there would have to be varying levels of Community participation, taking account of the strategic impact of innovation and demonstration, particularly for SMEs, the constraints imposed by social and economic cohesion, and the other instruments that could be brought into use in this matter. Moreover, SMEs must be fully involved in 'problem solving` work.

Brussels, 26 February 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() COM(96) 332, 10. 7. 1996 and COM(96)595, 20. 11. 1996.

() COM(96) 332, 10. 7. 1996.

() COM(96) 595, 20. 11. 1996.

() OJ No C 18, 22. 1. 1996 on the coordination of RTD policies and OJ No C 212, 22. 7. 1996 on the proposal for a second amendment to Decision 1110/94 on the framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration actions (1994-1998) (COM(96) 12).

() Cf. note 3, p. 14.

() Opinion on the Green Paper on innovation, OJ No C 212, 22. 7. 1996.

() Opinion on the Financial Supplement to the Fourth Framework Programme, OJ No C 212, 22. 7. 1996.

() Cf. Eureka Evaluation Report - 1995, p. 8.

() OJ No C 393, 31. 12. 1994.