18.3.91 Official]ournal of the European Communities No C 69/33 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on a specific research and technological 
development (R&TD) programme in the field of nuclear fission safety (1990-1994) (l) 
(91/C 69/08) 
On 2 October 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 170 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 January 1991. The 
Rapporteur was Mr von der Decken. 
At its 283rd plenary session (meeting of 31 January 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously). 
The Committee regards research and development 
worlo on radiation protection and reactor safety as the 
inescapable duty of the EC Eor this reason it basically 
endorses the aims of and need for the research and 
development (Ro^D)programmes. It regards the proD 
posed funding of the programme as totally inadequate 
however. It will not be possible to implement the proD 
grammes properly on suchalowbudget,which should 
be increased accordingly. 
Eurthermore the Committee assumes that the reser 
vations and recommendations contained in the present 
Opinion will betaken into account in the final version 
of the programme. Phe reservations concern not only 
the totally inadequate funding, but also the lacl^ of 
any clear demarcation between the reactor safety subD 
programme and other EC Ro^D activities in this field 
and the linking of the two intrinsically unconnected 
subDprogrammes under the rubric ^nuclear fission 
safety. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The proposed programme on nuclear fission 
safety comes under the fifth line of action of the frame 
worl^ programme for Community activities in the field 
of research and technological development (1990199^) 
— .El^ERC^g—whose aim is ahe development of 
sound, environmentally safe energy technologies 
designed to improve the Community^senergy balance 
at reasonable expense within the large marl^etM^ 
1.2. Theproposedprogrammeconstitutesthesecond 
part of the fifth line of action. Aiore specifically it aims 
(i) to foster joint efforts designed to assist the member States in honouring their responsibilities for regulating 
andprotectingtheenvironment,(ii)tofosteraharmon^ 
izedapproach tosafety by bringing together all the 
parties involved, and (iii) to reinforce the prenormative 
dimension of research, inter alia in radiation protection 
and reactor safety. 
1.3. The proposed programme covers two separate 
areas.Total funding under the Community budget is 
estimated at ECU 37 million, broken down as follows^ 
a) Radiation protection 
b) Reactor safety 7879^ 
2122^ 
1.^. ECU 0,37 million are earmarked for the centraL 
ized dissemination and exploitation of the results of the 
specific and supplementary research programmes, in 
accordance with Article^ofthe Decision on the 1990^ 
199^ frameworlo programme. 
l.o. The new programme will be implemented 
through sharecost research contracts and concerted 
actions, including accompanying measures as set out in 
Anne^ 111 to the Decision. 
1.^. It should be noted that the new programme will 
be implemented in part through direct activities carried 
out by the Joint Research Centre (J^C). Such activities 
will be the subject ofaseparate Council Decision and 
will have an appropriation of ECU 1^2 million. 
1.7. The Commission proposal spells out the role 
andprocedureof the management and coordination 
committee which is to assist it in implementing the 
programme.The proposal also provides for^ 
t1) OJ No C 247, 2. 10. 1990, p. 2. 
(2) OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 40, point 5 'Energy'. — a review of the programme in 1992 (and if necessary 
proposals for amendment) and evaluation of the 
results achieved; these reports will be forwarded 
No C 69/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 3. 91 
to the Council and the European Parliament in 
accordance with Article 2(4) of Decision 90/221/ 
EEC/EURATOM, 
— the possibility of third countries and international 
organizations concluding agreements with the Com­
munity to cooperate on the programme. 
1.8. The management and coordination committee 
is covered by Articles 2 to 6 of Council Decision 84/ 
338/EURATOM/ECSC/EEC. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee regrets that the Commission has 
combined the two sub-programmes 'radiation protec­
tion' and 'reactor safety' in a single specific programme 
entitled 'nuclear fission safety'. The reasons it does not 
approve of this are as follows: 
2.2. There is virtually no direct connection between 
the research goals of these two sub-programmes, as 
evidenced by the need for two different management 
and coordination committees. 
2.3. The joint rubric which covers both sub-pro­
grammes, 'R&D in the field of nuclear fission safety', 
only adds to the terminological confusion already exist­
ing in this field as the central element in the programme, 
viz 'radiation protection', is concerned with radiation 
exposure from natural, medical and industrial sources 
rather than nuclear fission. 
