m COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
i'M COM(94) 438 final 
Brussels, 19.10.1994 
iji*i COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 
m ACHIEVING COORDINATION THROUGH COOPERATION 
Communication from the Commission 
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 
ACHIEVING COORDINATION THROUGH COOPERATION 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Articles 130 I and 130 H of the Treaty, establishing the.European Community, provide for 
two complementary basic instruments for research and technological development: the 
Framework Programme setting out all the Community's RTD activities and coordination of 
national and European RTD policies. While the encouraging experience built up over the last 
ten years has firmly established the concept of the Framework Programmes, the second 
instrument has remained largely a dead letter despite the recent initiatives by the Danish, Italian 
and Dutch presidencies. This situation should change now, however, since one of the six 
policy priorities recently adopted by the European Council in Corfu called on the Council to 
seek more systematic coordination of Community and national research policies and on the 
Commission to take any appropriate initiative to promote such coordination. This concern is 
also shared by the European Parliament, which adopted a resolution on the subject in May 
1994. More recently, at the instigation of the German presidency, coordination of RTD 
policies was the main issue discussed at the informal Council meeting on research in Schwerin, 
where the ministers reached a consensus that talks on this subject must continue. 
Q^ 
In response to today's challenges and to the weaknesses of the Community highlighted in the 
White Paper (the underinvestment in RTD in the Union, compared with the USA and Japan, 
the fragmentation of the Member States' RTD policies, the imbalance between competitiveness 
inside and outside the Union and the Union's shortcomings in transferring and applying 
research results, compared with its leading rivals), the time has come to implement the Treaty 
on European Union in its entirety, i.e. to add a new dimension to the Community's RTD 
activities by taking coordination measures to make the national and Community policies more 
consistent and, thereby, make all the still overfragmented efforts more efficient. 
In this connection, a distinction must be drawn between two concepts: 
-cooperation, which is now accepted by everyone as the usual mechanism for Community 
action, with the obvious advantages of voluntary pooling of efforts and skills on a case-by-
case basis; 
-coordination, a mechanism which promises major advantages for increasing the efficiency 
of all RTD activities but which also imposes greater constraints and, hence, is harder to 
accept. 
For this reason, the Commission proposes a progressive, approach to achieve better 
coordination by intensifying cooperation at the various stages of drafting and 
implementing RTD policy. 
2. CURRENT SITUATION 
The efforts made directly under the Framework Programme account for approximately 4 % of 
public spending on RTD in the Union (cf. Annex Al). The total resources mobilized ("lever 
effect") via the Framework Programme are equivalent to roughly 6% of public RTD resources, 
as approximately half of the national share of the funding is contributed by the private sector. 
The Member States allocate another 7% or so of their public RTD funding to joint public 
European ventures such as the ESA, CERN, EUREKA, etc. (cf. Annex 2 for a table and fact 
sheets on the various endeavours). 
Consequently, approximately 13% of public RTD resources are allocated to European 
cooperation, while the rest are decided and managed autonomously by the Member States 
(cf. Annex A3 for fact sheets on the Member States). However, the trend to freeze or cut 
public RTD budgets in most Member States since the early '90s has created a need to improve 
the efficiency of the action taken by the public authorities in Europe in response to the 
increasingly important challenges facing them all (industrial competitiveness, employment, 
environment policies, participation in large-scale projects, etc.). Closer cooperation and 
coordination leading to more consistent use of all these resources should mitigate the adverse 
effects of this fragmentation and, at the same time, ensure that the action has a greater impact 
and is more effective. 
3. PROPOSED APPROACH 
First, it must be recognized that coordination of national policies cannot be laid down by law. 
It can only come about through common assent and must become a habit, a state of mind 
driven by an awareness of its obvious benefits. 
This coordination must benefit not only the participants but.also the Community as, a 
whole. Any financial contribution from the Community to activities in this area must depend 
directly on the benefits accruing to the Community as a whole. 
The approach taken must be multifaceted and flexible, but also practical. Different types 
of activity will be undertaken at different levels: 
on determination of RTD policies, with the objective of providing ministers in the 
Union with a forum for discussion with systematic preparatory work to supply the 
information which they all need; 
on implementation of research activities, including not only those covered by the 
Framework Programme for implementing Articles 130 K and 130 L but also the 
activities under the national programmes in order to make all the efforts more 
consistent; 
on international cooperation, where a stronger presence on the part of the European 
Union is both desirable and attainable, without impinging on the Member States' 
prerogatives. 
Completion of the trans-European communications networks will make a major contribution to 
attaining such coordination by improving contacts between laboratories, the authorities and all 
involved in RTD in Europe. 
3.1. DETERMINATION OF RTD POLICIES 
One thing is clear: Member States decide Community policy together but determine their own 
national policies. Of course, there is some interaction between the decisions taken at these two 
levels: although the general guidelines for the Framework Programmes are directed towards 
action by the Community, they are based on what is known about the national priorities and 
have a definite impact on national perceptions and analyses of the situation. This impact in turn 
depends on tradition and the level of research attained in the. individual Member States. 
However, a pro-active approach must be taken to achieve more than the limited benefits yielded 
by this interaction. The following measures in particular could be envisaged: 
(a) In order to provide a basis of sound, comparable information on national RTD 
policies, it will be necessary to extend the collection of harmonised statistical data 
and the comparison of national policies to the EEA countries and a transversal approach 
must be adopted allowing comparative case studies on specific themes (for example, 
indirect support for research, the mobility and situation of researchers, large-scale 
facilities, the development of European database networks, etc.) or on issues of general 
interest (for example, aid code for research, Community partnerships, etc.). 
(b) In order to provide a common basis for analysis and forecasting and to formulate 
scenarios for consideration by decision-makers at Member State and Community 
level, from 1995 onwards the Union will deploy its observation, forecasting, analysis 
and discussion capacity in the "evaluation of scientific and technological policy options" 
section of the "targeted socio-economic research" programme. The European 
^Technology Assessment Network (ETAN) will participate in this work and, will 
facilitate cooperation between the specialist organizations and units in the Member States 
and the expertise of JRC's European Science and Technology Observatory in Seville, 
EUROSTAT and other Commisison Services. The European Report on S&T 
indicators could gradually become a reference work fuelling the debate. 
(c) In order to encourage exchanges of information and analyses across the Union, to 
start concertation and to promote interregional cooperation on common problems, 
meetings could be held between the national research bodies and between European 
scientific cooperation organizations and bodies, together with transfrontier regional 
conferences. These meetings or conferences could focus on the transversal topics 
mentioned in paragraph (a) in particular. 
(d) In order to support closer political cooperation and coordination, the information 
and scenarios established in this way could first be examined by the heads of the 
departments responsible for formulating national research policy (a reformed 
CREST Committee). These meetings could be followed by regular meetings at 
ministerial level (such as the meeting at Schwerin in July 1994), at which ministers 
could compare approaches and evolve more consistent general guidelines and policies. 
. The discussions at each meeting should focus on a limited number of problems facing 
ministers and, of course, take account of the problems and choices within other more 
specialized cooperation bodies, such as the ES A, CERN, EMBL, etc. 
(e) In order to fulfil its obligation to act as an initiator, the Commission will play an 
active part in these meetings and, in particular, propose draft Council Resolutions . 
3.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 
The mere fact of acting at Community level implies, in practice, a degree of convergence 
between national and Community RTD activities. This is seen, in particular, during the 
establishment and implementation of the various specific programmes. The question is how to 
go beyond such "de facto" coordination. 
3.2.1 Activities under the Community's specific programmes 
(a) The committees for each programme already ensure a degree of coord ination between 
Community and national programmes. However, they should carry out more 
systematic exchanges of information on the relevant national activities with a view 
to closer identification of the areas where greater cooperation and coordination 
could be beneficial. This should of course be applied to the four actions of the 
Framework Programme including those concerning the dissemination and exploitation 
of results, innovation in SMEs and technology transfer as covered by the 3rd action. 
(b) In its proposal for the fourth Framework Programme, the Commission recommended 
that the project selection procedure should give particular priority to action likely 
to enhance cooperation or coordination between the Member States. Although 
certainly important, this is not enough to respond to some of industry's needs . The 
generic approach taken in the Community programmes means that these activities 
sometimes cut across several different specific programmes and necessitate vertical 
coordination between programmes. Beyond conventional solutions such as more 
consistent work programmes, simultaneous publication of the corresponding calls for 
proposals and joint evaluation of the subsequent replies, fresh flexibility must be 
introduced to soften the rigid barriers between programmes . (For examples see 
Annexes 1 for aeronautics, 2 for automobile and 3 for maritime RTD activities. 
Industry in these sectors are cooperating at the European level to establish common 
research programmes). The role played by the committees on the relevant 
programmes and the internal coordination which each Member States must ensure 
between its representatives on each of these committees will determine the success of 
any inter-programme activities. 
(c) At the programme implementation stage, in order to define a consistent framework for 
action in a specific area, talks with industry including SMEs must be stepped up by 
meetings on selected topics, with particular emphasis on contacts between "users" 
and "producers", but also with the relevant research centres and universities. 
(d) Efforts must be made to improve operational cooperation with other European 
RTD organizations or agencies. Annexes 4, 5, 6 and 7 give examples of the 
measures which could be envisaged with the European Space Agency, Eureka, EMBL 
and the CERN. 
3.2.2 One path to explore: application of Articles 130 K and 130 V 
In the context of the implementation of theFrameworkProgrammes, Articles 130 K and 
130 L of the Treaty provide tools to ensure closer cooperation of benefit to the Community 
as a whole. However, neither complementary programmes involving the participation of 
certain Member States nor Community participation in programmes undertaken by several 
Member States have yet been put into practice (outside the Euratom Treaty), in spite of the fact 
that these possibilities, foreseen in the Fourth Framework Programme, could provide a way 
for the Community to respond to new initiatives or to participate in existing programmes 
involving only a few Member States. 
In particular, these provisions offer advantages such as gathering together technologies 
emerging from the various RTD programmes around an objective of interest to the entire 
Community, achieving a sufficient critical mass by combining national and Community funds 
and, hence, making all RTD efforts in the European Union more efficient. 
There are many difficulties in using these tools, but these can be overcome if they are studied 
seriously in the spirit of the conclusions reached in Corfu. Particular consideration should be 
given to: 
the definition of the benefits which the activities planned can bring to the Community, 
which is one precondition for Community funding; 
the benefits of submission of packages of activities in order to meet the needs of all the 
Member States; 
the practicalities of the diffusion of know-how and non-participating Member States 
access; 
the determination of the amount of funding to be allocated to these activities. 
preference to annex 8) 
The decisive criteria for determining the benefit of such schemes to the Community could be 
based on: European public interest where the cooperation would allow a fuller contribution 
to implementing the common policies on, for example, the environment, networks or health; 
joint public-sector/private-sector interest where the cooperation would help to attain the 
objectives of the public sector in Europe and to make industry more competitive (for example, 
air traffic safety or clean technologies); and the benefits for European industry in terms of 
those activities needed to keep them competitive (for example, components for electric cars, 
aircraft engines, etc.). Particular attention must be paid to training and to dissemination and 
application of the results by every Member State. 
Since each of the activities planned will probably concern only a limited number of Member 
States, a balanced package of proposals must be submitted to ensure the broadest possible 
participation by all the Member States. The accent should be placed on sufficiently broad 
objectives such as "key" components rather than on over-general, costly sectoral objectives (for 
example, "lightweight batteries" rather than "the clean car"). 
But it must also be possible to fund these activities. Today specific programmes swallow up 
all the financial resources available for the Fourth Framework Programme. This implies that 
Articles 130 K and 130 L can be implemented only from within the specific programmes and, 
consequently, makes it complicated and difficult to support initiatives cutting across several 
programmes. Alongside the conventional first activity in the Framework Programme 
consideration could also be given to specifying and reserving from the start, when adopting 
the framework programme, a set amount for the establishment and funding of the 
complementary programmes and Community participation. 
If there is the political will to explore this new approach, then this thinking should first lead 
to a limited number of pilot actions, based on the experience acquired through the inter-
programme cooperation within the Fourth Framework Programme, and using the provision 
made for additional funding when the programme comes up for review in 1996. This should 
subsequently lead to the introduction of a new approach in the Fifth Framework 
Programme. 
3.2.3 Activities under the national programmes 
Given the degree of integration in Europe, particularly with the completion of the internal 
market, Member States should encourage research teams from other Member States to 
participate in their own programmes in order to promote the establishment of 
partnerships and RTD networks in the European Union. This will be possible only on a 
genuinely reciprocal basis progressing gradually, for example, from areas of interest to the 
entire Community. 
3.3. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 
The Union must speak with a single voice on international bodies and in order to 
participate in worldwide programmes. This is the only way that the Union will be able to 
exert an influence over its partners in these organizations that is commensurate with its size. 
Suffice to say that from 1995 onwards the Union will probably represent 16 of the 25 members 
of the OECD! Consequently, arrangements should be made for systematic Community 
concertation before all meetings of such international bodies. Large-scale projects, the 
worldwide programmes on génome sequencing or on climate change and standardization are 
all practical examples. In any event, the experience gained with the ITER in the field of 
controlled thermonuclear fusion demonstrates that this approach is both possible and 
advantageous. • 
It would be useful in bilateral negotiations between the european Union and third parties, 
especially is instances where the Member States endorse (or ratify) RTD and international 
political cooperation agreements, to maintain a regular exchange of information between the 
Commission and Member States. This exchange could cover the areas concerned, the 
practicalities of implementation and the prospects of common actions with other Member States 
(for exemple see paragraph 3.2.3.). 
