28.^.88 Official journal of the European Communities NoC80^M 
Opinion on the proposal foraConncillOecision concerning Community action in the field of 
forecasting and assessment in the field of science and technology 
^88^C80^0^ 
On 12Novemberf987 the Council ofthe European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and SoeialCommittee, under ArticleP30Qoftherreatyestabhshmg the European Economic 
Community,ontheabovementionedproposal. 
The Section for Energy,Nuclear Questions andResearch,which was responsible forprepanng the 
work on this a^atter,submitted its Opinion on t5]anuaryP988 in the light of the Report byMr 
Rosemgrave. 
At its2^2nd plenary Session ^meeting of 27 lanuary!988^,the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinionwithnovotes against and2abstentions^ 
P introduction 
PP Lhe present Commume^tionanel the proposal for 
EOeeisionwhieh the Seetionean largely endorse coneern the 
continuation of EAST activities. Insofar as EAST is the 
research programme forforeeastingoflongtermehanges in 
the field of scienees and technology and assessment of their 
implications and consequenees for the future development 
of the MemberStatesitcannotbutbe supported, along 
with thefmancial envelope proposed. 
f.2. rheCommitteeapproved theproposals for both 
the previousEASL programmes. In itsOpimonsit made 
recommendationswhich are acknowledged in the present 
proposal for a continuation of P^ST activities. Other 
particularly relevant Committee documents are the Own 
initiative Report Europe anel the New technologies and the 
198^ Opinion on the Pu^meworkErogramme proposals. 
P^. rheEASr U researehactivities werefoeussedon 
fiveareas all ofwhieharecrueial for economic growth and 
socialdevelopmentin Europe^ 
— ehangesmtherelationshipbetweenteehnology, work 
and employment, 
— the transformationof services and new technologies, 
— the communication function — a strategy issue for 
Europe, ahereah^ationby public and private decisionmakers 
that an effective longterm science and technology policy 
cannot be governed solely bythe objective of improving 
the supplyof technology, but that European eompeti 
tiveness must also take into aceount the process of 
diffusion and the capacity to invent new uses for 
technology which respondtoarealsoeialneed5 
This approach to long term seience and technology pohey 
corresponds to what the Committee itself has set down as 
priorities.There isagreater awareness of these priorities 
than four years ago, but nevertheless the ob^eetive has not 
yet been aehieved. There is a continuing need for 
promoting this approach. 
P5. It is to be welcomed that the Commission in its 
explanatory memorandum whieh introduces the new 
EAST, states that nu 
^remains convinced of the necessity for a continuous 
observation ofscientific and technological ehange,ofa 
long term foreeastinganalysis of thepossibihtiesand 
challenges for Europe together with an accurate 
assessment of the social impact of the development and 
diffusionof new technologies^. 
This corresponds to concerns frequentlye^pressedby the 
Committees,as indeed is acknowledged in the preamble 
to the present proposals foraCouneilEOecision. 
— the future of the food system, 
— the integrated development of renewable natural 
resources. 
P^. The review of the achievements of results ofEAST 
Ueontamed in the explanatory memorandum accompany 
ing the Commission proposalisimpressive.tr is, however, 
over stating the case to say,asdoes the Commission,that it 
achieved^ t.e^. Eull support can be given to the proposal foranew 
EAST^t988toP992^.The three functions, forecasting, 
assessment and monitoring, are very important in the 
Commumty^sErogrammeofPoevelopment, Research and 
Technology. The Seetion is pleased that the new EAST 
proposes to combine forecasting based on trends in scienee 
and technology with strategic assessment of the role of 
science and technology in European society and the 
potential and implications for European society of science 
and technology. 
^e^eMo^,^mrr^ ^OJ^^e^tt^.^m^^^ t^^r^r^tt 
No C 80/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 3. 88 
2. The new development stage in FAST activities 
2.1. While FAST II was closely related to the earlier 
FAST I programme the present proposal represents a new 
departure — a very different approach. 
2.2. This 'new FAST' is a direct response to 
— new institutional structures, such as STOA (Scientific 
and Technological Options Assessment) and NOTA 
(Netherlands Organization for Technology Assess­
ment), 
— new programmes, such as BRITE (Basic Research in 
Industrial Technologies for Europe), ESPRIT (Euro­
pean Strategic Programme in Information Tech­
nologies), RACE (Research and Development in 
Advanced Communications Technologies for Europe) 
and new activities, such as CUBE (Concertation Unit for 
Biotechnology in Europe), COMETT (Action Pro­
gramme of the Community in Education and Training 
for Technology), 
— the commitments of the Single European Act including 
the stimulation of greater economic and social cohesion 
within the Community; the establishment of the 
internal market by 1992, and the establishment of a 
pluriannual Framework Programme. 
2.3. One can only welcome the flexibility which has led 
to the new approach within the new FAST as it sets out to 
meet the needs of changed circumstances. 
2.4. An important feature of the new FAST is that it is 
designed to develop progressively. This is clearly set out in 
paragraph 3 of the final annex to the proposal. 
'The work programme of the first year (1988) is clearly 
defined. Also defined are the possible key research 
themes for the years 1989 to 1992. 
