31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/137 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development (R&TD) programme in the field of agriculture and agro-industry (1990-1994) 
(90/C 332/39) 
On 6 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130Q(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 September 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Serra Caracciolo. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a large majority with four abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee agrees that there is a need for 
a specific research and technological development 
(R&TD) programme in the field of agriculture and 
agro-industry. 
1.2. However, the Commission proposal does not 
seem tailored to this need. The proposal seems too 
generic and all-embracing, and could overlap with other 
food and biotechnology research programmes already 
operative in the agriculture and forestry sector. 
1.3. The Committee therefore asks the Commission 
to ensure that resources are not dissipated by identifying 
appropriate research areas, defining strategies, con­
sidering all possible areas of synergy, and concentrating 
assistance to maximize its effectiveness. 
1.4. The Committee would note here that a research 
programme in the agriculture and agro-industry sector 
which seeks to systematically restructure the entire EC 
agro-industrial sector needs to be resolutely innovative. 
It is not enough to reduce production costs and improve 
quality. Major change is also needed in processing and 
production systems, with due account for four emerging 
aspects: environmental constraints; energy use; the spe­
cial position of Mediterranean agriculture; and the 
rational use of water resources. 
1.5. The programme must therefore transcend the 
strictly scientific dimension and the aspects mentioned above, which occur upstream of agricultural pro­
duction. The downstream aspects must also be con­
sidered, first and foremost protection of the interests 
of the final consumer. However, the first prerequisite 
is a clear and comprehensive definition of the scientific 
bases underpinning the programme, to ensure that the 
operating arrangements are as clear as possible. 
2. Financing 
2.1. The Committee is concerned at the relative 
uncertainty surrounding the allocation of funds, arising 
from Article 1(4) of Decision 90/221/EURATOM (OJ 
No L 117/90). This states that the funds scheduled for 
1993 and 1994 will only be confirmed if they are 
'covered by any financial perspective fixed for 1993 and 
1994'. For the R&TD programme in agriculture and 
agro-industry this means that, under the financial state­
ment appended to the proposal, 60 % of commitments 
and 4/5 of payments are not yet guaranteed. 
2.2. The Committee considers that, in the interests of 
overall operative management, the financial provisions 
should accompany the proposed legal framework. 
2.3. The Committee also considers that the Com­
mission should be supported in ensuring full funding 
and in establishing how much is actually spent in the 
first part of the programme. 
3. Procedure 
3.1. The Committee is pleased to note the Com­
mission's concern to harmonize the procedures for allo­
cating Community funds and for participation in the 
various specific programmes. Harmonization will 
No C 332/138 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
improve the transparency and effectiveness of the man­
agement of the programmes, both for their users and 
for the Commission itself. 
3.2. However, the Committee emphasizes the need 
to include in the text of the programme substantive 
elements to clarify the specific features of each pro­
gramme. As drafted at present, and in the absence of 
such further clarification in the main body of the text 
(rather than just reference to the Annexes), the aims of 
the programme and the proposed Decision appear too 
generic. 
3.3. More particularly, the Committee notes the 
reference in Annex I to paragraph 4B of Annex II 
of the framework programme (Council Decision 
90/221/EURATOM of 23 April 1990). The Committee 
considers that this reference should be amplified so as to 
highlight the distinctive, innovative and complementary 
features of the present programme compared to those 
of FLAIR, ECLAIR and so on. 
3.4. The Committee also notes that paragraph 4A of 
Annex II of the framework programme cites objectives 
which could overlap with the less specific aims listed 
in Annex I of the present proposal. It is thus vital to 
define the links and possible synergies—as well as the 
necessary distinctions—between FLAIR, ECLAIR agri­
cultural resarch, BRIDGE and FAR. 
3.5. The importance of the Annexes should be high­
lighted by introducing a specific Article stating that 
they form an integral part of the proposal, and can only 
be amended by the same procedure as for any other 
amendment to the proposal. The fact that the body of 
the proposal includes references to the Annexes is not 
enough to ensure this. 
3.6. The Committee asks the Commission to define 
in more detail the 'spontaneous proposals' mentioned 
in the sixth recital, and to specify how it means to 
ensure that such proposals are consistent not only with 
the objectives of the programme, but also with projects 
which have been selected already. 
3.7. The Committee notes that two types of pro­
cedure are to be used for selecting projects. To ensure 
maximum access to the exceptional procedure, the con­
ditions of eligibility and the results of the selections 
already made must be adequately publicized. 3.8. Given the important role to be assumed by the 
Committee procedure IIIa(1) and its strictly national 
membership, the Committee is adamant that the 15 % 
of funds which is to be reserved for the exceptional 
procedure should not simply provide a reserve for Mem­
ber States. 15 % should be a ceiling, not an objective. 
3.9. Accordingly, the Committee proposes that the 
criteria listed in the third paragraph of point 4 of 
Annex III should include a requirement that the project 
contribute to the development of research and the dis­
semination of results at Community level, with greater 
emphasis on multinational and multidisciplinary work. 