2.4. The radiation protection sub-programme is the 
continuation of a long-running (since 1960), distinct, 
well-reputed and very important programme (see chap­
ter 3), which should not be concealed under a false new 
name 'nuclear fission safety'. 
2.5. The first sub-programme is concerned mainly 
with shared-cost research, the second with reinforcing 
concerted action. 
2.6. Similarly, the reactor safety sub-programme 
belongs with other R&D programmes on nuclear 
safety, including the WASTE, DECOMMISSIONING 
and TELEMANN programmes, and above all with 
major JRC research projects; it is not at all clear how 
this sub-programme slots in with the work of the JRC 
(see chapter 4). Nor is it clear how linking the two sub-
programmes in this way will affect the budget for 
radiation protection, which is already too small. 2.7. If it is no longer possible to separate the two 
sub-programmes, at least another joint title should be 
chosen, such as 'protection from ionizing radiation and 
specific aspects of reactor safety'. 
3. Comments on the radiation protection sub-pro­
gramme 
3.1. The Committee thoroughly endorses the targets, 
manner of implementation and review procedure of 
the multi-annual radiation protection programme. It is 
convinced that one of the EC's most important tasks is 
to carry out such programmes. The Committee has 
reiterated this in its various Opinions on this pro­
gramme, lastly on the 1990-1991 programme (1), stress­
ing above all that there was no justification for the 
progressive reduction in funding for this programme. 
3.2. In its assessment of the 1985-1989 programme, 
the management and coordination committee also 
pointed out that the reduction in the funding originally 
proposed by the Commission had resulted in: 
— several areas of research having to be cut back or 
even abandoned, with a resultant loss of expertise, 
— several research groups having to stop work, 
— insufficient young researchers working in radiation 
protection due to the lack of funds to train young 
scientists, 
— a lack of flexibility, so that the Commission had 
been unable to respond appropriately to the Cher­
nobyl accident by expanding or switching research 
projects. 
3.3. Because of the extra funds needed to tackle 
the current radiation protection problems caused by 
Chernobyl, only ECU 21,2 million remained for 1990-
1991, which represented a further drastic cut. 
3.4. The latest opinion of the Management and 
Coordination Committee underlines the view contained 
in the assessment report on the 1980-84 and 1985-89 
radiation protection research programme (report No 
37 EUR 12145 EN), namely that the Commission's 
original figure of ECU 90 million for 1990-1994 should 
be seen as the absolute minimum. 
3.5. The opinion of the management and coordi­
nation committee for radiation protection further 
(!) OJ No C 159, 26. 6. 1989, OJ No L 200,13. 7. 1989. 
18. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 69/35 
argued that the paucity of funding would make it 
difficult even to keep up with technical developments 
and to maintain a suitable training programme. 
3.6. The Committee can only endorse these views 
emphatically. The proposed sum of ECU 29 million for 
1992-1993 totally contradicts all previous statements by 
the Commission and by all the relevant expert commit­
tees; the Committee urges that it be changed. 
3.7. The Committee wonders how the programme 
review scheduled for 1992 can be used to safeguard 
funding for 1994. Previous experience leads the Com­
mittee to fear that once again the advice of all expert 
committees will be ignored and the radiation protection 
programme will ultimately fade into insignificance. 
3.8. The 'scientific objectives and content' of the 
specific programme as set out in the Annex reveal 
particularly clearly the incongruity between means and 
ends. The programme covers practically all the crucial 
research topics in the field of radiation protection and 
is evidently based on the assumption that the funds 
originally planned by the Commission are available, 
not merely a fraction of them. 
3.9. If the necessary funds cannot be obtained, the 
'scientific objectives and content' of the programme 
must be completely rethought, i.e. the very meagre 
funds concentrated on a few priority projects. Other­
wise the scant remaining funds will be dissipated over 
a multitude of individual projects. But such a limited 
programme would not be commensurate with the 
important tasks incumbent on the EC in this area. 
3.10. The Committee would point to the importance 
of international cooperation, particularly with the 
USSR (catchword Chernobyl). Again, however, an 
increase in the budget is needed—as pointed out 
in the opinion of the management and coordination 
committee—if the most is to be made of this oppor­
tunity. 
4. Comments on the reactor safety sub-programme 
4.1. The Committee is convinced that R&D work 
on nuclear fission safety is of supreme importance for 
the future and that the EC has a major role to play 
here. 4.2. Nowadays nuclear power is an important source 
of energy. It provides 35% of the Community's elec­
tricity, though this percentage varies considerably from 
one Member State to another. 
4.3. The constant improvement and standardization 
of safety is an important precondition for the future 
use of nuclear energy. It is also necessary if nuclear 
energy is to help ensure security of supply and, since it 
does not produce C02, to tackle the greenhouse effect. 
4.4. Nuclear power is an important energy source 
in the Community's eastern neighbours too, although 
safety technology in these countries is not as advanced 
as in the EC. An RBMK reactor such as that at Cherno­
byl would not have been licensed in the EC. The EC 
will have the important job of helping to improve 
reactor safety in these countries. 
4.5. For all these reasons, and because problems of 
reactor safety do not stop at national frontiers, research 
into nuclear fission safety is an important task for the 
Community. 
4.6. The present reactor safety sub-programme con­
stitutes only a small part of the EC's work in the 
field of nuclear fission safety, which also includes the 
WASTE, DECOMMISSIONING and TELEMANN 
programmes and major JRC activities. 
4.7. As no information is available on the ECU 162 
million (of which about one third for reactor safety) 
JRC programme for 1992-1994 (compared with ECU 8 
million) for 1991-1993 in this programme), the Commit­
tee is unable to analyze and evaluate the activities 
proposed in the present programmes. 
4.8. The allocation of ECU 8 million for two years 
is so small that it will hardly be possible to carry out 
shared-cost contracts on any scale, especially in this 
highly cost-intensive R&D field. The Committee there­
fore assumes, and considers it sensible, that the funds 
will basically be used for concerted actions and only 
exceptionally for shared-cost contracts to accompany 
the concerted actions. 
4.9. The Committee regards concerted actions in this 
field as very important in stimulating the requisite 
coordination both in Europe and wider afield. In par­
ticular they can help to bring about a consensus on 
international safety requirements and thus pave the way 
for international rules and standards. 
No C 69/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 3. 91 
5. Concluding comment 
5.1. Pursuant to Article 5 the Commission is to 
review the programme and submit a report on the 
results of this review to the Council and the European 
Parliament, together with proposals for any necessary 
changes. The Committee would point out that Article 
7 of the EURATOM Treaty provides that 'the 
Done at Brussels, 31 January 1991. 
1. Preliminary remarks 
1.1. The Community's generalized system of prefer­
ences (GSP) is a measure of trade policy (suspension of 
customs duties on imports into the Community) aimed 
at helping the developing countries. 
1.2. These preferences are non-discriminatory (they 
are granted to all developing countries) and auton­
omous (they do not result from any negotiations with 
the beneficiaries). Apart from certain restrictions for 
sensitive products, they apply to all finished and semi­
finished industrial goods as well as a number of agricul­
tural products. 
1.3. Decided within the United Nations Conference 
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the GSP has 
already been implemented for two ten-year periods 
(1971-1980 and 1981-1990) by the Community. The Commission shall keep the Economic and Social 
Committee informed of the broad outlines of Com­
munity research and training programmes'. This 
means that the Commission must send this report 
together with the proposed changes to the ESC. The 
same applies for the final report. Therefore, Article 
5 of the Commission proposal must be modified 
accordingly. 
preferences are adjusted annually and the Community 
also carried out a five-year adjustment in the middle of 
the 1980s. 
1.4. The Community now has to decide on the 
scheme it will apply for the next decade, given that the 
generalized preferences would start on 1 January 1992. 
So the Community, except for a few changes, will have 
to extent the present arrangements for 1990 to apply 
for 1991. 
2. The Commission's views 
2.1. When the GSP was introduced twenty years ago 
the situation was as follows: 
— the industrialized countries had relatively high levels 
of tariff protection, The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the generalized system of preferences: guidelines for the 1990s 
(91/C 69/09) 
On 27 July 1990 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, to draw up an Opinion on the generalized system of preferences: guidelines for 
the 1990s. 
The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 22 January 1991. 
The Rapporteur was Mr Liverani. 
At its 283rd plenary session (meeting of 30 January 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion.