No C 221/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 8. 89 
mittee urges the Commission to make greater efforts to 
speed up the preparation, translation and publication 
Done at Brussels, 12 July 1989. 
The Economic and Social Committee considers the 
proposed programme to be necessary. It is regarded as 
a sensible supplement to and continuation of earlier 
efforts on the energy market, and it will go very far to 
meet the Community's needs in this area, provided 
that the following comments and ideas are taken into 
account. 
The Committee is pleased to note that the single 
THERMIE programme now covers all measures to 
promote projects in the field of energy technology: this 
represents a certain rationalization of the efforts being 
made in this field. It would not, however, be acceptable 
to the Committee if this regrouping resulted in a 
reduction of the financial assistance to any of the sectors 
covered by the new programme. 
1. Assessment of previous programmes 
1.1. The present proposal for a Council Regulation 
(EEC) on promotion of energy technology in Europe 
constitutes a continuation of earlier activities in this 
field which were carried out under two programmes: 
the energy demonstration programme, of the report. An earlier first edition would be helpful, 
even if it only appeared in certain language-versions. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
the hydrocarbons technology programme (2). 
The results can be summarized as follows: 
1.2. Energy demonstration programme 
— The programme began in 1978. It runs from January 
1986 to the end of 1989, and is governed by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3640/85 of 20 December 1985. 
— There are two assessment reports: Projects on 
efficient energy use and renewable energy sources, 
November 1988, Caprioglio + March Consulting; 
and Solid Fuels, November 1988, Thurlow + Kal-
lembach. 
— By the end of 1987 1 445 proposals had been selected 
from a total of more than 5 000. 
— Of these 57 % concerned renewable energy sour­
ces, 36% energy saving, and 7% solid fuels, 
including liquefaction and gasification. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) concerning the promotion of energy 
technology in Europe (THERMIE programme) (!) 
(89/C 221/03) 
On 12 April 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 30 June 1989. The rapporteur 
was Mr von der Decken. 
At its 268th plenary session (meeting of 12 July 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
(') OJ No C 101, 22. 4. 1989. (2) OJ No L 350, 27. 12. 1985, pp. 25-29. 
28. 8. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 221/7 
— Of 1 322 in the fields of energy saving, renewable 
energy sources and electricity, 330 projects were 
completed of which 206 were fully or partly 
successful in technical terms, and 82 were techni­
cally and economically successful. 140 projects 
failed. 
— In the field of liquefaction and gasification 
29 were selected, 6 completed and 8 abandoned. 
— In the field of solid fuels use 55 were selected, 
5 completed and 15 abandoned. 
1.3. Hydrocarbons technology 
— The relevant programme began in 1974, and runs 
from 1986 to the end of 1989 on the basis of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3639/85 of 20 December 1985. 
— An assessment report was drawn up by Smith Rea 
Energy Ass. Ltd., in August 1988: 
— up to the end of 1987, 516 projects were assisted, 
of which 43 failed and 258 were completed; of 
these 67 have been put on a commercial footing, 
93 have good prospects and 98 no prospects for 
commercial success. 
1.4. Funding of programmes to date 
The Commission document on the assessment of tech­
nology programmes in the energy sector [COM(89) 164 
of 20 March 1989] shows the allocation of the funds so 
far committed. Among other things, this allocation is 
important for evaluating the estimated requirements for 
the coming programme. 
The basic figure is 1 445 projects approved for the 
energy demonstration programme from 1978 to 1987, 
with a total of 764,1 million ECU committed. In the 
same period 426 million ECU were committed to the 
hydrocarbons technology programme. 
2. General assessment of the proposed programme 
2.1. Justification of the need for the programme 
The THERMIE programme essentially takes account 
of the recommendations made in the assessment of the 
earlier programmes. It is, moreover, justified for the 
reasons set out below: 
2.1.1. In principle the efforts to ensure secure and 
competitive energy sources within the Community 
should not slacken off, particularly since: 
— the uncertainty of the oil markets constitutes a risk, — nuclear energy is encountering opposition in many 
Member States, 
— there are environmental problems connected with 
the use of coal. 
2.1.2. It should be pointed out here, as the Com­
mission rightly does in the explanatory memorandum 
accompanying its proposal, that the Community still 
depends on imports for nearly half of its energy sup­
plies. It obtains more than 70% of its oil from external 
sources. 
2.1.3. The Committee therefore endorses the aims 
of the THERMIE programme, and particularly the 
following: 
— development of indigenous energy sources, 
— improved energy efficiency and more rational use 
of energy, 
— reduction of pollution, and hence greater environ­
mental protection, 
— changing energy processes to reduce pollution, 
— strengthening the energy industry in preparation for 
the Single Market, 
— introducing Community norms and standards, 
— promoting the dissemination of expertise through­
out the Community, 
— improving energy availability in regions hitherto 
disadvantaged in this respect, and hence 
— raising the standard of living, 
— use of untreatable waste for energy production. 
2.1.4. To achieve these aims, some basic conditions 
must, however, be met, particularly with a view to 
making Community measures more effective: 
— account must be taken of existing national pro­
grammes, 
— there must be coordination with related EC pro­
grammes, e.g. 
— SPRINT: strategic programme for innovation 
and technology transfer, 
— VALUE: dissemination and use of research 
results in science and technology, 
— JOULE: research and technological develop­
ment programme in the energy field, 
— coal research [under the Treaty of the European 
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)], 
— VALOREN: exploiting the indigenous energy 
potential of Community regions [in the frame­
work of the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF)]. 
No C 221/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 8. 89 
2.1.5. The Committee believes that the Community 
can, through the transfer of technology it has developed, 
help developing countries to solve their energy and 
environmental problems in ways most appropriate to 
their needs and conditions. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Comments on individual articles of the proposed 
Regulation 
3.1.1. Article 2 defines the framework for selection 
of 'projects for the promotion of energy technology'. 
Here, as well as later on, the element of risk required 
for granting of financial aid should concern only the 
considerable financial risk and the risk regarding techni­
cal functioning. 
3.1.1.1. The Committee also notes that paragraph 
2(a) of this article can create a significant and disturbing 
limitation by excluding Community financial support 
for the research and development stage. This is a serious 
lacuna in comparison with the aforementioned Regu­
lation (EEC) No 3639/85, and conflicts with point 37 
(page 8) of the statement of reasons accompanying the 
proposed Regulation. 
3.1.2. Article 4 gives the Commission the authority 
to introduce targeted projects where it sees a need. 
The Committee regards this as sensible and necessary, 
provided that the Advisory Committee referred to in 
Article 8 of the draft Regulation is consulted in advance. 
3.1.3. Article 6 sets out the conditions for support. 
One of these is that the project must appear economi­
cally viable. This is regarded as very welcome, but as 
a precautionary strategy a flexible yardstick must be 
used in this evaluation which makes it possible to take 
account of possible future changes in the cost structure 
of the energy market. 
3.1.4. The Committee generally endorses the eligi­
bility conditions laid down here, and is particularly 
pleased at the priority which, other things being equal, 
will be given to dissemination projects in less-developed 
regions, thus contributing to the achievement of one of 
the main aims of the programme—to reduce imbalances 
in the energy sphere between Community regions. 
3.1.5. One of the eligibility conditions is that appro­
priate solutions must be offered for safety and environ­
mental protection. The Committee welcomes the intro­
duction of this condition, which represents a very con­
crete application in the energy field of article 130 R of the EEC Treaty, of which paragraph 2 lays down that: 
'Environmental protection requirements shall be a com­
ponent of the Community's other policies.' 
3.1.6. Article 7 governs the nature and extent of the 
financial support. If the project is deemed eligible for 
support, the Commission would as a rule bear from 
15 % to 40 % of the eligible cost. This condition may 
be supplemented by financial support from the Member 
States, provided that the project is not subsidized 
beyond 49 % of its total cost. 
3.1.6.1. The Committee suggests that the Com­
mission should consider special financing measures for 
projects which it initiates and which are unattractive 
for industrial involvement because they have no pros­
pects of profitability in the short term (e.g. where costs 
can be reduced only at the mass production stage, or 
profitability is for the moment impossible given the 
prevailing energy prices); such special measures could, 
for example, be as set out in paragraph 6 of this article. 
3.1.7. Article 8 covers the invitation to submit pro­
jects and the method of selecting those worthy of finan­
cial support. In particular, it describes the Advisory 
Committee and its tasks. This committee is to consist 
of two representatives of each Member State, and is 
to be chaired by a Commission representative. The 
Economic and Social Committee thinks it particularly 
important for the social partners to be consulted when 
this important Advisory Committee is set up, so that 
their interests are duly taken into account. 
3.1.8. The Committee is pleased to note that under 
article 9 the Commission is to ensure coordination 
with the other Community programmes in the fields of 
research and development, innovation and technology 
transfer, and the diffusion and utilization of research 
results. It would point out, however, that to avoid 
duplication of expenditure it is also necessary to moni­
tor national programmes closely, and that the Com­
mission must also guarantee coordination with these. 
Article 15 of the draft Regulation provides for reports 
to be made regularly on this. 
3.2. Comments on the Annexes to the proposed Regu­
lation 
3.2.1. Annex I lists the sectors of application and 
additional conditions for the rational use of energy. In 
this context, the Committee particularly wishes to stress 
the importance of rational energy storage. It should 
be noted especially with regard to renewable energy 
sources, that a time-lag between energy production 
from these sources and the needs of users is a major 
obstacle to their use. The same applies to energy trans-
28. 8. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 221/9 
port, which could be greatly facilitated through tempor­
ary storage in specially developed energy storage media. 
3.2.2. Annex II lists sectors of application and 
additional conditions for the use of renewable energy 
sources, divided into: 
1. Solar energy: 1.1. Thermal applications; 1.2. Photo­
voltaic applications, 
2. Biomass, agricultural products and waste, 
3. Geothermal energy, 
4. Hydroelectric energy, 
5. Wind energy. 
In this context there ought to be a mention of hydrogen 
technology, which could for example play an important 
long-term part in the future use of renewable energy 
sources. 
3.2.3. Annex III covers the field of 'Coal and other 
solid fuels'. This field comprises all forms of coal, 
including peat. The Committee concludes that other 
solid fuels, such as solid industrial, agricultural, dom­
estic and timber waste, as well as solid residues from 
sewage sludge treatment plants, are covered by An­
nex II.2 'Energy from biomass, agricultural products 
and waste'. Point 3 of Annex III covers only waste 
resulting from the use of 'solid fuels' as strictly defined 
above. However, this should be made clear from the 
wording of these annexes. 
3.2.4. Annex IV gives a brief outline of eligible activi­
ties in the hydrocarbons sector. The Committee notes 
with concern that, in contrast to the previous pro­
gramme, it is no longer proposed to give financial 
support to technological development projects in this 
sector, but only—in accordance with article 2 of the 
draft Regulation—to projects implementing innovatory 
techniques, processes or products for which the research 
and development stage has been completed. 
3.2.4.1. As the JOULE programme (*) in general pro­
vides for financial support only for projects for which 
the research stage has not been completed, the Commit­
tee takes the view that there is a serious shortcoming 
here which is at variance with the need for a sustained 
effort to develop technologies which will contribute to 
the discovery of new deposits and to an improvement 
in the yield of known deposits. 
3.2.4.2. The Committee insists that the forthcoming 
review of the framework programme for Community 
research and technological development activities 
(1987-1991) must take account of the need to expand 
(') OJNoL98, 11.4. 1989, p. 13. the JOULE programme correspondingly and to increase 
its funding, particularly in order to make it possible to 
grant financial support for Community technological 
development projects in the hydrocarbons sector. 
3.2.5. Annex V describes the Commission's asso­
ciated measures. In the Committee's view, two of the 
Commission's most important activities are also mis­
sing from this programme: (1) efforts to achieve Com­
munity-wide standardization, e.g. with regard to qual­
ity and measurement standards; (2) the drawing up 
of binding environmental protection provisions in the 
energy production fields concerned, on the basis of 
reliable data arising out of the programme. 
The Committee regards harmonization of this kind 
with a view to the single European Market as extremely 
important, whether it takes place under this programme 
or in connection with other activities. 
3.3. Financial aspects 
3.3.1. The figure for appropriations given by way of 
indication in point 5.2 of the financial statement is 700 
million ECU for the five years of the programme's 
operation (annual average 140 million ECU). Taking 
account of the extensive parallel national programmes 
in the same fields, and assuming that the support will 
be confined to strictly Community-oriented projects, 
the funding is regarded as adequate, although there is 
no question of a substantial increase in expenditure 
in comparison with previous programmes (1978-1987: 
1 150 million ECU—annual average 127,7 million 
ECU). There is, however, no breakdown of the appro­
priations according to specific fields. The Committee 
expressly calls for such a breakdown to be incorporated 
in the Regulation, and also for it to authorize diver­
gences between the final budgetary allocation for each 
field of activity and the allocation originally envisaged, 
so as to allow flexibility in the apportionment of funds 
and make it possible to deal with unforeseen develop­
ments in the course of work on the projects. 
3.3.2. Point 7 of the Commission's financial state­
ment covers financial and technical control of the pro­
gramme. The Committee would like the Commission 
to explain how it intends to speed up and improve the 
effectiveness of the procedures for selection, approval 
and management of projects, as it has undertaken to 
do in points 44 and 45 of the explanatory memorandum. 
^oC221B10 Officialjournal of the European Communities 28.8.89 
in the proposed programme, 
laydownquantifiablecriteriafor periodic assess 
ment of the progress achieved on projects, and of 
their results. 
o^^^o^o^^^^^o^^Co^^^^ 
AlD^ro^t^^O^^ 
Opinion on poverty 
(89BC221^^ 
On 2B April 1989, theEconomicandSocialCommitteedecided,inaccordancewiththe 
fourth paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedure and on the basis of the Information 
Report adopted by the Section for Social, Eamily, Educational and Cultural Affairs on 
9^iarchl989(^,to draw up an owndnitiative Opinion on poverty. 
The Section for Social, Eamily,Educational and Cultural Affairs,which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee'sworloon the matter, adopted its Opinion on6July!989.The 
rapporteur was ^irBurnel. 
At its 268th plenary session (meeting of 12Julyl989),the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Perms of reference 
The Opinion isalogical follow-up to the Information 
Report. The Economic and Social Committee has 
repeatedly exercised its institutional prerogative to 
commentonthemajoreconomic,socialandcultural 
problems of society.lts interest in poverty is therefore 
not newmt has always been concerned to expose blatant 
inequalities and to call for vigorous policies based on 
genuine solidarity.The Committee first used the Infer 
mation Report of the Section for Social, Eamily,Edu^ 
cational and Cultural Affairs asabasis for an Opinion 
on the Community action programme designed to foster 
the economic and social integration of the least privi 
leged groups. 
Poday, the Committee draws a political conclusion, 
neither the Information Report nor the Opinion deal 
^OD^^en^(^^r^^^ 0.0EL Inthis conte^t,the Committee wouldstress 
the need to^ 
— simplify and speed up the procedures so that small 
and medium^si^ed enterprises can participate more 
foone at Brussels, ^12 July 1989. 
with poverty in general, but essentially with situations 
of ^severe poverty.This does not narrow the Commits 
tee'sinterest. It merely shows that the Committeeis 
primarily concerned with the worseningsituationof 
the poor. 
^Ievertheless,the Committee states categorically that 
poverty ^r ^ with all its causes and all its conseD 
quences,mustbecombattedbecause it is an injustice 
which cannot be tolerated byasociety which professes 
humanist principles and values. 
Unfortunately poverty takes an ine^orablydownward 
spiral if measures are not taken to prevent and contain 
it. 
The fact that no societyhassucceededineradicating 
poverty should not lead us to regard it fatalistically as 
somethingtobe^putup with. As soon as we accept