OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme in the field of non-nuclear energy: Technologies for cleaner and more efficient energy production and use (1994-1998)
Date: 1994-06-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, action programme, research and development, research policy, technological change













EUR-Lex - 51994AC0757 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51994AC0757

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme in the field of non-nuclear energy: Technologies for cleaner and more efficient energy production and use (1994-1998)  


Official Journal C 295 , 22/10/1994 P. 0074 





 Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme in the field of non-nuclear energy: Technologies for cleaner and more efficient energy production and use (1994-1998) (1) (94/C 295/15) On 14 April 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130I paragraph 4 of the European Union Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal.The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Aspinall as Rapporteur-General, with the task of preparing its work on the subject.At its 316th Plenary Session (meeting of 2 June 1994) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote (with 2 votes against, and 1 abstention).1.  Foreword 1.1. The Committee greatly regrets that the tight deadline set by the Council for the present Opinion, and for those on two other proposals for specific programmes, prevents it from playing its full advisory role on R& TD as enshrined in the Treaty, and, more especially, prevents it from making a detailed analysis of the scientific and technical content of the proposed programme.1.2. The proposal is one of 17 proposed specific programmes presented together by the Commission in implementation of the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998). The framework programme was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council under the co-decision procedure in April 1994 (2).1.3. By this means, the Commission has also adopted a uniform presentation designed both to simplify and rationalize procedures. The Committee welcomes this.1.4. The Committee would have liked to make a number of comments on the overall package and on the framework programme itself. The present constraints regrettably do not allow it to do so in the present Opinion.1.5. Nevertheless, the Committee reserves the right to make such comments in its forthcoming Opinion on the other specific programmes and on the three specific programmes implementing the framework programme for Community research and training activities for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998), which the Council also adopted in April 1994 (3).1.6. As regards the general conditions for participation in the specific programmes and for their implementation, the Committee would also refer back to the many comments and suggestions made in its Opinion on the two proposed decisions concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the specific research programmes (4).2. Introduction 2.1. The proposed programme comes under the first of the four activities scheduled in the fourth framework programme, concerning the implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes by the promotion of cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities. This first activity covers the bulk of Community research initiatives.2.2. The proposed programme groups together research activities carried out within the framework of the specific research and technological development programme in the field of non-nuclear energy (1990-1994), adopted by the Council on 9 September 1991 (5), and most of the demonstration activities carried out under the Thermie programme relating to the promotion of energy technologies, adopted by the Council on 29 June 1990 for a period lasting until 31 December 1994 (6). The Committee issued Opinions on these two programmes on 18 October 1990 (7) and on 12 July 1989 (8) respectively.2.3. The Commission proposes to earmark ECU 967 million from the Community budget for this new programme for the whole of the period 1994-1998, allocating 50 % to research and 50 % to demonstration activities. The programme will be managed jointly by two Commission Directorate-Generals, DG XII (Science, Research and Development) and DG XVII (Energy).As is laid down clearly in Annex II, the Commission proposes to allocate appropriations as follows (in  %):A.  Research and Development 45-55 Improved conversion and use of energy 30-40  Introduction of renewable energies 60-70 B. Demonstration 45-55 Rational use of energy 20-30  Renewable energies 40-50  Fossil fuels 30-40 3. General comments 3.1. The Committee considers it would have been more appropriate if the Commission and Council had not placed this specific programme under the urgency procedure since greater analysis of its scientific and technical content, in particular, is needed. Whilst the importance of maintaining continuity of funding between the two previous programmes and the present one is recognized, the non nuclear energy programme raises important political and policy issues which demand time for consideration.3.2. The Committee nevertheless supports the thrust of the proposal subject to the following remarks.3.3. The Committee approves the high priority that has been assigned to the present programme in the fourth Framework Programme and considers that the funding is much more satisfactory than it was under the third Framework Programme. This is in line with the Committee`s request in its Opinion on the third Framework Programme (1). The programme priorities are also more clearly defined.3.4. It is recognized that long lead times between discovery and application, can cause industry to be reluctant to provide investigative funding for new energy technologies.3.4.1. The Committee thus supports the Community`s promotion of basic research but calls for projects to be rigorously assessed for their longer-term commercial development potential. Where it is not possible to judge research in its earliest stages for its potential marketability, flexibility is essential in deciding projects` continuing appropriateness and thereby optimizing the programmes utility.3.5. Considerable attention and funding is devoted in the Commission`s proposal, to renewable energies. In view of renewable energies` slow market, penetration and the continued predominance of traditional fuels, energy efficiency measures, not renewables, are the most important way to rationalize energy use in the medium term. Thus, whilst recognizing the important benefits which the wider application of renewable technologies will ultimately bring, the ESC considers that immediate priority should be given to the rational use of traditional energy sources.3.5.1. In particular, coal, with the greatest proven remaining reserves and the most promising technological advances in clean-burn techniques, should be given high priority.3.6. The Committee understands that the Commission has undertaken a study of the potential employment impact of renewables/alternative energies and requests that the results of this study should be made available to it.3.7. The proportion of spending allocated to rational fuel use should be increased in the medium term, which is basically the life span of this programme.3.8. Greater emphasis should be placed on the promotion of cogeneration (Combined Heat and Power - CHP) and district heating/cooling technologies. These have been shown in Commission studies to be among the most effective means of reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency in the power sector, yet have been given little support.3.9. Coordination with the non nuclear energy programmes being undertaken at Member State level respecting the principle of subsidiarity should be carefully examined.3.10. Integration of both direct and indirect funding for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) should be fully examined so as to avoid duplication with industrial activity.3.11. The Committee believes that the fundamental obstacles to clean energy technologies are of a non technical nature and that the removal of regulatory and institutional obstacles to renewables and energy efficient technologies would lead to their rapid market take-up.3.12. In view of the difficulties experienced by SMEs, as discussed in many previous Opinions, the importance of targeting SMEs for involvement in research and development, and in the dissemination and utilization of RTD results is emphasized.3.13. The Committee wishes to remind the Commission of positive criteria which should be taken into account when assessing projects for funding, namely:- employment-creating potential (especially of young researchers);- level of investment needed;- potential for cooperation with SMEs;- opportunity for consolidation of European expertise;- strengthening economic and social cohesion.3.14. International cooperation, especially within the International Energy Agency (IEA), is important for furthering energy research and also for stimulating the introduction of clean technologies into developing economies.3.15. Transport is currently, and for the foreseeable future, the fastest growing source of pollution. Urgent attention should be given to energy storage and new transport fuels. Transport management and non pollutant schemes in city centres should have high priority.3.16. The Offices for The Promotion of Energy Technologies (OPET), set up under the Thermie programme, are to be fully and efficiently utilized in the implementation of the programme. However, a review of the present situation in which OPET actions are 100 % Commission funded should take place. If industry has a commercial interest in disseminating technologies, they should be given every opportunity to provide matching funding, thus maximizing the value for money of Community initiatives.3.17. The fact that two Directorate-Generals are involved in this programme will require diligent coordination. The Committee must be satisfied that this will work, as it is not clear what are their respective responsibilities in the programme implementation.3.18. It is essential that, in managing this programme, the Commission also coordinates and ties the Research, Technological Development and Demonstration activities into its overall energy strategy.4. Specific comments 4.1. In view of the above comments, the Committee does not feel it is proven that renewable energies appear as the best adapted in the short to medium term to combat the greenhouse effect and contribute to long term energy security, and hence believes the budget balance between renewables and other RTD& D activities should be as follows (in %).4.1.1. In the first place, the split between Research and Demonstration activities should be on a 40/60 % basis.A. Research and Development 40 Improved conversion and use of energy 60-70  Introduction of renewable energies 30-40B.  Demonstration 60 Rational use of energy 40  Renewable energies 30  Fossil fuels 30 4.2. The role proposed for dissemination activities is inadequate in terms of both budget (ECU 5 million) and scope, compared to the Commission objectives.4.3. Article 64.3.1. The procedure proposed under Article 6(3) should be adopted for both Research and Development, and Demonstration so as to involve the Member States more in detailed analysis. The Committee sees no reason why these should differ and will only confuse the process.4.4. Article 74.4.1. The comments under 4.3 above will necessitate amendments to this Article.Done at Brussels, 2 June 1994.The Chairmanof the Economic and Social CommitteeSusanne TIEMANN(1) OJ No C 113, 23. 4. 1994, pp. 4, 15, 24.(2) OJ No L 126, 18. 5. 1994, p. 1.(3) OJ No L 115, 6. 5. 1994, p. 31.(4) OJ No C 81, 18. 3. 1994, p. 9.(5) OJ No L 257, 14. 9. 1991, p. 37.(6) OJ No L 185, 17. 7. 1990, p. 1.(7) OJ No C 31, 6. 2. 1991, p. 20.(8) OJ No C 221, 28. 8. 1989, p. 6.(9) OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 34.