8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the draft Council Regulation adopting a Community Plan to support large-scale 
scienfific facilities of interest to Europe 
(88/C 35/01) 
On 1 October 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130 Q of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned draft Council Regulation. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 3 December 1987. The 
rapporteur was Mr Saiu. 
At its 251st plenary session (meeting of 16 December 1987), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Regulation unanimously, with 2 abstentions: 
1. A concerted plan for giving Community research 
workers easier access to scientific and technical facilities 
in the Community and for upgrading the Community's 
stock of large-scale scientific installations is likely to 
assist the building of a 'Researchers' Europe'. 
The Commission's proposal must therefore be endorsed 
subject to the following comments: 
2. The prime aim must be to grant every research 
worker from every Member State access to scienfitic 
and technical facilities in other Member States when 
these facilities are not available in the research worker's 
own Member State. 5. The Community plan for granting easier access 
to large-scale scientific facilities will require greater 
mobility on the part of Community research workers 
and total abolition of national barriers in the scientific 
community. The aim of the plan is to underpin meas­
ures which came into force in March 1985 when the 
plan for stimulating scientific and technical cooperation 
and interchange in Europe was launched. 
The Commission has presented the Council with a 
proposal for a new plan to stimulate scientific cooper­
ation and interchange, on which the Economic and 
Social Committee has also been consulted. 
6. The selection of projects which will be eligible 
for temporary Community financial support should be 
based on the following criteria: 
3. The temporary financial support from which the 
scientific bodies or institutions owning these facilities 
in the Community would benefit in return cannot under 
any circumstances be regarded as a substitute for the 
funds allocated so far by the Member States for the 
operation of these facilities. quality of the installation (experimental facilities 
and special features) and availability, 
interest shown by researchers as the installation's 
potential users, 
4. In order to rule out any misunderstandings in this 
respect, the title of the draft Council Regulation should 
be brought into line with the body of the text. cost-benefit relationship of the Community 
financial support, 
— importance for the Community. 
No C 35/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
7. The inclusion of the cost-benefit relationship will 
mean that, all other things being equal, preference 
will be given to projects encouraging specialization by 
installations which are duplicated in the Community. 
8. A project's importance for the Community means 
the contribution which it makes not only to improving 
the Community's scientific and technical compe­
titiveness and achieving the Community's objectives in 
the field of technological research and development, but 
also to improving the scientific and technical facilities in 
the less-favoured countries and regions of the Com­
munity. 
9. The prime beneficiaries should therefore be 
researchers from countries or areas of the Community 
where there is a shortage of research facilities, or 
researchers who are a long way away from the facilities 
in their own Member State. 
The priorities should, however, not result in the fixing 
of user quotas. 
10. The Community plan should contribute towards: 
— satisfying aggregate research requirements, 
— improving the coordination of national research 
programmes and reducing duplication, 
— increasing the utilization and efficiency of large-
scale scientific facilities in the Community, 
— making it easier for researchers to take part in 
exchange schemes within the Community. 
11. The importance of the plan for small- and me­
dium-sized firms should also be underlined. Such firms 
—which often do not have the requisite funds or staff 
of their own—could benefit from having access to 
scientific facilities which are needed for developing and 
perfecting new products or technologies. 
However, if this is to be so, the firms themselves and— 
more generally—all scientific associations and organiz­
ations representing the two sides of industry must be 
kept fully informed of the facilities available, the con­
ditions governing their use and how projects should be 
submitted. 
12. It is estimated at the moment that 30 million 
ECU will be required to cover the cost of the Com­munity plan. This is totally inadequate for the stated 
purpose even if the plan is still at the experimental 
stage. 
The Commission is asked here and now to consider the 
details of any additional programme which may be 
necessary; this will avoid the danger of too many pro­
jects being rejected simply because not enough funds 
are available, and also prevent potential beneficiaries 
from the research community from becoming disen­
chanted. 
13. The Commission has made provision for non-
Community European countries and international 
organizations to enter into agreements with the Com­
munity which will allow them to participate in the 
Community plan. 
This initiative must be approved. However, these 
countries and organizations will naturally have to help 
to fund the Community plan. 
14. These agreements must also be reciprocal, i.e. 
researchers from Community countries must (if 
financial support is given under the conditions laid 
down in the Community plan) have the chance to have 
access to the large-scale scientific facilities of these other 
countries or organizations. 
15. If the objectives laid down in the Community 
plan are attained, the Commission could be asked to 
consider extending the plan to non-European countries, 
especially countries with specific expertise in areas 
where the Community and its Member States are poorly 
equipped, e.g. tropical medicine and agriculture. 
16. In addition, the draft Regulation should be 
amended as follows: 
Article 1 
In keeping with the comments made in 2 to 4 above, 
Article 1 should be worded as follows: 
'A plan of Community support to facilitate access to 
large-scale ... (rest unchanged).' 
Article 5 
The contracts concluded between the Commission and 
the scientific bodies or institutions eligible for Com-
8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/3 
munity financial support should indicate how these 
bodies or institutions intend to spend their allocations. 
Article 6 
The results of the evaluation carried out by the Com­
mission at the end of the third year of the plan's 
implementation should be communicated to the Econ­
omic and Social Committee and the European Parlia­
ment. 
This evaluation should also put the Commission in a 
position to submit a proposal for revising the pro­
gramme in accordance with the appropriate procedures. Apart from the evaluation, the Commission is asked to 
take regular stock of: 
— trends in the utilization capacity of large-scale scien­
tific facilities in the Community, 
— the extra utilization potential resulting from a better 
load factor and greater specialization. 
This stocktaking exercise should include a check on 
whether the allocations have been used for the purpose 
specified in the contracts. If this should prove not to 
be so and no sufficient reason can be given, the scientific 
body or institution should be obliged to reimburse all 
or part of the Commission's allocation. 
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on a research and development programme 
in the field of applied metrology and chemical analyses in the European Community (1988-
1992)(1) 
(88/C 35/02) 
On 19 October 1987, the Council of the European Communities, acting under Article 130 Q 
of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, asked the Economic and 
Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research to prepare 
the Opinion. The Section adopted its Opinion on 3 December 1987. The rapporteur was Mr. 
Proumens. 
The Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously, with 
2 abstentions, at its 251st plenary session (meeting of 16 December 1987): 
1. The Committee has endorsed Community activi­
ties in this field on several occasions and four pro­
grammes have so far been implemented; the latest one 
was adopted by the Council on 21 December 1982 (2). 
(!) OJ No C 304, 14. 11. 1987, p. 4. 
(2) Decision 83/19/EEC (OJ No L 26, 28. 1. 1983). 2. The Committee welcomes the encouraging results 
achieved by the programme since its launch in 1973. In 
view of these results and having reviewed the contents 
of the new programme, the Committee endorses the 
proposed Regulation presented by the Commission. 
3. The Commission proposes that the programme's 
funding be very substantially increased from 25 million 
ECU (1983-1987 programme) to 59,2 million ECU