Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

- the 'Commission Working Paper: towards the Fifth Framework Programme - scientific and technological objectives`,

- the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision concerning the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002)`, and - the 'Proposal for a Council decision concerning the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002)` () (97/C 355/09)

On 20 February 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and on 23 May 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under Articles 130i(1) and 130i(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 170 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, on the above-mentioned working paper and 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 24 July 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 348th plenary session (meeting of 1 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1. Recommendations

The Economic and Social Committee,

Whereas

1.1. the arrival of the Fifth Framework Programme comes at a time of globalization, liberalization of markets, acceleration of the innovation process, and enlargement of the EU, which demands greater concentration, flexibility, coordination and consistency of Community research work at all levels;

1.2. there is an urgent need to adapt the multiannual programming of RTDD work and establish a real common European strategy that provides a consistent and coordinated framework to meet the need to improve the competitiveness of every element of the system and boost employment, while also enhancing cohesion;

1.3. it is desirable to directly involve research players and end-users, particularly the various types of SME, from the planning of the Framework Programme right through to the innovative application of research results;

1.4. Community research work needs to be targeted on a small number of carefully selected objectives, concentrating on those likely to deliver European added value, including improvements in living conditions and health, which will be clearly evident to the public and will thus gain their support;

1.5. the structure of the programme needs to bring coherence between research at the different levels, in order that transparent, inter-related, flexible, affordable mechanisms can be brought to bear on complex problems;

1.6. a new integrated approach is required which coordinates both public and private research work at national, Community and European levels, as well as other EU structural measures and cooperation instruments, creating an unambiguous system capable of responding to the challenges of the world market;

1.7. financial resources for the Framework Programme must attain a critical mass commensurate with the ambitious aim of making it a catalyst for European scientific excellence that furthers the goals of EU-wide competitiveness, growth and employment.

calls on the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to:

1.8. strengthen technological and industrial forecasting and assessment instruments, in order to help define Community RTDD strategy with the full involvement of all research players and end-users;

1.9. accompany the general programming principles and criteria of the Framework Programme with more selective priorities backed by clear parameters and timeframes, established through interinstitutional dialogue;

1.10. provide the necessary interface for Community and national actions by applying the basic legal framework for Articles 130k, l and n in the light of the outcome of the Amsterdam Council which generalized qualified majority voting on the Framework Programme;

1.11. prepare trend charts for the systematic comparison of European, EU and national RTDD measures, to allow research players and end-users to activate RTD instruments jointly at the various levels;

1.12. adopt an integrated approach closely binding the horizontal with the thematic programmes, together with other EU instruments for structural intervention and international cooperation, establishing clear-cut and appropriate mechanisms and methods;

1.13. develop explicit protocols of agreement with other European research bodies, in particular Eureka, taking advantage of the fact that the presentation of the Eureka medium-term programme coincides with the planning of the fifth Framework Programme;

and calls for

1.14. a clear distinction between the three types of intervention in RTDD programmes: key actions, general and basic RTD, support for infrastructure;

1.15. concentration of research on a limited number of key actions (9 or 10), defined as a cluster of small and major projects with precise objectives and a limited, performance-related timescale, and a minimum threshold of combined public and private funding of ECU 1 000 million;

1.16. definition of the scope for general and basic technology activities in terms of interaction and coordination with the key actions, but on a broader scale in order to provide continuity for the Framework Programmes, to ensure the flexibility needed to tackle new goals, and to guarantee the widest possible spread of new technologies throughout the industrial fabric of Europe;

1.17. inclusion of forecasting, innovation and coordination units as key actions in the specific programmes, in order to ensure linkage between different policies and actions;

1.18. provision of funding for the Fifth Framework Programme of at least ECU 17 000 million, to be shared between a limited number of thematic programmes and key actions, and focusing more on measures within and beyond the horizontal actions;

1.19. an increase in Community funding for horizontal actions, particularly innovation and development actions for the various types of SME;

1.20. visibility and coherence in international cooperation for geographical areas, analysis of their requirements, scientific excellence, mutual benefit and solutions to common problems;

1.21. improved circulation and exploitation of results within the thematic programmes and key actions, backed by specific targeted action;

1.22. skewing researcher training and mobility towards closer links between industry (especially SMEs), universities and research centres;

1.23. clarifying and strengthening the strategic role of the JRC and its institutions, especially the IPTS, as a centre of interinstitutional excellence, to provide support and guidance for Community decision-making, and to develop the European and international aspect of RTD;

1.24. more transparent, simplified and streamlined management procedures to ensure accessibility, reducing costs, timescales and red tape in keeping with the need to rebuild a relationship of trust with research players and end-users.

2. Introduction

2.1. The general thrust of the Commission proposal responds at least in part to the need for Community research to target precisely defined objectives and for flexible, transparent management and coordination.

2.2. The Commission wants to switch the focus of Community research activity from key technologies to a multi-sector, inter-disciplinary 'problem solving` approach, with the aim of concentrating on common objectives for the short, medium and long term.

2.3. The proposal suffers, however, from the tendency of the specific sub-programmes of the past Framework Programmes to be self-perpetuating and from the lack of adequate instruments for defining strategic criteria which would give legitimacy and objective value to a few priority RTD activities. Nor does it adequately reflect the need to target a restricted number of problems, so that national and European efforts - in keeping with the principles of coordination and subsidiarity as redefined by the Amsterdam Treaty - can focus on achieving solutions that the public can experience and understand, and that are consistent with the goals of competitiveness, employment and economic and social cohesion.

2.4. Forward analysis of markets and technology (including impact studies), recording and anticipating developments and carried out with the active participation of research users, is a precondition for effective policy-making for high quality research.

2.5. Precise targets and a set timetable for concrete results are vital in order to make a systematic, on-going assessment of the added value of a joint research project, and hence apply the requisite fine-tuning.

2.6. The subdivision of the three thematic programmes into 16 key actions, 13 'general activities for the development of generic technologies and basic research` and three activities connected with 'support for research infrastructure`, in addition to the three horizontal programmes with 15 specific objectives, is likely to cause great confusion and create serious problems for the management of the Framework Programme. Additionally, there is the specific JRC action and independent management for the Euratom actions incorporating a specific key action, five basic and generic research activities and one infrastructural support measure. The lack of a strategic reference framework and clear-cut, quantified criteria for the selection of research options is reflected in the Commission's choice of key actions. For the most part these are simply a reshuffle of the content of the specific programmes of the Fourth Framework Programme, defined sector by sector and not in terms of complex, inter-disciplinary, multi-sector problems.

2.7. Pinpointing these key multi-sector and cross-technology actions within the Framework Programme requires precise and unambiguous procedures for coordination, functional integration and allocation of responsibilities within the Commission departments which manage the Framework Programme and handle other EU measures. Furthermore, the need to devote a critical mass of resources to shared strategic objectives requires machinery for cooperation with relevant national programmes, pursuant to Articles 130k, 130l and 130n of the EC Treaty, and related research infrastructure, as well as cooperation with other schemes and European organizations for scientific and technological cooperation.

2.8. However, in the absence of any indication of the total funding to be provided for the Framework Programme, or of how it is to be shared among the different specific activities, it is extremely difficult to draw up a scale of weighted priorities and hence come to a reasoned conclusion on the matter. In this respect, the Commission's proposed percentage breakdown between thematic and horizontal programmes is inadequate. The Committee reserves the right to issue an additional opinion once the financial perspectives for 2000-2004 have been established and the proposed allocation of EC and Euratom Framework Programme resources to each specific activity has been formally made, in accordance with Article 130i of the EC Treaty and Article 170 of the Euratom Treaty. There should be a limited number of key actions - nine or ten - which have the potential to gain the support of the European public and thus enable the Member States to back a winner by committing their own resources to them.

2.9. The definition of key actions aimed at meeting users' needs through short- or medium-term problem-solving applied research would also make it easier to decide on areas of generic and basic research, as a means of maintaining technology-led research in the medium and long term.

2.10. Technological sectors for generic and basic research should be chosen in fields where the European scientific community is capable of competing with the world's best and thus of contributing to the development of functional technologies that further the objectives of the key actions.

2.11. The Commission proposal does not clarify the mechanisms for interaction between the key actions, generic and basic technology programmes, and actions in support of research infrastructure on the one hand, and the three major horizontal programmes on the international role of European research, innovation and participation of SMEs and improving human potential on the other.

2.12. The Committee is strongly in favour of the horizontal programmes, and indeed has called for their funding to be doubled, rather than the percentage increase proposed by the Commission.

2.13. This depends, however, upon the actual mechanisms, yet to be defined, which should integrate the international dimension, innovation and SMEs, and training and human resources into the major thematic programmes, including the key actions, making them sufficiently visible, transparent and influential.

2.14. As the Davignon report stresses, the quality of Community research work is inherently dependent on transparent and effective management. The Framework Programme procedures should be reviewed with the aim of ensuring uniform and simplified procedures for all the thematic programmes and key actions, pre-screening of proposals so that a larger proportion of those presented are selected, and quicker starts for projects following their selection. The Commission document also fails to clarify the ties between the major thematic programmes and their links with other European RTD schemes such as Eureka and COST, EMBO, ESA and CERN. A first positive step towards coordinating the thematic programmes would seem to be that of limiting the number of specific programmes and scaling down the number of management committees accordingly.

3. Drawing up a joint strategy

3.1. The transformation from a framework programme conceived as an all-embracing umbrella for research measures to a coherent strategic framework targeted on enhancing basic competitiveness and meeting the needs of society, business and the individual means that there is a need for Community-level technological and industrial forward studies to help research players and end-users focus on common priorities for scientific and technological development.

3.2. This is the only way to raise the overall quality of European research and speed up the research - employment - market cycle, focusing on carefully chosen priority activities which will enable European, Community and national efforts to be combined to create a critical mass.

3.3. The failure to provide such studies has prevented the Commission from setting clear, detailed criteria and objectives in Annex I of the proposal and taking measures to identify unequivocally the problems that need solving most urgently and the ways to do so effectively, practically and visibly. Furthermore, it deprives the Community of an essential tool that would lend the requisite flexibility to its five-year planning exercise.

3.4. Furthermore, as the Committee has stressed on a number of occasions, the need for such studies has been clearly demonstrated during the Fourth Framework Programme by the creation of such instruments and initiatives as the European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN), the European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO), the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Seville, the European Innovation Monitoring System (EIMS), the specific programme of targeted socio-economic research, and the production of the first European report on scientific and technological indicators in 1994.

3.5. These instruments have not been systematically organized and coordinated. Many of them are kept at an embryonic stage, as witnessed by the fact that the Commission relegates them to one of the five specific actions of the third horizontal programme, 'improving human potential`, and that its presentation of the Fifth Framework Programme fails to make any reference to the results already obtained through these measures.

3.6. Moreover, these instruments should be combined with those which monitor industrial policy priorities in the various sectors (), and directly involve industrial research players and end-users.

3.7. The Committee feels that the lack of validated, objective data could prejudice the legitimacy of the proposed choices as not having been properly scrutinized, or that it could result in a compromise to sustain existing interests, with options previously accepted by the Member States merely being put forward once again.

3.8. The Committee therefore considers it essential that the instruments for technological assessment and forecasting be rationalized, strengthened and coordinated in the Fifth Framework Programme, and that they be tied in with other economic and industrial analytical and forecasting instruments organized by the Community.

3.9. More specifically, the Committee considers it necessary that:

- the three major thematic programmes and the three horizontal programmes should incorporate an assessment and forecasting action managed by bodies made up of representatives of the Commission, industry, research centres, social partners, users and the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville (IPTS), thereby ensuring both representativeness and efficacy. These bodies would draw on the results of targeted socio-economic research projects and analyses of Community technological and industrial trends;

- these bodies should monitor how well (in terms of results and market impact) research work responds to the quantified fixed-term objectives of the Framework Programme and should adjust these targets on the basis of forecasting and assessment of trends throughout the Community and in the global marketplace. Their work should also guide the Council's and the Parliament's choice of major strategic objectives for Community research as part of the five-year planning process, to which proposals for the framework programmes and actions under Articles 130k, 130l and 130n (EC) should conform;

- the results of their work should be set out in a detailed report which should accompany the Annual Report issued under Article 130p of the EC Treaty, to be sent to the Council, Parliament and the ESC in order to provide the Community institutions with the wherewithal to amend and target existing work programmes. This annual report should catalogue the impact on competitiveness and employment, consistency between the relevant national and Community policies, economic and social cohesion, and the efficiency of the research - innovation - market cycle, particularly as regards SMEs;

4. Principles and general criteria

4.1. The Committee notes the Commission's intention to establish principles and hence general criteria for targeting Community research work on ways of addressing social, occupational, health and environmental needs and improving the quality of life; on the need for economic, scientific and technological development in growth sectors and in areas where competitiveness needs to be boosted or where there are prospects for major technological advances; and on the need for a critical mass of human and financial resources and support for other Community policies and for activities which of necessity have to be conducted at Community level.

4.2. In the Committee's opinion, however, these principles and general criteria are not sufficiently selective to achieve the Commission's stated aims of concentrating research efforts on a limited number of objectives, making a greater commitment to disseminate and exploit research results in order to end the European innovation 'paradox`, and bringing scientific and technological excellence into line with the general need for a competitive EU economic and social system.

4.3. The Committee feels that the vagueness of these principles and criteria is bound up with the failure to provide joint strategic planning and set common priorities. As has already been stressed, this leaves a risk of reverting to a 'shopping list` formula or just tinkering with the fourth Framework Programme.

4.4. The Committee therefore feels it highly advisable that before the Commission issues formal proposals for specific programmes, there should be an interinstitutional dialogue to define clearer, fixed-term quantified criteria.

5. Structure and method

5.1. The structure and method of the Fifth Framework Programme are vital for adapting to the sweeping changes brought about by the globalization of markets and their move into the virtual realm, and, consequently, the growing interdependence of already complex problems. This requires clear definitions, transparent management, flexibility and the ability to respond to technological developments and changes in the markets, with the accent on finding real solutions to the problems. It will also require full participation by research players and end-users at all levels. Public confidence must be restored in Community machinery for developing a European RTD policy that takes a systemic, mainstreamed approach, rather than being just another one-stop shop which would, of necessity, downgrade its importance.

5.2. The structure and method of future Community RTD programme work must provide clear and reliable signposting for industry, scientific communities and end-users, in order to develop the necessary synergies and integrate the different factors which are vital to the competitiveness of the EU system as a whole.

5.3. For this reason the Committee repeats its call for the programme to be structured so that all research work furthers the aim of resolving complex problems faced by society, the individual and businesses in the Union. The choice of options within the three thematic programmes of 'problem solving` key actions, generic and basic research activities and support for major scientific infrastructure, must thus ensure that they dovetail smoothly. This also holds true for the underlying themes of the horizontal programmes and the JRC action.

5.4. However, the Commission proposal's approach seems to treat generic research sectors separately from the sectors covered by the key actions, overlooking the need to coordinate them. At all events, it will be necessary to ensure adequate levels of flexibility for research with new medium-long-term prospectives.

5.5. The Commission merely pays lip service to the interaction between horizontal programmes and thematic programmes, and suggests no procedures or ways of putting it into practice at this stage. This observation also applies to links between the Framework Programme and frameworks for European cooperation extending beyond the EU (cf. point 7.1.4).

5.6. Regarding effective methods of interaction between the Framework Programme and other Community financial instruments (in particular the Structural and Cohesion Funds, Phare, Tacis and MEDA), the Commission proposal announces future measures but does not describe them in detail. However, the Committee hopes to be fully consulted on the Commission's formal proposals regarding RTDD cooperation with the Phare, Tacis and MEDA countries, so that it can make a practical contribution to them.

5.7. Given the need for linkage between Community and national actions, the Commission proposal must, in keeping with the Committee's recommendation, provide for a legal framework that would simplify the launch of complementary and shared programmes and joint ventures, thus making it possible to achieve the critical mass needed to launch major industrial association projects ().

6. First activity: RTD and demonstration programmes

6.1. The Commission's attempt to break new ground in terms of form and content of the first action for RTD and demonstration has led it to plan three major thematic programmes: the living world and the ecosystem, the information society, and competitive and sustainable growth. These are subdivided into key actions, activities for the development of generic technologies and support for research infrastructure.

6.2. The Committee welcomes this simpler thematic approach, which also offers scope for environmental issues to be tackled in their own right, but stresses the need for a clearer definition of these three categories of intervention in order to ensure that the technological objectives of the Framework Programme are clear, transparent and unambiguous.

6.3. The Committee feels that key actions should identify a problem facing the citizen, businesses or society, set precise objectives and a firm timetable for devising the most appropriate solutions, including assessment of the technological and competitive impact. Since they would deal with complex problems, these key actions would need a multi-sector, cross-technology, inter-disciplinary approach, coordinated by Commission interdepartmental units, and assisted by permanent advisory groups composed of research players and end-users.

6.4. The Commission proposal's failure to supply a clear definition of a key action has in practice reduced most of them to new versions of the specific programmes of the fourth Framework Programme.

6.5. The decision to concentrate Community research on selected, validated key actions is mainly justified by the need to make its contribution immediately visible and comprehensible to the public, so that they are able to appreciate the 'European added value` brought by cooperating on research work, while businesses - in both traditional and cutting edge sectors - appreciate their improved competitive position on the world market.

6.6. This visibility is directly tied in with the provision of adequate funding from Community and national sources for each key action, which in turn means restricting their numbers. A 'key action`, as such, must receive combined overall public and private funding of at least ECU 1 000 million if it is to be able to achieve medium-term problem solving objectives.

6.7. It is for this reason that the Committee calls for the number of key actions to be cut to no more than ten or so, to be selected for their prospects of direct impact in terms of application and concrete results, which should also have a strong media impact.

6.8. For example, for the selection of key actions, the Committee underlines the importance of themes such as: the city of tomorrow, the hospital of the future, the competitive factory of tomorrow, the house of the future, future farming technology, user-friendly virtual mobility, multimedia education, sustainable and intermodal mobility, integrated land-use planning and marine policy, and clean, safe and affordable energy.

6.9. A working definition of a key action could be that it consists of a cluster of large and small projects of applied, generic or (if appropriate) basic research targeted on a common European problem or challenge, with precise objectives and a firm timetable. Each key action should be of limited duration, and depend on concrete results - in other words, achieving market targets. It should bring together work on standardization, innovation, exploitation and dissemination of results, and, in particular, include the participation of SMEs as a vital, visible component.

6.10. This definition of the key actions makes it easier to identify the scope of the activities for generic technologies and basic research. These should not be considered as a way of accommodating sectors not covered by the key actions, but should rather intermesh and be coordinated with them. The activities for generic technologies and basic research would have the dual function of identifying new areas for research, including those for future key actions, and of developing 'pervasive` technologies intended for widespread application by end-users, particularly small businesses and microenterprises.

6.11. Optimal use of the support for research infrastructure is of great importance as it could strengthen the fabric of European research and produce networks and databanks spread across the whole Community.

7. The horizontal programmes

As laid down in the Treaty, the Commission is paying attention to the need to strengthen the international role of Community research, to provide sufficient prominence to innovation as a key factor in the success of research work (emphasizing the role that SMEs have to play in this respect), and to build on the human potential invested in Community research. For these reasons it proposes the organization of horizontal programmes; this presumes the existence of lateral interconnections which are, however, not specified in the document. Nonetheless, it is to be regretted that in terms of overall share of the resources committed, the Commission is proposing the precise opposite of the advocated course of action, by reducing rather than increasing the Community effort put into tackling key problems, particularly innovation and SMEs, which require much greater levels of commitment.

7.1. Second activity: cooperation with non-member countries and international organizations

7.1.1. When considering the Commission's proposal regarding international cooperation, a proper analysis should be made of the various geographical areas involved (CEEC, Mediterranean countries, NIS, developing countries) in terms of technological development and scientific excellence. Operations could then be devised to support their participation in the Fifth Framework Programme - with priority being given to neighbouring areas - in work on the solution of common problems, to the mutual advantage of themselves and the EU.

7.1.2. An approach to international RTD cooperation that takes account of the geographical peculiarities of each area must also incorporate measures for integrating these actions with other actions in the Framework Programme or other EU cooperation programmes, in order to optimize their impact on local problems of mutual interest and ensure that the Community's external activities are mutually consistent.

7.1.3. To this end the Committee feels that it would be appropriate to set up centres to deal with RTD proposals in each of the four geographical areas noted. These centres should provide a clearing house for proposals, and should make use of the Commission's inter-service powers to integrate individual proposals into the whole RTD structure of the Framework Programme, thus enhancing their visibility, guaranteeing that they are consistent, and where appropriate allowing the activation of other EU cooperation programmes.

7.1.4. Equally there is a need to activate the international dimension of innovation via closer interaction with non-Community European cooperation frameworks, particularly Eureka and COST which could be expanded to include, for example, countries in Asia. In the past the scope for synergy and complementary action between Eureka and the Community framework programmes has not been fully exploited. However, as the presentation of the 1996-2000 Eureka medium-term programme coincides with the preparation of the Fifth Framework Programme, this could be a good opportunity to set up practical ways of bringing together research in the various countries within the two initiatives, particularly the key actions. Similar paths could be followed in connection with other European bodies (ESA, EMBL, etc.).

7.1.5. The Commission proposal does not however seem to make anything of the practical proposals within the June 1996 Eureka medium-term plan or the recommendations made in the Davignon report. In this respect, the Committee would emphasize the need for explicit protocols of agreement.

7.1.6. Moreover, the impact of globalization on RTD means that European cooperation must - on a basis of reciprocity and mutual advantage - open up to the most industrialized nations: basing decisions on individual projects (and with the exception of dissemination, technology transfer and mobility), research players should be encouraged to participate where this is clearly in the Community's interest. To this end, special cooperation agreements could be concluded, where they offer clear added value ().

7.1.7. At the international level, too, the Committee feels that the EU should promote measures to further freedom of movement, exchange and trade of technology and corporate cooperation, particularly for SMEs. These measures must, in particular, improve access to global markets, and provide adequate harmonization of the regulations governing standards and intellectual property.

7.2. Third activity: dissemination and optimization of research results

7.2.1. The horizontal programme for 'innovation and participation of SMEs` is vital to the success of the Framework Programme, since for too long the European RTD effort - both at Community and national level - has failed to achieve its objective of transforming research results into industrial and commercial successes, as the 'innovation paradox` amply shows. The Commission states that the Fifth Framework Programme is intended to represent a break with the past and bring it closer to the citizen, business and society, tackling their problems through RTD, with the innovative capacity of businesses - particularly SMEs in all their forms - playing a central role in the research-innovation-market process. There is a particular need to set up data banks for each category of end-user and to develop a system of networks at national and EU level interfacing with the capital markets in order to make a practical contribution to this process.

7.2.2. To handle this the Commission sets general objectives and proposes specific actions and support measures for the Framework Programme's other actions, which still seem to be too keen on pursuing existing measures, apart from the provision of a 'one-stop shop` for access. The role and powers of this body remain unspecified, however.