Particular attention must be paid to the areas of intellectual property rights which were the 
subject of an agreement between the Council and the Commission on 26 June 1993. 
4. THE ROLE OF CREST AND OF THE EUROPEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
ASSEMBLY IN THIS CONTEXT 
The approach proposed will not be feasible without the voluntary participation and full 
collaboration of the national RTD policymakers. In practice, the tasks mentioned above 
correspond closely to the remit assigned to CREST by the 1974 Resolution. Steps must be 
taken to ensure that CREST effectively completes its original mandate and spends its time 
on working at the appropriate level on this essential task of achieving coordination 
through cooperation and ensures the follow-up. To this end, CREST should redirect its 
work and give this task priority over the activities on the specific programmes which are of 
more direct concern to the members of the committees responsible for the topics covered by 
each programme. 
When preparing its proposals the Commission will carefully study the contributions and 
opinions which it receives from the European Science and Technology Assembly, in 
accordance with its mandate. In particular, the Commission attaches genuine importance, to 
the work of this assembly of eminent personalities, which brings together a pool of knowledge 
and experience unique in Europe, from various fields and organizations playing an active part 
in RTD. 
5. CONCLUSIONS 
In order to implement Article 130 H, a progressive, practical approach is needed. To this end, 
coordination of RTD policies must be discussed continuously, possibly leading in the first 
instance to the steady adoption of Council resolutions. In the light of the foregoing, the 
Commission proposes that the Council debate the general lines of action proposed in this 
communication in order to proceed with putting into practice Article 130 H. 
10 
ANNEXES I TO 8 
Annex 1: Coordination of RTD activities on aeronautics in the Community RTD 
programmes 
Annex 2: Coordination of automobile RTD activities in the Community programmes 
Annex 3: Coordination of maritime RTD activities in the Community programmes 
Annex 4: Coordination of Community and Member State RTD activities in the space 
sector 
Annex 5: Coordination between EUREKA and the Community RTD programmes 
Annex 6: Relationship between the EC and the EMBL 
Annex 7: CERN and the European Community 
Annex 8: Supplementary programmes and Community participation. 
11 
Explanatory note concerning Annexes 1 to 7 
In these annexes are 7 examples of collaborations in the area of RTD involving industry, 
organisations and frameworks of international cooperation. 
- In the case of annexes 1, 2 and 3, it is a question of collaborations established between 
Commisison Services and representatons of industry at the European level in order to : 
define efficient mechanisms for the optimal use of the possibilities offered by the horizontal 
specific programmes; and offer solutions, based on a coordinated plan of actions, to vertical 
problems. 
- The mixed groups have a transitory character being limited to the definition phase of work 
programmes. Responsibility for implementation does reside solely with the Commission to 
the exclusion of any form of programme co-management; this does not rule out, however, 
keeping industry regularly informed in order to ensure that improvement can be made to the 
implementation of the work prepared. 
- Annexes 4 to 7 comprise explanatory notes from the Commission Services on the forms of 
on-going or planned collaboration with organisations and international cooperation 
programmes in the area of RTD as mentioned explicitely in the Framework Programme. 
12 
ANNEX 1 
Coordination of RTD activities on aeronautics 
in* the Community RTD programmes 
For the purposes of this document, this field includes research into the air transport system, 
air traffic management and aeronautical technologies. 
1. Current situation 
1.1 The main specific programmes including RTD activities in the field of aeronautics are: 
Industrial and materials technologies: Area 3 - Technologies for means of 
transport 
Telematics applications of common interest - Air transport 
Transport - Air traffic management and air transport safety 
Energy - Clean and efficient energy technologies - Hydrocarbon combustion and 
new fuels for transport 
Environment - RTD activities in the field of environment and climate -
Atmosphere physics and chemistry 
The information technologies programme and Areas 1 and 2 of the industrial 
technologies and materials technologies programme could also apply. 
1.2 The RTD activities on one aspect of aeronautical technology - air traffic management -
are already coordinated effectively. In particular, preparation of EC ARDA (the 
European Coherent Approach for RTD in Air Traffic Management) entailed coordination 
between three programmes involving three different Directorates-General. Appropriate 
measures will be taken to continue this coordination. 
1.3 The industry and the research community, particularly aeronautical research 
establishments, have played a major role in helping the Commission to develop the 
Community's aeronautical research activities. In addition to the personal involvement 
of many individuals this contribution has been given more consistent form by the 
informal recommendations made by the Aeronautical Research and Technology 
Committee (ARTCO), by the long-term technology plan and by the proposals concerning 
the ECARDA approach for air traffic management, the AEROSAFE2 study which 
AEROSAFE: Action plan for European pre-normative research on air transport 
safety. 
13 
identifies the priorities for the RTD on safety and APARTE3 which examines the 
priorities for the environmental RTD activities in the field of aeronautics. 
1.4 A broad range of players from industry and the world of research are involved in 
preparing the Community's future aeronautics RTD programmes and in the RTD 
activities already in progress. They include aircraftmakers, enginemakers and suppliers 
of a wide range of electronics, communications, passenger environment and landing gear 
equipment alongside airlines, aviation authorities and research establishments. Although 
the industry includes a number of big companies, these make wide use of subcontractors, 
including large numbers of small firms. 
1.5 In this connection, the seven aeronautical research centres in Europe recently concluded « 
an association agreement to improve coordination of their own activities and bring them 
closer into line with the trend in the industry towards a more European structure. 
2. Aeronautics RTD must be coordinated 
2.1 Various Community policies underline the importance of the air transport system. The 
"Industrial technologies - technologies for transport means" section of the Framework 
Programme states that "Special emphasis will continue to be given to aeronautics 
research both to ensure continuity with the activities undertaken in the Third Framework 
programme and to reflect further the essential advanced technology requirements of this 
industry and its capability for proving feasibility of advanced generic technologies which 
can then be spun off to other transport or industrial sectors". 
2.2 This special emphasis on aeronautics reflects, inter alia, the predominant role which this 
industry plays in technology, the particularly long lead times between the start of RTD 
activities and the introduction of the resultant new technologies, the broad cooperation 
between makers on a wide range of projects, the public authorities' responsibility for the 
regulations on safety, on the environmental impact and on the operating infrastructure, 
the extremely strong competition from the USA with the backing of the US Government, 
the extensive national programmes and the fact that the GATT agreements treat 
aeronautics as a special case. 
2.3 In the European context, these considerations cannot be divorced from the need to reduce 
congestion of airports and air space, which calls first for a harmonized and, 
subsequently, for a unified air traffic management system. 
2.4 This combination of topics is ample reason to establish a framework for appropriate 
coordination of the RTD activities on aeronautics. 
APARTE: Aircraft pollution abatement by research and technology for the 
environment. 
14 
3. Objectives of a mechanism for coordination of RTD activities on aeronautics 
3.1 The principal objectives of this coordination are: 
to ensure that the RTD priorities on aeronautics in the Community's specific 
programmes match the needs of the industry and of the competent authorities 
and generate synergies with the activities of the Member States; 
to ensure overall coordination of the activities on topics such as traffic 
management, aeronautical technologies and the air transport system; 
to provide an interface with the specific programmes corresponding to the RTD 
priorities for aeronautics so that they can be taken into account when preparing 
the work programmes; 
to facilitate spin-offs in other industries in areas where the aviation industry is 
at the leading edge of technology; 
• - to provide a smooth interface and a means of communicating with all involved 
in RTD; 
to monitor and report to the Member States and decision-makers on progress 
with the RTD activities on aeronautics; 
to facilitate coordination between the Member States and between the Member 
States and the Community, including the relevant national and international 
activities such as EUREKA and bilateral arrangements. 
In addition, this coordination would help to create a favourable environment for a 
competitive, socially acceptable transport system. 
4. Coordination mechanism 
Coordination will be achieved by means of: 
4.1 Formulation of an action plan laying the foundation on which the aeronautics activities 
in the various specific programmes could be based. This should be prepared by the 
Commission and fine tuned in collaboration with all involved, including the relevant 
industries. It would indicate the activities to be coordinated, such as the work on 
aeronautical technologies, air traffic management (to follow up EC ARDA) and the air 
transport system to reflect the need for a competitive, socially acceptable transport 
system. 
4.2 Harmonization and synchronization, as far as possible, of preparation of the work plans, 
of publication of calls for proposals and of submission of additional information, 
evaluations, progress reports on research contracts and of dissemination and application 
of the results. 
15 
4.3 Establishment of an interdepartmental task force to promote coordination by organizing 
establishment and management of this action plan and gathering the opinions of industry 
and research centres with the mandate to submit regular reports on the results obtained. 
4.4 An extra response by the Member States so that they can coordinate their research 
programmes with each other's and with the Commission's programmes, taking account 
of the subsidiarity principle. 
4.5 After some time (for example, two years) the effectiveness of this coordination will be 
evaluated, based on the results obtained. 
16 
ANNEX2 
Coordination of automobile RTD activities in the Community RTD programmes 
1. Problem 
1.1 Increasingly, the horizontal, generic nature of research has highlighted the need to start 
a constant, informal dialogue with branches of industry in order to take account of their 
requirements when defining the specific programmes and to coordinate the research 
activities funded by these programmes. 
1.2 In this context, the Fourth Framework Programme stresses the importance of an 
"operational" approach in order to establish an effective interface between cross-
discipline research programmes and the needs of industrial users. To this end, it stresses 
the need for the Commission to coordinate the activities in the various horizontal 
research programmes. This applies in particular to the transport sector, especially the 
automobile industry. 
2. Need for coordination of RTD activities in the automobile industry 
2.1 The principal specific programmes containing RTD activities on the automobile industry 
are: 
Industrial technologies and materials technologies, particularly Area 3 
(technologies for transport means) 
Transport, particularly the activities on "urban transport" and "road transport" 
Telematics applications of common interest 
Information technologies, particularly the activities on "technologies for IT 
components and subsystems" 
Non-nuclear energy, particularly the action on "improved conversion and use of 
energy". 
The environment programme could also apply. 
2.2 Measures have already been taken to coordinate activities in the automobile sector during 
the preparations for the Council Resolution of 16 May 1994 on the automobile industry. 
2.3 This Resolution emphasizes that public policy in the field of R&TD must be optimized 
through effective coordination of Union, national and EUREKA programmes and 
projects. It also mentions the need for better coordination between individual research 
programmes in such a way as to cover themes relevant to improved competitiveness, to 
facilitate access to the programmes, to improve the dissemination of research results and 
to facilitate industry planning in this sphere. 
17 
2.4 The automobile industry defined its priority research needs in its EUCAR action plan. 
However, a broad spectrum of industries and technologies are also involved in research 
activities in the automobile sector. They include suppliers of components, basic 
materials, electronics, communications and optical equipment plus more traditional 
sectors such as the building and civil engineering industries for infrastructure or the 
textiles industry for the interior upholstery of vehicles. Small and medium-sized 
businesses are heavily involved in all these sectors. 
3. Objectives of coordination 
3.1 The objectives of the inter-programme coordination are: 
to make the various specific programmes more complementary and ensure 
coordination with the other RTD activities or initiatives in this field, particularly 
within the EUREKA framework; 
to help potential participants to submit proposals under the most appropriate 
programmes; and 
to avoid any possible overlap. 
3.2 The coordination activities planned must not clash with the normal activities of the 
departments responsible for the programmes or with the rules and specific characteristics 
of each programme. 
4. Coordination 
4.1 Simple, effective coordination arrangements are proposed in order (1) to respond to the 
problems at the interface between industry and the Commission departments and (2) to 
ensure consistent management of all research activities in sectors related to the 
automobile industry. 
4.2 To avoid creating new structures, a temporary joint working party of Commission 
officials and representatives of the relevant industries will be set up. All industrial and 
public users (representatives of manufacturers, suppliers and operators) and the officials 
managing the relevant specific programmes will participate. The joint coordinating 
group will work for only a limited period and will be convened and consulted only 
during the drafting and revision stages of the specific programmes and work 
programmes. 
4.3 This working party will be instructed: 
to ensure easier access to the R&D programmes for the sectors of industry 
concerned, by defining consistent, complementary specific work programmes; 
to ensure greater concentration on strategic issues and avoid any fragmentation 
and duplication of effort; 
18 
- to give guidelines to proposers to ensure conformity with the research 
objectives, the eligibility criteria and coordination with other specific 
programmes and European initiatives; 
to allow the introduction of more flexible management arrangements better 
suited to the participants' needs; 
to organize joint workshops, conferences or other meetings, with the 
participation of the consortia selected within the EUREKA framework. 
4.4 To this end, the working party will contribute to: 
(i) ensuring that the research priorities specified in the strategy formulated by the 
automobile industry in the EUCAR action plan can be taken into account by the 
relevant specific programmes and work programmes in order to guarantee that 
they are complementary and avoid all duplication of effort; 
(ii) identifying, where appropriate, targeted research topics for which an integrated 
approach could be taken. These comprise topics involving various research 
activities contained in different specific programmes which call for integrated 
management in order to ensure that they make an impact on society, the 
environment and the market. 
4.5 Identification of an extremely precise objective, as mentioned in paragraph 4.4(ii), 
covering targeted research activities on issues covered by several specific programmes 
could lead, once the various committees concerned have given their opinion, to 
integrated management of calls for proposals, of the selection procedure and of 
monitoring of the projects selected. 
19 
ANNEX 3 
Coordination of maritime RTD activities in the Community RTD programmes 
1. Scope and nature of the problem 
Maritime Industries cover a very wide range of sea-related activities either connected to the 
transport chain or the exploitation of the oceans. 
Maritime Industries consist of a very broad range of enterprises including large as well as 
SME's and they utilise a multitude of technologies and adapt R&D results from many 
disciplines. 
Taking into the account this peculiar situation, the Maritime Industries Forum created on the 
initiative of the Commission (Com(91) 335 final, 20 September 1991) set -up different Panels 
led by industry- representatives and aimed at providing Commission Services particularly those 
responsible for R&D with adequate inputs for the preparation of the Specific Programmes and 
the working programmes. 
In this context the importance of an effective mechanism of coordination of research activities 
was highlighted on several occasions and considered as one of the most important 
recommendations. 
2. The need for coordination of R&D activities in the Maritime Industries. 
Main specific programmes relevant to R& D in Maritime Industries: 
• Industrial technologies and material technologies, particularly Area 3,B (technologies for 
surface transport means) 
• Transport, particularly the activities on "integrated transport chains" and "waterborne 
transport" 
• Telematics applications of common interest 
• Information technologies 
• Marine resources in the "marine science and technology" Programme 
• Fishing and aquaculture under the Programme on "agriculture and fisheries" 
• Offshore hydrocarbons and renewable energies under the Programme on "Technologies for 
cleaner and more efficient energy production and use". 
20 
Industry presented their priority areas in different documents discussed in the Panels for 
• Short sea shipping 
• Marine Resources 
• E.D.I 
and in a specific workshop on R&D for Waterborne Transport. 
3. Objectives of Coordination 
• to promote synergies between different programmes and avoid overlapping 
• to give a clear guidance to economic operators when making proposals 
4. Coordination Mechanism 
A pragmatic and non-bureaucratic approach should be at the basis of a coordination 
mechanism that would ensure an adequate consultation of industry and an effective 
consistency between R&D programmes relevant to maritime industries. 
This consultation by Commission services would be carried out based on experience gained 
through MIF (Maritime Industries Forum) panels. 
21 
ANNEX 4 
Coordination of Community and Member State 
RTD activities in the space sector 
1. The Commission's partners in the space industry 
Some Member States have set up special agencies whose main purpose is to implement the 
national space programmes. This is the case in France, which was the first country in Europe 
to develop its own space programme and which set up the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales 
(CNES). Germany, too, has set up an Agency (DARA) to plan and implement the German 
space programme. In Italy the AS I coordinates and implements all the national and 
international space programmes. Britain was somewhat slower in setting up the British 
National Space Centre (BNSC), while the other European countries channel most of their space 
activities through the European Space Agency, with the exception of Belgium, the Netherlands 
and Sweden, all of which have sizeable national programmes. All these programmes are 
concerned primarily with the development of the space segment. 
The European Space Agency (ESA) was set up to provide for and promote cooperation between 
European countries on space RTD and applications, both for scientific purposes and to produce 
space applications systems. To this end, the ËSA frames and implements a long-term European 
space policy, recommends space objectives to its Member States and coordinates their policies 
with regard to other national and international organizations and institutions. It devises and 
implements activities and programmes, notably on the development of applications satellites. 
2. Relations between the Commission and its partners in the space industry 
2.1 With the Member States 
The Commission has established more or less organized working relations with the space 
agencies and relevant ministries in the Member States. It has signed an agreement with the 
CNES on the production of an instrument (VEGETATION) to be loaded onto SPOT-4. One 
function of this instrument, which is considered a pilot project, will be to provide information 
for use in implementing the common agricultural policy. The ASI and the relevant agencies 
from Belgium and Sweden (SNSB) are also involved in the project. With DARA the 
Commission is studying another demonstration project to measure the chemical composition of 
the atmosphere (AMAS). Other scientific and technical work is being carried out with close 
collaboration between the JRC's Institute for Remote Sensing Applications (IRSA) and the 
national bodies responsible for implementing the Member States' space policies, particularly 
the CNES. 
22 
2.2 With the ESA 
Relations with the Agency are of relatively long standing and are well structured. The two 
institutions have reached many agreements on specific subjects since 1980 and contacts have 
been stepped up. Meetings have taken place between the Director-General of the Agency and 
members of the Commission to determine the content and methods of cooperation between the 
two institutions. 
There are currently six joint working parties on Earth observation, telecommunications, 
industrial policy i international relations, RTD and education/training. There are promising new 
areas of cooperation such as satellite navigation, a theme providing the basis to a recently 
adopted Commission communication (COM(94)248 of 14 June 1994) for which the 
implementation requires a re-inforced coordination with the ESA. and the promotion of remote 
sensing in the developing countries. Coordination on the issue of commercial launch services 
is a good example of the constructive relationship between the two institutions. 
Following the meeting between the Director-General of the Agency and the Commission 
member responsible for science, research and development and education, a draft agreement 
was drawn up to step up, broaden and facilitate cooperation between the two institutions within 
the limits of their respective competence with a view to contributing to the smooth development 
of a European policy on space, with particular regard to the application of space technology. 
This agreement has still to be finalized through the appropriate procedures. 
2.3 The ad hoc space advisory group (SAG) 
As indicated in communication COM(92)360 final, and in the light of the Council's conclusions 
on the communication, the- Commission set up an ad hoc space advisory group in 1993. The 
group is made up of representatives of the Member States and advises the Commission on the 
complementarity and synergy of its activities with those of the Member States and the ESA 
with a view to making Europe's efforts to exploit space technology more effective. 
3. The role of the Commission 
The Commission's role with regard to space was set out in communication COM(92) 360 final, 
which the Council approved in April 1993. The Council agreed on the need for enhanced 
synergy and complementarity between the Community RTD programmes and the activities of 
the European Space Agency (ESA) and, with due regard to the provisions of the Treaty, 
between the activities of the Member States and those of international organizations. At the 
same time, duplication of effort should be avoided and the operating rules and procedures of 
the Community and the ESA should be fully observed. 
The Commission's role within this framework is essentially that of promoter and user of space 
technology, notably in the field of Earth observation, and its aim is to help optimize the use 
of satellite data and to implement Community policies. The Commission also seeks to create 
conditions which will encourage expansion of the markets for applications of space technology 
and help Europe's space industry become more competitive. 
23 
4. Proposals 
The following initiatives could be taken to ensure closer coordination of national and European 
RTD policies in the space sector: 
set up joint working parties between the Commission and the national space agencies, 
such as already exists with the ESA (discussions are being held with the CNES to this 
end); 
use the SAG and the abovementioned working parties: 
(a) to compare and examine the Member States' policies in this area in order to 
identify, analyse and compare the objectives of the Member States so as to 
produce common objectives (coordination of RTD policy-making); 
(b) to define activities of common interest (coordination of programme 
implementation); 
(c) to seek a concerted or coordinated attitude among the Member States at 
international level (coordination of international cooperation). 
24 
ANNEX 5 
Coordination between EUREKA and 
the Community RTD programmes 
Introduction 
The specific programmes implementing the Fourth Framework Programme provide for 
participation in certain activities within the EUREKA framework (Article 5). However, the 
measures taken to improve the links between Community research, technological development 
and demonstration (RTD) activities and EUREKA should build on the respective strengths of 
each. They should not be allowed adversely to affect the operation or to reduce the impact of 
either. Similarly, other mechanisms for the stimulation of RTD in Europe may also need to 
be involved. 
One of the main reasons for improving synergy between EUREKA and Community 
programmes is to encourage the take-up of the results of Community projects in a framework 
closer to the market and, ultimately, to encourage the emergence of new European products 
and services competitive on world markets. Similarly, EUREKA projects are encouraged to 
participate in Community RTD programmes, which in general concentrate on generic, 
precompetitive research of multisectoral application, and to submit proposals for work to 
complement their own activities, in response to Community calls for proposals, where 
appropriate. 
As the specific programmes implementing the Fourth FrameworkProgramme are approved and 
brought into operation, the Commission will examine in more detail how closer coordination 
with EUREKA could improve information and assistance, project coordination, standardization 
and associated activities. 
In addition, from its discussions with"all concerned, including industry, the Commission is 
identifying a coherent framework for specific activities. In conjunction with national policies 
and the activities carried out under EUREKA, this might help identify areas of particular 
interest to customers and providers of RTD and highlight their future priorities. 
Information and assistance 
There is already close cooperation on the dissemination of information and on organizing 
information events, but this could be improved and extended. It includes the early exchange 
of information about future activities, the joint organization of promotional events, "brokerage" 
meetings and other activities to assist in the exchange of ideas, identification of partners, 
preparation of proposals, etc. and measures to encourage the transfer and take-up of project 
results. 
The Commission is currently looking at the national systems for disseminating information on 
Community RTD programmes and, in conjunction with Member States, will examine how these 
might be improved. It would be useful if coordination allowed information and assistance 
networks to deal effectively with enquiries about EUREKA and EC RTD, offering a sort of 
"one-stop shop" for European R&D and demonstration activities. 
EUREKA National Project Coordinators are automatically supplied with information about 
Community activities and appropriate Commission representation at EUREKA promotional 
events also helps improve awareness. The Commission represents the Community at all 
EUREKA policy- and decision-making meetings and is involved in all relevant initiatives. 
It is important to make greater use of the existing counselling and information networks 
(CORDIS, VALUE, Relay Centres, OPETs etc.) and tools (e.g. expressions of interest on 
ARCADE) at Community, EUREKA and Member State levels. The aim should be to make 
systems more accessible to interested parties (researchers, industrialists and, in particular, 
SMEs) and to ensure more transparent operation. However, the driving force must always be 
from the demand side, with the mechanisms designed to be able to respond to real needs. 
At the project proposal stage, both EUREKA and EC RTD programme management can 
indicate to project consortia when the proposal is more suitable for the other mechanism. 
An important stimulus for improving synergy between EUREKA and EC RTD is the potential 
for EUREKA to help draw Commission-funded research results to the markets. This is one 
of the major advantages of Commission participation in umbrella initiatives. Various 
information exchange and dissemination activities are used, such as publications (for example, 
the EUROCARE newsletter), conferences (for example, EUROLASER) etc. In particular, 
special attention needs to be paid to giving an "early warning" of potentially exploitable results 
or future prospects where EUREKA might help pull through results. 
Particular attention needs to be given to dissemination of the results of Community-funded RTD 
projects and their take-up and continuation under EUREKA. A list of the major, open-access 
conferences likely to be of interest to EUREKA will be sent to the EUREKA Secretariat 
regularly. (A list of conferences is already published in RTD Info.) 
Coordination at the project level 
Mechanisms to encourage cooperation such as (but not exclusively) thematic networks, targeted 
research and concertation networks will be developed in close coordination with industry and 
the research community, subject to normal criteria on the quality and relevance of the proposed 
action. Such mechanisms should facilitate coordination with the relevant activities, including 
EUREKA. 
EUREKA "umbrella" initiatives promote the generation of new activities in their respective 
areas and encourage the exchange of relevant information. Commission staff participate actively 
and systematically in all EUREKA umbrella initiatives in areas in which the Community is 
interested and active. Such initiatives represent an important mechanism for coordination 
between EUREKA and EC programmes and, in particular, help in the rapid take-up of ideas 
and the preparation of project proposals in a coherent framework. 
A number of the measures taken to make the Community RTD activities more transparent will 
help improve the interface with EUREKA. This includes programming calls for proposals, 
fixed dates for calls with a minimum response time, regular information about activities, clear 
information about procedures and criteria, etc. 
Particular emphasis should be placed on improved and regular contacts between Commission 
programme managers and EUREKA National Project Coordinators to ensure effective 
26 
coordination between activities. This should not lead to the creation of new administrative 
structures, but should be designed to help further improve information exchange between those 
directly involved in the two frameworks. The Commission intends to organize regular meetings 
to inform EUREKA NPCs of opportunities and procedures. 
Standardization and associated activities 
One important area of interest to both EUREKA and EC RTD is the transfer of results to 
support the preparation of standards and legislation. This is an area where Community and 
EUREKA activities play a complementary role. Such activities need to be planned to bring in 
all the relevant interests - customers, suppliers, legislators, standardization bodies, the research 
community, etc. Cooperation mechanisms should play an important part in this area. 
Continuing activities 
The Community participates in EUREKA through its Joint Research Centre and through its 
RTD programmes. In a number of cases, the JRC is a partner or leader in the action. It sees 
all proposals that fall within its (large) sphere of interest and comments on the merits of 
projects. It may seek to join particularly relevant "open" proposals. As the Commission's 
research establishment, the JRC has an important role in the development of coordination 
between EC RTD and EUREKA, and this was singled out for specific mention in the Hanover 
declaration on EUREKA. 
The other way in which the Commission is financially involved is through funding (or part-
funding) under shared-cost support programmes. In addition to the projects listed in the Annex, 
the Commission will investigate opportunities for additional involvement. Obviously, such 
participation must fit in with the normal project support criteria. However, participation in 
EUREKA could be a plus point from the point of view of the project appraisal policy. 
A coherent framework for action 
EC activities in specific areas of technology are defined following discussions with all interested 
parties to identify medium- and long-term needs. On the basis of the various inputs, the 
framework for action is drawn up. This "strategic" approach, which looks at both the technical 
and non-technical sides, can serve as a coherent framework for the identification of future 
priorities, not only for planning Community actions, but also for other public authorities. It 
will also help industry understand clearly the activities undertaken under the Community RTD 
programmes. 