3.10. The Committee welcomes the method chosen 
by the Commission to ensure continuity vis-h-vis the 
periods of validity of the framework programmes which 
constitute the umbrella for the specific programmes. It 
also appreciates the Commission's determination to act 
if the Council fails to do so [Article 7(4)]. However, 
the Committee urges that the report drawn up by the 
Commission at the end of the programme under Article 
5(1) and (2) should be sent to it for examination. 
3.11. The Committee regrets the confidentiality sur­
rounding the framing of the annual work programmes. 
It feels that the Committee procedure (procedure 
Ilia) (2) laid down in Article 5 should include submission 
to the ESC, so that the programmes can be debated 
in advance and not just assessed after completion (a 
possibility not granted to the ESC by the draft 
Decision). In particular, the Committee feels that, under 
the terms of Article 130Q of the Treaty, the ESC should 
be consulted on the management of the supplementary 
programmes (Article 130L) and participation (Article 
130M) and joint undertakings (Article 130O). 
3.12. The Committee notes that while the FLAIR, 
ECLAIR and agricultural research programmes use the 
advisory committee procedure, the present programme 
is to use Committee procedure Ilia under Council 
Decision 87/373/EEC on implementing powers. 
(*) Procedure Ilia under Council Decision 87/373/EEC, OJ No 
L 197,18. 7. 1987. 
(2) OJ No L 197,18. 7. 1987. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/139 
3.13. The Committee therefore once more deplores 
the fact that the procedures introduced in the Council 
Decision on use of committees do not allow proper 
permanent participation of the socio-economic groups 
directly affected by the programmes. 
3.14. The Committee considers that the role assigned 
to the committee (under procedure Ilia) in the 
implementation of the programme could lead to the 
renationalization of project selection criteria, at the 
expense of general objectives such as cohesion, overall 
competitiveness, and environmental protection. 
4. Scientific and technical objectives and content 
(Annex I of the Commission proposal) 
4.1. General comments on Annex I 
4.1.1. The ESC Opinion on increasing the use of 
agricultural and forestry resources in the non-food 
industrial and energy sectors: prospects opened up by 
research and technological innovation (l) made the fol­
lowing remarks on the programme: 
'The Committee would recommend that research 
activities proposed as part of this programme be 
underpinned by sectoral surveys of basic knowhow 
and tailored to clearcut aims and set deadlines, in 
close liaison with all partners of the same sector... 
Efforts must also be stepped up to disseminate and 
make optimum use of research findings, particularly 
in the agricultural sector, so as to involve this sector 
closely in the technological innovation process 
which will play a part in shaping its future.' 
4.1.2. It is now widely agreed that the structural 
problems of the primary sector bring a need for more 
functional and sophisticated scientific research. Prob­
lems areas include: Community surpluses in a number 
of farm products; development of technologies for the 
processing of biomass; need to reduce production costs; 
spread of automation and computerization; widespread 
demand for environmentally friendly production sys­
tems, and hence for the development of biotechnologies 
such as advanced genetic techniques and integrated 
biological methods of pest control. 
(!) OJ No C 124, 21. 5. 1990. 4.1.3. Scientific and technological innovations in the­
se fields are closely interlinked. Over the last few dec­
ades, technical progress in agriculture and forestry (and 
in other upstream and downstream sectors) has been 
the result of a major research and development drive 
in a wide variety of fields; agriculture and forestry 
proper, the chemical industry, machinery, processing, 
information technology, and so on. 
4.1.4. Whilst this positive side should not be under­
estimated, the Committee hopes that account will also 
be taken of other important aspects. For example: 
a) product quality (organoleptic, nutritional, health) 
should be considered alongside more strictlyquanti-
tative criteria (reduction of production costs, higher 
yields); 
b) theoretical and applied research should increasingly 
use an integrated approach, aimed at simultaneous 
optimum satisfaction of agricultural, industrial, 
commercial, food and environmental needs and 
expectations. 
4.1.5. In this context, the complex structure of Mem­
ber State economies and societies must be taken into 
account when considering public health and conser­
vation issues. 
4.2. Area 1, first paragraph 
4.2.1. The Committee notes that one aim of the 
promotion of economic and social cohesion is to reduce 
regional imbalances. Geographical origin should there­
fore be included among the criteria for projects, in 
order to provide help for the disadvantaged and lagging 
regions over and above the financial contribution of 
the structural funds. The Committee lays particular 
emphasis on outlying regions and islands. 
4.2.2. There are important socio-economic reasons 
for allocating a large part of resources to research topics 
of relevance to marginal land in upland areas, outlying 
regions, and islands in order to counter the adverse 
environmental effects of desertification, erosion, and 
the flight from the land. 
No C 332/140 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
4.3. Area 1, second paragraph 
4.3.1. Market interest in such forms of energy seems 
to have increased lately, making it a more interesting 
area for research. The Committee stresses the need not 
to neglect the question of energy use of crops and 
conversion of agricultural byproducts, as well as alter­
native energy systems (solar, biogas, wind), in agricul­
tural production processes. 
