29.12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/45 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) concerning the framework of 
Community activities in the field of research and technological development (1987 to 1991) 
(86/C 333/12) 
On 12 August 1986, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 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 7 November 1986 in the light 
of the Report by Mr Roseingrave. 
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 27 November 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
The Committee firmly believes that notwithstanding the observations set out below and 
which merit due attention being paid to them, the draft framework programme for 1987-
1991 represents an important step along the path to a veritable scientific and technological 
Community. 
If the programme is adopted as now presented by the Commission, it will be an expression 
of the political will which the Member States have repeatedly expressed and that most 
recently in the Single Act of December 1985, which dedicated a whole chapter to the 
construction of the technological Community. 
The Committee is convinced that the second framework programme should contribute to 
the strengthening of the scientific and technological foundations of European industry in the 
smaller countries as well as in the larger; it should help promote the international competitive­
ness of the Community, and so improve the living standards of its citizens and strengthen 
the Community's cohesion. 
The Committee believes, however, that the level of financial commitment proposed by the 
Commission for the period 1987-1991 must be seen as the absolute minimum to meet the 
political needs so solemnly expressed. 
The Committee strongly urges the Council therefore not to let short-term financial consider­
ations jeopardize action which is so crucial to the Community's future. 
1. The major objectives and strategy of Community 
research and technological development 
1.1. The strengthening of the scientific and techno­
logical basis of European industry and the development 
of its international competitiveness are major objectives 
of a research and technological development strategy, 
but in turn they constitute only one element in the 
development of a Europe which will be a better place 
for its citizens. This requires, as an essential, increased 
employment opportunities and an improved quality of 
life for the citizens of the Community. 
1.2. The Committee draws attention to its statement 
on the aims of Community R&D in paragraphs 2.4.1 
to 2.4.6 of its opinion on priorities for Community 
research (*). 
(*) OJN0CI60,1. 7.1985. 1.3. A broader concept of technological R&D is 
needed than is to be found in the Commission's pro­
posals, both to achieve goals of the European Com­
munity and because improved competitiveness and 
innovation depend on more than just the work of 
researchers. These goals will be achieved only if more 
attention is paid to such diverse elements as cultural 
and human factors in the commercialization of results, 
the legal instruments, market research and the inclusion 
of workers and their sectoral interest in the planning 
and implementation of R&TD and exploitation of its 
results. 
The Commission proposes, and the Committee 
endorses the need to have R&TD serve social develop­
ment—the social dialogue to occupy a special place in 
a programme for R&TD. The Commission, however, 
No C 333/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
fails to translate this commitment into practical pro­
posals in the eight activities of the programme. 
1.4. The social dimension of the European Com­
munity, the social impact of technological change, and 
the social potential of the new technologies should 
be given far greater weight in the new framework 
programme of Community activities in the field of 
-research and technological development. These social 
factors should be an essential component of the pro­
gramme and should be borne in mind in determining 
priority activities. The proposal does not emphasize 
sufficiently the link between R&D and the social dimen­
sions of technological change and consumer affairs. 
1.5. The European Community's economic and 
social cohesion, a second major objective of the new 
framework programme, will not be achieved unless 
there is specific and emphatic provision for achieving 
it. The limited attention to this in the proposal could 
lead to disparities increasing rather than decreasing. 
The basic approach governing the implementation of 
these measures ought to be that to achieve European 
unity, the economically weaker Member States must 
develop their technological research in such a way 
that their capacity approaches more nearly that of the 
stronger Member States. This should have been clearly 
spelt out in the Commission's guidelines for the second 
framework programme. 
1.6. An R&TD programme that makes competitive­
ness its sole objective is not sustainable in the short 
or medium term. Competitiveness, whilst obviously 
contributing to the economic well-being of the Euro­
pean Community through success on world markets, 
cannot be justified if it is at the expense of Europe's 
other primary concern—employment. 
The proposed second framework programme whilst 
making competitiveness the prime objective should 
qualify this by saying that through the application of 
the new technologies, it is hoped to satisfy new needs at 
marketable prices. This would help create employment. 
The main thrust of the first framework programme was 
to achieve competitiveness by keeping costs down and 
the emphasis was on process innovation as opposed to 
product innovation. 
1.7. In relation to EUREKA the Committee draws 
attention to the lengthy discussion in its information 
report of the section for energy, nuclear questions and 
research on 'New Technologies: European Community 
R&D' (CES 851/85) and to the conclusions reached 
therein: 
The ETC and EUREKA proposals must be reconcilied. 
Gne must be complementary to the other. The first indications are that there is a risk of overlap between 
them. Lack of adequate coordination in the organiza­
tion of European R&D could lead to the unfortunate 
result of EUREKA causing serious imbalances. 
The Committee emphasizes the potential of small and 
sectoral research institutes to innovate and create new 
products and processes. 
Whilst recognizing that the Community is already re­
presented by the Commission on the coordinating body 
of EUREKA, a more complete coordination between 
ETC and EUREKA is ensured by Commission partici­
pation in the functioning of the EUREKA Secretariat. 
The Commission should have full responsibility for 
coordinating all TRD actions at the European level. 
1.8. To achieve its objectives the Community strat­
egy be to: 
— make full use of the added value offered by a Com­
munity-wide coordinated Research and Technologi­
cal Development R&TD strategy; 
—- advance rapidly towards the completion of the inter­
nal market; 
— accelerate the innovation process that follows pre-
competitive research. 
1.9. The Committee endorses the advantages the 
Commission attributes to the added-value offered by 
the Community dimension such as: cost-sharing, 
spreading of scientific risks, attainment of critical size as 
regards financial or human resources, greater efficiency, 
ability to initiate further measures. 
1.10. The Community R&TD budget is modest 
compared to the aggregate R&TD budget of the Mem­
ber States (about 3% of the general budget of the 
Communities and 2,5% of total national public spend­
ing on R&D). This highlights four functions for a 
Community strategy in this field: 
— coordination of national R&D efforts; 
— stimulation of joint R&D; 
— dissemination of the results of R&D; 
— promotion of innovation. 
1.11. Two obstacles to innovation which are clear 
for all to see, and which should be removed immedi­
ately, are the absence of an easily obtainable Com­
munity patent and the paucity of Community stan­
dards. Other obstacles are more intractable, notably 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/47 
the reluctance of Member States to give up what they 
regard as national interests. 
1.12. It is very important to note that critical size 
in equipment and human resources no longer implies 
geographical location on a single site—the new infor­
mation and communication technologies make possible 
a concentration of effort in a centre of excellence com­
posed of researches and innovators operating in differ­
ent geographical locations. 
1.13. The Committee endorses the new orientation 
of the competition rules as they apply to R&D. The 
competition rules were drawn up at a time when the 
European economy was relatively closed. This is no 
longer so. Today Community firms are competing in 
the European domestic market with the US and 
Japanese giants. The competition rules have therefore 
been changed so as not to impede the development of 
Community giant companies able to compete with the 
US and Japanese giants. What point is there in collabor­
ating on R&TD if the formation of manufacturing and 
marketing associations is prevented? 
1.14. Slow and ineffective translation of results of 
R&TD into commercial products is a serious deficiency 
in EC industrial competitiveness. The Community must 
endeavour to reduce the period of time it takes to 
promote the utilization of the results of research. SMEs 
in particular should have the possibility of proposing 
demonstration projects which do not fall into developed 
Community programmes. 
2. R & TD Activities 
The Committee would endorse the 'criteria' which have 
served as a guide in the choice of the eight activities 
selected by the Commission for inclusion in the frame­
work programme, despite its concern however, about 
the contents of the activities themselves; they do not 
adequately reflect these criteria. 
2.1. Quality of life 
2.1.1. The objectives proposed for Community 
research under this heading are important and worth­
while. They are extremely limited however, and ignore 
on the one hand some basic problems of life in the 
Community and, on the other, neglect opportunities 
for R & TD to focus on new products and markets 
and thereby satisfy social needs. This is so in the fields 
of health and the environment, as well as in other fields 
of the quality of life activity. 
The approach adopted is seriously lacking since it 
omits, for example, such important areas as the increas­
ing problems of dependent persons in Europe like the long-term unemployed or the isolated elderly, the 
necessity to halt the deterioration of the quality of life 
in our inner cities, the emerging patterns of usage of 
non-working time due to technological development 
and the possibility of improving the quality of life 
through enabling people to help themselves by means 
of cooperation and participation in the development of 
their own neighbourhoods and local communities. 
By narrowing the scope of the quality of life activity, 
to the two fields of health and the environment, the 
Commission's proposal is thereby narrowing the poten­
tial of applying the results of R & TD to areas which 
could result in the production of new products and 
thereby create employment opportunities to satisfy new 
needs. Such a restriction in the scope of the quality of 
life activity is quite unacceptable since it will not call 
forth programmes for this essential activity of the 
framework programme. 
2.1.2. It will not be possible to meet the objective of 
the new framework programme (to affirm and defend 
the European model within which the social dialogue, 
living and working conditions and concern for the 
environment occupy a special place) unless the scope 
of this line of action is extended, and the objective 
borne in mind in all the other activities. 
2.1.3. R & TD Programme oriented towards quality 
of life should therefore be a source of new products 
and so of extended markets for Community industry 
within the Community and outside it. A broadening of 
the scope of this line is thus justified for its likely 
contribution to industrial development and thus 
increased employment. 
2.1.4. A research programme that will be overseen 
by the Commission's DG V (Employment, Social 
Affairs and Education) is to be welcomed. It should not 
be seen however as a factor limiting the scope given to 
this line of action in the new framework programme. 
2.1.5. The part of this line of action devoted to the 
environment should include research proposals con­
cerning the transnational problem of water pollution. 
It should also give greater emphasis to the efficient 
management of land and water so as to avoid ecological 
'disasters' such as the present desertification which is 
taking place in several areas of the Community. The 
approach of R & TD in this area of the environment 
should however be on a multi-dimensional basis 
because it is now clear (and the Commission endorses 
the view in its Directives in environment policy— 
COM(86) 76 final—19 February 1986) that such prob­
lems can no longer be solved merely on a sectoral 
No C 333/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
or national basis alone. Research and technological 
development should therefore be aimed at endeavouring 
to avoid transferring pollution between the various 
environmental sectors (i.e. water, land, air) and con­
tributing to the deterioration of the quality of life in 
different areas of the Community. 
2.2. Towards an Information Society 
2.2.1. Very little is said by the Commission in its 
proposal regarding the activity concerned with infor­
mation technologies (IT). This is particularly remark­
able when the financial indication for the activity at 
2 050 million ECU is the largest of all and constitutes 
26.5 % of the total financing envisaged. 
2.2,2. On the assumption that the activity includes 
a continuation of the successful programmes, on which 
the ESC has commented favourably, the Committee is 
favourably disposed towards high expenditure in the 
field of information technologies, but draws attention 
to the ineffectiveness of undue concentration on hard­
ware in the effort 'to enable European industry to 
recover its competitiveness on world markets by the 
1990s'. 
2.2.3. The Committee notes that the importance for 
IT of the development of the cognitive sciences receives 
scant reference in the Commission's proposal. This is 
regrettable not only because of the fundamental import­
ance of the cognitive sciences in the whole field of 
technological development, but also because of their 
potential for generating new innovative services and 
identifying new needs and demands to be satisfied by 
the new technological tools. 
2.2.4. The problem of competitivity may not only be 
one of failing to bring the results of Community R & 
TD to market, commercialization quickly enough, but 
also of not effectively identifying the market or of not 
having developed sufficiently or quickly enough to meet 
a demand for new services. 
2.2.5. The Committee draws attention to the rel­
evance of its comments on these matters in its infor­
mation report on 'Europe and the New Technologies'. 
This Report emphasized the potential role, for example, 
of the IRIS initiative for increased use of existing infor­
mation technologies to meet needs which could improve 
the quality of life and 'meet new progressive and accept­
able values and social and individual needs'. The Com­
mittee believes that the proposal for a new Community 
framework programme of technological research and 
development should give greater attention to meeting 
the programme's own declared objective that R & TD 
should be placed at the service of social development; this in regard to its potential to stimulate the generation 
of new innovative services to meet new needs and 
its contribution to redressing the present imbalance 
between the production of new goods and services on 
the one hand, and the acceleration of the processes of 
production which too often results in the loss of jobs, 
on the other. 
2.2.6. The Committee reiterates what it said in that 
same report in relation to information technologies: 
'Attention must urgently be given to the economic 
implications of the changing information market and to 
the social consequences, particularly in labour intensive 
industries. Human resources are crucial in the infor­
mation market and Community success in this will 
stand or fall on the qualification level of young Euro­
peans. 
Information technology and changes in the information 
market have important implications for regional devel­
opment in the Community. There is a risk of accentuat­
ing regional imbalances. The currently available infor­
mation technology, however, can eliminate the disad­
vantages hitherto inherent in distance, provided policy 
decisions to apply it are made at Community and 
Member State levels. The Commission's action plan 
for the less favoured regions in its work programme 
deserves accelerated acceptance.' 
2.3. The life blood of the large market 
2.3.1. The Committee strongly supports the Com­
mission for persisting in its proposed programme with 
research into the fields to which it gives the general 
headings of telecommunications on the one hand, and 
integration of telecommunications technologies with 
information and broadcasting technologies into their 
services of common interests on the other. 
2.3.2. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
statement that in dealing with advanced telecommuni­
cations, information and broadcasting, we are dealing 
'not only with an essential parameter governing the 
success of the large market' but 'also with one of the 
essential issues in the international competitive arena'. 
In the interests of achieving competitivity with the 
major trading blocks, however, the Committee wishes 
to reiterate the views expressed in its opinion on priorit­
ies for Community research (*) namely that it is essential 
(!) OJ No C 160, 1. 7. 1985. 
2^.12.^ COfficialjournal of the European communities ^oCE^B^ 
for theC^ommunity to bringtheresultsof R oe TL^ 
much more quickly to market commercialisation than 
it is at present the case.Lhe political will to cooperate 
andagenuine willingness to share the results ofRoelfo 
across national boundaries are ^ital to the community's 
Roe TLo effort 
The availabilityof^cheaphighperformance telecom­
munications^ whichtheproposalemphasi^esasbeing 
essential for the productivity and efficiency of the bulk 
of theC^ommunity^sindustrialactivities, willdepend 
upon the exercise of that political will and transnational 
cooperation in the transfer ofRc^TLo. 
2.^. The committee shares the hope expressed by 
the commission that integrated broadband services 
offeringawide range of services^will be introduced in 
the community during thel^^s^ it points out, how­
ever, that unliketheU^theC^ommunity has totake 
account of language barriers when introducing these 
integrated broadband communication networks. It 
wishes to re-emphasi^e itsprevious statements as set 
out in its opinion onapreparatory action forRo^Po 
inadvancedcommunicationstechnologiesforEurope 
^RAC^E^^that effective action must be taken to offset 
the negative effect of the language problem on ^the 
qualitative and quantitative development of cross-fron­
tier exchanges of informationeThe community must 
also give special emphasis to tackling the problems of 
standardisation and interfaces in cross-frontier com­
munications exchanges if the community is to achieve 
a standardised market in telecommunications equip 
ment and services as set out in the C^ommission^spro-
posals. 
2.4. A^^^o^o^^^^^r^^o^^^or^^o^^ 
2.4.L It is vital for community competitiveness on 
international markets and for gaining an increased 
share of the market for new products, that the results 
of itsRo^TTo conform to the highest product norms 
and that the fruits of researchbe brought efficiently, 
widely and quickly to the stage of commercial e^ploi 
ration. In this regard the committee believes that the 
problem lies not in deficiencies in the quality of C^om 
munityRceTTo nor in the defective standards of its 
products r^there is clear evidence to the contrary if one 
looks at the European success inthe fields of science and technology, i.e. E^RRlT,Ariane,BRlTE,RAC^E, 
]EP, Airbus, etc.^, but rather in the unduedelay in 
bringing the results ofR^eftO to commercialisation 
in the marketplace. 
2.4.2. A major factor to be borne in mind here is the 
current tendency within the community for technologi 
cal research centres to turn out new tool after new tool. 
This ^plosion of new tools^ tends however, not to be 
matched by policies and actions aimed at effectively 
and rapidly identifying appropriate market needs which 
canbesatisfiedwiththehelp of these new tools and 
new knowledge.This mismatch between the supply of 
new technological tools on the one hand, and the 
demand for new products and services they are capable 
of satisfying on the other, is an important contributory 
factor in determining the time-lag that exists in bringing 
the results ofRo^TLo to the stage of commercialisation. 
This constitutes a significant obstacle to the C^om 
munity competing successfully on world markets with 
the U^ and japan. 
Inthis regardthe committee believes that theC^om 
mission should determine as soon as possible the mar 
kets each programme is ultimately intended to satisfy. 
Eor this some form of market survey is obviously called 
for,usingaenarketsurvey^inthe sense understoodby 
industrialcompanies. similar considerations apply to 
researchprogrammesintohealth, welfare, safetyand 
environmental protection. 
The proposedprogrammeshouldbe linked, insofar 
as this is possible,with the development of the internal 
market, which means that the new framework pro 
gramme asawholemustbe directed at marketsthat 
will e^ist as far ahead as the period 2000 to 2010, 
bearing in mind thatthe path from laboratory to market 
maybe lOto 20 years. 
Lhe commission should bear in mind also that todays 
markets are for products for which research started in 
l^eo to 1^0. The lead time in the field ofhealth, safety 
and environment protection may be ofashorter time 
span. 
2.4.^. The community Eramework for ^tate aids for 
research and development ^^sets out the role ofRo^ 
Tfo in improving competitiveness and increasing inno 
vative competition. Encouraging research and develop­
ment in the community isakey element in the strategy 
of strengthening the technological base of European 
industry and^developing its international competitive 
nesse The committee endorses this framework for ^tate 
aids for research and development. The synergetic 
effects likely to result from joint efforts by the C^ommu-
nity, the member states and the various firms and 
research centres involved can only be for the good. 
^Oj^D(m^,^.B.t^. ^oj^De^mn^.n^,^ 
No C 333/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
2.4.4. As we move, however, along the spectrum 
from fundamental research to industrial utilization and 
commercialization of the results of R & TD in the 
market place, we find Community competition policy 
more restrictive as regards State aid. This sets out to 
avoid distortion of competition in the production and 
marketing of certain goods which are the objects of 
trade between Member States. Restrictions on State 
aid to R & TD as the latter edges up towards the 
. commercialization of its results, does of course reduce 
the risk of distortion of competition between Member 
States. However, it leaves the Community as an econo­
mic entity gravely disadvantaged competitively in world 
markets simply because—contrary to the United States 
and Japan—the European Community is not yet a 
unified and single trading block. Restriction on State 
aid to R & TD contributes to maintaining a longer 
than necessary lead-time up to the exploitation of the 
results of R & TD as compared with lead times expe­
rienced in the United States and Japan. It is perhaps 
ironic that whilst the Community's competition policy 
is designed to improve the international competitiveness 
of Community industry, rules to prevent distortion 
of competition between Member States can have a 
counter-effect. 
2.4.5. Reference has already been made to the urgen­
cy of an easily obtainable Community patent and Com­
munity standards. 
2.4.6. SMEs may require special assistance to enable 
them to evaluate and exploit the results of Community 
R & TD. This is because individual SMEs may not 
themselves have the scientific staff to search out and 
assess the potential of relevant R & TD results. Support 
should be provided for a pilot action programme to 
test the effectiveness of cooperative linkages between 
SMEs and higher education institutions. Whilst these 
need not necessarily be geographically contiguous to 
the SMEs being supported this would be advantageous. 
With such assistance SMEs could undoubtedly make 
much better use of research results as some of them 
have already demonstrated in the area of technology 
transfer. Research should be carried out as to how to 
make research results, already available on data bases, 
more available to SME's. 
2.4.7. It should be emphasized that large companies 
and small and medium-sized companies complement 
each other. Large companies mean market strength and 
the capacity for the development of heavy technologies. Small and medium-sized companies are associated with 
flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly by meeting 
gaps in the market. They should not be seen as being 
different and thus treated differently simply on the basis 
of differing turnover or numbers of employees. Any 
specific measures adopted should take into account the 
size of the project rather than that of the company. 
2.4.8. Policies should be instigated which ensure that 
the financial institutions are prepared to give greater 
emphasis to providing investment funds to develop R & 
TD entrepreneurial innovation. This will assist in the 
development of new industries and help to create 
employment. 
2.4.9. The Committee endorses the special attention 
given to science and technology of materials and raw 
materials. This is in accordance with views expressed 
in a number of ESC opinions. 
2.5. Continuation and updating of activities in the 
energy sector 
2.5.1. The serious nuclear accident which took place 
on 26 April 1986 at Chernobyl has created a 'state of 
urgency' with regard to nuclear safety. There must be 
a strengthening of the commitment to: 
— define and apply, at Community and at internatio­
nal levels, information, control and intervention 
measures designed to prevent nuclear accidents or 
to deal with them as efficiently as possible; 
— continue and develop research in the field of nuclear 
and technological safety, and in general to draw up 
joint safety standards for nuclear power stations; 
— draw up joint standards on the permissible levels 
of radioactivity to which the population may be 
exposed. 
To this end there is an urgent need for an analysis study 
of the surveys carried out, and experience gained in 
various countries, before and after the Chernobyl acci­
dent, with regard to: 
— initiatives and measures aimed at improving the 
safety of currently operating nuclear power stations; 
— measures to close temporarily or permanently older 
or less-safe power stations; 
— suspension of the building of new power stations 
where they are regarded as insufficiently safe, or 
where they can be replaced by other sources of 
energy; 
— energy choices and policies. 
2.5.2. With regard to the Commission's proposal 
covering fossil fuels, new and renewable sources of 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/51 
energy and the rational use of energy, the Committee 
would comment as follows: 
(a) the proposed appropriations for the second frame­
work programme constitute only some 40 % of the 
appropriations for the first and current framework 
programme; 
(b) the sum is clearly inadequate given the importance 
of the areas covered; 
— fossil fuels will continue to constitute the basis of 
our energy supplies for a long time to come and it 
is thus necessary to develop new processes—and in 
particular processes which are less damaging to the 
environment—even if oil prices remain relatively 
low in the short term; 
— R & TD on new and renewable sources of energy 
must be pursued on a continuous basis in order to 
make maximum possible use of these resourses. In 
the present proposal the financial indication for this 
R & TD is reduced to 210 million ECU whereas 
the figure initially proposed in the Commission's 
guidelines was 300 million ECU. The Committee 
considers this reduction to be very surprising, parti­
cularly as the guidelines were published more than 
a month before the Chernobyl nuclear power station 
disaster. 
The Committee believes that the financial indicators 
contained in the latest proposal only underline the 
already unacceptable imbalance in allocations for 
nuclear and non-nuclear energies respectively. The 
Commission itself states that the reduction in oil prices 
is bound to be of an ephemeral nature and should not 
prompt the Community to relax its efforts but rather 
to intensify them further in pursuit of non-nuclear 
energy supplies. That point of view is not borne out by 
the proposed appropriation (11 % of the total proposed 
allocation for activities in the Energy Sector) for non-
nuclear R & TD. 
The Chernobyl accident will undoubtedly give rise to 
certain shifts of emphasis within the R&D programme 
as regards both the relationship between nuclear and 
non-nuclear R&D and the points of emphasis within 
each of these sectors. 
In connection with R & D in the nuclear sector, the 
Committee would also refer to debate still in progress 
concerning the Chernobyl accident. 
2.6. Biotechnology: a new technological crossroads 
2.6.1. It is appropriate that the European Communi­
ty's relatively strong position in basis research in bio­
technology should be reinforced. 
2.6.2. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
statement in this respect that 'in formulating the objecti­ves assigned to biotechnology, the Community will not 
fail to take account of the social, ethical and societal 
implications of the furtherance of knowledge in this 
area'. 
2.6.3. In this respect the Committee reiterates what 
was expressed in its opinion on 'Priorities for Commu­
nity Research' (l) 
'A higher priority ought to be assigned to RD & D 
in land use (e.g. the long-term effect of the intensive 
application of agro-chemicals, and the problems asso­
ciated with the consequential exhaustion of the soil); 
to RD & D in forestry (e.g. biomass from short-rotation 
forestry), to RD & D in the field of veterinary science 
(e.g. problems connected with disease transmitted by 
imports and exports of breeding stock and feeding-
stuffs). Apart from the intrinsic value of such research, 
it can have implications for the reform of the common 
agricultural policy (CAP).' 
2.6.4. R & TD in land use, forestry and veterinary 
science has an intrinsic value in the development and 
competitiveness of agriculture: it is also pertinent to the 
development of new policies relevant to the reform of 
the common agricultural policy. 
2.6.5. It is very important to maintain R & TD work 
being done in European research institutes orientated 
towards developing countries. Community support for 
this may be vital if support in the Member States is 
declining. 
2.6.6. Research oriented towards the needs of the 
less favoured regions of the Community should have 
particular value for developing countries and should be 
planned with that in mind. 
2.6.7. Increasing emphasis on improving or creating 
the capacity for indigenous R & TD in developing 
countries is strongly advocated by the Section. 
2.6.8. Beyond referring in its passage on management 
of agricultural resources to the fact that the proposed 
R & TD activities will, among other themes, focus on 
the effectiveness of human and financial resources, the 
Commission would appear to attach scant importance 
to the human factor essential for improving agricultural 
production. 
2.7. Exploitation of the seabed and use of marine 
resources 
2.7.1. The introduction into the framework pro­
gramme of the long-postponed Community action on 
marine resources is welcomed. 
(!) OJ No. C 160, 1. 7. 1985. 
No C 333/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
2.7.2. This R & TD activity should be aimed at 
preventing the degradation of marine resources by pol­
lutants from all sources (including chemicals, wastes, 
oil spillage, emission and dumping of radioactive sub­
stances). The danger of degradation is particularly seve­
re in the Mediterranean Sea. 
2.7.3. Community R & TD relating to inland water 
resources should be greater than is proposed. This 
programme should also feature the activity on quality 
of life (environmental protection). 
2.7.4. Water management could also be an important 
element of R & TD under science and technology for 
development and the two activities should be coordina­
ted. Desertification is a reality in southern Europe as 
well as in developing countries. 
2.8. A Europe for research workers 
2.8.1. The proposals to promote a researchers' Euro­
pe are similar to proposals which the Economic and 
Social Committee has already endorsed, and these are 
to be welcomed. The Committee draws attention to the 
legal problems which inhibit mobility and to the need 
to facilitate mobility into industrial and commercial life 
out of research, particularly after a period of years 
spent in research. The proposals as such are however 
satisfactory. 
2.8.2. The Committee is surprised to discover that 
measures such as forecasting and assessment in science 
and technology (FAST), evaluation, statistical tools and 
utilization of R & D results are inserted into the pro­
posed eighth activity concerning a Europe for research 
workers. 
These are vitally important independent elements of a 
planned movement towards a European Science and 
Technology Community and were much more appro­
priately placed in the Commission's guidelines, where 
they were in a line of action designated 'General support 
for scientific and technical development'. 
The Economic and Social Committee strongly emphasi­
zed the importance of promoting the utilization of the 
results of Community financed R & D (*) and com­
mented favourably on the FAST Programme (2). 
The Committee also notes with regret and surprise that 
whereas the guidelines envisaged expenditure between 
660 and 865 million ECU for the activities now 
embraced in the activity concerning a Europe for 
research workers, the financial indication is 460 million 
(!) OJ No C 23, 25. 1. 1985. 
(2) OJNo, C211, 8. 8. 1983. ECU. The Committee deplores the apparent downgrad­
ing of these activities. 
2.8.3. Activities relating to innovation and utiliza­
tion of the results of Community research are of such 
importance that greater emphasis should be placed on 
them. Similarly, forecasting and assessment with a long 
term perspective, is vital to forward planning and 
should be increased. 
3. Efficient management 
3.1. The Committee regards efficient management 
as crucial to the success of Community R & TD. The 
assessment and review procedures outlined in the pro­
posal are highly desirable. 
3.2. In order to facilitate effective communication 
between the various parties involved careful attention 
should be paid to the diffusion of appropriate infor­
mation about programmes and proposals. 
3.3. The Committee notes with approval the atten­
tion to be given to SMEs. 
Not only should the specific needs of SMEs be kept in 
mind in all R & TD programmes, but there should also 
be research into needs of SMEs, if they too are to share 
fully in the exploitation of the results of Community 
R & TD. 
3.4. The Committee wholeheartedly agrees with the 
Commission's assessment of the role of SMEs in its 
guidelines: 
'The Science and Technology Community must take 
account of the fact that the advanced industrial econom­
ies are going through a period of intense technological 
change, during which small and medium-sized busines­
ses are frequently best suited to the adoption innovatory 
policies and the maintenance of a high degree of compe­
titiveness based on innovation. These businesses can 
guarantee Europe's place in the new international div­
ision of labour and the competitive dissemination of its 
technology. Consequently, the Community will seek to 
create a suitable environment for the development of a 
network of healthy, dynamic and innovatory small and 
medium-sized European businesses. The Commission 
will shortly send the Council a communication specifi­
cally concerned with this type of action'. 
3.5. It is surprising that the role of the JRC, which 
was also discussed in this document, is not a major 
item in the framework programme proposal. 
3.6. A very important point for the implementation 
of the Science and Technology Community is to be 
found in that part of the Commission's guidelines 
entitled 'Accompanying Measures'. 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of thi 
These measures were to include: 
— favourable treatment of State aid to R & TD in the 
application of competition rules; 
— a balanced development of all the Member States 
and regions of the Community, through the 
implementation of specific activities of particular 
interest to those States or regions whose scientific 
and technical development calls for special efforts; 
special provision for SMEs in: 
(a) the use of the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF) and Integrated Mediterranean 
Programmes (IMPs) together with the creation 
of new financial arrangements which could sup­
port infrastructure projects and at the same 
time meet the needs of SMEs; 
(b) the implementation of measures concerning 
small and medium-sized undertakings with a 
view to involving them in the progress of the 
Community and allowing them to exploit the 
Community's large-scale market potential to 
the full; 
— other proposals which have already been submitted 
by the Commission and adopted by the Council, 
such as the programme relating to the development 
of certain less-favoured regions of the Community 
for improved access to the advanced telecommuni­
cations service (STAR Programme). In the frame­
work of shared-cost R&D programmes the Com­
mission's services are studying ways and means of 
systematically linking laboratories or firms in less-
favoured regions to R & TD institutions in those 
Community countries which are most advanced in 
science and technology, in fields in which this type 
of association valuable facilitates cross-fertile coop­
eration; 
— increased support for the training and retraining of 
research workers. 
These 'accompanying measures' have been reiterated in 
some detail because the Section regards them as of very 
great importance. They are indispensable elements of 
a Community R & TD policy. Such measures that 
ensure the effective participation of SMEs in research 
programmes may well determine the success or other­
wise in adapting to rapidly changing technologies and 
in maintaining competiveness in innovatory products. European Communities No C 333/53 
4. The budgeraty provisions 
4.1. The Committee believes that the substantial 
increase in the financial indications set out in the guide­
lines was justified in the light of the R &c TD required 
to be carried out over the next five years. This was 
especially so because of the new political and legal basis 
for the Community's scientific and technical activities 
conferred by the adoption of the European Single Act 
in December 1985. Instead, the proposal for the second 
framework programme (1987 to 1991) envisages a 
reduction from nine billion ECU plus a reserve of 
15% (1,3 billion ECU) to 7,735 billion ECU with the 
additional proviso of leaving the way open for a revision 
of the appropriations during the life-time of the pro­
gramme. This significant reduction can only be 
described as disappointing and indicative of a less-than-
courageous attitude on the part of the Commission in 
its submission to the Council. 
4.2. The Commission is submitting, tactically, a pro­
gramme and consequential budgetary provisions which 
it would seem to believe will be acceptable to the 
Council. 
The Committee believes that the correct approach 
would be for the Commission to submit a costed R & 
TD programme which it deems to be the minimum 
necessary to ensure the most favourable economic and 
social development of the European Community over 
the next five years. The burden of taking the conse­
quences of cutting back on any part of the programme 
would then be the Council's. 
Submitting a diluted draft framework programme at 
this stage is likely to result in an even smaller provision 
being allocated to it by the Council; this on the grounds 
that the Commission is now saying that 7,735 billion 
ECU are needed, whereas only a few months ago it 
fixed upon nine billion ECUs (+ 15% reserve) as the 
necessary appropriation. 
4.3. The Community's R & TD effort will be severe­
ly handicapped if spending is to be on an uncertain 
annual allocation basis. A core budget for R & TD 
should be set for the years covered by the new frame­
work programme; this could be altered in an annual 
budget if absolutely necessary in the light of new cir­
cumstances. It is certainly undesirable that the R & TD 
be reduced in any one year. The Committee argues 
this point in its opinion on 'Priorities for Community 
Research'. The Community's commitment to R & TD 
as laid down in the Single European Act would also 
militate against treating the Community R & TD budg­
et lightly. 
4.4. That having been said, however, should less 
financial resources than sought by the Commission be 
No C 333/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
made available, there must not be an across-the-board 
cut in allocations to activities. Some activities with small allocations would probably not be viable if they 
were thus cut. 
Done at Brussels, 27 November 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision revising a research programme to be 
implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the EAEC and EEC (1984 to 1987) 
(86/C 333/13) 
On 12 August 1986 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 and Article 170 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic 
Energy 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 7 November 1986 in the light 
of the report by Mr Vercellino. 
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 27 November 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. After a full preparatory debate on future devel­
opments for the JRC (COM(86) of 14 March 1986), 
the ESC was consulted on a practical proposal for a 
Council Decision (COM(86) of 30 July 1986), which 
modifies for 1987 the current multi-annual JRC pro­
gramme (1984 to 1987), pending the drafting of the new 
multi-annual programme in a year's time. 
The Commission points out that, in drawing up the 
latter programme, it will take account of opinions 
expressed for 1987 in the general context of Community 
research by the European Parliament, the Economic and 
Social Committee and the other consultative bodies. 
1.2. One cannot but appreciate the timely method 
adopted, which will make it possible to take immediate 
steps, in revising the 1987 programme, to adapt the 
JRC's activities, albeit partially, to: the guidelines and aims of the Technological Com­
munity and the Single European Act which modifies 
the Treaty in this field, and experimenting with 
new forms of research in the EEC including shared-
cost research, the EUREKA projects and others; 
2. defining the first important conclusions, correction, 
choices and urgent measures made necessary by the 
shock and the disturbing international scientific, 
technical, environmental, social and political reper­
cussions of the Chernobyl disaster. 
1.3. In drawing up its opinion on the 1987 pro­
gramme revision, the Committee first made a detailed 
appraisal of the situation at the various JRC locations 
and visited Ispra and Geel, where it discussed research 
and organizational matters with the persons in charge 
and staff. Drawing widely on all data and documents 
available, it then drafted its comments and proposals