Opinion on:

- the proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes for implementing the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998), and - the proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes for implementing the European Community framework programme for Community research and training activities for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998) () (94/C 393/23)

On 14 and 19 April 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130i(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, on the abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 September 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr von der Decken and the Co-Rapporteurs Mr Barbagli, Mr Bernabei, Mr Bordes-Pages, Mr Dunkel, Mr Frandi, Mr Gardner, Mr von Haus, Mr Lyons, Mr de Paul de Barchifontaine, Mr Proumens, Mr Tesoro Oliver.

At its 318th Plenary Session (meeting of 14 September 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. The fourth RTD framework programme was finally adopted on 26 April 1994 in the form of two Decisions: the first concerns the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998) (), the second the framework programme for Community research and training activities for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998) ().

1.2. In accordance with Article 130g of the Treaty on European Union the framework programme provides for four areas of activity:

- implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities;

- promotion of cooperation in the field of Community research, technological development and demonstration with third countries and international organizations;

- dissemination and optimization of the results of activities in Community research, technological development and demonstration;

- stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Community.

1.3. In accordance with Article 130i(3) of the EUT these activities are to be implemented through specific programmes. It is these programmes which are the object of the two documents under consideration.

1.4. The Commission has put forward twenty proposals, seventeen on the first action alone, which covers the majority of Community research activities and accounts for the bulk of the appropriations allocated to the fourth framework programme.

1.5. This Opinion deals with sixteen of these twenty proposals, the Committee having had to give its views on four of the proposed specific programmes - three as on 2 June 1994 and the fourth on 5 July 1994 - as a matter of urgency. These four programmes concern the following areas of research:

- advanced communications technologies and services;

- telematic applications of common interest;

- industrial and materials technologies;

- non-nuclear energy.

2. Framework programme and specific programmes: General Comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Commission has adopted a uniform framework for presenting the various draft specific programmes, thus responding to a two-fold concern for simplification and rationalization.

2.2. This concern is part of an effort to secure more transparency and coherence in Community research, which the Committee endorses unreservedly.

2.3. Against this background the Committee wishes to make a number of comments on all the proposals for specific programmes and on the framework programme itself, which has now been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, under the co-decision procedure stipulated under Article 189b of the EUT.

2.4.

Procedures for adopting the framework programme and the specific programmes

2.4.1. The Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the length of time taken for adopting and implementing the framework programme and has highlighted the risk of disrupting continuity in applying specific programmes, which would jeopardize the entire Community research effort. The Committee likewise stressed that stability and continuity are key factors in developing research.

2.4.2. In this connection the Committee refers to the comments contained in its Opinions of 3 July 1991 on the proposal for a Decision adapting the second framework programme (1987-1991) (), 25 November 1992 on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning a financial supplement to be made to the third framework programme (1990-1994) () and its Own-initiative Opinion of 26 May 1993 on the fourth framework programme (1994-1998) ().

2.4.3. As the Committee also stressed in the second above-mentioned Opinion, there were grounds for hoping that adopting the concept of 'rolling programmes' for Community research action (under which two consecutive framework programmes overlap by one or two years) would have helped secure the continuity vital for worthwhile research work, scale down or terminate nonessential or unproductive research, and implement new research in line with strategic adjustments made at an early stage.

2.4.4. As regards financial aspects, application of this principle was calculated: a) to prevent unwarranted interruptions of research projects on financial grounds, b) to put an end to uncertainty about the funds available, and c) to keep up the momentum of Community research activity by avoiding the need to seek supplementary funding.

2.4.5. For this reason, in its Opinion of 15 November 1989 on the third framework programme (1990-1994) (), the Committee fully endorsed adoption by the Council of this concept of 'rolling programmes', which would also take account of the time needed for adopting not only the framework programme itself, but also the specific programmes.

2.4.6. Quite obviously, application of this concept continues to encounter obstacles: the third framework programme was only adopted in April 1990 (): the last specific programme was only adopted in March 1992; as for the fourth framework programme, it was only adopted on 25 April 1994, the Commission having submitted the relevant proposals in June 1993.

2.4.7. The Committee agrees that there were specific factors behind the delays in the legislative procedure: inter alia, the lack of a Community financial framework, the uncertainties about the decision-making process for adopting the fourth framework programme and uncertainty over the date of entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. Be that as it may, most, if not all, of the specific programmes cannot be launched until early 1995, given the time needed for issuing invitations to tender.

2.4.8. The Committee has already expressed a certain scepticism as to whether the new decision-making process can help shorten the lead times.

2.4.9. Although the Maastricht Treaty confirmed that research falls within its remit, the Committee notes that, in a bid to abbreviate the length and complexity of the co-decision procedure, the three-pronged approach involving the Commission, Council and European Parliament is being strengthened and institutionalized, totally excluding the Economic and Social Committee, in parallel with the normal legislative process.

2.4.9.1. The Committee therefore intends to grasp the opportunity provided by this Opinion to express its strong concern about this development; it seems to make referral to the Committee more of a formality than real consultation and might result in it being sidelined in this area of Community activity where the entire range of economic and social interest groups plays a key role. It calls on the Commission to undertake that in the future, it will consult the Committee fully and effectively as required by its Treaty obligations.

2.4.10. This concern is heightened by the fact that in parallel to the practice described above, there has been a proliferation of sectoral and other committees, not to mention the recent establishment of a European Science and Technology Assembly, whose task will be to help the Commission in devising and implementing Community RTD policy.

2.4.11. This said, the Committee stresses the need to return to effective application of the concept of 'rolling programmes' in Community research activity, which presupposes first and foremost that the Commission itself initiates the legislative procedure sufficiently early. Consequently the Committee urges the Commission to take immediately all steps necessary to ensure that, once the procedure has been completed, the specific programmes coming under the next framework programme can be implemented by early 1998 at the latest.

2.5.

Financial aspects

2.5.1. In its Opinion of 25 November 1993 on the Commission proposals on the fourth framework programme (1994-1998) (), the Committee stated that the amount proposed for implementing that framework programme, namely ECU 13,100 million from the Community budget, did not constitute a real increase in Community research funding, bearing in mind the new activities incorporated in the framework programme, such as demonstration and preparation projects, back-up and follow-up projects.

2.5.2. Moreover, the Committee expressed its disappointment at this amount insofar as the Commission saw its proposal as part of efforts to revive economic growth and employment in the Community. Furthermore, in view of the current economic and social situation, the Committee deemed this to be utterly inadequate. Its Own-initiative Opinion of 20 October 1993 on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment - Medium-term Considerations (), and the subsequent presentation by the Commission of its White Paper in December 1993, both confirmed this fact, if it needed to be, all the more since national research budgets were still being cut back.

2.5.3. Once again the Council has taken responsibility for pruning the Commission's proposal, finally deciding on an overall amount of ECU 12,300 million. An additional sum of ECU 700 million may 'possibly' be allocated to the fourth framework programme between now and 30 June 1996. A decision on this will be taken 'in the light of an assessment of progress made in implementing the framework programme, its contribution to the competitiveness of Community industry at international level, the return on the money invested and the evolution of the European Union's financial perspective' [according to the Research Council press release of 21 March 1994 - 5749/94 (Presse 43)].

2.5.4. The Committee notes that it is still not clear how the funds were divided between the four areas of activity and between the different specific programmes to be implemented under the first area of activity.

2.5.5. The Committee strongly urges the Commission to provide it in future with all the relevant information, particularly financial information, so that it can properly fulfil the advisory role assigned to it by the Treaty in the field of research.

2.5.6. Moreover, for the reasons set out above, the Committee feels that within the most directly effective specific programmes, the funds allocated for their completion must, as a priority, focus on those areas of research which will make a direct contribution to reviving growth and employment in Europe, on the basis of a more selective approach.

2.6.

Examination of the stage reached in specific programmes and assessment of research activities and their results

2.6.1. Article 4 of the draft Decisions provide for (i) continuous, systematic examination by the Commission, assisted by independent, external experts, of the stage reached in the various specific programmes, and (ii) an assessment by independent experts of activities carried out in the areas covered by each of the programmes and their results.

2.6.2. As already expressed in its abovementioned Opinion on the Commission proposals for the fourth framework programme, the Committee reiterates the importance it attaches to taking account, in the various examinations and assessments, of the experience of researchers and other individuals and groups involved in research programmes and affected by these areas of research. Inter alia, it is important for these assessment committees to take account of the experience of researchers engaged in activities covered by the various specific programmes, whether this be in universities, public or private research centres, or in industry.

2.7.

Implementation of the specific programmes

2.7.1. Article 5 of the Commission proposals stipulates that the Commission is to draw up work programmes setting out in detail the scientific and technological objectives for each of the specific programmes and specifying the stages in the implementation of the programme and the proposed financial arrangements. Article 5 also stipulates that the Commission shall establish calls for proposals for projects on the basis of these work programmes.

2.7.2. The Committee stresses that equal access to information is a sine qua non for establishing genuine equality of access to research programmes for all interested parties. This is particularly important for SMEs, a fact highlighted by the Committee on numerous occasions.

2.7.3. In this connection, the Committee refers to numerous parallel proposals set out in its Opinion on the two draft Decisions on the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the specific research programmes [Opinion of 1 June 1994 ()].

2.7.4. In this same Opinion the Committee likewise sets out a whole series of suggestions and proposals for further improving, inter alia, the general framework for involvement in specific programmes.

2.7.5. For this reason the Committee does not intend in the present Opinion to express its views on the general rules for participation provided for in Annex III to the draft specific programmes and has confined its comments to the specific supplementary provisions proposed by the Commission for the various programmes under review.

2.8.

Staff and administrative expenditure

2.8.1. The Committee notes that spending on staff and administration varies considerably from one specific programme to another. As a percentage, this expenditure could represent up to more than a quarter of the total appropriations allocated to the implementation of the programme in question.

2.8.2. The Committee is fully aware of the need for research activities to be properly managed and that a large part of this expenditure is justified by the particular features of each of these programmes, e.g their size, the procedures for implementing them, their innovative nature.

2.8.3. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that under the new treaty provisions the specific programmes now include activities which were previously financed and implemented outside the framework programme.

2.8.4. Nevertheless, part of the budgets for staff and administrative expenses seems excessive; the Committee notes a lack of transparency in this expenditure and knows nothing about the measures taken by the Commission to reduce such expenditure as part of the simplification of the management of research programmes.

2.8.5. The Committee stresses that it is vital to try to keep staff and administrative expenditure as low as possible in view of the budgetary stringency facing the Community and bearing in mind that available appropriations must go first to financing the research itself.

FIRST AREA OF ACTIVITY:

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH,

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMMES

3. Information technologies [94/0081(CNS)]

3.1.

Introduction

3.1.1. The overall objectives of the proposed programme are:

'- To help enhance the quality of life and improve the competitiveness of all European industry.

- To contribute to the establishment of the information infrastructure in Europe.

- To strengthen the scientific and technological base of European industry.

- To promote preparatory and validation activities with a view to standardization.'

3.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 15 July 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 November 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 1,532 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

3.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 1,911 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme.

3.1.4. The proposed research activities 'must be those which give the most leverage in building up the information infrastructure, which emphasize access, usability and best practice, and which foster Europe's command of generic technologies. At the same time the programme must give the right stimulus to European IT industries'.

3.1.5. The proposed funding is spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):

- Underpinning technologies

45

- software technologies

14

- technologies for IT components and subsystems

23

- multimedia technologies

8

- Long-term research

10

- Focused clusters

45

- open microprocessor

10

- high performance computing and networking

13

- technologies for business processes

10

- integration in manufacturing

12

3.1.6. The 'focused clusters' represent a new approach to carrying out RTD activities. They group together activities covering a number of areas of technology, but with a single, well-defined goal. They may incorporate other kinds of activity as their specific needs dictate: networks of excellence, association of suppliers and users, cooperation with EUREKA, coordination with national initiatives, international cooperation, dissemination of results or training initiatives.

3.1.7. The amount proposed also includes ECU 19 million earmarked for the dissemination and exploitation of results. Training activities are also provided for and may call on at least 2 % of the total amount.

3.1.8. The JRC is asked to contribute to research activities in the field of information technologies to the tune of ECU 21 million; this is additional to the appropriations to be allocated for implementing the specific programme under consideration.

3.2.

General comments

3.2.1. The Committee broadly approves the Commission proposal and in particular the scientific and technological content of the proposed specific programme.

3.2.2. However, the Committee feels that the proposal needs certain amendments so that the programme adopted by the Council can effectively further the objectives pursued by the fourth framework programme, as reflected in the recitals which precede the proposed Decision, while also taking better account of the EU's economic and social situation.

3.2.3. The Committee feels that in the present circumstances it is vital to focus on practical activities that can be speedily applied and disseminated, in order to facilitate the earliest possible economic recovery in the Member States and to create jobs.

3.2.4. The amendments proposed by the Committee are thus intended to promote economic growth, competitiveness and employment, as well as economic and social cohesion.

3.2.5. It is right and proper to ensure that one and the same specific project cannot be put forward successively in different areas, thereby creating confusion and duplication of proposals. The Committee recommends that the Commission put into practice an effective procedure for achieving this objective.

3.2.5.1. It is necessary in this context to envisage simplified procedures for submitting and selecting proposals, making sure that the procedures in question are implemented with greater transparency. The Committee has already recommended this step.

3.2.6. Some of the funds should be set aside for exploratory actions and viability studies intended expressly for SMEs.

3.2.7. It is important to simplify considerably the format of the proposals by cutting out unnecessary detail so as to facilitate their examination by experts during assessment. Any additional detail required at a later stage should be provided when the contracts are signed.

3.3.

Specific comments

3.3.1.

Multimedia technologies

3.3.1.1. It is highly advisable to encourage the integration of vertical consortia with developers and users and to improve SME access to application and demonstration projects, including the following specific projects:

- integration of images, data, voice, etc., on CD-ROM and other media through the conversion of paper documents;

- development of multimedia applications for various sectors, such as publishing and training establishments, banks, etc.;

- demonstration of the potential of multimedia technologies;

- initiatives to disseminate multimedia technologies for small firms and training. (These initiatives could be modelled on the European Software and Systems Initiative - ESSI).

3.3.2.

Office and home automation applications

3.3.2.1. The following specific projects should be added:

- integration of various business functions, including cooperative work and workflow;

- integration of multimedia technologies in business process applications;

- document management and business processes, including the conversion of paper documents to electronic form;

- demonstration of application of multimedia technologies to business processes.

3.3.3.

Software, basic research and integration in manufacturing

3.3.3.1. No specific comments.

3.3.4.

Components and subsystems

3.3.4.1. The list of microelectronic technologies should include an explicit reference to integrated power circuits, also known as 'smart power' technologies.

3.3.4.2. The microsystems applications should include intelligent sensors for industrial control.

3.3.5.

Microprocessors and their applications

3.3.5.1. No specific comments.

3.3.6.

High performance computing

3.3.6.1. Computer simulation should include the simulation of transport networks, sharing and distribution of electrical power, meteorological forecasts and civil applications of nuclear energy.

3.3.6.2. Information management should include applications in the financial and other service sectors.

3.4.

Budget

3.4.1. The indicative breakdown of the overall budget of ECU 1,911 million should be brought more into line with the objectives laid down in the programme. It is the Committee's view that the appropriations for software and multimedia technologies and for integration in manufacturing should be increased substantially, offset by a corresponding decrease in the appropriations for components and subsystems technologies and microprocessors and their applications.

4. Standardization, measurement and testing [94/0083 (CNS)]

4.1.

Introduction

4.1.1. The general objectives of the proposed programme are:

- to improve the competitiveness of all sectors of European industry (including the particular needs of small and medium enterprises - SMEs)

- by encouraging industrial innovation;

- by better product definition and quality control;

- by more efficient measurement procedures during production;

- by the mutual recognition of certificates in accordance with the global approach for the establishment of conformity;

- to provide pre-normative research with the resources necessary for the development and the application of Community policies (single market, environment, agriculture, health, transport and protection of external frontiers);

- to undertake the pre-normative research necessary to support the work of CEN, CENELEC, ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute), etc., relating to existing or new written standards;

- to support the forthcoming development of a European measurement infrastructure by helping to coordinate national activities and the development of written standards, methods and advanced measurements systems;

- to help the dissemination and use of good measurement practices in Europe, in particular, in the least-favoured regions.

4.1.2. This programme is intended to supersede that adopted by the Council on 29 April 1992 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 November 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 159 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

4.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 167 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):

- Measurements for quality European products

40-45

- development of measurement methods and instrumentation required by researchers;

- development of generic measurement and test methods, reference materials and instrumentation required in the course of product development;

- development of generic measurement methods, standards and instrumentation required in production to improve product quality/production cost ratios.

- Research related to written standards and technical support to trade

35-40

- support to legislation;

- support to industry;

- promotion of a European measurement infrastructure;

- technical support to mutual recognition and accreditation;

- measurements required by customs laboratories.

- Measurements related to the needs of society

20-25

- health and safety;

- monitoring of the environment;

- justice system;

- support of Europe's cultural heritage.

4.1.4. In the third framework programme, the allocation of ECU 159 million included ECU 92 million for the Joint Research Centre (JRC), and only ECU 67 million for the shared-cost part of the programme. Conversely, the allocation of ECU 167 million mentioned above does not include the ECU 121 million contribution for direct action by the JRC.

4.1.5. The amount proposed also includes ECU 2 million earmarked for the dissemination and exploitation of results.

4.2.

General comments

4.2.1. The text is woolly and excessively optimistic in places, glossing over the operational side and the procedures by which the declared objectives are to be achieved.

4.2.2. Priority areas of support for Community policies should be identified in conjunction with other departments of the Commission, and, where appropriate, the Regulatory Committees. Similarly, the European standards organizations should express their opinion on the issues which should be given priority status. Appropriate research into measurement priorities for industry should be commissioned.

4.2.2.1. Consequently, priorities should be clearly outlined in the work programme, so that declared objectives can be attained effectively.

4.2.3. Specific action involving simplified procedure (such as Craft) should be undertaken, and thematic networks should be set up. The task of these networks should not be limited to solving scientific and technical problems; they should also provide a benchmark for training and the dissemination and transfer of information in manufacturing firms and service industries (particularly SMEs).

4.2.4. The forthcoming open invitation to tender should provide the flexibility and speed required to meet the most pressing problems involved in the application of Community policy. Consumer organizations should be consulted when necessary.

4.2.5. The relevant national bodies should take part in drafting the programmes (both specific and work programmes). The Commission should act as an observer in the networks of national laboratories, so as to maintain regular contact. The work programme should be revised regularly, and the networks will be asked to take part in this.

4.2.6. An invitation to tender should be published, with the specific aim of establishing networks. This should cover three categories (coordination, transfer of technology, and training).

4.2.7. Setting up a common European measurement and testing infrastructure means that the required technical procedures in the various countries will have to be improved upon and harmonized. These include taring, certification and accreditation. The aims should be:

- to promote coordination of national activities, so as to avoid the risk of doing the work twice in different countries;

- to establish a measurement system for reference in the field of chemistry;

- to organize training courses, and the transfer of know-how to countries where the national measurement centres are less well developed.

4.2.8. CEN/CENELEC/ETSI must be given a say, and they should state their opinion on research into European standardization concerning:

- the application of Community policies;

- the needs of industry.

4.2.8.1. The Commission should be wholly responsible for determining research priorities and allocating funds, and should consider the standpoint of any other groups or associations involved, and the needs of the EU.

4.2.8.2. Transparency must be ensured by issuing invitations to tender. An assessment of tenders can be made by a team of independent experts, following established criteria.

4.2.9. Proficiency testing with other European organizations responsible for laboratory accreditation should be included.

4.2.10. Research projects to validate 'in-house' methods of analysis should not be included when they are of specific interest to one company only, whereas techniques which can be applied throughout industry in the EU should be included.

4.2.10.1. The work programme should refer explicitly to research into the quantitative assessment of properties which are extremely useful for industry and commerce, but have hitherto only been discussed in terms of quality (should there be a direct request from industry).

4.3.

Specific comments

4.3.1. Add at the bottom of page 2 (after the words 'apply to this specific programme') the following:

'Whereas activities relating to standards, measurement and testing in the steel sector may come to be included in this specific programme, given the forthcoming expiry of the ECSC Treaty.'

This text has already been included in the TIME specific programme (the new BritE/Euram).

4.3.2. Promote the creation of 'thematic networks of excellence' which might help to solve technical problems, but would also serve as a) a benchmark for manufacturing firms and service industries (particularly SMEs), b) a centre for analysing national needs in the areas in question, c) a centre for disseminating and transferring information and knowledge (primarily about Community activities but also networks of national laboratories such as EURACHEM, EURAMET, etc.), and d) a centre for training.

4.3.3. Regulate, by means of a common 'code' of intent, cooperation with CEN/CENELEC/ETSI, and ensure that there is transparency.

4.3.4. Last indent of theme II (page 13): amend the text by including all the measures to verify labelling/content conformity, not only in order to help customs laboratories but also to protect the consumer and the environment.

4.3.5. Third indent of theme III (page 13): why only 'few laboratories' and why only 'narcotics'?

4.3.5.1. Support for the justice system and forensic science should be extended to other materials such as explosives.

5. Environment and climate [94/0084 (CNS)]

5.1.

Introduction

5.1.1. The proposed programme has the following main objectives:

- to understand the basic processes of the climate and of natural systems;

- to identify and assess the adverse effects of human activity on the environment;

- to identify ways of preventing or curing such effects.

5.1.2. Among the factors to be taken into consideration the Commission mentions the effects of industrial activities, transport, tourism, disposal of waste, urbanization, misuse of water, types of land use and management, and agricultural and forestry practices.

5.1.3. In view of the different levels at which the problems arise - continents, oceans, atmosphere and biosphere - each system must be examined not only on its own but also as it interacts with other systems.

5.1.4. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 7 June 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (). The Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 469 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

5.1.5. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 532 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, to be spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):

- Natural environment, environmental quality and global change

46-52

- climate change and impact on natural resources;

- atmosphere physics and chemistry, biosphere processes and consequences;

- human dimension of environmental change.

- Environmental technologies

24-30

- sustainable development and technological change;

- instruments, techniques and methods for monitoring the environment;

- technologies and methods to protect the environment;

- technologies to forecast, prevent and reduce natural risks.

- Space techniques applied to environmental monitoring and research

20-25

- methodological research and pilot projects;

- R& D on advanced sensor technology;

- Centre for Earth Observation (CEO).

5.1.6. ECU 5 million of the proposed total will be earmarked for dissemination and exploitation of results. It is also intended to allocated 15 % of the total to fundamental research activities and 2 % to training initiatives.

5.1.7. The Joint Research Centre has been called on to contribute to the implementation of the research activities included under the present programme to the tune of an additional ECU 320 million.

5.2.

General comments

5.2.1. The Committee broadly endorses the programme under discussion. It stresses that the selected research areas are indeed areas of priority given the nature and extent of the problems affecting the environment.

5.2.2. Besides the interactions between the different areas, it is also clear that the proposed research activities will not be as effective or relevant as they could be unless carried out in close symbiosis, exploiting all possible synergies, with activities organized worldwide.

5.2.3. With this in mind, it would have been advisable for the Commission to take stock of (i) parallel research programmes and activities not only in the Member States but especially those in third countries (eg. US, Japan, Canada and Australia) and under the auspices of international organizations, and (ii) existing synergies, or synergies to be developed under the new programme, with the research institutes concerned.

5.2.4. There is a risk that the programme's present approach, which places the emphasis on subsidiarity, could lead to duplication and consequently to a waste of funds and fragmented or even controversial findings once the projects have been completed.

5.2.5. The Committee stresses that the environment provides the best example of an area to which Community support brings real added value, especially given the cross-border dimension of the problems to be resolved.

5.2.6. There is no doubt, however, that application of the principle of subsidiarity is still highly beneficial in the case of research projects in areas such as agriculture, forestry and natural environment, where national, regional or local conditions have to be taken into account.

5.3.

Specific comments

5.3.1. In the light of the foregoing comments, the Committee considers that the international cooperation angle should be given greater prominence in a number of the research areas covered by the programme.

5.3.1.1. This applies in particular to research into atmosphere physics and chemistry and the depletion of the ozone layer; since 1978 NASA has been carrying out highly detailed research projects based on constantly updated mathematical models.

5.3.1.2. Hence the Committee would highlight those research activities which should be carried out as a matter of priority in an international context in view of the scale of the work to be carried out and the possible import of their findings.

5.3.2. With regard to methods of estimating and managing risks, and in particular the development of alternatives to the use of animals for assessing the risks to health and the environment from chemicals, the Committee stresses that it is not enough merely to provide, as the Commission does, for consistency with the work carried out by the JRC's European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, but it must also be ensured that the findings of this work are disseminated systematically so that other researchers can benefit from them too.

5.3.3. The Committee further urges the Commission:

- to avoid a compartmentalization and dissipation of research effort by steering its choice of research projects towards research centres which, either on their own or as part of a consortium or network, have the necessary infrastructure and staff to carry out integrated actions. This recommendation in no way excludes the need to encourage new participants from taking part in the activities envisaged in the programme, such as research centres, universities and SMEs, either on their own or as part of research networks. The Commission should keep a careful eye on these new participants;

- take all necessary steps to promote increased cooperation between universities and companies, with the dual aim of (i) encouraging the pooling of the scientific and technological resources necessary to carry out research projects and (ii) facilitating the training and recruitment of staff specialized in environmental technologies and allied activities.

5.4.

Additional comments

5.4.1. The Committee notes that moves to alert public opinion to environmental problems - in itself an entirely legitimate aim - can sometimes lead to scientific findings being misrepresented, in that either only part of such findings are passed on or no precaution is taken to check how accurate they are. The search for publicity at all costs is not always absent from the thoughts of the perpetrators either.

5.4.1.1. For this reason the Committee calls on the Commission to ensure that the contracting parties in research projects fully respect the rules on the dissemination of findings arising from specific programmes.

5.4.1.2. It would also urge the scientific community to act with the greatest responsibility in this matter, either by avoiding the publication and dissemination of information which does not have a firm scientific basis or by providing explanatory or educational material along with the information, aimed at preventing hasty conclusions or decisions, especially of a political and economic nature, which could subsequently be called into question.

6. Marine science and technology [94/0085(CNS)]

6.1.

Introduction

6.1.1. The general aim of the proposed programme is to 'foster the scientific knowledge and technological development necessary to understand how marine systems function at basin scales, in order to prepare for sustainable use of the oceans and determine their role in global change'.

6.1.2. This programme will follow on from that adopted by the Council on 7 June 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (). The Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 118 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

6.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 228 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, to be spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):

- Marine science

33-37

- marine systems research;

- extreme marine environments;

- regional seas research.

- Strategic marine research

20-25

- coastal and shelf sea research;

- coastal engineering;

- risk and impact evaluation.

- Marine technology

33-37

- generic technologies;

- advanced systems.

- Supporting initiatives

5-10

6.1.4. ECU 2 million of the proposed total will be earmarked for the dissemination and exploitation of the results. It is also intended to allocate 20 % of the total to fundamental research activities and 2 % to training initiatives.

6.2.

General considerations

6.2.1. The key objective of this specific programme is to understand the fundamental processes of natural systems as part of an overall strategy for the environment.

6.2.2. Familiarity with and an understanding of the fundamental marine system processes are of crucial importance if an integrated environmental strategy is to be defined and implemented. The Committee is pleased that this importance has been recognized and has been reflected in a substantial increase in the amount of funding granted to the research programme under consideration, which has the full backing of the Committee.

6.2.3. Taking account of the interactions between the climate, the oceans, the atmosphere and biosphere, it is clearly vital that research activities in these areas should not be confined to Europe, but should be extended to a planetary scale; this calls for a research strategy to be implemented worldwide also. Here, international cooperation becomes essential.

6.2.4. In the same vein, when carrying out the research projects selected, it will also be necessary to work on the basis that the sum of the research effort in the various areas covered by this and related programmes (environment, information and communication technologies, agriculture and fisheries, amongst others) is greater than the individual parts.

6.2.5. Similarly, it should be stressed in this connection that, if this programme is to attain all its objectives, use of space technology becomes very important for monitoring the marine and continental environment and for determining the causes of the disturbances and changes affecting them, whether these have natural causes or are the result of human activities.

6.2.6. All the resources thus deployed, together with the information compiled, should allow solutions to be put together inter alia for:

- designing products which will have less impact on the environment;

- promoting technologies to recycle waste;

- designing and implementing technologies to process or dispose of non-recyclable waste (without forgetting the need to reduce industrial effluent and waste).

6.2.7. The essential aspect to stress is the importance - in the pursuit of the objectives of the present programme - of developing methodologies for assessing industrial risks and for reducing natural risks.

6.3.

General comments

6.3.1. Putting the subsidiarity principle at the forefront of its thinking, the Commission stresses the need to coordinate and integrate research efforts in Member States and advocates the pooling of knowledge, infrastructure and national research potential.

6.3.1.1. The Committee approves this move which gives added value to Community action and means it is possible to avoid duplicating work done elsewhere as far as possible. It nevertheless draws attention to the fact that the maritime regions in the European Union which are due to be the first to benefit from the results of this programme are in many cases less-developed regions which do not have or have insufficient resources in terms of funding or infrastructure. In addition, there are different geographical conditions to take into account, inter alia the extent of the coastline involved.

6.3.1.1.1. In this context, the Committee also draws attention to the observations contained in the Owninitiative Opinion which it has issued simultaneously on Regional planning and development strategies for the Atlantic coastal regions.

6.3.1.2. These features are ipso facto likely to put a brake on profitable, balanced cooperation; the Committee asks that this be taken into account when implementing the programme. This also confers considerable importance on disseminating and exploiting the results of research carried out not only under this programme, but also under programmes in the Member States, so as to benefit all regions in the Community.

6.3.2. The Committee expresses regret, for the reasons set out above, that the importance of securing a complementary approach and synergies with international research programmes has not been stressed more.

6.3.3. The Committee notes that in the European Union there are very few research centres with the advanced infrastructures and qualified staff needed for carrying out research into marine science and technology. It therefore asks the Commission to look into the resources which could be used to help create specialized research infrastructures in this area, particularly in outlying maritime regions and especially the possibilities provided by the Structural Funds, in line with requests already made by the Committee in its Own-initiative Opinion of the fourth framework programme, referred to earlier.

6.3.4. Particular efforts have to be made for training specialists. Training should constitute an integral part of the activities in this programme and a portion of the funds should be earmarked for this purpose.

6.3.4.1. In this connection, the Committee regrets that nothing has been planned for encouraging the development of cooperation between firms and universities.

6.3.4.2. The Commission should also encourage new career paths and university disciplines to be set up which take account in particular of the improvements in knowledge acquired under this programme.

6.4.

Specific comments

6.4.1. The Committee does not intend to go into the details of the scientific and technical content of the programme under study, the broad lines of which it approves.

6.4.2. It notes the wide-ranging, ambitious nature of the proposed programme which will require a highly focused approach for the selection of research projects to be granted Community funding, so as to avoid a situation where the funds are spread too thinly.

6.4.3. It is clear that the time needed for the proposed activities will extend far beyond the end of the programmes, scheduled for 1998. The Committee therefore stresses that the procedures for adopting the next framework programme and concomitant specific programmes need to be implemented sufficiently early so as to avoid any lack of continuity in the research effort caused inter alia by an absence of the funds needed to continue promising programmes.

6.4.4. In this connection, the continuous monitoring of programme implementation and the evaluation reports stipulated in Article 4 of the proposed Decision should allow the Commission to take the necessary decisions for a) continuing or interrupting, if such should prove warranted, research projects in progress, b) adjusting programme objectives, and c) choosing new research topics, taking account of the prospects in terms of scientific and industrial developments and also the environment and job creation.

6.4.5. Given the above, the Committee considers it appropriate that the European Union should, as provided for by the Commission, help finance research activities carried out under international organizations or programmes, albeit on an ad hoc basis. However, the Committee asks the Commission to take all the necessary steps, including in the above situation, to ensure that Community funds are wisely used, that the research findings benefit the whole European Union and that the scientific and/or technological spin-offs are positive.

6.4.6. As part of the synergy to be established with other relevant specific research programmes, the Committee stresses the need to ensure that research findings from the present programme also be put to good use in those areas for which they are of direct interest, particularly fish and plant aquaculture.

6.5.

Additional comments

6.5.1. The Committee draws attention to the fact that the additional comments made about the environment and climate programme fully apply to marine science and technology which are closely linked to environmental matters.

7. Biotechnology [94/0086(CNS)]

7.1.

Introduction

7.1.1. The general objective of the proposed programme is to 'unravel, with all sophisticated means provided by modern biotechnology, the workings of living cells such that practitioners might master, mimic and eventually reproduce complex cellular processes in greater numbers and with higher efficacy, for the production or conversion of a variety of substances compatible with life, the treatment of diseases, the diagnostic of genetic variation, the restoration of the environment, etc.'

7.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted on 26 March 1992 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 24 October 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 186 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

7.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 552 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):

- Cell factories

15-21

- Genome analysis

13-19

- Plant and animal biotechnology

22-30

- plant molecular and cellular biology;

- animal physiopathology.

- Cell communication in neurosciences

4-8

- Immunology, transdisease vaccinology

5-9

- Structural biology

9-13

- Prenormative research, biodiversity social acceptance

10-16

- Infrastructures

2-4

7.1.4. Two main approaches are to be employed in the implementation of the programme: 'concentrated means' for research activities under the first four headings and 'concertation' for those under the other headings. According to the Commission, 'concentrated means' covers shared-cost research actions for the implementation of 'large research projects entailing a high level of integration'.

7.1.5. The total amount includes ECU 5.5 million for the exploitation and dissemination of results.

7.1.6. The Commission also provides for horizontal activities (including demonstration activities, analyses of ethical, social and legal aspects of biotechnology, studies into the public perception and socio-economic impact of biotechnology, training activities); a certain percentage of the appropriations is to be set aside for the implementation of these activities.

7.2.

General comments

7.2.1. The Committee welcomes this proposal because biotechnology is an area where the European dimension adds value as the industry sectors concerned are largely international and competing on world markets. The benefit to European enterprises is that they can draw on an adequate science base; this base should be innovative, but also responsive to the needs of European Union enterprises.

7.2.2. Internationally, biotechnology is generating many skilled new jobs, particularly in new and innovative SMEs. Therefore, it is essential that the maximum of these jobs are created in the European Union.

7.2.3. The future of the European Union depends on innovation. In biotechnology, the EU has two significant weaknesses in comparison to the USA, Japan and other advanced Asian countries:

- firstly, there is not an agreed Community-wide priority for this scientific mission. This is true also for the perception within different Directorates-General of the Commission. This has led to a lack of social consensus as the Explanatory Memorandum highlights;

- secondly, the Community has enacted and is still enacting a series of horizontal legislations specifically discriminating against biotechnology. These have hindered European Union developments by increasing the costs and uncertainties around the commercial exploitation of products made using biotechnology methods.

7.2.4. This regulatory framework interacts with the public perception issues to inhibit investment and exploitation of the technology and therefore the creation of new jobs.

7.3.

Annex I: Scientific and technical objectives and content

7.3.1.

The background

7.3.1.1. The Commission makes the suggestion that 'careful attention will be given to the step bringing research in the context of socio-economic need'.

7.3.1.2. That looks like an unexceptionable statement. However, in practice, prejudging the need and acceptance of specific products will erect a wall between the research and the customers for that research.

7.3.1.3. It is historically extremely difficult for expert committees to second guess the market correctly, particularly when it comes to innovation. The use of judgement criteria for a product (support for a demonstration project) or against (lack of socio-economic need) should therefore be approached with great caution. The chief objective in the programme should be to ensure that products can be placed on the market which benefit the European Union citizen.

7.3.1.4. One needs to emphasize again that the European Union is competing for jobs with other countries which are progressing rapidly without such walls.

7.3.2.

Area 1: Cell factories

7.3.2.1. The general proposition in this research area is approved. However, it needs to be made clearer that plant cell systems are included in this research area. Although the bulk of this project area is aimed at pharmaceutical biotechnology, there is significant expertise and industry potential in the plant cell culture area.

7.3.3.

Area 2: Genome analysis

7.3.3.1. The general proposition in this area is approved. Work on model systems is to provide generic information and methodology. Specific comments are provided in two areas:

- firstly, the linkage with the human genome project in the Biomedical and Health programme should be made formal and explicit in order to maximize the progress in both areas;

- secondly, the model genome concept should also apply to the work on farm animals, i.e. the Community should not be supporting further work on specific animals (see below) but confine itself to basic research. The mouse could be a good model for such research.

7.3.4.

Area 3: Plant and animal biotechnology Plant molecular and cellular biology

7.3.4.1. The scope of this programme area is too large and all-encompassing. To give focus in the implementation phase, a considerable part of the programme should be defined by the agricultural and industrial customers for the research. It is they who know what is 'of agricultural and industrial relevance' and where there is a specific applied goal. However, underpinning science can and should be driven by the relevant academic experts.

7.3.4.2. A formal linkage with the Agriculture and Fisheries research programme should be established. The Committee understands that there is a joint management of the three programmes in the field of life sciences (biotechnology, biomedicine and health, and agriculture and fisheries), but the fact needs to be made clearer to users.

Animal physiopathology

7.3.4.3. As mentioned above, the farm animal genome work cannot be considered as work with model species. There should be continued European Union support only if there is a high level of industry and agricultural support and direction. Work on model species such as the mouse should be considered.

7.3.4.4. Transgenic models for human and animal diseases is a worthy objective but it is questionable how much it fits into this programme rather than into the Biomedical and Health programme.

7.3.4.5. A particularly good area is that of in vitro tests and screens to replace animal experiments. This clearly is of significant impact across a range of industries and of concern across the Community. This area could receive additional emphasis (see below).

7.3.4.6. Methods for somatic gene therapy fall within the remit of the Biomedical and Health programme and would provide only limited generic added value.

7.3.4.7. The synergies with the Biomedical and Health or the Agriculture and Fisheries programmes should be made a requirement for any funding of research in these areas of overlap.

7.3.5.

Area 4: Cell communication in neurosciences

7.3.5.1. This programme is accepted as valuable.

7.3.6.

Area 5: Immunology and transdisease vaccinology

7.3.6.1. There is a large potential overlap with the Biomedical and Health programme. This can only be approved if the Commission makes clear how the added dimension of the biotechnology component is to be used.

7.3.7.

Area 6: Structural biology

7.3.7.1. This is an area where the added value from the European dimension is clear and already shown to work; this is particularly true for the infrastructure requirements.

7.3.8.

Area 7: Prenormative research, biodiversity and social acceptance

7.3.8.1. This area is a ragbag of topics which should be rationalized and reduced.

7.3.8.2. In vitro testing research is valuable and should be included under the theme 'Animal physiopathology', as mentioned above.

7.3.8.3. Biodiversity is of great interest and concern to the Community and its scientists and other citizens. It is not particularly concerned with biotechnology though the latter benefits from it in some areas. It should be funded through an appropriate programme.

7.3.8.4. Biosafety research has been sponsored successfully over many years now. It is questionable whether there is any good reason to spend more research funds in the area; the major scientific questions have been answered; remaining are ones of regulations and acceptance. The acquisition of further data at this stage cannot have a high scientific priority.

7.3.9.

Area 8: Infrastructures

7.3.9.1. The Community activities in this area are of high value in ensuring the widespread availability and common access to services for biotechnology. The efforts in this area could usefully be strengthened over what is currently envisaged.

7.3.10.

Horizontal activities

7.3.10.1. Demonstration projects are potentially very valuable in helping to overcome the 'socio-economic barriers' and 'facilitate the adoption of new biotechnologies'. It is therefore important to remember the considerations noted in 7.3.1.

7.3.10.2. The potential danger is, in selecting some projects, to take forward to the market in a non-commercial environment. This risk must be recognized and accounted for in any proposal to spend significant public funds in this area.

7.3.10.3. Public perception is of key importance in placing the products derived from biotechnology methods in the market alongside other products in a non-discriminatory way. Industry (both employers and employees), agriculture and consumers organizations have key leadership roles in this area, supported by efforts available within this programme.

7.3.10.4. Useful subjects for European Union support include the provision of teaching materials for schools at all levels where science is taught, also support for proper social science surveys of what has happened in specific product launches in the EU, USA or Japan.

7.3.10.5. Socio-economic impacts: measurement of the socio-economic impacts is a worthy aim for research provided that the long timescale of this impact is recognized.

7.4.

Annex II: Indicative breakdown of the amount

7.4.1. The Committee has no disagreement with the overall amount proposed. However, the breakdown needs adjusting for the overlap areas with the Biomedicine and Health programme. Also Area 7 should be reduced, in line with the comments made earlier, and Area 8 spending increased.

8. Biomedicine and health [94/0087(CNS)]

8.1.

Introduction

8.1.1. The general objective of the proposed programme is to 'contribute to improving the effectiveness of research and development in medicine and health in the Member States, in particular through better coordination of their research and development activities, to applying their findings through Community cooperation and to using available resources in common'.

8.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 9 September 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 November 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 151 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

8.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 336 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme. The bulk of these appropriations (85 %) will be divided between five priority areas, namely (as a %):

- Research on AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases

13-20

- Research on cancer

16-20

- Pharmaceutical research

12-18

- Brain research

13-19

- Human genome research

11-17

8.1.4. The research under these headings will be carried out in the form of shared-cost research actions, within the framework of a 'concentration of resources' similarly to the biotechnology programme.

8.1.5. The remaining 15 % will be allocated to concerted actions in the following research areas:

- Occupational and environmental health;

- Other diseases with major socio-economic impact;

- Public health, including health services;

- Biomedical technology and engineering;

- Biomedical ethics.

8.1.6. The total amount includes ECU 3 million for the exploitation and dissemination of results.

8.1.7. The Commission also provides for horizontal activities (including demonstration activities, studies into the ethical, social and legal aspects, and training activities).

8.2.

General comments

8.2.1. The Committee welcomes this proposal, in particular the emphasis on promoting growth, competitiveness and employment, and also the attention paid to SMEs.

8.2.2. The Explanatory Memorandum focuses on the medical and health needs of the citizen, and rightly so. However, the programme should put greater emphasis on prevention and cure of major diseases and on ways of disseminating the research results more rapidly.

8.2.3. The Committee welcomes the ethical concerns reflected in the Commission's proposals, and that this is clearly affirmed by the exclusion from the Community programmes of any research which could lead to the modification of the genetic constitution of human beings.

8.2.4. In the list of research activities which is mentioned, research into cardiovascular diseases and age-related problems should be moved up and be listed separately immediately after AIDS and cancer research, as a priority area. Cardiovascular illness is the biggest killer in the European Union and also involves detailed understanding of wide ranging pathological work, exactly as in the case of AIDS and cancer. Therefore, this area of research should not be seen as being of lesser importance, as it seems to be in the Commission document.

8.3.

Annex I: Scientific and technical objectives and content

8.3.1. It seems desirable that most of the pathological research should be financed principally on a shared cost basis. This leaves research into the brain, the human genome, occupational medicine, public health and biomedical ethics to be financed as concerted actions, since these are typically carried out by universities.

8.3.2. Concentrated and coordinated pharmaceutical research will lead to cuts in health expenditure if there is success in improving the therapeutic value of medicines to the extent that illnesses can be prevented and stays in hospital reduced or avoided.

8.3.2.1. Research must therefore be concentrated on actual needs.

8.3.3.