Invitations to submit proposals are published on the basis of these priority areas of interest, 
open to any suitable initiative from industry and the research community. EUREKA could take 
this focusing of Community RTD into account when it identifies its activities, in particular in 
joint promotional activities, workshops, brokerage events, etc. It is important to try to identify 
synergies in this way, drawing on the specific features of the two mechanisms, while avoiding 
introducing rigidities into the system. 
27 
FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION OF THE COMMUNITY IN EUREKA PROJECTS 
EUREKA PROJECTS 
Project 
Number -
6. 
7 
8 
19 
37 
495 
4S 
72 
283 
9S 
127 
140 
367 
2S1 
330 
618 
674 
SOO 
6S8 
693 
718 
726 
74S 
800 ' 
807 
9 29 
1061 
27 ACRONYM 
EUROLASER 
EUROTRAC 
COSINE (fin] 
TORMENTOR 
EUROMAR 
EUROMAR - Visimar (fin) 
PROMETHEUS 
FAMOS 
SYNTHETIC TV 
HOTV 
JESS1 
EUROCARE 
EUROCARE - Granitic Rock 
RIG: Oil Drilling (fin) 
EUROENVIRON 
EUROENVIRON - Tracy 
EUROENVIRON - Mobile 
JUM80ÇOKE 
CEFIR High Temp Fibres 
MAINE 
EUROAGRI 
TOLEOO PV-1 (fin) 
EUROVOLTAIC 
EUROSURF 
EUROGAAS (definition phase) 
ASSET 
EUROCAIRN (definition phase) 
TOTAL TOTAL 
COST 
to MEcus 
20 
lOO 
18 
29 
1 
2 
70S 
1 
8 
848 
3800 
7 
1 
S 
< 1 
< 1 
6 
20 
< 1 
1 
< 1 
. 12.6 
< 1 
= 
4 
30 
1 
S60S COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN 
EUREKA PROJECTS 
R&O 
COMMUNITY 
ACTIONS 
0RIT6-EURAM 
JRC 
ENVIRONMENT & JRC 
ESPRIT <c VALUE 
JRC 
MAST 
JRC 
1/3 of ORIVEt&K 
8RITE-EURAM/ESPRIT 
RACE &. ESPfiiT 
VISION 12S0 - Aids to 
operators and productors 
ESPRIT 
BRlTE-EURAM/ENV 
STEP (ENV) 
THERMIE 
JRC 
JRC 
JRC 
THERMIE 
JRC 
8RITE-EUR AM/ESPRIT 
AIR 
JOULE/THERMIE 
JOULE 
JRC- IÀM 
ESPRIT 
ESPRlt 
ESPRIT OIRGCT PARTICIPATION 
Umbrella Small financial participation 
. 2*6 
:•' 7.1 
••.-." a.o , • •.•-'*. • • 
, -3.2 • • •;-•"'•.• ". 
Umbrella SmaQ financial participation 
Small participation ?.'.'', 
20 
Umbrella. Small financial participation 
.s 
191 
Umbrella 
Small participation 
1-9 
Umbrella 
O.l 
0.9 
0.2 
O.l 
Umbrella 
Umbrella 
4.1 
Umbrella 
Umbrella 
2 (ccc) 
IS (cec J 
O.S 
2G1.7 MEcuc ! 
-
(fin) Finished project 
(cccj The CGC is the only financing body lor the definition phase 
28 
ANNEX 6 
Relationship between the EC and the EMBL 
Current relationship 
The relationship between the EC and the EMBL has always been built on a case by case 
basis subject to the principle of open competition for Community support. The projects 
to which the Commission has financially contributed have always been evaluated by 
independent experts in order to ensure scientific and technical excellence as well as 
relevance to the contents of the specific programmes. This approach has allowed this 
centralized laboratory to share its expertise and technical resources with many other 
laboratories in Europe in transnational consortia. 
During the last few years, the EMBL has become an important point of reference for 
European research in molecular and cellular biology as it has started providing a number 
of important facilities with no equivalent in the Community, both because of their 
intrinsic character as a service supporting any research in the field, and, in some cases, 
because of their uniqueness resulting from the fact that only an international effort could 
afford the financial and human resources needed to maintain them (DNA data library, 
synchrotron radiation sources, etc). 
On various occasions this new dimension to the EMBL's profile has allowed it, by 
applying the Commission's rules with respect to international cooperation, to initiate the 
establishment and development of research networks involving its concentrated facilities 
and the complementary skills of other laboratories across Europe. This synergistic effect 
can be seen as a factor for greater cohesion in European countries' activities on molecular 
biology. 
Convergence of the efforts under the EMBL's own scientific programme and of certain 
activities under EC RTD programmes can be seen in some areas of molecular and 
cellular biology but not all, notably the plant sciences or the neurosciences, which are 
priorities in the specific programmes related to life sciences but have no equivalent at 
EMBL level. Bearing this in mind, this can only be referred to as circumstantial 
successful cooperation around themes of common interest rainer than as a deliberate 
policy of convergence. 
Future relationship 
The EC and the EMBL recognize their long-standing tradition of interactions in areas of 
mutual interest, with the EMBL recruiting international teams to contribute useful 
scientific results and the EC financially supporting transnational efforts by established 
laboratories, including the EMBL, to. assist the emergence of new technologies. 
"* * 
29 
Both organizations wish to consolidate that base so as to promote synergies towards 
shared objectives, and mutually to benefit from each other's individual experience in 
developing competent networks upon which coherent European research in molecular and 
cellular biology may rest. Both parties see it as essential that any EC resources add value 
to and gain value from the contributions made to EMBL by its Member States in 
corresponding fields. They endeavour to optimize mutual understanding of their own 
functions, S&T activities and operational rules applicable to the establishment of a strong 
European science base in modern biology. They would in this regard seize any 
opportunity compatible with their range of missions that would produce, from their 
combined actions, a multiplier effect which would help to enforce the highest 
international quality standards in collaborative research as well as to promote the 
international competitiveness of the Community. Future arrangements should include a 
mechanism for exchange of information and concertation regarding the fundamental and 
enabling aspects of molecular and cellular biology, in so far as relevant to the objectives 
of the Framework Programme of Community activities in the field of research, 
technological development and demonstration and of the EMBL's own scientific 
programme. 
Cooperation between the Commission and EMBL in the research, technological 
development and demonstration field may take, in particular, the following forms : 
- regular exchange of views on research policies and planning at the EMBL and in the 
Commission; 
- exchange of views on the prospects and on closer cooperation; 
- regular updating on the international situation and on the understanding of respective 
responsibilities regarding programme, operational and infrastructure issues; 
- coordination of programmes and projects carried out by EMBL and the Commission; 
- joint action by EMBL and the Commission. 
The cooperation may be implemented in the following ways: 
- joint meetings; 
- participation by experts in seminars, symposia and workshops, 
- regular contacts between programme or project planners and managers, 
- participation in joint action, subject to specified competition and review procedures, 
- availability of documents and communication of the results of work carried out in the 
framework of this cooperation. 
Commission observer status in certain EMBL meetings. 
The EC and EMBL will have to recognize and accept that their participation in relevant 
activities must comply with the rules and procedures of both organizations and the principles 
governing their operations. The EC will wish to ensure that any resources flowing to EMBL 
are subject to specified competition and review procedures and contribute to achieving the 
scientific and other objectives identified in the Fourth Framework Programme; the EMBL will 
wish to ensure that any activity is compatible with the Laboratory's scientific programme and 
its underpinning principles of excellence, cooperation and inclusiveness. 
30 
ANNEX 7 
CERN and the European Community (EC) 
Collaboration with CERN 
Since the first Esprit programme was launched at the beginning of the 1980s CERN has taken 
an active part in a number of Community projects in fields where it has unique experience, 
most notably networks of computers and supercomputers. More recently, and in particular 
under the Third Framework Programme, CERN collaborated on the Human Capital and 
Mobility programme and made use of its expertise in the field of superconductivity. 
In addition, regular contacts have been established and maintained between CERN and the JRC, 
and the Commission has observer status in the CERN Council. 
In order to place the relations between the Commission and CERN on a sounder and more 
structured footing and to flesh out the broader European cooperation described in Articles 130 
F et seq. of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the two parties have reached on 
10 October 1994 an administrative arrangement defining their relations, which cover areas 
other than high-energy particle physics, CERN's main field of research. 
Future relations between the CERN and the EC 
In preparing the Fourth Framework Programme, the Commission allowed Europe's scientific 
organizations, including CERN, to participate fully in the relevant specific programmes and 
bring their expertise into play. In CERN's case the following areas were covered: 
Non-nuclear activities 
* Information and communications technology 
Industrial technology 
Environment 
Life sciences and technology 
Non-nuclear energy 
Research towards a European transport policy 
Targeted socio-economic research 
Training and mobility of researchers 
Nuclear activities 
Nuclear safety and control measures 
Controlled thermonuclear fusion 
Applications of accelerator technology 
31 
ANNEX 8 
Supplementary programmes and Community participations 
1. Within the above context the rationale underpinning the Communication "Coordination 
through Cooperation" is to create the conditions necessary for the implementation of 
Articles 130 K and 130 L. 
The current situation 
2. These two articles are almost symmetrical since they both concern actions in which only 
certain Member States participate and which are implemented either at multinational or 
Community level: 
130 K concerns Supplementary Programmes, i.e. programmes decided on by the 
Community in which only certain Member States participate and for which the funding, 
though not a legally binding requirement, may be partially provided by the Community. 
Supplementary Programmes are therefore Community actions. 
130 L concerns Community Participations in programmes undertaken (i.e. agreed, 
financed and implemented) by certain Member States in which the Community may 
make a financial contribution. Community Participations are therefore multinational 
actions. 
3. These actions, being RDT activities, must remain fully within the Framework 
Programme and satisfy its objectives. All funding must be provided by the 
Framework Programme. 
4. The implementation of the Framework Programme must take place through the Specific 
Programmes (Article 1301) and may also resort to Supplementary Programmes and 
Community Participations. Articles 130K and 1301 provide for this possibility. 
5. The Fourth Framework Programme explicitly includes provisions for the use of these 
articles (Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decision on the Framework Programme). 
Difficulties. 
6. Whereas the proposal for the Framework Programme did not extend to the level of the 
Specific Programmes, the Council and the Parliament have indicated the financial 
breakdowns between these Programmes which total to the overall budget for the 
Framework Programme. As a result, the realization of any Supplementary Programme 
or Community Participation can only take place within Specific Programmes. 
7. However, one of the advantages of possible actions in this context comprises in 
particular the grouping of actions using technologies arising from different programmes 
around objectives of Community interest. In consequence, these actions have to be 
funded by these different programmes. It is necessary, therefore, in addition to the usual 
problems associated with coordination, to find solutions to the legal and management 
problems arising from the particular responsibilities of each Programme Committee. 
8. In reality, however, there are two main problems: 
- The Member States involved must decide on a given theme and mobilize together their 
own financial resources to which the Community may make an important but limited 
contribution. 
- Even though each action must be subject to an individual decision, the presentation of 
packages of actions would facilitate Member States' acceptance of Community 
contributions to individual programmes in which, on a case-by-case basis, only some 
States would directly benefit (Community interest). 
The proposed approach. 
9. To overcome these difficulties a new political willingness for better cooperation 
between Member States is needed. This is the objective of this Communication. 
Hence, if a favorable climate is created it could be possible to launch pilot actions 
using a part of the 700 MECU to be decided on in mid-1996. 
10. The establishment of this political willingness will also rest on the clarification of 
certain specific aspects of these Supplementary Programmes and Community 
Participations. It is proposed, therefore, that the criteria linked to the verifications 
of Community interest as well as the modus operandi to be followed should be 
examined. In particular, the possibility of other Member States having access-to 
these actions as well as the rules governing the dissemination of know-how, 
factors which determine the feasibility of such actions, must be studied. 
11. The solutions envisaged is to reserve a specific budget-line in future decisions on 
Framework Programmes for funding actions on the basis of Articles 130K and 
130L. In order to ensure that the Fifth Framework Programme will be fully 
operational as regards this point, it is recommended that pilot actions be launched. 
The co-decision expected for mid-1996 regarding this 700 MECU offers this 
possibility. The Commission could take that opportunity, to propose that a part of 
this sum be reserved for these pilot actions, with the rest being allocated to existing 
programmes. 
12. As regards the themes, the accent should be placed on objectives with wide-ranging 
coverage involving Community interest such as "key" components, rather than on 
objectives such as the "clean car "which would be both too sectoral and too costly. 
The services concerned (DG XII,XIII & III) have identified a number of concrete 
examples which could constitute the first pilot projects in the following domains: 
1. Lightweight batteries (for the clean car) 
2. Applied aerodynamics (improvements to engine and wing efficiencies, noise reduction). 
3. Advanced systems for establishing a new European potential with regard to observation, 
surveillance and exploitation of the sea-bed. 
4. Research on primates. 
13. A necessary condition leading to the implementation of these actions, and going beyond 
the organization of preliminary contacts at high level in Member States via Research 
Ministries, is the need for open and indepth discussions with all Member States. In 
essence this is what the Communication is proposing. 
ANNEX A 
Al - Estimate of public funding of RTD in the Member States and the four EFTA-EEA 
countries due to accede to the Union and funding through Community research 
activities and the other European frameworks of S&T cooperation (1992) 
- Breakdown of government R&D appropriations by country in the EEA ( 1985,1991 
and 1992) 
- Comparison of public funding of RTD from 1985 to 1992: USA/Japan/Europe (of 
12 and 16) 
A2 Fact sheets on cooperative European RTD endeavours 
A3 Fact sheets on national RTD policies in the Member States 
If 
ANNEX Al 
Estimate of public funding of RTD in the Member States 
and the four EFTA-EEA countries due to accede to the Union 
and 
funding through Community research activities and the other European frameworks of 
S&T cooperation (1992) 
The four future Member States 9% 
Community research 4% 
ther European frameworks 
Member States 80% 
(Total: around ECU 62 400 million) 
36 
Distribution par pays des ,/edits budgétaires publics de R-D dans l'EEE 
1985, 1991 et 1992 aux prix et taux de change courants (EEE=100%) 
% 
CO 2.5 
1.5 
0.5 
0 
IS, FL et L exclus o ^ D m n- x 
—t. 
3 3> 
C —> 
a> 
CL -
Distribution par pays des ,/edits budgétaires publics de R-D dans l'EEE 
1985, 1991 et 1992 aux prix et taux de change courants (EEE = 100%) 
% 
00 2.5 
1.5 
0.5 
0 
iS, FL et L exclus • 1985 01991 011992 O 7Z 3 m 
r+ X 
3 3» 
C —» 
ŒL -
Crédits budgétaires publics O R-D dans I' EEE, UE, "SA et Japon de 1985 à 1992 
prix et taux de change courants -
Milliard ECU 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10, 
0 1985 + 
1986 * * 
+ + + + 
1987 1988 1989 1990 
Année 
EEE +UE >KllSA • Japon 
"données non disponibles en 1985 pour les USA 
• données systématiquement sous-estimées pour le Japon 
Sources: Eurostat pour I'UE et l'EEE. OCDE pour les USA et le Japon m * 
1991 1992 
o 3: O -2'. D rn r+ X 
C -» 
(D 
CL 
ANNEX A2 
Fact sheets on cooperative European RTD endeavours 
Contents 
1. Table showing participation of EU Member States and Austria, Finland, Norway and 
Sweden. 
2. Fact sheets. Member State participation is indicated in bold; participation by Austria, 
Finland, Norway and Sweden is represented by italics. 
40 
Participation of the European Member States and Austria, Finlandj Norway and Sweden in Cooperative European RTD Endeavours. 
^Organisation 
CERN 
COST 
EMBL 
EMBO 
ESA 
ESF 
ESO 
• 
ESRF 
EUREKA 
ILL 
Total Annual 
budgets' 
590 MECU2 
400 MECU3 
49 MECU3 
7.9 MECU3 
2967 MECU2 
9.3 MECU3 
62 MECU" 
68.8 MECU4 
1500 MECU5 
47 MECU4 
5701 MECU B 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X6 
X DK 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X7 
X 
. D 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X GR 
X 
x 
X 
X 
X 
X ES'. 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
x8 F 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X IRL 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X I 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X LUX 
X 
X NL 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X6 
X p 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X9 
X UK 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X A 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
x! FIN 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X7 
X NOR 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X7 
X S WE 
X 
x 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X7 
X 
' 
1 Many of these figures are approximations- refer to information sheets attached. 
2 1992 figure 
3 1994 figure 
4 1993 figure 
5 Likely lo be an over-estimation: 13500 MECU engaged during the last 9 years ("85 lo '94) since the programme was launched, comprising expenditure which will be incurred in subsequent ywrs and includes substantial private 
(industrial) funding. 
6 Mclgium and The Netherlands participate in ESRF as a consortium: BENESYNC. 
7 Denmark. Finland, Norway and Sweden participate in ESRF as a consortium: NORDSYNC. 
8 Associated members 
9 Cooperation agreement 
ECU conversions fiçurcs used : 1ECU= 1.6SF; = 2.02DM; = 6.85FF. 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) SITE Switzerland-France 
EXPENDITURE 582 MECU (1994) PERSONNEL 2991 (1993) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM CERN was established by international convention in 1954 enjoys 
intergovernmental status. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (19) The current Member Nations are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Individual contributions are related to GNP. New members begin their 
contribution at a low level, which in time is brought into line with their GNP. The international treaty is 
open-ended, and allows for withdrawal from CERN only after a two-year notice period. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To promote high-energy particle physics; to probe the innermost constituents of 
niatter in order to obtain a better understanding of how the world and the universe works. This is achieved by 
the construction and operation of a series of particle accelerators/colliders and associated detectors. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES High-energy particle physics, plus the necessary technological support for the 
accelerators and instrumentation, along with supporting computer facilities. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION There are several different types of installation maintained at CERN: Amongst 
the flagship high-energy accelerators are the Proton-Synchrotron, the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) 
proton-antiprotoncoUider, and the Large Electron Positron collider (LEP). In addition to these installations there 
is the isotope on-line separator (ISOLDE), the Low Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR), and" the Fixed Target SPS 
Experimental areas. Experiments using these installations are equipped and carried out by (often very large) 
teams of physicists from Member Nations and the rest of the world, assisted by permanent CERN research staff 
in the spirit of fostering international collaboration. CERN hosts 6-7000 visitors per year, which averages out to 
a full-time equivalent additional staff of approximately 2500. The user community is very international in 
character, and is far from limited to Europe. For example, in 1993 there were 400 to 500 physicists each form 
the Russian Federation and America. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The CERN Council decides issues of major importance, and usually meets 
twice a year. It is composed of two representatives per Member Nation who act on behalf of their governments, 
and also has some non-Member Nation representatives present in an Observer status (Israel, the Russian 
Federation, Turkey, CEC and UNESCO). Assisting the Council are three important committees: Committee of 
Council, which identifies and discusses major issues or difficulties before Council sessions; Finance Committee, 
with special responsibility for budgetary, contractual and other financial matters; and Scientific Policy 
Committee, responsible for advising the Council on research programmes and options. Overall executive 
authority lies with the Director-General. There are several Directors, with responsibility for Research, 
Accelerators, Administration and Technical Support. Under them are several more Divisions, with associated 
Divisional Heads. In addition to this structure are the Research Board, the Management Board and the Standing 
Concertation Committee. 
42 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) SITE Heidelberg, Germany 
EXPENDITURE 498 MECU (estimated, 1994) PERSONNEL 722 (1994) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The EMBL was established by an intergovemmenUl agreement in 1973. 
It thus has "international" status. There are also some EMBL outstations, situated at DESY in Hamburg, the 
ILL/ESRF site in Grenoble, and in Cambridge (re-named the European Bioinformatics Institute). 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (15) The Member States are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, 
Germany, Greece, Italy, Israel, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Member Nations contribute to EMBL in proportion to their GNP. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To undertake research in molecular biology. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Molecular Biology. Research programmes include Biological Structures and 
Biocomputing, Cell Biology, Differentiation, Gene Expression, Physical Instrumentation and Biochemical 
Instrumentation. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION The EMBL employs scientists from the Member Nations and the rest of the 
world in order to carry out its programme of experiments on-site. Personnel are recruited according to merit, 
and there is not a policy of ensuring geographical return to the Member Nations. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES There is an EMBL Council, that meets annually and is attended by 
representatives of the member states, and is responsible for approving the budget, the scientific-programme and 
appointing the Director-General. The Scientific Advisory Committee is responsible for preparing the scientific 
programme. Internally, the facility is governed by the Director General. The DG has day-to-day responsibility 
for management of the facility. There are also several divisions: some are based upon scientific programmes, 
whilst others operate at a functional level (computing, administration etc.). 
A3 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Space Agency (ESA) SITE Various 
EXPENDITURE 2967 MECU (1992, Payment Appropriations) PERSONNEL 2064 (1992) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM ESA was established by an international Convention in 1975, and 
originated from the merging of 2 earlier organisations (ESRO, ELDO) established in 1964. Each site has 
international status. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (15) The full Members are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, 
Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Finland is an Associate 
Member (Full Member from 1995), whilst Canada has a Cooperation Arrangement. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION ESA manages two types of R&D programme: Mandatory and Optional. 
The Mandatory programme contains basic and science activities (e.g. technology and satellites), and all 
Members must contribute to these activities according to GNP. There are five Optional programmes and 
Members decide which of tliese programmes they wish to join. Their contribution is then based upon GNP, plus 
an amount that is dependant upon the optional programmes they have decided to participate in. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES "To provide for and promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation 
among European States in the fields of Space Research and Technology and Space Applications, for scientific 
purposes and for operational space applications" (Article 2 of the ESA Convention). 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Mandatory activities include Science and Technological research programmes, 
encompassing basic multi-disciplinary research. The optional programmes are: Telecommunications, 
Observation of the Earth and its Environment, Space Transportation Systems, Space Station and Platforms, 
and Microgravity research. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION There are several ESA sites throughout Europe. ESA Head office is located in 
Paris, and is responsible for the bulk of administration. Other sites are the European Space Research and 
Technology Centre (ESTEC) in The Netherlands, the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Germany, 
the European Space Research Institute (ESRIN) in Italy, the European Astronauts Centre (EAQ in Germany 
plus several other smaller offices and ground stations, including the.Launch Site in French Guinea. An industrial 
procurement policy aims at ensuring that contracts are shared out to Member countries in proportion to their 
national ESA contribtuion. Approximately 90% of the ESA budget is spent with industry. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The principal external governing body is the Council, to which each 
Member nation sends a delegation, and which has responsibility for approving the programmes and budgets and 
other major decisions. There are also Programme Boards, and several committees, including the Science 
Programme Committee, the Administrative and Finance, an Industrial Policy Committee and the International 
Relations Committee. ESA is managed by the Director General, assisted by the Inspector General, Cabinet, and 
Associate Directors. Each Mandatory and Optional Programme also has a management board. 
A4 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Southern Observatory (ESO) SITE Garching, Germany (HQ) & Chile 
EXPENDITURE 62 MECU (Estimated, 1993) PERSONNEL 300 (approx, 1994) 
ORGANISATIONAL-MECHANISM The ESO was established by an intergovernmental treaty in 1962. The 
HQ has international status. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (9) Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, 
Switzerland, plus a cooperation agreement with Portugal. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Members contribute an amount in proportion to their GNP. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To construct and operate astronomic facilities. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Astronomy. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION The Headquarters at Garching is the scientific centre of the organisation. It 
houses the Office of the Director General, the Administration, the VLT Division and the Scientific Division, as 
well as the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility (a joint ESO/ES A Group responsible for the use of 
the Space Telescope in Europe). The observatory at La Silla in Chile is the site of a large number of telescopes, 
and the requisite electronic, optical and mechanical workshops and a computer centre. There is also activity at 
Mount Paraxial in Chile, where ESO is building the VLT (see later). 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Externally, ESO is overseen by a Council, upon which representatives from 
the Member States sit. There are several committees that assist the Council in its operation: Committee of 
Council, Scientific and Technical Committee, Finance Committee, Observing. Programmes Committee and Users 
Committee. Day-to-day management is left in the hands of the Director General, whose office is located in ESO 
HQ, along with the Administration Division. The La Silla Observatory has ah integrated structure, and is 
managed separately. 
A5 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME EUREKA SITE Distributed Programme 
EXPENDITURE over 14.5 billion ECU since 1985 PERSONNEL see below 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM EUREKA is a pan-European distributed programme of collaborative 
R&D involving firms, universities and research institutes, with a bottom up mechanism whereby consortia form 
and can gain EUREKA status and funding for nearer market R&D in advanced technologies. It was launched in 
1985 under a French initiative. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (23) Austria, Belgium, Denmark, EU, Finland. France, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, 
Sweden, 
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION To be awarded EUREKA status projects must involve cooperation 
between participants of more than one Eureka Country, use advanced technologies for civilian applications, and 
be market-oriented. Once EUREKA status is awarded, participants must approach their national governments for 
part-funding. Each Member Country has different funding rules. EUREKA status does not guarantee funding. 
Projects may include participants from non-member countries. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To increase European productivity and competitiveness through closer cooperation 
between firms and research institutes in advanced technologies, developing products, processes and services with 
a world market potential. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES EUREKA is bottom up and very diverse, but the projects are classified into the 
following technological areas: IT, communications, materials, medical and biotechnology, lasers, environment,, 
transport, robotics and production automation and energy. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION The projects are consortia-based, ranging from a few partners to large initiatives 
such as the Joint European Sub-micron Silicon Initiative (JESSI). In some areas umbrella projects have been 
formed to create networks in order to stimulate new projects, for example the EUROENVIRON projects. 
Participants decide their own arrangements for managing the consortia and the intellectual property. Some of the 
projects are aimed at standards. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Each country has a National Project Coordinator for administration of 
applications. There is a small secretariat in Brussels which maintains a database of participants and produces 
promotional material. An annual Ministerial Conference awards EUREKA status to new projects and guides the 
overall direction, with the support of a High Level Group of senior representatives of the member countries. 
A6 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME Euro.Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) SITE Brussels (Sec) 
EXPENDITURE 400 MECU (National res. funding, approx, 1994) PERSONNEL 28 (Sec) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM COST Cooperation was established in 1971 by a Ministerial Conference. 
Its main body is the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO), composed of representatives of the 25 COST 
countries, the Council of the EU and the CEC. It is responsible for the overall strategy of COST, and takes 
decisions on every individual COST proposal. A CSO member of each country has the role of National 
Coordinator, which involves managing the COST Actions in their own country. There is a Working Party on 
Legal, Administrative and Financial questions, whose main task is to examine and give its opinion on questions 
submitted by the CSO, and is mainly composed of COST Senior Officials. The COST Secretariat is composed 
of two parts: The secretariat for the CSO and for Committees of a horizontal nature is provided by the General 
Secretariat of the Council of the EU.The Secretariat for the Technical and Management Committees is provided 
by the CEC. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (25) Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, 
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,. Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION There are four basic principles underlying COST mechanisms: 1 All 
COST member countries, as well as the CEC, can propose COST Actions. 2 Participation in these Actions is 
voluntary. 3 The research to be coordinated is funded nationally. Coordination costs are funded both by the 
participating countries and by the CEC. 4 The cooperation takes the form of "concerted actions", which is the 
coordination of national research projects. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To provide a framework for R&D co-operation, allowing for the coordination of. 
national research on a European level. COST Actions consist of precompetitive or basic research or activities of 
public utility. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Multiple. There are currently over 100 COST Actions in progress. COST Actions at 
present exist in: informatics, telecommunications, transport, oceanography, materials, environment, 
meteorology, agriculture and biotechnology, food technology, social sciences, medical research, civil 
engineering, chemistry, forests and forestry products, fluid dynamics. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION Any COST country can join any Action by signing a "Memorandum of 
Understanding", which is the legal basis of the Action even though it in fact ressembles a "gentleman's 
agreement" and an is expression of good faith rather than a formal and legally binding document. This MoU 
governs the joint aims, the type of activity to be pursued, the terms of participation and compliance with both 
sovereignty and if necessary, intellectual property rights. The signature of the MoU by at least 5 participating 
countries enables the entry into force of the Action. Research is nationally funded, whilst Community funding 
covers the coordination costs, and the CEC also reimburses the travel costs of the national delegates of the EC 
countries acting as members of the COST Management Committees. Each national delegate has a role of 
coordinator for that Action in his/her own country, and is in particular responsible for the distribution of 
information. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Each Action is overseen by a Management Committee composed of experts 
in the field, representing the countries participating in that Action. The Management Committee is responsible 
for the detailed planning, execution and supervision of the work carried out during an Action, lasting 5 years on 
average. Technical Coininittecs may also be set up by the CSO for a limited period (1-3 years) to provide expert 
advice within (currently 8) given S&T domains. 
A7 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) SITE Heidelberg, Germany (HQ) 
EXPENDITURE 7.9 MECU (approx. 1994) PERSONNEL 3 (1994, administration) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The EMBO is a private organisation of individual scientist members, 
registered in Geneva as an incorporated association under provisions of Article 60 and the following, of the 
Swiss Civil Code. The European Molecular Biology Conference from which it receives its funding was 
established by an intergovernmental agreement signed in 1969. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (20) Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 
Turkey, U.K. The EMBO has over 700 ordinary members, and 31 associate members. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Contributions to EMBC are set every three years on a scale which sets 
each countries percentage contribution. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To promote molecular biology within the Member Nations. This is done through 
the award, of short and long term fellowships, and the organisation of exchanges, courses and workshops. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Molecular Biology 
TYPES OF COOPERATION The long-term fellowship programme consumes approximately two-thirds of the 
annual budget. It is intended for advanced training through research, and facilitates this through the provision of 
an annual stipend, an allowance for each dependent, and a travel grant, for fellowships lasting from one to two 
years. Selection of long-term fellows is made twice-yearly, and in 1988 131 awards were made in response to 
455 applications. There is also a short-term fellowship programme aimed at facilitating collaborative projects, 
between laboratories in the different Member States of the EMBC. These are awardedfor I week - 3 months, 
and provide a daily subsistence allowance and a travel grant. The programme of courses and workshops was 
part of the original programme for EMBO, and now approximately 18 workshops per year are sponsored, along 
with a similar number of practical courses and a few lecture courses. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The EMBC meets twice a year in Heidelberg, and is made up of delegates 
representing the governments of Member States. It sets the three-year financial ceiling, votes the annual budgets 
and approves every 3 years the scale of contributions which sets each country's percentage contribution. The 
EMBO Council comprises ten elected and five coopted members and meets annually, usually in Heidelberg. It 
decides policy matters and can amend the Organization's rules. It co-opts annually two Council members, and 
also appoints personnel to senior executive positions within the Organisation. It scrutinizes the list of candidates 
nominated by the membership for each annual membership election and decides the number to be elected, and 
directly appoints to the membership no more than ten of the candidates who are from either EMBC countries or 
scientific areas that are poorly represented in the membership. There are two important EMBO Executive 
Committees that both meet bi-annually: The Course Committee and the Fund (Fellowship) Committee. The 
EMBO Secretariat is constituted by the Secretary General and the Executive Secretary. The daily business, both 
scientific and financial, is managed by the Executive Secretariat and two secretaries, with offices in the EMBL 
at Heidelberg. The Executive Secretary is responsible for the papers and minutes of the Conference's meetings, 
for proposing the annual budgets and for calling up financial contributions from the Member States. 
A8 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) SITE Grenoble, France 
EXPENDITURE 68.8 MECU (1993, Estimated) PERSONNEL 280 (approximate) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The ESRF has the status of a société civile under French law. It is 
governed by an intergovernmental agreement between scientific organisations within the Member Nations. It is 
only now beginning to enter its operational phase. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (12) There are twelve nations who participate as eight members. The individual 
contracting nations are France, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain and Switzerland. The remaining countries 
participate as two consortia. The first, BENESYNC, represents Belgium and The Netherlands. The second, 
NORDSYNC, represents Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION When registered as a société civile 10,000 shares of 10FF each were 
issued and distributed amongst the Members according to their contribution to operating costs. There is a 
minimum contribution rate of 4%. Contribution rates were originally fixed for 20 years, with an 11 year budget 
profile which was meant to take the project to the end of the construction phase. Contributions once operation 
have been achieved are: France, 27.5%; Germany, 25.5%; Italy, 155&; UK, 14%; BENESYNC, 6%; 
NORDSYNC, Switzerland and Spain, 4%. These figures do not correspond to contributions during the 
construction phase. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To construct and operate a state-of-the-art high energy (6GeV) synchrotron with 30 
x-ray beamlines for multi-disciplinary experiments. As such,it is set up as a user-oriented service facility. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES The ESRF is optimised to the continual production of hard X-rays that can be used 
for a whole variety of purposes. Examples oÇ applicable fields are Chemistry, Physics, Material Science, 
Biology and Medicine. There is also a theory group, and supporting instrumentation and computing divisions. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION 30 public beam-lines have been envisaged, and these will all be available for 
peer reviewed research by 1998. In addition, up to 20 bending magnet beamlines will be available to external 
Collaborating Research Groups (CRG) made up of groups or consortia from the participating countries. A third 
of thé beam-time on CRGs will be available for general ESRF users. The ESRF is planning for approximately 
3000 visitors per year by 1996, with each visitor staying for three or four days. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The principal external organ of the ESRF is the Council, which approves 
(amongst other important policy issues) arrangements for Iongterm use of ESRF by organisations from 
non-participating countries, financial -rules, medium-term scientific programme, annual budgets etc. Each 
Contracting Party appoints a delegation composed of up to three delegates. It meets at least twice a year, and is 
supported by several other committees: Administrative and Finance Committee, Purchasing Committee, Audit 
Committee, Science Advisory Committee and the Machine Advisory Committee. The internal structure consists 
of a Board of Directors and related central services, and five Divisions. The former consists of the Director 
General, who is the Chief Executive of the Facility, and is assisted by five Directors: the Project director, two 
Research Directors and the Director of Administration. The five Divisions are Experiments, Machine, Technical 
Services, Computing Services and Administration. In addition to this, there is a Works Committee and a 
Committee on Health, Safety and Working Conditions. 
A9 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME Institut Max von Laue-Paul Langevin (ILL) SITE Grenoble, France. 
EXPENDITURE 47 MECU (1993) PERSONNEL 382 (1993) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The ILL has the status of a société civile under French law. It was set 
up by scientific organisations of the three Member Countries according to the forms of an intergovernmental 
agreement. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (6) The Member Nations are France, Germany and the UK. The ILL has 
concluded special contracts of "scientific membership" with Austria, Spain and Switzerland. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION The three Member Countries share the operational costs between 
themselves, with the UK having re-negotiated a reduced commitment after 1.1.94. Scientific Members make a 
limited contribution to operational costs and in return receive access to the facility. There are three working 
languages - French, German and English. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES The ILL operates a 58MW High-Flux research reactor, used as a neutron source. 
As such, it is set up as a service institute, providing beam-time to its users with many experimental facilities for 
multidisciplinary applications. 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Nuclear and fundamental physics; crystal and magnetic structures; structural 
andmagnetic excitations; liquids, disorders and defects in materials; biology; chemistry. There are also groups 
concerned with- instrumentation design and operation, and computing. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION The ILL is operating 25 instruments. Research proposals are received from 
scientists within organisations in the Member and Scientific Member Nations, and allocated according to 
scientific merit, although the scientific administration tries to ensure that overall allocation of beam-time 
matches contributions. Budget constraints have meant that the ILL has surplus instruments. These are to be 
operated by Collaborating Research Groups from Member Countries, under a contract with ILL. The ILL hosts 
up to 2000 visitors in a normal year, and the average experiment lasted for approximately five/six days. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Externally, the ILL is overseen by a Steering Committee, upon which four 
delegates from each of the Member Nations sit. This is responsible for all major decisions, including the 
budget, personnel matters, the research programme and appointing the Director and other senior posts. There is 
also a Scientific Council. This has 18 members when it sits in Plenary Session, and subcommittees with 66 
members. Day-to-day responsibility for the facility lies with the Director, who is chosen from one of the 
member nations. The internal management consists of: the Director's Services (PR, Safety etc), the Science 
Division (Instrument groups, Scientific Colleges, library, Scientific Coordination), the Projects and Techniques 
Division (Instrument Operation and Development), the Reactor Division and the Administration Division. 
50 
FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS 
NAME European Science Foundation (ESF) SITE Strasbourg, France (HQ) 
EXPENDITURE 9.3 MECU (1994) PERSONNEL 28 (approx, 1994) 
ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The ESF was established in 1974, and is an Association of its 55 
member research councils, academies and other institutions devoted to scientific research in 20 countries. 
PARTICIPATING NATIONS (20) Member Organisations are drawn from: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, 
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK. 
CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Contributions are made both to the ESF's basic budgets, to which 
Member Organisations contribute according to GNP, and to specific programmes and projects in which certain 
Member Organisations may have a particular interest. 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES To bring European scientists together to work on topics of common concern, to 
co-ordinate the use of expensive facilities, and to discover and define new endeavours that will benefit from a 
co-operative approach; To sponsor basic research in the sciences! 
MAJOR S&T THEMES Many scientific programmes encompassing Earth and Marine Sciences, Physics, 
Chemistry, Mathematics, Life Sciences, Humanities, Social Sciences. 
TYPES OF COOPERATION ESF scientific work is organised in two modes: ESF Scientific Programmes, and 
ESF Scientific Networks. The former almost always contain teams of scientists who carry out research, are 
often long-term and are funded (except in the developmental phase) by participating Member Organisations. 
Networks discuss, plan, innovate, analyze or co-ordinate research, but seldom carry out large amounts of 
substantive research. They are usually short-term (three years), and are funded from the Network Account 
within the ESF basic budget. The ESF also jointly holds a Programme of European Research Conferences. 
These consist of a series of 1-week long scientific meetings on a general topic, spread over several years. The 
Chairman of each meeting has full responsibility for its scientific programme. 
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The Assembly is the main decision-making body, meets annually and all 
Member Organisations are represented. The Executive Councilis composed of the President and Vice-Presidents, 
along with at least one elected member from each country with Member Organisations, and from a range of 
disciplines. It is responsible for the management of the ESF, and also prepares the work of the Assembly etc. 
The Board ensures the continuity of ESF business between Executive Council meetings, and is made up of 
certain personnel from that body, along with the Secretary General. Standing committees cover broad scientific 
disciplines. Their members are nominated by Member Organisations, and other experts can be added. They 
monitor ESF activities in their respective fields, set up working groups for specific problems, and prepare 
proposals for research support. Standing Committees co-operate in supporting interdisciplinary studies and issues 
of general interest. The Network Committee advises the Executive Council on Network matters, and makes 
recommendations for Network launches. A Steering committee is responsible for overseeing the European 
Research Conferences, whilst other committees are formed as necessary. The Office of the ESF is based in 
Strasbourg, and is directed by the Secretary General, who is appointed by the Assembly and has a small 
international staff for assistance. 
51 
ANNEX A3 
Fact sheets on national RTD policies in the Member States 
52 
BELGIUM 
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP): ECU 179 995 million (1993) (at current prices and exchange rates) (c) 
GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 2 S6S million (1990) (c) 
GERD/GDP: 1.64% (1991) (c) 
R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 1.61% {19901 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: 28% (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FttJANCED BY INDUSTRY: 70.4% (1990) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 1 14S million (1993) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 0.2% (1992) (c) 
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 4.4 (1990) 
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T AND STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY 
At federal level: Ministry of Science Policy and Scientific and Cultural Institutions. Coordination of science policy is the responsibility of the Prime 
Minister's Federal Services for Science, Technology and Cultural Affairs (SSTC). which work closely with the main departments responsible for S&T 
(education, economic affairs, agriculture, health, etc). 
At regional and community level: 
In the Flemish-speaking Community the Chairman of the Government (as Minister responsible for science policy) is responsible for all S&T 
policy. 
In the French-speaking Community the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research is responsible for most R&D activities. 
In Wallonia the Ministry of Technological Development and Employment sees to the general coordination of the Executive's work on R&D. 
In the Brussels Region responsibility for R&D is shared by the Minister-Chairman of the Executive and the Minister for the Economy.' 
Federal coordination bodies: The Interdepartmental Conference on Science Policy (CIMPS) is the instrument for coordination between the authorities 
concerned (State, Regions and Communities). 
PRIORITIES 
At federal level: - maintaining and stepping up the country's scientific potential 
associating Belgian research more closely with the globalization of R&D 
At regional and community level: 
The Flemish Community is emphasizing increased public spending on R&D, better conditions for post-doctorate researchers, mobility of 
researchers and the conversion of university research findings into technology for use in industry. 
The French Community is placing particular emphasis on increased human resources and research potential. 
In Wallonia the aim is to increase the technological know-how of regional businesses and to promote dialogue between businesses, public 
authorities and universities. 
TRENDS: Provisional estimates suggest that GERD has remained1 at around 1.69% of GDP since 1989, which is well below the EUR12 average 
(1.96% in 1991). 
COMMENTS: Belgium's new federal structure (created by the 1980,1988 and 1993 reforms) gives the Communities the main responsibility for basic 
and university research, while the Regions are mainly responsible for supporting industrial and technological research. The federal authorities are 
still responsible for the national research establishments, space research, the nuclear field and Belgian participation in international research bodies. 
Data sources: National sources; OECD MSTÎ (1994-1) May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat. 
(c) Estimate. 
21/9/1994 
53 
ptyNMAKK 
CROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (OnP) ; 117,486 Mio ECU (1993) 
(at current prices and exchanges rates) 
CROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE FOR Rftp (GF.RD) : 1,787 Mio !£CU ( 1991 ) 
GERD/GPP : 1.(19% (1991) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 39,7 % (1991) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED DY INDUSTRY : 51.4 % (1991) 
GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 738 Mio ECU (1992) 
DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D :. 0.6 % (1992) 
NUMBER SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED ON R&D 
PER IQQQ LABOUR FORCE : 4.1(1991) 
RESPONSIBLE MINISTRIES FOR S&T : The Ministry of Research and Technology and the Ministry of Industry. 
STRUCTURE of S&T POLICY : 
Each Ministry has responsibility for supporting research related to its function. Currently 17 ministries administrate the 738 
Mio ECU R&D budget. Coordination takes place in the Interniinisterial Research and Technology Committee (DIFT) chaired 
by the Ministry of Research and Technology. The Danish Council for Research Policy and the 6 Research Councils advise 
the Parliament and the Government in research policy. The Danish Council for Research Policy is mainly responsible for 
research across sectorial boundaries: The Councils are supplemented by the Industry and Trade Development Council under 
the Minister of Industry. The overwhelming parts of the total R&D budget come from the Ministries of Education 37 %, 
Research and Technology 22 %, Agriculture 9 %, Industry 7 %, Cultural Affairs 6 %, and Health 4 % (1994 figures). 
The establishment of the Ministry of Research and Technology in 1993 was an innovation for Denmark. As a consequence, 
the responsibility of the National Laboratory RISO went from the Ministry of Energy tb this new ministry. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES : 
In general, the balance between basic research and strategic research must be maintained. The political task is the stimulation 
of research in areas where Denmark has already particular strength compared with other countries. 
- Food technology (F0TEK) is an interministerial programme (1990-95) that concentrates on quality, optimal exploitation 
of raw material and processing but it also is an element in the government job-creating measures. 
- In Materials technology the MUP II will be initiated in 1994. With grants of about 40 Mio ECU, it should also contribute 
to the job-creating policy. 
- The Environment Research (40 Mio ECU for 1996-97) is established as a 7 ministries cooperation. The placing of the 
European Environmental Agency in Denmark will put an additional impetus on the research in this field. 
- The Energy Research (66 Mio ECU per year) should support the formulation of the future energy policy. Major elements 
are power-saving technologies, integrated management of total household energy consumption and the Biomass Action Plan. 
- Biotechnology is centred around the programmes BIOTEK I/II and covers the period 1988-95; within BIOTEK I the 
technology assessment (3 Mio ECU) takes place. 
- Research on Elderly and Technology for Disabled has its tradition in DK and has been given priority by several Research 
Councils. In this field, research cooperation with the EC programmes on ncuroscicnce and TIDE is foreseen. 
TRENDS : After ten years of steady growth, the Danish R&D efforts arc now stabilized at a level with those countries 
normally compared with Denmark. Emphasis will be put on increased quality and productivity and intensified application of 
research. 
COMMENTS : International cooperation has gained importance and accounted in 1989 for about 9% of Government R&D 
funds. During the period 1990-93 these R&D funds will increase by 15 % (mainly for E$A, CERN and EUREKA). Denmark 
endeavours to have the EC programmes designed to complement and extend the national research. It received for many years 
more than 3 % of the EC research. The same percentage of the 1990-94 Framework Programme would amount to 3 % or 
4% of die country's total R&D efforts. Denmark's contribution to the EC budget is about 2 % . 
20/09/1994 
Source : OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994; Exchange rates arc from Eurostat. Manpower estimates from OECD 
database. 
54 
FEDERAI, REPU»! JC Q*r GERMANY 
CROSS noMi-snc PKODUClfGDi») : I 59<S 993 Mio ECU (1993) 
(at current prices and exchange rales) 
CROSS DOMl-SnC IvXrWDlTURE for R&D (C.\-im\ • 37 578 Mio ECU (1992) 
GERD/GDP : 2.53% (1992) 
"GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIAUONS FOR R&D AS % 
OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET : 4.31 %( 1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 37.4 %( 1992) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY ttJDUSTRY : 593 % (1992) ) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 15 265 Mio ECU (1992) 
DEFENCE R&D BIJDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 10.5 % (1992) 
NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED ON R&D 
PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE: 6 (1990) 
RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T : 
The Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT) and the corresponding Ministries in the Lander. 
STRUCTURE of S&T POLICY : 
The Federal and the Lander Governments attach importance to the freedom of research and the principles of "subsidiary 
funding". The Lander have (16.1 % of 1992 total R&D) mainly the responsibility for R & D in the universities; the 
Federal Government (22.1 % of 1992 total) is responsible for non-university R&D. The funding of the supporting bodies 
(DFG, MPG, FhG) and the national research centres is shared between the Federal and the Lander Governments. The ' 
Government believes that in a free-market economy the primary responsibility for R&D and innovation is that of industry 
(59.5 % of the 1992 total R&D funding). The general tax reform of 1990 should create attractive conditions for the 
industry. There are no tax incentives for R&D, at present. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES : 
- the reconstitution and completion of the research system in the New Bundeslander, 
- to assure the high level of basic research (20% of the total R&D expenditure), 
- promotion of strategic technologies in the precompetitive field (in particular information technologies, miniaturisation 
of electronic and mechanical systems, biotechnology, research on advanced material, research for traffic, energy, and 
concentration on interdisciplinary research). 
- improvement of the innovation capabilities of SMEs, 
- continuation of preventive research (in particular ecology, health and social problems, space and polar research), 
- strengthening of the international cooperation in RTD, 
- continuation of the public long-term programmes (fusion and space research). 
TRENDS : The business sector's contribution to global R&D expenditure decreased from 70.1 % in 1987 to 65.6 % in 
1990 and 59.5% in 1992, but is stilHiigh among the EC Member Slates. 
COMMl-NTS : For international cooperation in R&D about 1500 Mio ECU arc spent abroad. German industry participates 
in 191 of 599 EUREKA projects (as of February 1993). Current discussions turn around the question whether Germany is 
an advantageous place for the industry and to what extent RTD policy can contribute to this situation. In this context a 
strategic circle with 14 high level personalities has been set up. Its jwiticular task is the analysis of the efficiency .of RTD 
and the application of the results (strengthening the interface Research-Industry). After the tax related measures (the R&D 
Investment Allowance and the Special R&D depreciation) have been phased out at the end of 1989, a new debate has 
started on the implementation of fiscal measures focusing in particular on SMEs. 
Data Sources : ^National Sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994 
'REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROSTAT. 
55 20/09/1994 
GREECE 
GROSS IX>MI5STIC PRODUCT fODPl: ECU 63 780 million (1993) 
GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D fGERD): ECU 267 million (1991) 
GERD/GDP: 0.46% (1991) 
R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 0.57% (1992) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: 58% (1991) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 22% (1991) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 163 million (1992) (provisional) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 1.5% (1992) (provisional) 
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 1.5 (1991) 
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T: General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), an autonomous body within the Ministry of Trade, 
Industry, Energy and Technology. The Ministry of Education is responsible for universities. 
STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: Each ministry is responsible for the research within its field. The Ministry of Trade, Industry, Energy and 
Technology (GSRT) and the Ministry of Education provide 31.1 % and 47.7% respectively of all state expenditure on R&D. The GSRT coordinates 
R&D efforts between the different ministries, research institutes, businesses, universities and international organizations. ' 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: These are based on the strategic elements of the RTD operational programme (EPET U) of the CSF for Greece (1994-99) 
and were consolidated by the new government formed after the elections of 10 October 1993. The aim is: 
to make Greek industry more competitive through RTD projects in sectors of major economic interest, enhance the development of industrial 
research, technology transfer and the innovation system; 
to improve and supplement research infrastructures, especially for strategic technologies and along geographical axes (north and south); 
to encourage technology training and S&T education; 
to create mechanisms for the development of programmes and technology and studies in support of policy choices. 
TRENDS: GERD expressed as a percentage of GDP has been improving constantly, rising from 0.21 % in 1981 to 0.46%.in 1991. The goal is to 
reach 1% by the year 2000. 
COMMENTS: Greece has become much more involved in EEC programmes in recent years. 
Data sources: National sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat. 
21/9/1994 
56 
SPAIN 
GROSS 1X)MEST1C PRODUCT (GDP): ECU 439 542 million (1993) 
GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 3 719 million (1993) 
GERD/GDP: 0.85% (1993) 
R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 2.38% (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: 4S.7% (1991) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 48.1% (1991) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 2 066 million (1993) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 11.9% (1993) 
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 2.6 (1991) 
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T: The Interdepartmental Committee on Science and Technology (CICYT), made up of representatives of the 
11 ministries involved in research, is the official body responsible for planning, coordinating and monitoring national S&T policy. 
STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: The S&T activities of the 11 ministries involved in research are coordinated by the Interdepartmental Committee 
and are integrated into the national plan. Spain's autonomous regions have the option of adopting and implementing their own S&T policies. Efforts 
have been made to coordinate these activities at national level. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: The National R&D Plan (1988-91) included two types of programme: 
national programmes (20 in all) with three priority areas: communication and production technologies (robotics, space research, 
microelectronics, new materials), natural resources and Quality of life (biotechnology, pharmaceuticals sector, health, agriculture, forestry, 
aquaculture, etc.) and socic-cultural studies (conservation of historical heritage, socio-cukural studies on Latin America, etc.); 
horizontal and special programmes (training of research personnel, high-energy physics, Antarctica, etc.). 
The second phase of the National R&D Plan (1992-95) has the same priorities, the main changes being in the concentration of programmes (15 instead 
of 25) and the introduction of a new type of project (integrated projects) in support of R&D activities involving several fields of technology. 
COMMUNITY SUPPORT FRAMEWORK: The R&D activities in the second Community support framework (1994-99) aim at strengthening S&T 
infrastructure, technology transfer, training for researchers and R&D staff and support for technological innovation by companies. They will be 
implemented by means of regional and multiregional operational programmes. 
TRENDS: In Spain, GERD expressed as a percentage of GDP rose from 0.4% in 1981 to. 0.87% in 1991. In 1992 it fell to 0.86% and in 1993 to 
0.85 %. In absolute terms GERD rose by 20% between 1988 and 1989. This increase fell off sharply in 1991, when the average annual rate of growth 
was 5.3%, and in 1992, when it was -0.3%. 
Nonetheless, the Spanish Government is determined to bring the national R&D effort up to a level comparable with that found in other advanced 
European countries, and in a balanced manner. 
Data sources: National sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat. 
21/9/1994 
57 
FRANCE 
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP): ECU 1 076 534 million (1993) (at current prices and exchange rates) 
GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 23 790 million (1992) (c) 
GERD/GDP: 2.36% (1992) 
R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 5.99% (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: 49.8% (1991) (c) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 42.5% (1991) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 14 634 million (1993) (provisional) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 36.3% (1993) 
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 5.2 (1991) 
MINISTRY RESPONSABLE FOR S&T: The Ministry of Higher Education and Research (MESR), set up in April 1993, is responsible for S&T policy 
in France. 
STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: In parallel or in cooperation with the MESR, oilier ministerial departments also play an important role in the 
stimulation of scientific and technical activities; these include the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, the Ministry 
of Foreign Trade, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Defence. Research is evaluated mainly by the National Council of Research 
Evaluation (CNER). The Science and Technology Council (CSRT) is a body for broadbased consultations and dialogue on S&T policy. The Strategy 
Committee to be set up in November 1994 will strengthen S&T strategy-making. The Science and Technology Observatory (OST), set up in 1990, 
produces and disseminates indicators describing French S&T activity in its regional, national and international context. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: The 1995 civil R&D budget has the following priorities: 
medical and biological research; 
civil aviation; 
scientific employment and training through research. 
Other priorities include research into 
agriculture and food; 
the environment; 
urban planning; 
transport; 
meteorology. 
Great importance is still attached to international S&T cooperation, especially with the East. France remains a major contributor to European 
technological programmes and to the European Space Agency. 
TRENDS: Over the last 12 years R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP has risen from 2.01% (1981) to 2.36% (1992) with an average annual 
growtli rate of 4.3% between 1981 and 1991. However, 1990 saw a stabilization after almost a decade of growth. The increase in the 1995 civil R&D 
budget was 3.5%, which is significantly less than the increases of 1981-90. 