During the first year, the precise content of the work 
programme for the years 1989 to 1990 will be 
elaborated, always respecting the principle of flexibility. 
In 1990, the work programme for the years 1991 and 
1992 will be finalized in the light of the previous years' 
experience.' 
This developmental strategy is very appropriate and the 
content of the work programme for 1989 to 1990 and 1989 
to 1992 should be referred to the Committee for an Opinion 
in due course. 
3. The new FAST inspiring principles 
3.1. The first inspiring principle is a greater integration 
of the FAST activities into the different stages of the 
planning of the Community research programme, and is, 
again, well-conceived. The wording of the explanatory memorandum (page 4, III, 
First) and the description of the research activities 
(financial annex, page 1, item 3) should indicate that the 
FAST programme will respond to requests not only of 'the 
Commission and the Member States' but also of the 
Economic and Social Committee and other Community 
institutional bodies. 
3.2. The second principle of the new FAST is to 
reinforce links between FAST-type activities at the national 
level and the Community's FAST. 
This principle can also be supported as being consonant 
with what the Committee said in its Opinion on FAST 
II ('). It is as well to reiterate the Committee's concern 
expressed at that time, (a) that it approved the intention to 
preserve the independence of FAST as a Community 
instrument and (b) that it is desirable to involve the 
Member States more actively in the financing, operation 
and valorization of FAST activities. 
4. The functions of the new FAST (content and approach) 
4.1. The Commission has quite correctly identified the 
three principal interrelated functions of the new FAST as 
forecasting, assessment and monitoring. 
4.2. The Commission is correct in identifying a number 
of key areas of a global nature on which the forecasting 
function will focus. Each of the global areas is in itself 
essential in the forecasting function, and warrants 
considerable commitment of resources as the new FAST 
develops. 
4.3. The three types of analysis envisaged in the 
technology assessment function of the new FAST will make 
an important contribution to the process of understanding 
and, if appropriate, intervening in science and technology 
policy, technology assessment being understood in the 
sense in which the new FAST describes it: 
'The notion of assessment in the context of FAST 
should not be confused with the notion of assessment of 
research programmes or Research and Development. 
The meaning of assessment in the FAST context, as it is 
understood in the term 'technology assessment', has as 
its objective the study of the short and long term 
implications and consequences of scientific and tech­
nological developments on a sectoral or global level for 
research, industry, the economy, the environment and 
society in general.' 
The strategic assessment of science and technology should 
be based on the inclusion in the process of assessment of all 
those involved in and affected by science and technology: 
researchers, contractors, entrepreneurs, users, policy 
makers and policy analysts, with particular attention to the 
implications and opportunities for economic living 
standards and the quality of life. 
(!) OJ No C 211, 8. 8. 1983, p. 12, paragraph 33. 
28. 3. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 80/13 
4.4. The monitoring function of the new FAST is closely 
related to the assessment function and great importance 
should be attached to the stated aim of developing an 
adequate methodology. 
4.5. Forecasting, assessment and monitoring are of 
central importance because they constitute the core of the 
FAST research action in its role as an essential element in 
the planning process of the Community research pro­
gramme. 
5. The operation of the new FAST 
5.1. As already stated, the progressive development 
approach of the new FAST is to be welcomed and, in due 
course, the content of the work programme for 1989/1990 
and 1991/1992 should be referred to the Committee for its 
Opinion. 
5.2. Attention to the diffusion and dissemination of the 
results of FAST II is very definitely and urgently needed. 
The limited extent to which the very existence of FAST is 
known in the Member States is to be deplored, and 
immediate steps should be taken to rectify this un­
satisfactory situation. The proposal to make diffusion and 
dissemination a priority in 1988 can be endorsed. 
5.3. Further analysis of the research reports of FAST II 
will be required before they are equally useful for 
utilization in all the Member States. 5.4. In the context of diffusion, the Commission should 
simplify as far as possible the language used and avoid the 
use of unexplained acronyms. 
5.5. The actions under lines of Action II and III should 
not be confined to demands of the Commission, but should 
also respond to those emanating from the European 
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and other 
institutional bodies. 
5.6. The response to the report of the Evaluation Group 
is something to which priority attention should be given. 
5.7. The research activities of line of Action III are also 
to be applauded. 
5.8. The attachment of visiting fellows to the new FAST 
could make an important contribution, not merely to the 
FAST work but to the Researcher's Europe, and should be 
implemented with flexibility to permit maximum partici­
pation from all the Member States. 
6. The financial provisions 
It is to be noted that the financial envelope which is 
consistent with the provisions of the Framework Pro­
gramme is modest in relation to the objectives of the new 
FAST. 
Done at Brussels, 27 January 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time Directive 74/651/ 
EEC on the tax reliefs to be allowed on the importation of goods in small consignments of a 
non-commercial character within the Community (') 
(88/C 80/06) 
On 9 December 1987, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 January 1988. The Rapporteur was Mr 
Noordwal. 
At its 252nd Plenary Session (meeting of 27 January 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a unanimous vote: 
(•) OJ No C5, 9. 1.1988, p. 5.