Pharmaceutical research

8.3.3.1. The objective (i.e. the development of scientific and technical bases required for the evaluation of new drugs) cannot be confined to new pharmaceuticals in the specific fields listed here which are neurological, mental, immunological and viral diseases. It should cover methodological support for all the work carried out by the European Medicine Evaluation Agency.

8.3.4.

Human genome research

8.3.4.1. The specific nature of the proposed research, i.e. basic research carried out by universities and research centres within national programmes, points to funding by concerted actions.

Hence some of the resources indicated in Annex II (indicative breakdown of the amount) could be usefully transferred to research on diseases with major socio-economic impact.

8.3.5.

Research on other diseases with major socio-economic impact

8.3.5.1. Because of their economic impact and the large number of research-oriented companies operating in this field, the emphasis should be on cost-sharing involving these enterprises.

8.3.5.2. The main subjects for research listed under that heading should be towards the solution of major orphan illnesses such as CHF (congenital heart failure), ischemia, etc. Funding should be at around the same level as AIDS and cancer.

8.3.6.

Public health research, including health services research

8.3.6.1. Most of the subjects listed constitute an analysis of the situation, of the effectiveness and the efficiency of largely national health services. These are very important but are not properly research and development items. They could be carried out better and more efficiently by other European Union initiatives.

8.3.7.

Research on biomedical technology and engineering

8.3.7.1. The list of topics is too restrictive. It should be left more open by changing the heading before the indents to 'Research and development will include but not be limited to'.

8.3.8.

Research on biomedical ethics

8.3.8.1. Research on biomedical ethics should be limited to supplying the basic scientific knowledge for legislative activity and involving all people concerned, including scientists, physicians, patients, etc. This knowledge includes respect for confidentiality and privacy. Attention must be paid in particular to ensuring that economic aspects do not prevail over ethical ones.

8.3.8.2. 'Confidentiality and privacy considering medical data', under indent 7, is not really a research subject but needs to be addressed in the proposal for a Council Directive on data protection.

8.3.9.

Horizontal activities

8.3.9.1. As research subjects, the activities mentioned in the second paragraph are of doubtful practical value, being concerned with 'values' rather than content.

8.3.9.2. On the contrary, activities mentioned in the third paragraph can be fully endorsed.

8.3.9.3. The fourth paragraph refers to demonstration activities. The Commission fails to specify how the demonstrations are to facilitate European multicentre clinical research at a 'precompetitive stage'. This should not be restricted to epidemiological studies, but should also cover methodology and broadly defined clinical testing (new pharmaceuticals should be treated as 'prototypes' until phase 3 of clinical development).

8.4.

Annex II: Indicative breakdown of the amount

8.4.1. The Committee is not qualified to evaluate the indicative breakdown in detail. However, it arises from its evaluation of the programme that 'research into other diseases with major socio-economic impact' should be transferred to the priority A list and therefore each amount for the specific research areas in the A list needs to be redefined.

8.5.

Annex III: Rules for implementing the programme

8.5.1. Paragraph 9.1a) provides that research activities on major illnesses will be strengthened, in particular, 'by a targeted training of young research workers' for a maximum of six months. The Committee is of the view that it is inconceivable that a researcher could be thrust into an entirely unfamiliar environment for such a short time and receive any useful training. The training period should be extended from six months to one year.

8.5.2. This paragraph also states the ten specific objectives of the programme. It refers to 'other diseases with major socio-economic impact' as the seventh objective. The Committee considers that this objective should be moved up the list and mentioned after 'AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases' and 'cancer', as objective 3, making provision for 20 more major projects on a shared cost basis.

9. Agriculture and fisheries (including agro-industry, food technologies, forestry, aquaculture and rural development [94/0088(CNS)]

9.1.

Introduction

9.1.1. The general objectives of the proposed programme are as follows:

'- To contribute to the improvement of the competitiveness of European agro-industry and primary production by the development of new technologies compatible with sustainable growth and taking account of the needs of consumers.

- To improve the quality of agricultural, forestry and fish products in general and food products in particular.

- To contribute to the implementation of the common agricultural policy and other Community policies (internal market and environment), rural development and to maintain employment in rural areas.

- To contribute to a better match between the production and utilization of biological primary materials'.

9.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 9 September 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 377 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

9.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 607 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):

- Integrated production and processing chains

14-16

- Scaling-up and processing methodologies

6-8

- Generic science and advanced technologies for nutritious foods

15-17

- Activities to complement Community policies in the agriculture and fisheries sectors, together with the identification of new prospects further to their restructuring. Priority should be given to:

52-56

- In the agriculture, forestry and rural development sectors, to:

36-38

- optimization of methods, systems and primary production chains;

- quality policy;

- diversification of farming sector activities and new land uses;

- animal and plant health and animal welfare;

- multifunctional management of forests;

- rural development.

- In the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, to

16-18

- impact of environmental factors on marine resources;

- environmental impact of fisheries and aquaculture activities;

- biology of species for optimization of aquaculture;

- socio-economic aspects of the fishing industry;

- improved methodology.

- Concerted actions

8

(of which 2 % for fisheries, 3 % for agriculture and 3 % for agro-industrial research)

9.1.4. These concerted actions will be carried out through thematic networks and will concentrate on primary production in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, rural and coastal development and food production and processing.

9.1.5. Of the total amount proposed, 1 % is earmarked for the exploitation and dissemination of results, between 4 and 8 % for horizontal demonstration activities, between 1 and 2 % for horizontal activities on ethical, social and legal aspects, and between 5 and 7 % on training activities.

9.1.6. The JRC is asked to contribute to research activities in the field of agriculture and fisheries to the tune of ECU 7 million. This is additional to the funding proposed for the implementation of the specific programme under consideration.

9.2.

Overall assessment

9.2.1. The Committee approves the proposed programme submitted by the Commission which is both clearly worded and specific. The priorities are broadly in line with the needs of agriculture and fisheries and should help to sustain the present moves towards restructuring.

9.2.2. The underlying competitiveness-related aspects of the programme tie in well with the problems of the environment, employment and, more generally, European integration. The Committee regrets, however, that the ethical concerns have not been taken sufficiently into account.

9.2.3. Generally speaking, the approach adopted in the definition of the scientific and technical content seems coherent and closely geared to the concerns of the moment.

9.3.

General comments

9.3.1. The Committee welcomes the fact that the fourth framework programme accords greater importance to life sciences and technologies, in the agriculture and fisheries sectors especially,and that this is also reflected in the budget.

9.3.2. However, the Committee considers that the appropriations will even so turn out to be insufficient to finance all the highly diverse research topics in the programme. Here, too, some attempt to focus the appropriations will be needed if they are not to be spread too thinly.

9.3.3. The need for a strong scientific research base for this competitive sector is very much approved as is the aim to provide a sound scientific base for the setting of standards and regulations.

9.3.4. The Committee stresses how crucial it is that in this field the definition of scientific and technical objectives, and of the research actions to be undertaken, should be based on a social consensus embracing ethical, moral, social and legal, as well as economic and commercial, implications. From this point of view the impact of such research activities on employment is of paramount importance. The Committee believes that it can help to bring about this consensus and form a link between the socio-economic interest groups and political decision-makers.

9.3.5. In future the agricultural and fisheries sectors and their allied processing industries must move forward within a framework based on such a 'social consensus'.

9.3.6. In this way the life sciences and technologies sector, which is becoming increasingly important in society, will be able to go on developing unhindered by any barriers other than those imposed by the state of knowledge, the frontiers of which are forever receding.

9.3.7. The Committee wishes to highlight the importance in the proposed programmes of demonstration activities as a means of making the new technological options based on life sciences and technologies more attractive. Here it must be emphasized that improving the quality of life for all citizens is a basic objective of research in the life sciences and technologies sector.

9.3.8. The importance of these demonstration activities is that they prove the viability of the new technologies in this sphere and show the economic as well as social benefits which could flow from their use.

9.3.9. For this reason the Committee considers that not only technology producers and technology users must participate in demonstration activities, but also all those whose responsibility it is to ensure that ethical aspects are respected.

9.4.

Specific comments

9.4.1.

Annex I: Objectives and scientific and technical content

9.4.1.1. The Committee notes that on several occasions reference is made to 'biological raw materials'. The use of this term - at any rate in French - may be a source of confusion if it is thought that organic farming products are meant, all the more so as the organic farming regulation is also mentioned.

9.4.1.2.

Integrated production and processing chains

9.4.1.2.1. The major crop group chains are a very sensible approach and means should be found to interlink these chains where this is beneficial.

9.4.1.2.2. In the bio-energy chain, the Committee approves the inclusion of energy balance and cost effectiveness. Indeed there should be an early preliminary investigation as to which approaches could best lead to products and applications which are viable without ongoing subsidies. This would save Community funds for those projects with the greatest chance of useful results.

9.4.1.3.

Scaling-up and processing methodologies

9.4.1.3.1. Work under this heading should include development and application of sensing and vision techniques, and also minimum processing systems for foods.

9.4.1.4.

Generic science and advanced technologies for nutritious foods

9.4.1.4.1. The Committee approves the emphasis on nutritious foods and on food quality, safety and wholesomeness. However it needs to emphasize again that once safety and wholesomeness are satisfied, quality must be defined in terms of consumer satisfaction and not in terms of compliance with numerical standards.

9.4.1.4.2. In the area of safety and wholesomeness, risk assessment should be added as should be the effects of natural toxicants. Modern changes in agricultural processing and distribution practice also need to come under this heading.

9.4.1.4.3. Spoilage is not only important for fishery products but for other foods as well. Rapid methods for detection of pathogens and spoilage organisms should be included in the programme as should be hygienic design of equipment.

9.4.1.5.

Agriculture, forestry and rural development

9.4.1.5.1. The points on quality mentioned above also apply here. The various proposals for biotechnology seem sensible but the reduction of need for pesticides should be made an explicit aim.

9.4.1.5.2. The ecologically viable management of forests is very much approved as is the need to give particular attention to economic viability.

9.4.1.5.3. With regard to rural development, the Committee considers that the list of proposed themes should include an analysis of the prospects for making better use of human potential, especially the development of new careers linked to the diversification of activities in rural areas.

9.4.1.6.

Concerted actions

9.4.1.6.1. The Committee also considers that the ethical aspects could be usefully dealt with as part of the concerted actions provided for in the programme.

9.4.2.

Financial statement

9.4.2.1. The Committee takes note of the anti-fraud measures referred to in the financial statement. It considers that the use of ISO standard 9000 could help to control the risk of fraud.

10. Nuclear safety and safeguards [94/0072 (CNS)]

10.1.

Introduction

10.1.1. The proposed programme has three general objectives, namely:

- To promote European cooperation and technological development in the field of nuclear safety and safeguards.

- To develop a global, dynamic approach to allow an improved understanding and quantification of the overall risk associated with the whole nuclear fuel cycle, considering exposure to ionizing radiation from all sources, including other industrial applications, medical applications and natural radioactivity.

- To create opportunities for training and mobility for scientists.

10.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 28 November 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 31 January 1991 (). A total amount of ECU 228 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

10.1.3. Under the fourth framework programme, a total amount of ECU 327 million is allocated to research and training in the field of nuclear safety and safeguards. Of this total, an amount of ECU 167 million is allocated to the research and training activities to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) for the European Atomic Energy Community and the remaining ECU 160 million is allocated to the indirect action programme under consideration. In addition, an amount of ECU 87 million is allocated to the JRC to provide scientific and technical support for the implementation of safeguards, in accordance with Chapter VII of the EURATOM Treaty, and similar support for the IAEA, activities which are not really research.

10.1.3.1. The research and training activities to be carried out by the JRC (direct action) will cover reactor safety (ECU 37 million), fuel cycle safety (ECU 76 million), and safeguards and fissile material management (ECU 37 million).

10.1.3.2. The Committee deplores that this cost breakdown was not included in the Commission proposal; it was made available to the Committee at a stage which made the preparation of this Opinion difficult.

10.1.3.3. Lastly, it is to be noted that the ECU 167 million, referred to above, include an amount of ECU 16 million for JRC participation in shared cost actions under the indirect action programme.

10.1.3.4. The Commission proposes to allocate the budget for the indirect action programme as follows (in million ECU):

- Exploring new concepts

7

- Reactor safety

50

- Closing the nuclear fuel cycle

40

- Radiological impact on man and the environment

50

- Historic liabilities

13

Total

160

10.1.4. Of the total amount proposed, 15 % is earmarked for fundamental research activities, 1.25 % for the exploitation and dissemination of results, 2 % for schemes to promote training for researchers in the fields covered by this programme.

10.2.

General comments

10.2.1. The overall budget for nuclear fission under the fourth framework programme is too small and not commensurate with the requirements. It is also badly allocated. It has to be considered against the following background.

10.2.1.1. Europe is the world leader in nuclear fission power. In 1992, Europe generated more electricity by nuclear fission than the United States, and three times as much as Japan. It supplied 35 % of Europe's electricity consumption, compared with 17 % worldwide. The benefits include zero CO2 emission, and both security of supply and long term price stability in comparison with fossil fuel resources such as oil and gas.

10.2.1.2. Pressure to improve economic performance, while simultaneously improving safety standards, never ceases. The poor state of the nuclear industry in Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia, disclosed following the collapse of their communist governments, has created new problems. A great deal of responsibility for protecting the European public, if possible, from another major accident in one of those countries has, in practice, fallen on the European Union, and this is even reflected in the proposed budget for nuclear fission research.

10.2.1.3. And yet the budget for nuclear fission safety research is less in absolute terms, and substantially less in real terms, than was budgeted for it in either the first or the second framework programme (the ECU 228 million allocated under the third framework programme was aberrantly low and offers no standard of comparison). This is all the more true since ECU 87 million is included for safeguards activities which are not research proper. This amount should therefore be deducted when considering the figures allocated to nuclear safety research.

10.2.1.4. Taking this into account, the Committee notes as well that the amount allocated to nuclear fission research (including that allocated to the JRC) is only a quarter of the total budget for nuclear research, the other three quarters being devoted to research into controlled thermonuclear fusion which, if successful, is not expected to become a practical option until circa 2050. The Committee cannot help but note that there appears to be a substantial gap between the largely near and medium term fission programme and the exceedingly long term fusion programme.

10.2.2. Despite its current significance and benefits, the future of nuclear fission in Europe is clouded by the absence, in most Member States, of general public acceptance of the safety of nuclear power and its associated fuel cycle. Chernobyl greatly increased public anxieties, and although these have receded somewhat due to the continued safe running of reactors in Member States, the positive case for nuclear power on environmental and strategic grounds has yet to regain its earlier acceptability.

10.2.2.1. In addition, only six of the twelve Member States produce nuclear power, and this in itself produces divergent interests and attitudes at policy-making levels. The Chernobyl disaster provided a common theme on which all have united - this theme being the need to work towards an international understanding and approach to nuclear safety. The ultimate goal must be the international harmonization of safety and licensing.

10.2.2.2. Within the European Union, the aim must be to achieve a broad consensus of opinion on nuclear energy as one of the key components of a common energy and environmental policy. Nevertheless, nuclear fission research under the fourth framework programme must first and foremost serve the primary objective of improving safety. It should also be carried out in a manner which stimulates good collaboration between Member States. Such collaboration will certainly spread a better understanding of safety issues and thus contribute to the process of finding the broad consensus which is sought.

10.2.3. Shared cost and concerted actions are seen as the most powerful, as well as the most cost effective means of stimulating collaboration between Member States. In keeping with the views expressed in previous Opinions, therefore, the Committee believes that the funding for the indirect actions programme is at altogether too low a level especially if one takes into account that an amount of ECU 50 million is allocated to radiation protection. The Committee considers that, in the future, the balance between direct and indirect action should be reviewed and the allocation for shared cost actions increased.

10.2.4. The Committee is aware, to its concern, that, for example, CGC5, which is responsible for advising the Commission on the indirect action programme for nuclear reactor safety research, was not advised of the JRC breakdown.

10.2.4.1. Without detailed information about the proposed JRC programme being made available to interested parties in advance of final decisions on the programme as a whole, it is not possible for proper coordination to take place. This must point to a potentially significant weakness in the Commission's overall approach to the planning of research in this field of its activities. At Corfu, the European Council called for 'reinforced coordination of research policy'. Given the information to which it has alluded above, the Committee believes that the call is justified.

10.2.5. The Committee believes that to be effective, both indirect and direct action safety research must have a strong customer focus.

10.2.5.1. It is still insufficiently recognized that the regulators represent the public, and that the utilities are responsible for the safety of their plant. The utilities, with responsibility for the safe supply of nuclear-generated electricity to the majority of the Union's more than 300 million people, should certainly be much more closely involved in specifying research requirements and evaluating results, as required under Article 4 of the Commission proposal. Of course, other significant users such as the nuclear fuel producers and reprocessing plant operators must also be involved.

10.2.6. One mechanism the Commission could use to achieve greater accountability would be the establishment of users groups, as was done for example under the Teleman programme. The existence of such groups would aid the development of consensus, since they would be called upon to agree on the safety issues which should drive the research programme, as well as the work needed for their resolution. They should consider the work of the JRC programme as well as the indirect actions programme. The Commission is asked to consider introducing a mechanism along these lines.

10.2.7. In the reactor safety area, in response to the small budget, the Commission proposes to concentrate the indirect actions resources on only one topic, namely severe accidents. But, while this may well have the greatest political appeal, the exclusion of no less important reactor safety issues concerned with prevention rather than mitigation (as for example structural integrity, ageing, software reliability, probabilistic safety assessment, etc.) leads to a poor match between Community and national priorities for safety research. It also loses the opportunity for this programme to stimulate a consensus on these important topics within the nuclear community. The Commission is asked to reconsider the priorities within the area of reactor safety research.

10.2.8. Inevitably, budget constraints are tight and will remain so. The Commission should take the initiative, therefore, to develop a strategy for rationalization of the major facilities it supports in Europe. Focusing programmes on specific facilities or teams will also encourage practical international collaboration (PHEBUS is a good example).

10.3.

Specific comments

10.3.1. Work on exploring new concepts should exclude severe accidents, since work under this heading (including work on exploring new concepts) is already covered under the reactor safety heading. The JRC will also be doing work on severe accidents. Work on quantifying the benefits of the passive system, and new fuel cycle activities such as MOX, is supported. Work on partitioning and transmutation should be conditional on the review of present studies, including the question of economic feasibility.

10.3.2. The nuclear industry is, at present, the only industry which covers the complete cycle through to final disposal of waste material. Europe has all the technology of the entire nuclear cycle and is a world leader in this regard. Under the heading of closing the fuel cycle, the development of a co-ordinated position on the basic safety criteria is particularly important in facilitating a consensus. Given that there is no need to go on producing plutonium, there would be a significant benefit from work to demonstrate safe, direct disposal of fuel without the risks or costs of reprocessing.

10.3.2.1. Funding of reactor decommissioning has been omitted, although it was included under the third framework programme. Some ECU 10 million of funding for research in this area should be reinstated to support pilot dismantling projects to provide a public demonstration of the technical and economic feasibility of decommissioning.

10.3.3. The Committee notes with satisfaction that its recommendation with regard to the 'radiological impact on man and the environment' in the third framework programme has been taken up and more funds allocated to this fundamental, long-term area of research.

10.3.3.1. The Committee is still of the view, however, that it is undesirable to subsume all sources of radiation under the one programme. It covers not only radiation protection in nuclear technology, but also natural, medical and industrial radiation, as well as basic questions concerning the effects of low-level doses. This leads to serious misunderstandings in the public mind in a highly sensitive area.

10.3.4. Work on historic liabilities addresses issues associated with Central and Eastern European and CIS reactors. The provision of technical assistance and capital investment is covered under other European Union programmes. These programmes are substantial and must aim at establishing a reliable and consistent safety philosophy in Eastern Europe. The proposed funding under the fourth framework programme should be used to assist these countries to participate in the collaborative safety research programme.

11. Controlled thermonuclear fusion [94/0073 (CNS)]

11.1.

Introduction

11.1.1. The long-term objective of the Community Fusion Programme, embracing all activities undertaken in the Member States (plus Sweden and Switzerland) in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion by magnetic confinement, is the joint creation of safe, environmentally sound prototype reactors, which should result in the construction of economically viable power stations which will meet the needs of potential users.

11.1.2. For the period 1994-1998, the priority objective is to establish the engineering design of the Next Step within the framework of the quadripartite cooperation between Euratom, Japan, Russia and the USA on the Engineering Design Activities for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER-EDA).

11.1.2.1. Specialized studies will also be needed to look at possible improvements to concepts in plasma physics and plasma engineering, as well as to carry out the long-term technology developments required for progressing towards the exploitation of fusion as an energy source. The results of such studies will be of benefit both in the operation of ITER and, in the longer term, in the conceptual definition of DEMO (demonstration reactor).

11.1.3. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 31 December 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 March 1991 (). A total amount of ECU 568 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.

11.1.4. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 794 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research on which the Commission proposes that efforts be concentrated (as a %):

- Next Step activities

40-50

- JET Joint Undertaking

22-32

(focusing mainly on support for Next Step)

- Concept improvements

22-32

- Long-term technology

5-9

11.1.5. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) will participate in the implementation of the programme, for which an additional ECU 46 million is provided. Most of the research work to be carried out by the JRC will be on ITER support.

11.2.

Background

11.2.1. Research into controlled thermonuclear fusion is concerned to discover if there is a way in which, for peaceful purposes, it is possible to replicate the process which takes place in the sun, in which enormous quantities of energy are continuously released from the fusion of hydrogen atoms at millions of degrees centigrade. To succeed in this endeavour would open up access to a potentially very large new source of energy for conversion to electricity.

11.2.2. The achievement of such a goal will require the fusion process to operate in reactors capable of containing temperatures which are normal in the sun, and do so safely and securely, and economically in comparison with other power sources, for periods of time to be measured in decades.

11.2.3. Fusion research started in Europe in the late 1950s, originally being centred at CERN in Switzerland. In 1978 the Community established JET (the Joint European Torus), designed to achieve controlled thermonuclear fusion by magnetic confinement in toroidal geometry by use of a Tokamak configuration. This is not the only approach to the possibility of creating a controlled fusion process, but it is the main route which has been followed in Europe, as also in the United States, Russia and Japan. After five years of construction JET became operational in 1983, and is recognized as the world's leading fusion experiment.

11.2.4. The main purpose of JET has been to explore the design parameters for a successor device which would be capable not only of momentary fusion but, much more importantly, of ignition - i.e. the creation of a self-sustaining plasma. (This second stage of development is invariably referred to as the Next Step). In the words of the November 1993 report of the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), created to advise the Commission under the Euratom Treaty, 'the Next Step' must be to create another Tokamak device 'capable of reaching ignition and maintaining burn in a plasma for at least 1000 seconds, i.e. long enough to study burn in conditions which may be considered steady-state with respect to all the timescales relevant to the physical behaviour of the plasma'.

11.2.5. It had been the intention that Europe (i.e., in respect to fusion research, the EU together with Sweden and Switzerland) would design and build its own machine (known as the Next European Torus, or NET) for the Next Step. However, in 1988 an agreement was signed with the United States, Japan and the USSR to adopt a collaborative approach to further fusion research and, therefore, to pool ideas and resources, and reduce the costs (Russia has since taken over the responsibilities of the now defunct USSR).

11.2.5.1. Given the fundamental nature of current fusion research, and that it is an exceptionally long-term as well as expensive endeavour, the attractions of adopting such an international approach were - and remain - obvious.

11.2.6. The four signatories to the 1988 agreement have subsequently collaborated on engineering design studies (EDA) for an international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER), also to be based on the Tokamak configuration. There have been, and remain, differences of view within the ITER collaboration over the design, but this is hardly surprising given the nature of the task. The important point is that a Second Protocol, to provide for the collaborative studies to continue with the aim of their being completed by 1998, was signed in March this year.

11.2.7. The aim behind the design and construction of ITER is first to achieve ignition and then to demonstrate that it can be continued for more than a few seconds. But it may also be used to examine some of the problems that will have to be solved in order to proceed to the stage after ITER, which is conceived to be the design and construction of a demonstration reactor able to generate electricity. This stage is referred to as DEMO.

11.2.8. Europe is now committing its main effort, in relation to the Next Step, to the ITER collaboration, but is nevertheless continuing with work on the key technologies associated with NET in case the ITER collaboration should break down. (It should be borne in mind that in practice there is anyway a significant overlap between the design of ITER and the design of NET, so that it is not a case of Europe doubling the total effort it is putting into the Next Step). Some effort is devoted as well to the possible development of other concepts for establishing a controlled fusion process.

11.3.

Comments

11.3.1. Three main issues would seem to arise for consideration from the research prospectus put forward by the Commission. These are:

1) What should be done about the JET programme, which has been scheduled for closure for the end of 1996?

2) How important is it to insist on ITER being built in Europe?

3) How satisfactory is it to continue to fund fusion research out of the allocation to energy research?

The Committee's comments on these three issues are given below.

11.3.2.

The future of JET

11.3.2.1. JET is technically a Joint Undertaking set up under the Euratom Treaty. 80 % of its operating costs are met by the Commission from the fusion programme budget. Currently this takes some ECU 100 million or about half of the annual fusion budget.

11.3.2.2. Under the present plans the final phase of activity at JET will be a 6-12 month campaign of experiments with plasmas consisting of a mix of deuterium and tritium gases. Because this will involve extensive burning of tritium it will result in considerable activation of key parts of the facility, and almost certainly make them unusable thereafter. The extent to which the facility could then be used for further research would be greatly limited. It had been intended therefore to close JET in the latter half of 1996, following completion of the deuterium-tritium campaign.

11.3.2.3. As the Commission reports, this decision is now being reviewed - at its own request - by the Consultative Committee on the Fusion Programme (CCFP). The Commission asked for this review because scientific opinion had been arguing strongly for it: as the CCFP had itself commented in its March report to the Commission, there were 'substantial new scientific and technical arguments... in particular for the benefit of ITER, which speak for the continuation of JET's operation beyond 1996'. The outcome of the CCFP's review is awaited.

11.3.2.4. There is, however, a complication about extending JET's life. The money which would be needed to keep JET going will either have to come from money at present budgeted for other work or from significant savings being made in the next two years within the JET programme