COMMENTS: A policy report on the national consultations on the major objectives of French research launched in September 1993 was 
submitted to Parliament in June 1994. The main aim of these consultations was to determine the broad thrust of S&T policy 
in the years ahead, consider the career patterns and mobility of researchers and teachers and determine the role and evolution 
of research bodies. 
Alongside this national consultation, the MESR launched a survey of technology prospects to assess the technical scenarios which 
could constitute the basis of future technological developments. 
Data sources: National sources; OECD MFSI (1994-1) May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat. 
(c) Estimate. 
27/9/1994 
58 
IRELAND 
GROSS lX)Miyne PRODUCT (Onn 37 733 Mio ECU( 1993) 
GROSS DOMI-STIC I-XHJNDITURE FOR R&D (GERD) 413 Mio ECU (1992) 
GERD/GDP 1.1% (1992) 
GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 
AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT El 1DGFT 1.08 % (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVFRNMENT 23% (1992) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY 65 % (1992) 
GOVERNMENT APPRÔPRATIONS BUDGET FOR R&D 170 Mio ECU (1993) 
DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL C.OVERNMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 0 % (.1994) 
NUMBER OF SCTENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED 
ON R&D PER 100 LABOUR FORCE 4.1 % (1991) 
RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR s&T : The Office of Science and Technology within the Department of 
Employment and Enterprise (DEE) is responsible for coordinating S&T issues across Government. 
STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF s&T POLICY : The agency structure responsible for disbursing 
funding for S&T to industry and academe has recently been reorganized as a result of the Culliton 
report on industrial policy. FORBAERT replaces EOLAS as the principal funding agency although 
some research (such as biomedical research) is still funded through the ministry concerned 
FORBATJRT although much closer to industry than academe administers research grants (circa 
£ 1.2 M for 1994) and funds applied research through the Programmes on Advanced Technology 
(PATs, circa £ 11 M for 1994 of which approximate 75% comes from EU Structural Funds). 
S&T policy is currently being reviewed by a recently inaugurated Science Technology and 
Innovation Council which is due to report by the end of 1994. This Council, set up partly in 
response to an outcry from the research community following a funding moritorium in 1993, will 
consider inter alia research funding levels, the balance between basic and applied research, in 
preparation for a S&T White Paper. The European Commission has been invited to comment on 
this exercise and provide insight into areas such as the balance between basic and applied research 
and the process of priority setting. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES : Will be revised in the light of the forthcoming White Paper but currently 
include PATs on biotechnology, materials, optoelectronics, advanced manufacturing, and polymers. 
TRENDS : The trends for 1993 were distinctly away from basic research towards applied research 
and development although overall budgets for RDT were depressed. The current signs are for a 
sliglit reversal of these trends. The meclianisms for coordinating S&T policy are also under review 
and responsibility for the Office of Science and Technology might be transferred from the 
(industry based) DEE to the Department of the Taoiseach (cabinet office) 
21/09/1994 
Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MSTl (1994-1) May 1994 
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROSTAT 
59 
nvvLY 
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDPV 814 065 IVSo ECU (1993) 
GROSS DOMESMC EXPENDITURE FOR R&DfGERDV 11 402 Ivio ECU (1993) 
GERD/GDP: 1.40% (1993) 
GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 
AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNEMENT BUDGET : 139% (1993) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 48.3% (1993) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 46.6% (1993) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 6 422 Mio ECU (1993) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 6.50% (1993) 
NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS ENGAGED 
ON R&D PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE : 3.1(1991) 
RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T: Ministry of Universities and Scientific and Technological Research 
(MURST) 
STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: MURST defines priorities, oversees the University system as a whole, 
supervises the public research establishments and manages some of the instruments for directing and supporting 
industrial research 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: Between 1990 and 1993 government R&D funding was shifted from technological 
objectivies (from 33 to 28 per cent of total) to university research (from 30 to 38 per cent). 
The main fields which have been financed in the last years (public and private sector) are: 
- electronics 
- transport (spacecraft) 
- telecommunications 
- chemistry 
- physics 
- environment 
- biotechnology 
- biomedicine 
- bioinstruments 
TRENDS: GERD in 1993 has not changed substantially. The R&D expenditure in the public sector has been 
42.9%; it includes public research establishment, public administrations and universities. Financial support is 
increasing for: SME (enterprises with less than 200 employes and less than 20 billion liras of invested capital), 
consortia which pcrfonn various activities and to Science aid Technological Paies, all over the Country. More 
emphasis has been given to qjplied research. 
COMMENT: It is particularly urgent to reduce the gap between Northern and Soutlicm Italy. Since nviny public funds have been 
reduced or cut to Southern, the private sector, expecially of SME, must be puslrcd lo invest in R&D. 
21/09/94 
Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994 
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROST AT. 
60 
LUXEMBOURG 
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT fGDPl: ECU 6.910 million (1990) (at current prices and exchange rates) (c) 
GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (CERD1: ECU 141 million (1990) (c) (I) 
GERD/GDP: 2.04% (1990) (c) (1) 
R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: Not available. 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: Not available. 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 94.6% (1990) (c) (I) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 7.3 million (1990) (c) (1) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: Not available. 
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 4.3 (1990) (e) (1) 
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T: Ministry of Education. 
STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: Interdepartmental Committee on the coordination of scientific research and technological development. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: 
There arc two main objectives: 
to create an environment favourable to innovative research initiatives by businesses; . 
to encourage more particularly the innovative effort of small businesses by creating centres of competence in areas where Luxembourg is on 
a par with other countries. 
These objectives will be attained inter alia by: 
the creation of Public Research Centres (CRP), which will carry out R&D activities with partial state funding; 
the introduction of a system of aid for R&D carried out in businesses; 
the transfer of research results from the CRPs to businesses. 
TRENDS: Overall R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP is above the EUR12 average, i.e. around 2.04% in 1990. Budget allocations for R&D, 
though modest (ECU 7. S million in 1990) in relation to GERD, are continuing to rise. 
COMMENTS: Two businesses in the chemicals-related and steel sectors account for almost 86% of R&D expenditure in Luxembourg. Outside these 
two sectors, 6% of R&D expenditure is accounted for by the metal processing sector. Following the law of March 1987, three CRPs are already 
operational. The Luxembourg authorities have now started gathering regular data on R&D activities in the Grand Duchy. 
(e) Estimate. 
(1) Source:' EC study on R&D potential in the Grand Duchy. 
29/9/1994 
Ô.1 
THE NETHERLANDS 
CROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) : 262 740 Mio ECU (1993) 
(at current prices and exchange rales) 
GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE FOR R&D (GERD) : 4 475 Mio ECU (1991) 
GERD/GDP : 1.92 % (1991) [1.96% (1992)(I)] 
GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 
AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET : 2.7 % (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 44.9 % (1991) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY : 51.2 % (1991) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 2 173 Mio ECU (1994) 
DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 3.4 % (1994) 
NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED 
ON R&D PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE : 3.8(1991) 
RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T : The Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs. 
STRUCTURE of S&T POLICY : Decision making is based on a broadly structured network of advisory bodies. 
S&T Policy is prepared by the Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT), chaired by the Prime 
Minister within which the Minister of Education and Science acts as coordinating minister for science policy 
and the Minister of Economic Affairs as coordinating minister for technology. The public R&D funds are 
administered by the Ministry of Education and Science (55 %), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (19 %), and 
the other Ministries (26 %). In the business sector the five multinationals funded roughly 80% of the research 
(as of 1990). 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES : Amongst the development of new knowledge, its dissemination through a network 
of 18 regional innovation centres mainly to SMEs is still a top issue. Increasing importance is given to 
vocational education, as the availability of well-trained staff is considered as crucial particularly in the 
international context. The interaction between technology and the social environment has recently become a new 
pillar in S/T policy. 
The industrial oriented technology programmes to support medium-term economic growth concentrate on : 
materials technology, biotechnology and information technology. Long-term strategic research will concentrate 
on multidisciplinary research, environmental research and energy research and will be backed up with intensive 
foresight studies and under the consideration of ongoing internationalisation in S/T. 
TRENDS : The GERD as percentage of GDP strongly increased in the 1984-87 catch-up period but has slightly 
been decreasing over the last few years. This could be explained by a stagnation of R&D in the public sector. 
The business sector decreased its contribution to GERD from 55.9 % in 1990 to 51.2 % in 1991. 
COMMENTS : The "Internationalisation of Education and Research" is a major issue in the Dutch S&T policy. 
Major projects in the international context arc the EUREKA projects JESSl and COSINE. 
20/09/1994 
Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MST1 (1994-1) May 1994 
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES, EUROST AT. 
(I) Wctcnschapsbudgct 1993 
62 
PORTUGAL 
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP): ECU 66.956 million (1993) 
GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 288 million (1990) 
GERD/GDP: 0.61% (1990) 
R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 1.15% (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE : 61.8% (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 27% (1990) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 327 million (1993) 
DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 0.4% (1993) 
NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 1.2 (1990) 
STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: Since 1986 and particularly since the establishment of the Science and Technology Council there liave been important 
changes in Portugal's system of science and technology. The JNICT is the main body responsible for planning, policy and overall coordination, and 
also has to prepare the R&D budget (see directory). 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: The sectoral guidelines for the medium term set out in the Multiannual Plan of Scientific Research and Technological 
Development for the 1990s are as follows: 
stepping up national participation in international research in basic areas of science (including the exact sciences, biology and biomedicine); 
developing Portugal's capacity to participate selectively in European programmes concerning the new information and telecommunications 
technologies; 
developing national R&D capacity in technologies (energy production, new materials, biotechnology, etc.) which can help modernize traditional 
industrial sectors; 
stepping up national research capacity in earth, marine and tropical sciences; 
guiding the development of social and human sciences. 
PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY RTD ACTTVrnES: Portugal's participation is modest; since 1987 Portugal has participated in 728 projects, 
mainly in the following areas: 
modernization of industrial sectors 
human capital 
non-nuclear energy 
agro-industry and biotechnology 
marine sciences. 
COMMUNITY SUPPORT FRAMEWORK: The R&D activities proposed under the Community Support Framework (1994-99) tookaccount of national 
strategic guidelines, aiming to enhance the infrastructure for research and technological development, to train researchers and to promote the 
technological capacity of businesses. PRAXIS (ECU 376 million from EC), devoted entirely to strengthening Portugal's science and technology system, 
and PEDIPII to modernize Portuguese industry (ECU 220 million for RTD from EC) are the most important operational programmes in this sector. 
TRENDS: R&D expenditure has risen consistently in recent years, the aim being that the figure should shortly reach 1 % of GDP. The main players 
in the S&T system have become the universities and the non-profit-making private associations, which have benefited greatly from the Structural Funds. 
Data Sources: National sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat. 
21/9/1994 
63 
UNITE!) KINGDOM 
GROSS mMiisnc PRODUCiVGDPi 773 000 Mio ECU (1993) 
CROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE TOR R&l) (GERD) 17 800 Mio ECU (1992) 
GERD/GDP : 2.12% (1992) 
GOVERNMENT BUDGET An*ROPRlATIONS FOR R&D 
AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET 3.01 % (1990) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT 35.4 % (1992) 
PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY 49.7 % (1992) 
TOTAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 6 803 Mio ECU (1993) 
DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 45 % (1993) 
NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED 
ON R&D PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE 4.5 (1991) 
RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T : The Office of Science and Technology (OST), under direct Cabinet 
Minister control, coordinates S&T issues across Government and has responsibility for the six Research 
Councils. Other key Government bodies are : the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Department 
of Education (DFE), die Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries 
(MÀFF). 
STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF S&T POLICY : Higher education institute (HEI) funding is channelled 
primarily through the Research Councils. Separate funding related to HEI performance is provided by the 
DFEs Higher Education Funding Councils. A new Research Council structure came into being on 1st April 
1994 with stronger links to Central Government (via an OST based Director General) and with greater 
emphasis on wealtli creation. Otlier Government Department Laboratories (e.g. those of DTI, MOD, MAFF, 
...), and the scientific institutions of the Research Councils themselves, are currently being scrutini2»d with a 
view to possible privatisation or "rationalisation". S&T support to industry, especially SMEs, through the 
DTI now concentrates on technology transfer, consultancies, standards, awareness, best practice, and has 
moved away from supporting the generation of technology. 
NATIONAL PRIORITIES : Following the publication of the White Paper a Technology Foresiglit Programme was 
launched to identify priority market/technology sectors of most relevance to (industrial) users and to assist 
the formulation of Government S&T policy. 15 broad areas have been identified for further analysis : 
agriculture natural resources and environment, chemicals, communications, construction, defence and 
aerospace, energy, financial services, food and drink, health and life sciences, information technologies and 
electronics, leisure and education, materials, manufacturing production and business processes, retail and 
distribution, and transport. 
TRENDS : Government R&D expenditure is forecast to fall progressively in real terms from 6 800 Mio ECU 
(FY92/93) to 6 020 Mio ECU (FY95/96; 1993 prices and exchange rates). Both civil and defence budgets 
R&D (current estimates for 93-94 : 3 620 Mio ECU and 2 980 Mio ECU respectively) are in decline. Witliin 
the civil R&D budget, cuts in civil department expenditure and higher education infrastructure expenditure 
will not be fully compensated for by a projected increase in Research Council spent for basic (though 
economically relevant) science. 
21/09/1994 
Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MSTl (1994-1) May 1994 
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROST AT 
64 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (94) 438 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 15 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-469-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-81219-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg