OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes for implementing the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998)
Date: 1994-09-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, action programme, research and development, research policy, technological change













EUR-Lex - 51994AC1019(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51994AC1019(01)

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes for implementing the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998)  


Official Journal C 393 , 31/12/1994 P. 0117 





Opinion on:- the proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes for implementing the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998), and - the proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes for implementing the European Community framework programme for Community research and training activities for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998) () (94/C 393/23)On 14 and 19 April 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130i(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, on the abovementioned proposals.The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 September 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr von der Decken and the Co-Rapporteurs Mr Barbagli, Mr Bernabei, Mr Bordes-Pages, Mr Dunkel, Mr Frandi, Mr Gardner, Mr von Haus, Mr Lyons, Mr de Paul de Barchifontaine, Mr Proumens, Mr Tesoro Oliver.At its 318th Plenary Session (meeting of 14 September 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.1. Introduction 1.1. The fourth RTD framework programme was finally adopted on 26 April 1994 in the form of two Decisions: the first concerns the fourth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998) (), the second the framework programme for Community research and training activities for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998) ().1.2. In accordance with Article 130g of the Treaty on European Union the framework programme provides for four areas of activity:- implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities;- promotion of cooperation in the field of Community research, technological development and demonstration with third countries and international organizations;- dissemination and optimization of the results of activities in Community research, technological development and demonstration;- stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Community.1.3. In accordance with Article 130i(3) of the EUT these activities are to be implemented through specific programmes. It is these programmes which are the object of the two documents under consideration.1.4. The Commission has put forward twenty proposals, seventeen on the first action alone, which covers the majority of Community research activities and accounts for the bulk of the appropriations allocated to the fourth framework programme.1.5. This Opinion deals with sixteen of these twenty proposals, the Committee having had to give its views on four of the proposed specific programmes - three as on 2 June 1994 and the fourth on 5 July 1994 - as a matter of urgency. These four programmes concern the following areas of research:- advanced communications technologies and services;- telematic applications of common interest;- industrial and materials technologies;- non-nuclear energy.2. Framework programme and specific programmes: General Comments 2.1. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Commission has adopted a uniform framework for presenting the various draft specific programmes, thus responding to a two-fold concern for simplification and rationalization.2.2. This concern is part of an effort to secure more transparency and coherence in Community research, which the Committee endorses unreservedly.2.3. Against this background the Committee wishes to make a number of comments on all the proposals for specific programmes and on the framework programme itself, which has now been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, under the co-decision procedure stipulated under Article 189b of the EUT.2.4.Procedures for adopting the framework programme and the specific programmes2.4.1. The Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the length of time taken for adopting and implementing the framework programme and has highlighted the risk of disrupting continuity in applying specific programmes, which would jeopardize the entire Community research effort. The Committee likewise stressed that stability and continuity are key factors in developing research.2.4.2. In this connection the Committee refers to the comments contained in its Opinions of 3 July 1991 on the proposal for a Decision adapting the second framework programme (1987-1991) (), 25 November 1992 on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning a financial supplement to be made to the third framework programme (1990-1994) () and its Own-initiative Opinion of 26 May 1993 on the fourth framework programme (1994-1998) ().2.4.3. As the Committee also stressed in the second above-mentioned Opinion, there were grounds for hoping that adopting the concept of 'rolling programmes' for Community research action (under which two consecutive framework programmes overlap by one or two years) would have helped secure the continuity vital for worthwhile research work, scale down or terminate nonessential or unproductive research, and implement new research in line with strategic adjustments made at an early stage.2.4.4. As regards financial aspects, application of this principle was calculated: a) to prevent unwarranted interruptions of research projects on financial grounds, b) to put an end to uncertainty about the funds available, and c) to keep up the momentum of Community research activity by avoiding the need to seek supplementary funding.2.4.5. For this reason, in its Opinion of 15 November 1989 on the third framework programme (1990-1994) (), the Committee fully endorsed adoption by the Council of this concept of 'rolling programmes', which would also take account of the time needed for adopting not only the framework programme itself, but also the specific programmes.2.4.6. Quite obviously, application of this concept continues to encounter obstacles: the third framework programme was only adopted in April 1990 (): the last specific programme was only adopted in March 1992; as for the fourth framework programme, it was only adopted on 25 April 1994, the Commission having submitted the relevant proposals in June 1993.2.4.7. The Committee agrees that there were specific factors behind the delays in the legislative procedure: inter alia, the lack of a Community financial framework, the uncertainties about the decision-making process for adopting the fourth framework programme and uncertainty over the date of entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. Be that as it may, most, if not all, of the specific programmes cannot be launched until early 1995, given the time needed for issuing invitations to tender.2.4.8. The Committee has already expressed a certain scepticism as to whether the new decision-making process can help shorten the lead times.2.4.9. Although the Maastricht Treaty confirmed that research falls within its remit, the Committee notes that, in a bid to abbreviate the length and complexity of the co-decision procedure, the three-pronged approach involving the Commission, Council and European Parliament is being strengthened and institutionalized, totally excluding the Economic and Social Committee, in parallel with the normal legislative process.2.4.9.1. The Committee therefore intends to grasp the opportunity provided by this Opinion to express its strong concern about this development; it seems to make referral to the Committee more of a formality than real consultation and might result in it being sidelined in this area of Community activity where the entire range of economic and social interest groups plays a key role. It calls on the Commission to undertake that in the future, it will consult the Committee fully and effectively as required by its Treaty obligations.2.4.10. This concern is heightened by the fact that in parallel to the practice described above, there has been a proliferation of sectoral and other committees, not to mention the recent establishment of a European Science and Technology Assembly, whose task will be to help the Commission in devising and implementing Community RTD policy.2.4.11. This said, the Committee stresses the need to return to effective application of the concept of 'rolling programmes' in Community research activity, which presupposes first and foremost that the Commission itself initiates the legislative procedure sufficiently early. Consequently the Committee urges the Commission to take immediately all steps necessary to ensure that, once the procedure has been completed, the specific programmes coming under the next framework programme can be implemented by early 1998 at the latest.2.5.Financial aspects2.5.1. In its Opinion of 25 November 1993 on the Commission proposals on the fourth framework programme (1994-1998) (), the Committee stated that the amount proposed for implementing that framework programme, namely ECU 13,100 million from the Community budget, did not constitute a real increase in Community research funding, bearing in mind the new activities incorporated in the framework programme, such as demonstration and preparation projects, back-up and follow-up projects.2.5.2. Moreover, the Committee expressed its disappointment at this amount insofar as the Commission saw its proposal as part of efforts to revive economic growth and employment in the Community. Furthermore, in view of the current economic and social situation, the Committee deemed this to be utterly inadequate. Its Own-initiative Opinion of 20 October 1993 on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment - Medium-term Considerations (), and the subsequent presentation by the Commission of its White Paper in December 1993, both confirmed this fact, if it needed to be, all the more since national research budgets were still being cut back.2.5.3. Once again the Council has taken responsibility for pruning the Commission's proposal, finally deciding on an overall amount of ECU 12,300 million. An additional sum of ECU 700 million may 'possibly' be allocated to the fourth framework programme between now and 30 June 1996. A decision on this will be taken 'in the light of an assessment of progress made in implementing the framework programme, its contribution to the competitiveness of Community industry at international level, the return on the money invested and the evolution of the European Union's financial perspective' [according to the Research Council press release of 21 March 1994 - 5749/94 (Presse 43)].2.5.4. The Committee notes that it is still not clear how the funds were divided between the four areas of activity and between the different specific programmes to be implemented under the first area of activity.2.5.5. The Committee strongly urges the Commission to provide it in future with all the relevant information, particularly financial information, so that it can properly fulfil the advisory role assigned to it by the Treaty in the field of research.2.5.6. Moreover, for the reasons set out above, the Committee feels that within the most directly effective specific programmes, the funds allocated for their completion must, as a priority, focus on those areas of research which will make a direct contribution to reviving growth and employment in Europe, on the basis of a more selective approach.2.6.Examination of the stage reached in specific programmes and assessment of research activities and their results2.6.1. Article 4 of the draft Decisions provide for (i) continuous, systematic examination by the Commission, assisted by independent, external experts, of the stage reached in the various specific programmes, and (ii) an assessment by independent experts of activities carried out in the areas covered by each of the programmes and their results.2.6.2. As already expressed in its abovementioned Opinion on the Commission proposals for the fourth framework programme, the Committee reiterates the importance it attaches to taking account, in the various examinations and assessments, of the experience of researchers and other individuals and groups involved in research programmes and affected by these areas of research. Inter alia, it is important for these assessment committees to take account of the experience of researchers engaged in activities covered by the various specific programmes, whether