4.3.2. Supplementary activities such as agritourism 
are an increasingly important source of extra income for 
farmers, and help to prevent depopulation of marginal 
upland areas. This type of activity also fits in well 
with high-quality 'farmhouse' or organic production 
(although the term 'organic' could be misleading, and 
needs to be properly defined). 
4.3.3. Better use needs to be made of water resources; 
water quality requires priority attention. There is much 
scope for making better use of waste water for irri­
gation, and for research into ways of treating waste 
water from specialized farms (e.g. intensive livestock 
farms). 
4.4. Area 1, fourth paragraph 
4.4.1. Research into agronomic techniques to coun­
ter soil erosion and compaction, such as minimum or 
no tillage, are of special value here. It has been shown 
that soil analysis and better preparation of the soil could 
considerably reduce the use of fertilizers, herbicides and 
pesticides. 
4.5. Area 2 
4.5.1. Research must take special account of new 
trends in EEC environmental standards. For example, 
if the permissible concentrations laid down by the pro­
posed EEC Regulation on nitrates in water are adopted, 
scientific research will have a key role to play in ident­
ifying technically and economically feasible ways to 
bring nitrate pollution—caused mainly by livestock 
farms—down to the specified levels. 4.5.2. On the subject of applied forestry research, 
the Committee would refer to two earlier Opinions (*) 
and reiterate four points for consideration: 
— experimentation of varieties in different areas in 
order to establish where they grow fastest, 
— integrated use of woodland for grazing and forestry, 
— use of woodland byproducts for fodder and enery, 
— analysis of orographic, soil and climatic conditions, 
and the siting of human settlements, with a view to 
the elimination of deforestation. 
4.5.3. Work on feed and fertilizers should pay par­
ticular attention to ways of using biotechnology to 
absorb and fix nitrogen. 
Automated management systems (particularly for live­
stock and crops grown under glass) should also be 
included. 
4.5.4. For crops, a variety of innovative techniques 
such as in vitro manipulation (particularly for fruit 
trees, trees for timber, ornamental plants, and some 
vegetables) should be developed. 
4.5.5. The Committee feels that this area should 
include econometric and market research. This will 
become particularly important with the implementation 
of the Commission's proposed MIRIAM programme 
setting up a model scheme for information on rural 
development initiatives and agricultural markets. 
4.5.6. On the subject of fisheries, and aquaculture in 
particular, the Committee draws attention to the earlier 
detailed specific programme, and the relevant ESC 
Opinion, to which constant reference will have to be 
made. 
4.6. Area 3, first paragraph 
4.6.1. Research in this area is vital to improve the 
competitiveness of the food industry and increase the 
added value of farming now that farm incomes cannot 
be safeguarded by increasing the subsidies on basic 
farm products. 
(!) Opinion on a policy for upland areas (OJ No C 175, 
4. 7. 1988) and Opinion on the forestry section (OJ No C 139, 
5. 6. 1989). 
ouE 12.90 Ofncial^oumal of the European Communities ^oCo532Bl4l 
^.2. ^oursubareasmav be singled out^ 
— soil fertilization and conservation, 
— animal feed, 
— energv production, 
— chemicals and industrial products. 
The first two haveadirect impact on farming and can 
help the farm economv, while the second two could 
also involve other sectors. 
foone at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
0.1. Theimpact of transporton thedailvlifeof 
Europeans isconsiderable.Forusersthemostimportant 
factors are safetv,^ualitv of service ^e.g.speedh the 
environment and the relative cost of transport modes. 
The ChannelTunnelismparticularasignificant step 
toward European landuse planning and hence ^uro 
pean integration. ^. Ar^o5.^o^^^^^ 
^.1. Improvementofcoldstoragetechniguesisalso 
verv important, given the steadv rise in per capita 
consumption and the growing roundthevear demand 
for seasonal farm products. 
^. Are^^,^^^^gr^ 
^.1. however, in view of the programme's low 
funding,astrong boost must be given to cooperation 
between research groups at EEC level, w^idedissemi^ 
nation of research findings should also be encouraged, 
not least among farms. 
T^eC^^^^ 
o^^eE^o^o^^^^^o^^Co^^^ee 
Alt^rro^A^oON^ 
0.2. The Committee sees this as the background to 
its Opinion on the ChannelTunnel and its transports 
policv amplications. 
1. h^roducnon 
1.1. CrossChannel freight and passenger traffic has 
expanded considerable over the last few vears and is 
expected to continue forging ahead, particularlv with 
the Single market of 1992 just around the corner. OwnDimnanveOp^onontheChaBBelTuB^elan^ 
t^90BCoB12B^ 
On 2^ Anarch 1990 the Economic and Social Committee, acnng under the fourth paragraph 
of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decidedto draw up anOpinion on the Channel 
Tunnel and its transport pohcvunplications. 
The Section forTransport and Communications,which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee'sworlo on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 September 1990, in the light of 
the report bv^lrPerrinPelletier. 
At its 2B9thplenarvsession ^meetingof 20September 1990^ the^conomicandSocial 
Committee adopted the following Opinion bvalargemajoritv,with^votes against and 
^abstentions.