7.2.3. The Committee stresses its concern at this continuation, and believes there is a need - alongside an upgrading of the instruments for rewarding exploration and cooperative research - for more tightly targeted actions and mechanisms to boost SME participation in the thematic programmes and key actions, and avert the risk of ghettoization. Here, the Committee would refer to the opinion it is currently drafting on the impact on SMEs of the continuing, general decline in RTD funding in the EU.

7.2.4. The action 'for innovation` should be redirected to become more demand-led, rather than working on measures to be offered on the market in a general fashion. This means mapping out the innovatory requirements of SMEs and structuring Community action around them, rather than continuing to use a scattergun approach to work on innovation.

7.2.5. There is also a need to clarify the role of the 'innovation units` proposed by the Commission, and to provide for direct responsibility for innovatory measures, not just within the three thematic programmes, but in each key action, and with dedicated resources.

7.2.6. The Committee must however repeat its conviction that place must be found within the Framework Programme for mechanisms to reward highly innovative projects, with systems linking the rate of Community co-participation to proof of the results' market potential.

7.2.7. Lastly the Committee would like to see a greater Community drive to improve transparency, information and assistance throughout the Union, with access to networks of databanks and simpler access to Community RTD programmes, so that SMEs have the chance to realize their full potential.

7.2.8. As the Committee has often observed, the Community should broaden the scope for new technology-related marketing measures () for SMEs, and financial instruments to encourage SMEs - through the provision of risk capital, development capital and simplified access to the EIF and EIB - to harness the fruits of research in order to develop new products and technologies. This means broader and more powerful mechanisms to help start-ups, and reductions in costs during the critical phase between prototype and finished product, e.g. by setting up a 'European network of digital prototyping centres` (), to the benefit of the general economic fabric of the Community.

7.2.9. Appropriate measures should be taken to draw up and distribute codes of practice for innovation, incorporating relevant training and information measures for SMEs. Another action should be set up to support protection of intellectual property (IPR cyberlink) combining an Internet website with a help line providing information on the state of the art in the relevant technological area. A systematic approach to industrial property policy, particularly as regards fast, low-cost patents and utility models, and reinforced technical and regulatory standards are needed to translate the results of research into industrial and commercial successes.

7.3. Fourth activity: encouraging researcher training and mobility

7.3.1. The horizontal programme on researcher training and mobility proposes a range of wholly appropriate measures. Investment in intangibles such as research and training is a vital factor in enhancing the role of the human element in development.

7.3.2. However, it should be given a completely new slant, to include the academic world and industry and to provide training for technicians, engineers and other professions working on new technologies. At the same time, temporary secondments for university researchers and those working in corporate research centres - especially in SMEs - could help to disseminate best practices, and monitor the needs and potential for technology development and scientific cooperation.

7.3.3. The Committee still hopes to see an officially defined statute for European researchers/trainees () which would remove the fiscal, administrative and social barriers to their mobility and make it easier for them to participate in exchange networks and share their experiences. Coordinated development of research infrastructure into cohesive networks of laboratories and technological information distribution centres would also enhance cohesion, and help to ensure a competitive future for the European system into the medium-long term.

7.3.4. The Committee feels that action should concentrate on three strands: enhancing the value of human capital, improving the use of major infrastructure in a spirit of cohesion, and promoting scientific and technological excellence.

7.3.5. The targeted socio-economic research and the action to support the development of Community RTD policy should be given independent status, permeating the whole of the Framework Programme rather than being subsumed into this type of horizontal action. In particular, and in accordance with the views expressed in the section on strategic planning, each action from the thematic and horizontal programmes should incorporate socio-economic research in order to keep the targets for Community RTD's key actions and generic research up to date.

8. Joint Research Centre

8.1. The Committee underlines the importance of giving the JRC a new and clearly defined inter-institutional role in providing strategic and technological scientific support for research policy and other Community policies.

8.2. A stronger role for the JRC, serving all the EU institutions, would ensure independence and neutrality in the strategic development of the current and future Framework Programmes, both through direct actions and through competition within and outside the scope of the Programme, for European and international-level RTD actions.

8.3. In the context of direct institutional measures, the Committee would like to see the JRC spearhead the setting-up of a network of major European research bodies, using new communications technologies to create large virtual institutions. Virtual reality techniques should be used specifically to rapidly develop technologies that facilitate decision-making and so support the new problem-solving approach to Community research.

8.4. With the support of other JRC bodies within their respective fields, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville could - as an independent body with adequate financial and human resources - provide support for the decision-making process and for strategic choices by the EP, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, with a view to continually refining and adapting Community RTD.

9. Coordination with national RTD policies

9.1. The Committee again emphasizes the need to mobilize all the various levels of European research in a concerted effort to achieve critical mass in terms of financial resources and the scientific skills essential for obtaining useful, visible results that offer practical solutions to the problems facing individuals, industry and society, in order to provide added value for the Community as a whole.

9.2. After all, the Commission's proposed new 'problem-solving` approach, whose aim is to focus research activity on selected objectives with a major economic and social - as well as technological and competitive - impact, can be achieved only by pooling available resources at national, Community and European level so as to achieve a critical mass commensurate with the ambitious targets proposed. The key actions can help to promote this pooling process, but they will not be adequate if limited to a cluster of small or large projects in which costs are shared only within the scope of resources provided under the Framework Programme.

9.3. Three other facilitating factors are needed:

- development of a transparent legal context (based on Article 130o of the EC Treaty) that provides an advance framework for implementing Articles 130k, 130l and 130n of the EC Treaty, defining the specific characteristics and means of ensuring geopolitical and economic balance, in a package of large-scale clustering projects approved by the whole Community;

- development of trend charts providing a synopsis and overview, and allowing systematic comparison of the measures adopted by each Member State, the EU and non-Community European research institutions. Such an instrument would enable research players and end-users to institute large-scale clustering projects on their own initiative. It would also aim to allow SMEs to reap all the benefits of a single market for research and innovation;

- formalized, systematic, prior consultation on world-level programmes, and regular exchanges of information on bilateral RTD cooperation between Member States and international organizations, in order to coordinate them with similar EU initiatives.

9.4. The Committee welcomes the fact that Article 3(2) of the Commission proposal explicitly incorporates such an option - as provided for in the Treaty - for the Fifth Framework Programme. However, it emphasizes the importance of the three measures mentioned above, as they provide a practical framework for coordinating national, Community and European research programmes as envisaged in Article 130h of the EC Treaty.

10. Financial and budgetary issues

10.1. Although there is no proposal that addresses overall financing or the financing for individual actions and activities, the Commission suggests that a fixed formula be established whereby resources to be earmarked for the Framework Programme are determined as a percentage of estimated mean GDP for the period 1999-2002. On the basis of the ratio of Community GDP to Community research spending under the Fourth Framework Programme, total spending under the Fifth Framework Programme can be estimated at around ECU 16 or 17 000 million.

10.2. The Committee considers this rough figure to be the minimum sum required to maintain current research activity. A substantial increase would be needed in order to meet the new and ambitious objectives proposed for the Community's RTD strategy in terms of global competitiveness and rapid response to citizens' needs.

10.3. The Commission indicates the relative share of each proposed action in percentage terms. The Committee has used this to compile the data given in column 2 of the appended table. These shares can be compared with the corresponding percentages allocated under the Fourth Framework Programme to provide a general indication of the priorities which the Commission intends to give to each Community research activity, albeit not at the level of key actions.

10.4. This comparison shows that resources for horizontal international cooperative and innovative actions and SMEs are to be reduced, which flies in the face of the need - repeatedly affirmed by the Commission itself - to integrate RTD systems in neighbouring countries, boost cooperation between European and international organizations in a globalized economy, accelerate the innovative process, and actively involve SMEs in RTD projects.

10.5. No firm breakdown has yet been provided for the necessary earmarking of resources for these horizontal actions under the thematic programmes and key actions, so a substantive assessment is not possible. The Committee feels that, besides identifying - clearly and judiciously - the resources earmarked for that purpose in the key actions and generic technologies, the horizontal actions must be maintained and reinforced, not just as coordination and indirect back-up measures, but more importantly, as a set of measures designed for firms, in order to ensure that the results of research make a real impact on the market.

10.6. In order to maintain the Framework Programme's degree of financial flexibility, between 3 and 5 % of overall funding is to be set aside for tackling urgent, unforeseen problems. This should focus on pilot activities and demonstration projects which cannot be scheduled from the outset, but which it should be possible to carry out within the annual review of the work programmes. The leeway here depends, however, on properly functioning management and control systems.

10.7. The proposal also provides for a percentage reduction in the resources earmarked for the JRC, whose role should be reinforced and given an inter-institutional perspective, especially with regard to the IPTS.

10.8. This shows that the Commission has in practice already set definite priorities. The Committee considers that these should be properly justified, so that the other EU institutions and Community industrial and scientific interest groups know what position to adopt.

11. Management and procedures

11.1. The Committee welcomes the decision taken at the Amsterdam European Council on 16 and 17 June 1997 to incorporate a simplified adoption procedure for the Framework Programme in the EU Treaty, in particular the use of qualified majority voting by the Council. The Committee hopes that the ratification procedures for the new Treaty will enable the Fifth Framework Programme to be adopted quickly enough to ensure continuity in strategic EU RTDD activities.

11.2. The independent assessment panel's 1996 report () says of the specific Telematics Applications Programme: 'The "bureaucracy" surrounding this, and other Framework Programmes has steadily increased to the point where key firms and public user bodies are refusing to participate, and where it is irresponsible to encourage the participation of the high growth potential small firms, and the new applicants we would most wish to see in the programme`.

11.3. A similar verdict is to be found - to varying degrees - in all the assessments of the specific programmes under the Fourth Framework Programme, as well as in the Davignon report. A radical review is therefore needed, in order to win back the confidence of research players in the 'quality of the Community product`.

11.4. The Committee remains firmly convinced that the future of the Community's five-year programming could be seriously undermined if there is no thorough overhaul of management and procedural methods, given the complexity of the new structure and the uncertainty surrounding the potential to provide concrete industrial and commercial successes for the individual, for firms and for society.

11.5. The Committee sees the reduction in the number of specific programmes to seven, and the consequent fall in the number of management committees required for them, as a step in the right direction. Moreover, the review must be substantial. In this respect, the Committee feels that each key action should be provided with a programme-committee subcommittee, backed up by a consultative group of representatives of research players and end-users. This must provide the necessary coordination within the programme and allow Member State representatives to tie in national programmes with key actions, and carry out the annual adjustments needed to ensure flexibility and efficiency.

11.6. At a technical and operational level, the link between the various Community actions and policies must be provided by the forward studies units (point 3.9), the innovation units (point 7.2.5) and the coordination units (point 6.3). The Committee is firmly against collective responsibility for management: each thematic programme, horizontal action and key action must have a director to ensure clear, coherent management, and to act as the accepted go-between for research players and end-users.

11.7. It is vital that management procedures - from the publishing of calls for proposals to the implementation of selected projects - be the same for all programmes and all key actions, in order to avoid the plethora of 'personal` management methods which have thus far been a feature of the Framework Programmes.

11.8. Project selection procedures must be speeded up and made more efficient and transparent. This means that the work programmes must contain objective, well-defined, detailed criteria for selecting proposals, with precise parameters and timeframes. The selection criteria must be tight enough to avoid a flood of proposals - with equally heavy drop-out rates - which would entail a considerable waste of energy and resources for the applicant, and help feed a climate of mistrust. Moreover, simplified criteria, particularly for the trans-nationality requirement, should be devised so as to make it easier for SMEs to take part.

11.9. The work programmes must also clearly identify all other areas of parallel funding available under other Community programmes, and, once activated, the relevant national programmes, in keeping with the method outlined for the trend charts in point.

11.10. The timescales for the Framework Programme selection procedures are too long, given the needs of firms and research bodies, and the short shelf-life of technologies. It usually takes a year from publication of tenders to starting up selected projects. This should be reduced to a maximum of six months, as also emphasized in the Davignon report. The contractual agreements must be clearer and less complicated, and must smooth the way for translating the results of research into economic and commercial successes, by means of clear provisions governing industrial property, thus allowing the widest possible dissemination, and economic and commercial exploitation.

11.11. Assessment methods and procedures must be made more transparent and made available to the applicants beforehand, in tandem with the work programme. A particularly thorny question is the selection of the independent assessment panel, which has to ensure the right balance between scientific excellence and industrial and market expertise. An annual reshuffle of the assessment panel is strongly recommended.

11.12. The Committee believes that the calls for proposals should include a judicious mixture of open tender systems throughout the lifetime of the Framework Programme, and occasional closed tenders. The former would be particularly useful for innovation, standardization and SMEs, as a bottom-up process would ensure the ongoing integration of these components into the key actions in particular.

11.13. Finally, when the selected projects are being implemented, syndicates must be relieved of the bureaucratic pressure and red-tape which divert time and resources from the chief objective of carrying out scientific research; in contrast, control and monitoring of the actual results and of operative and market forecasts should be stepped up ().

Brussels, 1 October 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 173, 7. 6. 1997, p. 10-30.

() For example, sectoral analyses of industrial policy, the annual panorama of EC industry, and the benchmarking proposal.

() OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996.

() Examples for European participation in third country RTD programmes are to be found in Japanese programmes for the development of civil aviation, the 'rising sun` energy programmes; and in the international development programmes for intelligent manufacturing systems (IMS) and thermonuclear experiments (ITER).

() Such measures could include strengthening the 'technology watch` by networks of professional and technological organizations, networking of regional technology advice centres, the Euromanagement-tech programme and the 'road-mapping` schemes.

() OJ C 18 of 22. 1. 1996.

() OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994.

() COM(97) 149 final, 16. 4. 1997.

() Five-year assessment of the European Community RTD Framework Programmes - Report of the Independent Expert Panel. (COM(97) 151 final).

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Fourth and Fifth Framework Programmes

>TABLE>