this be in universities, public or private research centres, or in industry.2.7.Implementation of the specific programmes2.7.1. Article 5 of the Commission proposals stipulates that the Commission is to draw up work programmes setting out in detail the scientific and technological objectives for each of the specific programmes and specifying the stages in the implementation of the programme and the proposed financial arrangements. Article 5 also stipulates that the Commission shall establish calls for proposals for projects on the basis of these work programmes.2.7.2. The Committee stresses that equal access to information is a sine qua non for establishing genuine equality of access to research programmes for all interested parties. This is particularly important for SMEs, a fact highlighted by the Committee on numerous occasions.2.7.3. In this connection, the Committee refers to numerous parallel proposals set out in its Opinion on the two draft Decisions on the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the specific research programmes [Opinion of 1 June 1994 ()].2.7.4. In this same Opinion the Committee likewise sets out a whole series of suggestions and proposals for further improving, inter alia, the general framework for involvement in specific programmes.2.7.5. For this reason the Committee does not intend in the present Opinion to express its views on the general rules for participation provided for in Annex III to the draft specific programmes and has confined its comments to the specific supplementary provisions proposed by the Commission for the various programmes under review.2.8.Staff and administrative expenditure2.8.1. The Committee notes that spending on staff and administration varies considerably from one specific programme to another. As a percentage, this expenditure could represent up to more than a quarter of the total appropriations allocated to the implementation of the programme in question.2.8.2. The Committee is fully aware of the need for research activities to be properly managed and that a large part of this expenditure is justified by the particular features of each of these programmes, e.g their size, the procedures for implementing them, their innovative nature.2.8.3. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that under the new treaty provisions the specific programmes now include activities which were previously financed and implemented outside the framework programme.2.8.4. Nevertheless, part of the budgets for staff and administrative expenses seems excessive; the Committee notes a lack of transparency in this expenditure and knows nothing about the measures taken by the Commission to reduce such expenditure as part of the simplification of the management of research programmes.2.8.5. The Committee stresses that it is vital to try to keep staff and administrative expenditure as low as possible in view of the budgetary stringency facing the Community and bearing in mind that available appropriations must go first to financing the research itself.FIRST AREA OF ACTIVITY:IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH,TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTAND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMMES3. Information technologies [94/0081(CNS)] 3.1.Introduction3.1.1. The overall objectives of the proposed programme are:'- To help enhance the quality of life and improve the competitiveness of all European industry. - To contribute to the establishment of the information infrastructure in Europe. - To strengthen the scientific and technological base of European industry. - To promote preparatory and validation activities with a view to standardization.'3.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 15 July 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 November 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 1,532 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.3.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 1,911 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme.3.1.4. The proposed research activities 'must be those which give the most leverage in building up the information infrastructure, which emphasize access, usability and best practice, and which foster Europe's command of generic technologies. At the same time the programme must give the right stimulus to European IT industries'.3.1.5. The proposed funding is spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Underpinning technologies 45 - software technologies 14 - technologies for IT components and subsystems 23 - multimedia technologies 8- Long-term research 10- Focused clusters 45 - open microprocessor 10 - high performance computing and networking 13 - technologies for business processes 10 - integration in manufacturing 123.1.6. The 'focused clusters' represent a new approach to carrying out RTD activities. They group together activities covering a number of areas of technology, but with a single, well-defined goal. They may incorporate other kinds of activity as their specific needs dictate: networks of excellence, association of suppliers and users, cooperation with EUREKA, coordination with national initiatives, international cooperation, dissemination of results or training initiatives.3.1.7. The amount proposed also includes ECU 19 million earmarked for the dissemination and exploitation of results. Training activities are also provided for and may call on at least 2 % of the total amount.3.1.8. The JRC is asked to contribute to research activities in the field of information technologies to the tune of ECU 21 million; this is additional to the appropriations to be allocated for implementing the specific programme under consideration.3.2.General comments3.2.1. The Committee broadly approves the Commission proposal and in particular the scientific and technological content of the proposed specific programme.3.2.2. However, the Committee feels that the proposal needs certain amendments so that the programme adopted by the Council can effectively further the objectives pursued by the fourth framework programme, as reflected in the recitals which precede the proposed Decision, while also taking better account of the EU's economic and social situation.3.2.3. The Committee feels that in the present circumstances it is vital to focus on practical activities that can be speedily applied and disseminated, in order to facilitate the earliest possible economic recovery in the Member States and to create jobs.3.2.4. The amendments proposed by the Committee are thus intended to promote economic growth, competitiveness and employment, as well as economic and social cohesion.3.2.5. It is right and proper to ensure that one and the same specific project cannot be put forward successively in different areas, thereby creating confusion and duplication of proposals. The Committee recommends that the Commission put into practice an effective procedure for achieving this objective.3.2.5.1. It is necessary in this context to envisage simplified procedures for submitting and selecting proposals, making sure that the procedures in question are implemented with greater transparency. The Committee has already recommended this step.3.2.6. Some of the funds should be set aside for exploratory actions and viability studies intended expressly for SMEs.3.2.7. It is important to simplify considerably the format of the proposals by cutting out unnecessary detail so as to facilitate their examination by experts during assessment. Any additional detail required at a later stage should be provided when the contracts are signed.3.3.Specific comments3.3.1.Multimedia technologies3.3.1.1. It is highly advisable to encourage the integration of vertical consortia with developers and users and to improve SME access to application and demonstration projects, including the following specific projects:- integration of images, data, voice, etc., on CD-ROM and other media through the conversion of paper documents;- development of multimedia applications for various sectors, such as publishing and training establishments, banks, etc.;- demonstration of the potential of multimedia technologies;- initiatives to disseminate multimedia technologies for small firms and training. (These initiatives could be modelled on the European Software and Systems Initiative - ESSI).3.3.2.Office and home automation applications3.3.2.1. The following specific projects should be added:- integration of various business functions, including cooperative work and workflow;- integration of multimedia technologies in business process applications;- document management and business processes, including the conversion of paper documents to electronic form;- demonstration of application of multimedia technologies to business processes.3.3.3.Software, basic research and integration in manufacturing3.3.3.1. No specific comments.3.3.4.Components and subsystems3.3.4.1. The list of microelectronic technologies should include an explicit reference to integrated power circuits, also known as 'smart power' technologies.3.3.4.2. The microsystems applications should include intelligent sensors for industrial control.3.3.5.Microprocessors and their applications3.3.5.1. No specific comments.3.3.6.High performance computing3.3.6.1. Computer simulation should include the simulation of transport networks, sharing and distribution of electrical power, meteorological forecasts and civil applications of nuclear energy.3.3.6.2. Information management should include applications in the financial and other service sectors.3.4.Budget3.4.1. The indicative breakdown of the overall budget of ECU 1,911 million should be brought more into line with the objectives laid down in the programme. It is the Committee's view that the appropriations for software and multimedia technologies and for integration in manufacturing should be increased substantially, offset by a corresponding decrease in the appropriations for components and subsystems technologies and microprocessors and their applications.4. Standardization, measurement and testing [94/0083 (CNS)] 4.1.Introduction4.1.1. The general objectives of the proposed programme are:- to improve the competitiveness of all sectors of European industry (including the particular needs of small and medium enterprises - SMEs) - by encouraging industrial innovation; - by better product definition and quality control; - by more efficient measurement procedures during production; - by the mutual recognition of certificates in accordance with the global approach for the establishment of conformity;- to provide pre-normative research with the resources necessary for the development and the application of Community policies (single market, environment, agriculture, health, transport and protection of external frontiers);- to undertake the pre-normative research necessary to support the work of CEN, CENELEC, ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute), etc., relating to existing or new written standards;- to support the forthcoming development of a European measurement infrastructure by helping to coordinate national activities and the development of written standards, methods and advanced measurements systems;- to help the dissemination and use of good measurement practices in Europe, in particular, in the least-favoured regions.4.1.2. This programme is intended to supersede that adopted by the Council on 29 April 1992 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 November 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 159 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.4.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 167 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Measurements for quality European products 40-45 - development of measurement methods and instrumentation required by researchers; - development of generic measurement and test methods, reference materials and instrumentation required in the course of product development; - development of generic measurement methods, standards and instrumentation required in production to improve product quality/production cost ratios.- Research related to written standards and technical support to trade 35-40 - support to legislation; - support to industry; - promotion of a European measurement infrastructure; - technical support to mutual recognition and accreditation; - measurements required by customs laboratories.- Measurements related to the needs of society 20-25 - health and safety; - monitoring of the environment; - justice system; - support of Europe's cultural heritage.4.1.4. In the third framework programme, the allocation of ECU 159 million included ECU 92 million for the Joint Research Centre (JRC), and only ECU 67 million for the shared-cost part of the programme. Conversely, the allocation of ECU 167 million mentioned above does not include the ECU 121 million contribution for direct action by the JRC.4.1.5. The amount proposed also includes ECU 2 million earmarked for the dissemination and exploitation of results.4.2.General comments4.2.1. The text is woolly and excessively optimistic in places, glossing over the operational side and the procedures by which the declared objectives are to be achieved.4.2.2. Priority areas of support for Community policies should be identified in conjunction with other departments of the Commission, and, where appropriate, the Regulatory Committees. Similarly, the European standards organizations should express their opinion on the issues which should be given priority status. Appropriate research into measurement priorities for industry should be commissioned.4.2.2.1. Consequently, priorities should be clearly outlined in the work programme, so that declared objectives can be attained effectively.4.2.3. Specific action involving simplified procedure (such as Craft) should be undertaken, and thematic networks should be set up. The task of these networks should not be limited to solving scientific and technical problems; they should also provide a benchmark for training and the dissemination and transfer of information in manufacturing firms and service industries (particularly SMEs).4.2.4. The forthcoming open invitation to tender should provide the flexibility and speed required to meet the most pressing problems involved in the application of Community policy. Consumer organizations should be consulted when necessary.4.2.5. The relevant national bodies should take part in drafting the programmes (both specific and work programmes). The Commission should act as an observer in the networks of national laboratories, so as to maintain regular contact. The work programme should be revised regularly, and the networks will be asked to take part in this.4.2.6. An invitation to tender should be published, with the specific aim of establishing networks. This should cover three categories (coordination, transfer of technology, and training).4.2.7. Setting up a common European measurement and testing infrastructure means that the required technical procedures in the various countries will have to be improved upon and harmonized. These include taring, certification and accreditation. The aims should be:- to promote coordination of national activities, so as to avoid the risk of doing the work twice in different countries;- to establish a measurement system for reference in the field of chemistry;- to organize training courses, and the transfer of know-how to countries where the national measurement centres are less well developed.4.2.8. CEN/CENELEC/ETSI must be given a say, and they should state their opinion on research into European standardization concerning:- the application of Community policies;- the needs of industry.4.2.8.1. The Commission should be wholly responsible for determining research priorities and allocating funds, and should consider the standpoint of any other groups or associations involved, and the needs of the EU.4.2.8.2. Transparency must be ensured by issuing invitations to tender. An assessment of tenders can be made by a team of independent experts, following established criteria.4.2.9. Proficiency testing with other European organizations responsible for laboratory accreditation should be included.4.2.10. Research projects to validate 'in-house' methods of analysis should not be included when they are of specific interest to one company only, whereas techniques which can be applied throughout industry in the EU should be included.4.2.10.1. The work programme should refer explicitly to research into the quantitative assessment of properties which are extremely useful for industry and commerce, but have hitherto only been discussed in terms of quality (should there be a direct request from industry).4.3.Specific comments4.3.1. Add at the bottom of page 2 (after the words 'apply to this specific programme') the following:'Whereas activities relating to standards, measurement and testing in the steel sector may come to be included in this specific programme, given the forthcoming expiry of the ECSC Treaty.'This text has already been included in the TIME specific programme (the new BritE/Euram).4.3.2. Promote the creation of 'thematic networks of excellence' which might help to solve technical problems, but would also serve as a) a benchmark for manufacturing firms and service industries (particularly SMEs), b) a centre for analysing national needs in the areas in question, c) a centre for disseminating and transferring information and knowledge (primarily about Community activities but also networks of national laboratories such as EURACHEM, EURAMET, etc.), and d) a centre for training.4.3.3. Regulate, by means of a common 'code' of intent, cooperation with CEN/CENELEC/ETSI, and ensure that there is transparency.4.3.4. Last indent of theme II (page 13): amend the text by including all the measures to verify labelling/content conformity, not only in order to help customs laboratories but also to protect the consumer and the environment.4.3.5. Third indent of theme III (page 13): why only 'few laboratories' and why only 'narcotics'?4.3.5.1. Support for the justice system and forensic science should be extended to other materials such as explosives.5. Environment and climate [94/0084 (CNS)] 5.1.Introduction5.1.1. The proposed programme has the following main objectives:- to understand the basic processes of the climate and of natural systems;- to identify and assess the adverse effects of human activity on the environment;- to identify ways of preventing or curing such effects.5.1.2. Among the factors to be taken into consideration the Commission mentions the effects of industrial activities, transport, tourism, disposal of waste, urbanization, misuse of water, types of land use and management, and agricultural and forestry practices.5.1.3. In view of the different levels at which the problems arise - continents, oceans, atmosphere and biosphere - each system must be examined not only on its own but also as it interacts with other systems.5.1.4. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 7 June 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (). The Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 469 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.5.1.5. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 532 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, to be spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Natural environment, environmental quality and global change 46-52 - climate change and impact on natural resources; - atmosphere physics and chemistry, biosphere processes and consequences; - human dimension of environmental change.- Environmental technologies 24-30 - sustainable development and technological change; - instruments, techniques and methods for monitoring the environment; - technologies and methods to protect the environment; - technologies to forecast, prevent and reduce natural risks.- Space techniques applied to environmental monitoring and research 20-25 - methodological research and pilot projects; - R&  D on advanced sensor technology; - Centre for Earth Observation (CEO).5.1.6. ECU 5 million of the proposed total will be earmarked for dissemination and exploitation of results. It is also intended to allocated 15 % of the total to fundamental research activities and 2 % to training initiatives.5.1.7. The Joint Research Centre has been called on to contribute to the implementation of the research activities included under the present programme to the tune of an additional ECU 320 million.5.2.General comments5.2.1. The Committee broadly endorses the programme under discussion. It stresses that the selected research areas are indeed areas of priority given the nature and extent of the problems affecting the environment.5.2.2. Besides the interactions between the different areas, it is also clear that the proposed research activities will not be as effective or relevant as they could be unless carried out in close symbiosis, exploiting all possible synergies, with activities organized worldwide.5.2.3. With this in mind, it would have been advisable for the Commission to take stock of (i) parallel research programmes and activities not only in the Member States but especially those in third countries (eg. US, Japan, Canada and Australia) and under the auspices of international organizations, and (ii) existing synergies, or synergies to be developed under the new programme, with the research institutes concerned.5.2.4. There is a risk that the programme's present approach, which places the emphasis on subsidiarity, could lead to duplication and consequently to a waste of funds and fragmented or even controversial findings once the projects have been completed.5.2.5. The Committee stresses that the environment provides the best example of an area to which Community support brings real added value, especially given the cross-border dimension of the problems to be resolved.5.2.6. There is no doubt, however, that application of the principle of subsidiarity is still highly beneficial in the case of research projects in areas such as agriculture, forestry and natural environment, where national, regional or local conditions have to be taken into account.5.3.Specific comments5.3.1. In the light of the foregoing comments, the Committee considers that the international cooperation angle should be given greater prominence in a number of the research areas covered by the programme.5.3.1.1. This applies in particular to research into atmosphere physics and chemistry and the depletion of the ozone layer; since 1978 NASA has been carrying out highly detailed research projects based on constantly updated mathematical models.5.3.1.2. Hence the Committee would highlight those research activities which should be carried out as a matter of priority in an international context in view of the scale of the work to be carried out and the possible import of their findings.5.3.2. With regard to methods of estimating and managing risks, and in particular the development of alternatives to the use of animals for assessing the risks to health and the environment from chemicals, the Committee stresses that it is not enough merely to provide, as the Commission does, for consistency with the work carried out by the JRC's European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, but it must also be ensured that the findings of this work are disseminated systematically so that other researchers can benefit from them too.5.3.3. The Committee further urges the Commission:- to avoid a compartmentalization and dissipation of research effort by steering its choice of research projects towards research centres which, either on their own or as part of a consortium or network, have the necessary infrastructure and staff to carry out integrated actions. This recommendation in no way excludes the need to encourage new participants from taking part in the activities envisaged in the programme, such as research centres, universities and SMEs, either on their own or as part of research networks. The Commission should keep a careful eye on these new participants;- take all necessary steps to promote increased cooperation between universities and companies, with the dual aim of (i) encouraging the pooling of the scientific and technological resources necessary to carry out research projects and (ii) facilitating the training and recruitment of staff specialized in environmental technologies and allied activities.5.4.Additional comments5.4.1. The Committee notes that moves to alert public opinion to environmental problems - in itself an entirely legitimate aim - can sometimes lead to scientific findings being misrepresented, in that either only part of such findings are passed on or no precaution is taken to check how accurate they are. The search for publicity at all costs is not always absent from the thoughts of the perpetrators either.5.4.1.1. For this reason the Committee calls on the Commission to ensure that the contracting parties in research projects fully respect the rules on the dissemination of findings arising from specific programmes.5.4.1.2. It would also urge the scientific community to act with the greatest responsibility in this matter, either by avoiding the publication and dissemination of information which does not have a firm scientific basis or by providing explanatory or educational material along with the information, aimed at preventing hasty conclusions or decisions, especially of a political and economic nature, which could subsequently be called into question.6. Marine science and technology [94/0085(CNS)] 6.1.Introduction6.1.1. The general aim of the proposed programme is to 'foster the scientific knowledge and technological development necessary to understand how marine systems function at basin scales, in order to prepare for sustainable use of the oceans and determine their role in global change'.6.1.2. This programme will follow on from that adopted by the Council on 7 June 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (). The Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 118 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.6.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 228 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, to be spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Marine science 33-37 - marine systems research; - extreme marine environments; - regional seas research.- Strategic marine research 20-25 - coastal and shelf sea research; - coastal engineering; - risk and impact evaluation.- Marine technology 33-37 - generic technologies; - advanced systems.- Supporting initiatives 5-106.1.4. ECU 2 million of the proposed total will be earmarked for the dissemination and exploitation of the results. It is also intended to allocate 20 % of the total to fundamental research activities and 2 % to training initiatives.6.2.General considerations6.2.1. The key objective of this specific programme is to understand the fundamental processes of natural systems as part of an overall strategy for the environment.6.2.2. Familiarity with and an understanding of the fundamental marine system processes are of crucial importance if an integrated environmental strategy is to be defined and implemented. The Committee is pleased that this importance has been recognized and has been reflected in a substantial increase in the amount of funding granted to the research programme under consideration, which has the full backing of the Committee.6.2.3. Taking account of the interactions between the climate, the oceans, the atmosphere and biosphere, it is clearly vital that research activities in these areas should not be confined to Europe, but should be extended to a planetary scale; this calls for a research strategy to be implemented worldwide also. Here, international cooperation becomes essential.6.2.4. In the same vein, when carrying out the research projects selected, it will also be necessary to work on the basis that the sum of the research effort in the various areas covered by this and related programmes (environment, information and communication technologies, agriculture and fisheries, amongst others) is greater than the individual parts.6.2.5. Similarly, it should be stressed in this connection that, if this programme is to attain all its objectives, use of space technology becomes very important for monitoring the marine and continental environment and for determining the causes of the disturbances and changes affecting them, whether these have natural causes or are the result of human activities.6.2.6. All the resources thus deployed, together with the information compiled, should allow solutions to be put together inter alia for:- designing products which will have less impact on the environment;- promoting technologies to recycle waste;- designing and implementing technologies to process or dispose of non-recyclable waste (without forgetting the need to reduce industrial effluent and waste).6.2.7. The essential aspect to stress is the importance - in the pursuit of the objectives of the present programme - of developing methodologies for assessing industrial risks and for reducing natural risks.6.3.General comments6.3.1. Putting the subsidiarity principle at the forefront of its thinking, the Commission stresses the need to coordinate and integrate research efforts in Member States and advocates the pooling of knowledge, infrastructure and national research potential.6.3.1.1. The Committee approves this move which gives added value to Community action and means it is possible to avoid duplicating work done elsewhere as far as possible. It nevertheless draws attention to the fact that the maritime regions in the European Union which are due to be the first to benefit from the results of this programme are in many cases less-developed regions which do not have or have insufficient resources in terms of funding or infrastructure. In addition, there are different geographical conditions to take into account, inter alia the extent of the coastline involved.6.3.1.1.1. In this context, the Committee also draws attention to the observations contained in the Owninitiative Opinion which it has issued simultaneously on Regional planning and development strategies for the Atlantic coastal regions.6.3.1.2. These features are ipso facto likely to put a brake on profitable, balanced cooperation; the Committee asks that this be taken into account when implementing the programme. This also confers considerable importance on disseminating and exploiting the results of research carried out not only under this programme, but also under programmes in the Member States, so as to benefit all regions in the Community.6.3.2. The Committee expresses regret, for the reasons set out above, that the importance of securing a complementary approach and synergies with international research programmes has not been stressed more.6.3.3. The Committee notes that in the European Union there are very few research centres with the advanced infrastructures and qualified staff needed for carrying out research into marine science and technology. It therefore asks the Commission to look into the resources which could be used to help create specialized research infrastructures in this area, particularly in outlying maritime regions and especially the possibilities provided by the Structural Funds, in line with requests already made by the Committee in its Own-initiative Opinion of the fourth framework programme, referred to earlier.6.3.4. Particular efforts have to be made for training specialists. Training should constitute an integral part of the activities in this programme and a portion of the funds should be earmarked for this purpose.6.3.4.1. In this connection, the Committee regrets that nothing has been planned for encouraging the development of cooperation between firms and universities.6.3.4.2. The Commission should also encourage new career paths and university disciplines to be set up which take account in particular of the improvements in knowledge acquired under this programme.6.4.Specific comments6.4.1. The Committee does not intend to go into the details of the scientific and technical content of the programme under study, the broad lines of which it approves.6.4.2. It notes the wide-ranging, ambitious nature of the proposed programme which will require a highly focused approach for the selection of research projects to be granted Community funding, so as to avoid a situation where the funds are spread too thinly.6.4.3. It is clear that the time needed for the proposed activities will extend far beyond the end of the programmes, scheduled for 1998. The Committee therefore stresses that the procedures for adopting the next framework programme and concomitant specific programmes need to be implemented sufficiently early so as to avoid any lack of continuity in the research effort caused inter alia by an absence of the funds needed to continue promising programmes.6.4.4. In this connection, the continuous monitoring of programme implementation and the evaluation reports stipulated in Article 4 of the proposed Decision should allow the Commission to take the necessary decisions for a) continuing or interrupting, if such should prove warranted, research projects in progress, b) adjusting programme objectives, and c) choosing new research topics, taking account of the prospects in terms of scientific and industrial developments and also the environment and job creation.6.4.5. Given the above, the Committee considers it appropriate that the European Union should, as provided for by the Commission, help finance research activities carried out under international organizations or programmes, albeit on an ad hoc basis. However, the Committee asks the Commission to take all the necessary steps, including in the above situation, to ensure that Community funds are wisely used, that the research findings benefit the whole European Union and that the scientific and/or technological spin-offs are positive.6.4.6. As part of the synergy to be established with other relevant specific research programmes, the Committee stresses the need to ensure that research findings from the present programme also be put to good use in those areas for which they are of direct interest, particularly fish and plant aquaculture.6.5.Additional comments6.5.1. The Committee draws attention to the fact that the additional comments made about the environment and climate programme fully apply to marine science and technology which are closely linked to environmental matters.7. Biotechnology [94/0086(CNS)] 7.1.Introduction7.1.1. The general objective of the proposed programme is to 'unravel, with all sophisticated means provided by modern biotechnology, the workings of living cells such that practitioners might master, mimic and eventually reproduce complex cellular processes in greater numbers and with higher efficacy, for the production or conversion of a variety of substances compatible with life, the treatment of diseases, the diagnostic of genetic variation, the restoration of the environment, etc.'7.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted on 26 March 1992 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 24 October 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 186 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.7.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 552 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Cell factories 15-21- Genome analysis 13-19- Plant and animal biotechnology 22-30 - plant molecular and cellular biology; - animal physiopathology.- Cell communication in neurosciences 4-8- Immunology, transdisease vaccinology 5-9- Structural biology 9-13- Prenormative research, biodiversity social acceptance 10-16- Infrastructures 2-47.1.4. Two main approaches are to be employed in the implementation of the programme: 'concentrated means' for research activities under the first four headings and 'concertation' for those under the other headings. According to the Commission, 'concentrated means' covers shared-cost research actions for the implementation of 'large research projects entailing a high level of integration'.7.1.5. The total amount includes ECU 5.5 million for the exploitation and dissemination of results.7.1.6. The Commission also provides for horizontal activities (including demonstration activities, analyses of ethical, social and legal aspects of biotechnology, studies into the public perception and socio-economic impact of biotechnology, training activities); a certain percentage of the appropriations is to be set aside for the implementation of these activities.7.2.General comments7.2.1. The Committee welcomes this proposal because biotechnology is an area where the European dimension adds value as the industry sectors concerned are largely international and competing on world markets. The benefit to European enterprises is that they can draw on an adequate science base; this base should be innovative, but also responsive to the needs of European Union enterprises.7.2.2. Internationally, biotechnology is generating many skilled new jobs, particularly in new and innovative SMEs. Therefore, it is essential that the maximum of these jobs are created in the European Union.7.2.3. The future of the European Union depends on innovation. In biotechnology, the EU has two significant weaknesses in comparison to the USA, Japan and other advanced Asian countries:- firstly, there is not an agreed Community-wide priority for this scientific mission. This is true also for the perception within different Directorates-General of the Commission. This has led to a lack of social consensus as the Explanatory Memorandum highlights;- secondly, the Community has enacted and is still enacting a series of horizontal legislations specifically discriminating against biotechnology. These have hindered European Union developments by increasing the costs and uncertainties around the commercial exploitation of products made using biotechnology methods.7.2.4. This regulatory framework interacts with the public perception issues to inhibit investment and exploitation of the technology and therefore the creation of new jobs.7.3.Annex I: Scientific and technical objectives and content7.3.1.The background7.3.1.1. The Commission makes the suggestion that 'careful attention will be given to the step bringing research in the context of socio-economic need'.7.3.1.2. That looks like an unexceptionable statement. However, in practice, prejudging the need and acceptance of specific products will erect a wall between the research and the customers for that research.7.3.1.3. It is historically extremely difficult for expert committees to second guess the market correctly, particularly when it comes to innovation. The use of judgement criteria for a product (support for a demonstration project) or against (lack of socio-economic need) should therefore be approached with great caution. The chief objective in the programme should be to ensure that products can be placed on the market which benefit the European Union citizen.7.3.1.4. One needs to emphasize again that the European Union is competing for jobs with other countries which are progressing rapidly without such walls.7.3.2.Area 1: Cell factories7.3.2.1. The general proposition in this research area is approved. However, it needs to be made clearer that plant cell systems are included in this research area. Although the bulk of this project area is aimed at pharmaceutical biotechnology, there is significant expertise and industry potential in the plant cell culture area.7.3.3.Area 2: Genome analysis7.3.3.1. The general proposition in this area is approved. Work on model systems is to provide generic information and methodology. Specific comments are provided in two areas:- firstly, the linkage with the human genome project in the Biomedical and Health programme should be made formal and explicit in order to maximize the progress in both areas;- secondly, the model genome concept should also apply to the work on farm animals, i.e. the Community should not be supporting further work on specific animals (see below) but confine itself to basic research. The mouse could be a good model for such research.7.3.4.Area 3: Plant and animal biotechnology Plant molecular and cellular biology7.3.4.1. The scope of this programme area is too large and all-encompassing. To give focus in the implementation phase, a considerable part of the programme should be defined by the agricultural and industrial customers for the research. It is they who know what is 'of agricultural and industrial relevance' and where there is a specific applied goal. However, underpinning science can and should be driven by the relevant academic experts.7.3.4.2. A formal linkage with the Agriculture and Fisheries research programme should be established. The Committee understands that there is a joint management of the three programmes in the field of life sciences (biotechnology, biomedicine and health, and agriculture and fisheries), but the fact needs to be made clearer to users.Animal physiopathology7.3.4.3. As mentioned above, the farm animal genome work cannot be considered as work with model species. There should be continued European Union support only if there is a high level of industry and agricultural support and direction. Work on model species such as the mouse should be considered.7.3.4.4. Transgenic models for human and animal diseases is a worthy objective but it is questionable how much it fits into this programme rather than into the Biomedical and Health programme.7.3.4.5. A particularly good area is that of in vitro tests and screens to replace animal experiments. This clearly is of significant impact across a range of industries and of concern across the Community. This area could receive additional emphasis (see below).7.3.4.6. Methods for somatic gene therapy fall within the remit of the Biomedical and Health programme and would provide only limited generic added value.7.3.4.7. The synergies with the Biomedical and Health or the Agriculture and Fisheries programmes should be made a requirement for any funding of research in these areas of overlap.7.3.5.Area 4: Cell communication in neurosciences7.3.5.1. This programme is accepted as valuable.7.3.6.Area 5: Immunology and transdisease vaccinology7.3.6.1. There is a large potential overlap with the Biomedical and Health programme. This can only be approved if the Commission makes clear how the added dimension of the biotechnology component is to be used.7.3.7.Area 6: Structural biology7.3.7.1. This is an area where the added value from the European dimension is clear and already shown to work; this is particularly true for the infrastructure requirements.7.3.8.Area 7: Prenormative research, biodiversity and social acceptance7.3.8.1. This area is a ragbag of topics which should be rationalized and reduced.7.3.8.2. In vitro testing research is valuable and should be included under the theme 'Animal physiopathology', as mentioned above.7.3.8.3. Biodiversity is of great interest and concern to the Community and its scientists and other citizens. It is not particularly concerned with biotechnology though the latter benefits from it in some areas. It should be funded through an appropriate programme.7.3.8.4. Biosafety research has been sponsored successfully over many years now. It is questionable whether there is any good reason to spend more research funds in the area; the major scientific questions have been answered; remaining are ones of regulations and acceptance. The acquisition of further data at this stage cannot have a high scientific priority.7.3.9.Area 8: Infrastructures7.3.9.1. The Community activities in this area are of high value in ensuring the widespread availability and common access to services for biotechnology. The efforts in this area could usefully be strengthened over what is currently envisaged.7.3.10.Horizontal activities7.3.10.1. Demonstration projects are potentially very valuable in helping to overcome the 'socio-economic barriers' and 'facilitate the adoption of new biotechnologies'. It is therefore important to remember the considerations noted in 7.3.1.7.3.10.2. The potential danger is, in selecting some projects, to take forward to the market in a non-commercial environment. This risk must be recognized and accounted for in any proposal to spend significant public funds in this area.7.3.10.3. Public perception is of key importance in placing the products derived from biotechnology methods in the market alongside other products in a non-discriminatory way. Industry (both employers and employees), agriculture and consumers organizations have key leadership roles in this area, supported by efforts available within this programme.7.3.10.4. Useful subjects for European Union support include the provision of teaching materials for schools at all levels where science is taught, also support for proper social science surveys of what has happened in specific product launches in the EU, USA or Japan.7.3.10.5. Socio-economic impacts: measurement of the socio-economic impacts is a worthy aim for research provided that the long timescale of this impact is recognized.7.4.Annex II: Indicative breakdown of the amount7.4.1. The Committee has no disagreement with the overall amount proposed. However, the breakdown needs adjusting for the overlap areas with the Biomedicine and Health programme. Also Area 7 should be reduced, in line with the comments made earlier, and Area 8 spending increased.8. Biomedicine and health [94/0087(CNS)] 8.1.Introduction8.1.1. The general objective of the proposed programme is to 'contribute to improving the effectiveness of research and development in medicine and health in the Member States, in particular through better coordination of their research and development activities, to applying their findings through Community cooperation and to using available resources in common'.8.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 9 September 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 November 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 151 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.8.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 336 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme. The bulk of these appropriations (85 %) will be divided between five priority areas, namely (as a %):- Research on AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases 13-20- Research on cancer 16-20- Pharmaceutical research 12-18- Brain research 13-19- Human genome research 11-178.1.4. The research under these headings will be carried out in the form of shared-cost research actions, within the framework of a 'concentration of resources' similarly to the biotechnology programme.8.1.5. The remaining 15 % will be allocated to concerted actions in the following research areas:- Occupational and environmental health;- Other diseases with major socio-economic impact;- Public health, including health services;- Biomedical technology and engineering;- Biomedical ethics.8.1.6. The total amount includes ECU 3 million for the exploitation and dissemination of results.8.1.7. The Commission also provides for horizontal activities (including demonstration activities, studies into the ethical, social and legal aspects, and training activities).8.2.General comments8.2.1. The Committee welcomes this proposal, in particular the emphasis on promoting growth, competitiveness and employment, and also the attention paid to SMEs.8.2.2. The Explanatory Memorandum focuses on the medical and health needs of the citizen, and rightly so. However, the programme should put greater emphasis on prevention and cure of major diseases and on ways of disseminating the research results more rapidly.8.2.3. The Committee welcomes the ethical concerns reflected in the Commission's proposals, and that this is clearly affirmed by the exclusion from the Community programmes of any research which could lead to the modification of the genetic constitution of human beings.8.2.4. In the list of research activities which is mentioned, research into cardiovascular diseases and age-related problems should be moved up and be listed separately immediately after AIDS and cancer research, as a priority area. Cardiovascular illness is the biggest killer in the European Union and also involves detailed understanding of wide ranging pathological work, exactly as in the case of AIDS and cancer. Therefore, this area of research should not be seen as being of lesser importance, as it seems to be in the Commission document.8.3.Annex I: Scientific and technical objectives and content8.3.1. It seems desirable that most of the pathological research should be financed principally on a shared cost basis. This leaves research into the brain, the human genome, occupational medicine, public health and biomedical ethics to be financed as concerted actions, since these are typically carried out by universities.8.3.2. Concentrated and coordinated pharmaceutical research will lead to cuts in health expenditure if there is success in improving the therapeutic value of medicines to the extent that illnesses can be prevented and stays in hospital reduced or avoided.8.3.2.1. Research must therefore be concentrated on actual needs.8.3.3.Pharmaceutical research8.3.3.1. The objective (i.e. the development of scientific and technical bases required for the evaluation of new drugs) cannot be confined to new pharmaceuticals in the specific fields listed here which are neurological, mental, immunological and viral diseases. It should cover methodological support for all the work carried out by the European Medicine Evaluation Agency.8.3.4.Human genome research8.3.4.1. The specific nature of the proposed research, i.e. basic research carried out by universities and research centres within national programmes, points to funding by concerted actions.Hence some of the resources indicated in Annex II (indicative breakdown of the amount) could be usefully transferred to research on diseases with major socio-economic impact.8.3.5.Research on other diseases with major socio-economic impact8.3.5.1. Because of their economic impact and the large number of research-oriented companies operating in this field, the emphasis should be on cost-sharing involving these enterprises.8.3.5.2. The main subjects for research listed under that heading should be towards the solution of major orphan illnesses such as CHF (congenital heart failure), ischemia, etc. Funding should be at around the same level as AIDS and cancer.8.3.6.Public health research, including health services research8.3.6.1. Most of the subjects listed constitute an analysis of the situation, of the effectiveness and the efficiency of largely national health services. These are very important but are not properly research and development items. They could be carried out better and more efficiently by other European Union initiatives.8.3.7.Research on biomedical technology and engineering8.3.7.1. The list of topics is too restrictive. It should be left more open by changing the heading before the indents to 'Research and development will include but not be limited to'.8.3.8.Research on biomedical ethics8.3.8.1. Research on biomedical ethics should be limited to supplying the basic scientific knowledge for legislative activity and involving all people concerned, including scientists, physicians, patients, etc. This knowledge includes respect for confidentiality and privacy. Attention must be paid in particular to ensuring that economic aspects do not prevail over ethical ones.8.3.8.2. 'Confidentiality and privacy considering medical data', under indent 7, is not really a research subject but needs to be addressed in the proposal for a Council Directive on data protection.8.3.9.Horizontal activities8.3.9.1. As research subjects, the activities mentioned in the second paragraph are of doubtful practical value, being concerned with 'values' rather than content.8.3.9.2. On the contrary, activities mentioned in the third paragraph can be fully endorsed.8.3.9.3. The fourth paragraph refers to demonstration activities. The Commission fails to specify how the demonstrations are to facilitate European multicentre clinical research at a 'precompetitive stage'. This should not be restricted to epidemiological studies, but should also cover methodology and broadly defined clinical testing (new pharmaceuticals should be treated as 'prototypes' until phase 3 of clinical development).8.4.Annex II: Indicative breakdown of the amount8.4.1. The Committee is not qualified to evaluate the indicative breakdown in detail. However, it arises from its evaluation of the programme that 'research into other diseases with major socio-economic impact' should be transferred to the priority A list and therefore each amount for the specific research areas in the A list needs to be redefined.8.5.Annex III: Rules for implementing the programme8.5.1. Paragraph 9.1a) provides that research activities on major illnesses will be strengthened, in particular, 'by a targeted training of young research workers' for a maximum of six months. The Committee is of the view that it is inconceivable that a researcher could be thrust into an entirely unfamiliar environment for such a short time and receive any useful training. The training period should be extended from six months to one year.8.5.2. This paragraph also states the ten specific objectives of the programme. It refers to 'other diseases with major socio-economic impact' as the seventh objective. The Committee considers that this objective should be moved up the list and mentioned after 'AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases' and 'cancer', as objective 3, making provision for 20 more major projects on a shared cost basis.9. Agriculture and fisheries (including agro-industry, food technologies, forestry, aquaculture and rural development [94/0088(CNS)] 9.1.Introduction9.1.1. The general objectives of the proposed programme are as follows:'- To contribute to the improvement of the competitiveness of European agro-industry and primary production by the development of new technologies compatible with sustainable growth and taking account of the needs of consumers. - To improve the quality of agricultural, forestry and fish products in general and food products in particular. - To contribute to the implementation of the common agricultural policy and other Community policies (internal market and environment), rural development and to maintain employment in rural areas. - To contribute to a better match between the production and utilization of biological primary materials'.9.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 9 September 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 377 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.9.1.3. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 607 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Integrated production and processing chains 14-16- Scaling-up and processing methodologies 6-8- Generic science and advanced technologies for nutritious foods 15-17- Activities to complement Community policies in the agriculture and fisheries sectors, together with the identification of new prospects further to their restructuring. Priority should be given to: 52-56 - In the agriculture, forestry and rural development sectors, to: 36-38 - optimization of methods, systems and primary production chains; - quality policy; - diversification of farming sector activities and new land uses;- animal and plant health and animal welfare; - multifunctional management of forests; - rural development. - In the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, to 16-18 - impact of environmental factors on marine resources; - environmental impact of fisheries and aquaculture activities; - biology of species for optimization of aquaculture;- socio-economic aspects of the fishing industry; - improved methodology.- Concerted actions 8 (of which 2 % for fisheries, 3 % for agriculture and 3 % for agro-industrial research)9.1.4. These concerted actions will be carried out through thematic networks and will concentrate on primary production in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, rural and coastal development and food production and processing.9.1.5. Of the total amount proposed, 1 % is earmarked for the exploitation and dissemination of results, between 4 and 8 % for horizontal demonstration activities, between 1 and 2 % for horizontal activities on ethical, social and legal aspects, and between 5 and 7 % on training activities.9.1.6. The JRC is asked to contribute to research activities in the field of agriculture and fisheries to the tune of ECU 7 million. This is additional to the funding proposed for the implementation of the specific programme under consideration.9.2.Overall assessment9.2.1. The Committee approves the proposed programme submitted by the Commission which is both clearly worded and specific. The priorities are broadly in line with the needs of agriculture and fisheries and should help to sustain the present moves towards restructuring.9.2.2. The underlying competitiveness-related aspects of the programme tie in well with the problems of the environment, employment and, more generally, European integration. The Committee regrets, however, that the ethical concerns have not been taken sufficiently into account.9.2.3. Generally speaking, the approach adopted in the definition of the scientific and technical content seems coherent and closely geared to the concerns of the moment.9.3.General comments9.3.1. The Committee welcomes the fact that the fourth framework programme accords greater importance to life sciences and technologies, in the agriculture and fisheries sectors especially,and that this is also reflected in the budget.9.3.2. However, the Committee considers that the appropriations will even so turn out to be insufficient to finance all the highly diverse research topics in the programme. Here, too, some attempt to focus the appropriations will be needed if they are not to be spread too thinly.9.3.3. The need for a strong scientific research base for this competitive sector is very much approved as is the aim to provide a sound scientific base for the setting of standards and regulations.9.3.4. The Committee stresses how crucial it is that in this field the definition of scientific and technical objectives, and of the research actions to be undertaken, should be based on a social consensus embracing ethical, moral, social and legal, as well as economic and commercial, implications. From this point of view the impact of such research activities on employment is of paramount importance. The Committee believes that it can help to bring about this consensus and form a link between the socio-economic interest groups and political decision-makers.9.3.5. In future the agricultural and fisheries sectors and their allied processing industries must move forward within a framework based on such a 'social consensus'.9.3.6. In this way the life sciences and technologies sector, which is becoming increasingly important in society, will be able to go on developing unhindered by any barriers other than those imposed by the state of knowledge, the frontiers of which are forever receding.9.3.7. The Committee wishes to highlight the importance in the proposed programmes of demonstration activities as a means of making the new technological options based on life sciences and technologies more attractive. Here it must be emphasized that improving the quality of life for all citizens is a basic objective of research in the life sciences and technologies sector.9.3.8. The importance of these demonstration activities is that they prove the viability of the new technologies in this sphere and show the economic as well as social benefits which could flow from their use.9.3.9. For this reason the Committee considers that not only technology producers and technology users must participate in demonstration activities, but also all those whose responsibility it is to ensure that ethical aspects are respected.9.4.Specific comments9.4.1.Annex I: Objectives and scientific and technical content9.4.1.1. The Committee notes that on several occasions reference is made to 'biological raw materials'. The use of this term - at any rate in French - may be a source of confusion if it is thought that organic farming products are meant, all the more so as the organic farming regulation is also mentioned.9.4.1.2.Integrated production and processing chains9.4.1.2.1. The major crop group chains are a very sensible approach and means should be found to interlink these chains where this is beneficial.9.4.1.2.2. In the bio-energy chain, the Committee approves the inclusion of energy balance and cost effectiveness. Indeed there should be an early preliminary investigation as to which approaches could best lead to products and applications which are viable without ongoing subsidies. This would save Community funds for those projects with the greatest chance of useful results.9.4.1.3.Scaling-up and processing methodologies9.4.1.3.1. Work under this heading should include development and application of sensing and vision techniques, and also minimum processing systems for foods.9.4.1.4.Generic science and advanced technologies for nutritious foods9.4.1.4.1. The Committee approves the emphasis on nutritious foods and on food quality, safety and wholesomeness. However it needs to emphasize again that once safety and wholesomeness are satisfied, quality must be defined in terms of consumer satisfaction and not in terms of compliance with numerical standards.9.4.1.4.2. In the area of safety and wholesomeness, risk assessment should be added as should be the effects of natural toxicants. Modern changes in agricultural processing and distribution practice also need to come under this heading.9.4.1.4.3. Spoilage is not only important for fishery products but for other foods as well. Rapid methods for detection of pathogens and spoilage organisms should be included in the programme as should be hygienic design of equipment.9.4.1.5.Agriculture, forestry and rural development9.4.1.5.1. The points on quality mentioned above also apply here. The various proposals for biotechnology seem sensible but the reduction of need for pesticides should be made an explicit aim.9.4.1.5.2. The ecologically viable management of forests is very much approved as is the need to give particular attention to economic viability.9.4.1.5.3. With regard to rural development, the Committee considers that the list of proposed themes should include an analysis of the prospects for making better use of human potential, especially the development of new careers linked to the diversification of activities in rural areas.9.4.1.6.Concerted actions9.4.1.6.1. The Committee also considers that the ethical aspects could be usefully dealt with as part of the concerted actions provided for in the programme.9.4.2.Financial statement9.4.2.1. The Committee takes note of the anti-fraud measures referred to in the financial statement. It considers that the use of ISO standard 9000 could help to control the risk of fraud.10. Nuclear safety and safeguards [94/0072 (CNS)] 10.1.Introduction10.1.1. The proposed programme has three general objectives, namely:- To promote European cooperation and technological development in the field of nuclear safety and safeguards.- To develop a global, dynamic approach to allow an improved understanding and quantification of the overall risk associated with the whole nuclear fuel cycle, considering exposure to ionizing radiation from all sources, including other industrial applications, medical applications and natural radioactivity.- To create opportunities for training and mobility for scientists.10.1.2. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 28 November 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 31 January 1991 (). A total amount of ECU 228 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.10.1.3. Under the fourth framework programme, a total amount of ECU 327 million is allocated to research and training in the field of nuclear safety and safeguards. Of this total, an amount of ECU 167 million is allocated to the research and training activities to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) for the European Atomic Energy Community and the remaining ECU 160 million is allocated to the indirect action programme under consideration. In addition, an amount of ECU 87 million is allocated to the JRC to provide scientific and technical support for the implementation of safeguards, in accordance with Chapter VII of the EURATOM Treaty, and similar support for the IAEA, activities which are not really research.10.1.3.1. The research and training activities to be carried out by the JRC (direct action) will cover reactor safety (ECU 37 million), fuel cycle safety (ECU 76 million), and safeguards and fissile material management (ECU 37 million).10.1.3.2. The Committee deplores that this cost breakdown was not included in the Commission proposal; it was made available to the Committee at a stage which made the preparation of this Opinion difficult.10.1.3.3. Lastly, it is to be noted that the ECU 167 million, referred to above, include an amount of ECU 16 million for JRC participation in shared cost actions under the indirect action programme.10.1.3.4. The Commission proposes to allocate the budget for the indirect action programme as follows (in million ECU):- Exploring new concepts 7- Reactor safety 50- Closing the nuclear fuel cycle 40- Radiological impact on man and the environment 50- Historic liabilities 13 Total 16010.1.4. Of the total amount proposed, 15 % is earmarked for fundamental research activities, 1.25 % for the exploitation and dissemination of results, 2 % for schemes to promote training for researchers in the fields covered by this programme.10.2.General comments10.2.1. The overall budget for nuclear fission under the fourth framework programme is too small and not commensurate with the requirements. It is also badly allocated. It has to be considered against the following background.10.2.1.1. Europe is the world leader in nuclear fission power. In 1992, Europe generated more electricity by nuclear fission than the United States, and three times as much as Japan. It supplied 35 % of Europe's electricity consumption, compared with 17 % worldwide. The benefits include zero CO2 emission, and both security of supply and long term price stability in comparison with fossil fuel resources such as oil and gas.10.2.1.2. Pressure to improve economic performance, while simultaneously improving safety standards, never ceases. The poor state of the nuclear industry in Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia, disclosed following the collapse of their communist governments, has created new problems. A great deal of responsibility for protecting the European public, if possible, from another major accident in one of those countries has, in practice, fallen on the European Union, and this is even reflected in the proposed budget for nuclear fission research.10.2.1.3. And yet the budget for nuclear fission safety research is less in absolute terms, and substantially less in real terms, than was budgeted for it in either the first or the second framework programme (the ECU 228 million allocated under the third framework programme was aberrantly low and offers no standard of comparison). This is all the more true since ECU 87 million is included for safeguards activities which are not research proper. This amount should therefore be deducted when considering the figures allocated to nuclear safety research.10.2.1.4. Taking this into account, the Committee notes as well that the amount allocated to nuclear fission research (including that allocated to the JRC) is only a quarter of the total budget for nuclear research, the other three quarters being devoted to research into controlled thermonuclear fusion which, if successful, is not expected to become a practical option until circa 2050. The Committee cannot help but note that there appears to be a substantial gap between the largely near and medium term fission programme and the exceedingly long term fusion programme.10.2.2. Despite its current significance and benefits, the future of nuclear fission in Europe is clouded by the absence, in most Member States, of general public acceptance of the safety of nuclear power and its associated fuel cycle. Chernobyl greatly increased public anxieties, and although these have receded somewhat due to the continued safe running of reactors in Member States, the positive case for nuclear power on environmental and strategic grounds has yet to regain its earlier acceptability.10.2.2.1. In addition, only six of the twelve Member States produce nuclear power, and this in itself produces divergent interests and attitudes at policy-making levels. The Chernobyl disaster provided a common theme on which all have united - this theme being the need to work towards an international understanding and approach to nuclear safety. The ultimate goal must be the international harmonization of safety and licensing.10.2.2.2. Within the European Union, the aim must be to achieve a broad consensus of opinion on nuclear energy as one of the key components of a common energy and environmental policy. Nevertheless, nuclear fission research under the fourth framework programme must first and foremost serve the primary objective of improving safety. It should also be carried out in a manner which stimulates good collaboration between Member States. Such collaboration will certainly spread a better understanding of safety issues and thus contribute to the process of finding the broad consensus which is sought.10.2.3. Shared cost and concerted actions are seen as the most powerful, as well as the most cost effective means of stimulating collaboration between Member States. In keeping with the views expressed in previous Opinions, therefore, the Committee believes that the funding for the indirect actions programme is at altogether too low a level especially if one takes into account that an amount of ECU 50 million is allocated to radiation protection. The Committee considers that, in the future, the balance between direct and indirect action should be reviewed and the allocation for shared cost actions increased.10.2.4. The Committee is aware, to its concern, that, for example, CGC5, which is responsible for advising the Commission on the indirect action programme for nuclear reactor safety research, was not advised of the JRC breakdown.10.2.4.1. Without detailed information about the proposed JRC programme being made available to interested parties in advance of final decisions on the programme as a whole, it is not possible for proper coordination to take place. This must point to a potentially significant weakness in the Commission's overall approach to the planning of research in this field of its activities. At Corfu, the European Council called for 'reinforced coordination of research policy'. Given the information to which it has alluded above, the Committee believes that the call is justified.10.2.5. The Committee believes that to be effective, both indirect and direct action safety research must have a strong customer focus.10.2.5.1. It is still insufficiently recognized that the regulators represent the public, and that the utilities are responsible for the safety of their plant. The utilities, with responsibility for the safe supply of nuclear-generated electricity to the majority of the Union's more than 300 million people, should certainly be much more closely involved in specifying research requirements and evaluating results, as required under Article 4 of the Commission proposal. Of course, other significant users such as the nuclear fuel producers and reprocessing plant operators must also be involved.10.2.6. One mechanism the Commission could use to achieve greater accountability would be the establishment of users groups, as was done for example under the Teleman programme. The existence of such groups would aid the development of consensus, since they would be called upon to agree on the safety issues which should drive the research programme, as well as the work needed for their resolution. They should consider the work of the JRC programme as well as the indirect actions programme. The Commission is asked to consider introducing a mechanism along these lines.10.2.7. In the reactor safety area, in response to the small budget, the Commission proposes to concentrate the indirect actions resources on only one topic, namely severe accidents. But, while this may well have the greatest political appeal, the exclusion of no less important reactor safety issues concerned with prevention rather than mitigation (as for example structural integrity, ageing, software reliability, probabilistic safety assessment, etc.) leads to a poor match between Community and national priorities for safety research. It also loses the opportunity for this programme to stimulate a consensus on these important topics within the nuclear community. The Commission is asked to reconsider the priorities within the area of reactor safety research.10.2.8. Inevitably, budget constraints are tight and will remain so. The Commission should take the initiative, therefore, to develop a strategy for rationalization of the major facilities it supports in Europe. Focusing programmes on specific facilities or teams will also encourage practical international collaboration (PHEBUS is a good example).10.3.Specific comments10.3.1. Work on exploring new concepts should exclude severe accidents, since work under this heading (including work on exploring new concepts) is already covered under the reactor safety heading. The JRC will also be doing work on severe accidents. Work on quantifying the benefits of the passive system, and new fuel cycle activities such as MOX, is supported. Work on partitioning and transmutation should be conditional on the review of present studies, including the question of economic feasibility.10.3.2. The nuclear industry is, at present, the only industry which covers the complete cycle through to final disposal of waste material. Europe has all the technology of the entire nuclear cycle and is a world leader in this regard. Under the heading of closing the fuel cycle, the development of a co-ordinated position on the basic safety criteria is particularly important in facilitating a consensus. Given that there is no need to go on producing plutonium, there would be a significant benefit from work to demonstrate safe, direct disposal of fuel without the risks or costs of reprocessing.10.3.2.1. Funding of reactor decommissioning has been omitted, although it was included under the third framework programme. Some ECU 10 million of funding for research in this area should be reinstated to support pilot dismantling projects to provide a public demonstration of the technical and economic feasibility of decommissioning.10.3.3. The Committee notes with satisfaction that its recommendation with regard to the 'radiological impact on man and the environment' in the third framework programme has been taken up and more funds allocated to this fundamental, long-term area of research.10.3.3.1. The Committee is still of the view, however, that it is undesirable to subsume all sources of radiation under the one programme. It covers not only radiation protection in nuclear technology, but also natural, medical and industrial radiation, as well as basic questions concerning the effects of low-level doses. This leads to serious misunderstandings in the public mind in a highly sensitive area.10.3.4. Work on historic liabilities addresses issues associated with Central and Eastern European and CIS reactors. The provision of technical assistance and capital investment is covered under other European Union programmes. These programmes are substantial and must aim at establishing a reliable and consistent safety philosophy in Eastern Europe. The proposed funding under the fourth framework programme should be used to assist these countries to participate in the collaborative safety research programme.11. Controlled thermonuclear fusion [94/0073 (CNS)] 11.1.Introduction11.1.1. The long-term objective of the Community Fusion Programme, embracing all activities undertaken in the Member States (plus Sweden and Switzerland) in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion by magnetic confinement, is the joint creation of safe, environmentally sound prototype reactors, which should result in the construction of economically viable power stations which will meet the needs of potential users.11.1.2. For the period 1994-1998, the priority objective is to establish the engineering design of the Next Step within the framework of the quadripartite cooperation between Euratom, Japan, Russia and the USA on the Engineering Design Activities for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER-EDA).11.1.2.1. Specialized studies will also be needed to look at possible improvements to concepts in plasma physics and plasma engineering, as well as to carry out the long-term technology developments required for progressing towards the exploitation of fusion as an energy source. The results of such studies will be of benefit both in the operation of ITER and, in the longer term, in the conceptual definition of DEMO (demonstration reactor).11.1.3. This programme is intended to follow on from that adopted by the Council on 31 December 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 20 March 1991 (). A total amount of ECU 568 million was allocated for the implementation of that programme.11.1.4. The Commission proposes allocating ECU 794 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this new programme, spread as follows between the various areas of research on which the Commission proposes that efforts be concentrated (as a %):- Next Step activities 40-50- JET Joint Undertaking 22-32 (focusing mainly on support for Next Step)- Concept improvements 22-32- Long-term technology 5-911.1.5. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) will participate in the implementation of the programme, for which an additional ECU 46 million is provided. Most of the research work to be carried out by the JRC will be on ITER support.11.2.Background11.2.1. Research into controlled thermonuclear fusion is concerned to discover if there is a way in which, for peaceful purposes, it is possible to replicate the process which takes place in the sun, in which enormous quantities of energy are continuously released from the fusion of hydrogen atoms at millions of degrees centigrade. To succeed in this endeavour would open up access to a potentially very large new source of energy for conversion to electricity.11.2.2. The achievement of such a goal will require the fusion process to operate in reactors capable of containing temperatures which are normal in the sun, and do so safely and securely, and economically in comparison with other power sources, for periods of time to be measured in decades.11.2.3. Fusion research started in Europe in the late 1950s, originally being centred at CERN in Switzerland. In 1978 the Community established JET (the Joint European Torus), designed to achieve controlled thermonuclear fusion by magnetic confinement in toroidal geometry by use of a Tokamak configuration. This is not the only approach to the possibility of creating a controlled fusion process, but it is the main route which has been followed in Europe, as also in the United States, Russia and Japan. After five years of construction JET became operational in 1983, and is recognized as the world's leading fusion experiment.11.2.4. The main purpose of JET has been to explore the design parameters for a successor device which would be capable not only of momentary fusion but, much more importantly, of ignition - i.e. the creation of a self-sustaining plasma. (This second stage of development is invariably referred to as the Next Step). In the words of the November 1993 report of the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), created to advise the Commission under the Euratom Treaty, 'the Next Step' must be to create another Tokamak device 'capable of reaching ignition and maintaining burn in a plasma for at least 1000 seconds, i.e. long enough to study burn in conditions which may be considered steady-state with respect to all the timescales relevant to the physical behaviour of the plasma'.11.2.5. It had been the intention that Europe (i.e., in respect to fusion research, the EU together with Sweden and Switzerland) would design and build its own machine (known as the Next European Torus, or NET) for the Next Step. However, in 1988 an agreement was signed with the United States, Japan and the USSR to adopt a collaborative approach to further fusion research and, therefore, to pool ideas and resources, and reduce the costs (Russia has since taken over the responsibilities of the now defunct USSR).11.2.5.1. Given the fundamental nature of current fusion research, and that it is an exceptionally long-term as well as expensive endeavour, the attractions of adopting such an international approach were - and remain - obvious.11.2.6. The four signatories to the 1988 agreement have subsequently collaborated on engineering design studies (EDA) for an international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER), also to be based on the Tokamak configuration. There have been, and remain, differences of view within the ITER collaboration over the design, but this is hardly surprising given the nature of the task. The important point is that a Second Protocol, to provide for the collaborative studies to continue with the aim of their being completed by 1998, was signed in March this year.11.2.7. The aim behind the design and construction of ITER is first to achieve ignition and then to demonstrate that it can be continued for more than a few seconds. But it may also be used to examine some of the problems that will have to be solved in order to proceed to the stage after ITER, which is conceived to be the design and construction of a demonstration reactor able to generate electricity. This stage is referred to as DEMO.11.2.8. Europe is now committing its main effort, in relation to the Next Step, to the ITER collaboration, but is nevertheless continuing with work on the key technologies associated with NET in case the ITER collaboration should break down. (It should be borne in mind that in practice there is anyway a significant overlap between the design of ITER and the design of NET, so that it is not a case of Europe doubling the total effort it is putting into the Next Step). Some effort is devoted as well to the possible development of other concepts for establishing a controlled fusion process.11.3.Comments11.3.1. Three main issues would seem to arise for consideration from the research prospectus put forward by the Commission. These are:1) What should be done about the JET programme, which has been scheduled for closure for the end of 1996?2) How important is it to insist on ITER being built in Europe?3) How satisfactory is it to continue to fund fusion research out of the allocation to energy research?The Committee's comments on these three issues are given below.11.3.2.The future of JET11.3.2.1. JET is technically a Joint Undertaking set up under the Euratom Treaty. 80 % of its operating costs are met by the Commission from the fusion programme budget. Currently this takes some ECU 100 million or about half of the annual fusion budget.11.3.2.2. Under the present plans the final phase of activity at JET will be a 6-12 month campaign of experiments with plasmas consisting of a mix of deuterium and tritium gases. Because this will involve extensive burning of tritium it will result in considerable activation of key parts of the facility, and almost certainly make them unusable thereafter. The extent to which the facility could then be used for further research would be greatly limited. It had been intended therefore to close JET in the latter half of 1996, following completion of the deuterium-tritium campaign.11.3.2.3. As the Commission reports, this decision is now being reviewed - at its own request - by the Consultative Committee on the Fusion Programme (CCFP). The Commission asked for this review because scientific opinion had been arguing strongly for it: as the CCFP had itself commented in its March report to the Commission, there were 'substantial new scientific and technical arguments... in particular for the benefit of ITER, which speak for the continuation of JET's operation beyond 1996'. The outcome of the CCFP's review is awaited.11.3.2.4. There is, however, a complication about extending JET's life. The money which would be needed to keep JET going will either have to come from money at present budgeted for other work or from significant savings being made in the next two years within the JET programme itself. These options will obviously require weighing very carefully.11.3.2.5. The Committee supports the review of JET's future which is now being undertaken, but until it knows the conclusions of that review it cannot make any informed comment about the right decision to take.11.3.3.The location of ITER11.3.3.1. There is no doubt that Europe is making a serious effort to reach an agreed design for ITER.11.3.3.2. There has been strong backing for this committed approach. For example, at its meeting last November, the STC wrote that it was 'pleased that Europe's Next Step activities are presently undertaken within the quadripartite framework of ITER rather than within the European framework of NET'.11.3.3.3. This view was supported by the CCPF which, at its meeting in March this year commented that 'ITER has become a programmatic focus already in its present EDA phase. Europe should continue strongly to support ITER and prepare for its possible siting in Europe. Work for ITER should have priority'.11.3.3.4. The Committee has no reason to disagree with the clear opinions of these two advisory bodies, but a question nevertheless arises which has yet to be answered. The question is whether a strong commitment to achieving a successful ITER design is consistent with maintaining that ITER must be built in Europe?11.3.3.5. The logic of working towards an agreed design is, surely, that if each of Europe, the United States, Japan and Russia then insist on building ITER in their own country or continent, then they would each build largely the same model, there would be quadruplication of design and construction features, and each of the four would have to meet heavy additional financial costs.11.3.3.6. If it had been the intent of each of the four participants to the ITER programme to build their own Next Step machine as a matter of principle, it would have been of much greater scientific value if they had all gone along with their own different designs, rather than to have spent so much time and effort trying to agree on only one.11.3.3.7. Yet it is the stated position of each of Europe, the United States and Japan that if a design for ITER can be agreed, the reactor should be built in their own geographical area. It has been the Committee's view that ITER should be built in Europe. At some stage there will have to be a reconciliation between practice and theory, but whether this will lead to the construction of four ITERs or one is at present unknown.11.3.3.8. Contrary to appearances, this is not a matter of academic speculation. The Commission states that it is the intention that all the key decisions about these matters will be taken within the timespan of the 4th framework programme.11.3.3.9. So far, however, no public debate has been initiated about the different options involved, and no information has been made publicly available about the likely comparative costs of each of them. It would be timely if the pros and cons of these different possibilities were publicly addressed, and that the people of the Union, Sweden and Switzerland are properly informed about the choices which will have to be considered.11.3.3.10. However, while the Commission has not published any cost estimates, figures understood to have been under consideration in 1992 were as follows:(1) For an ITER built in Europe it was thought the cost would be of the order of ECU 200 million a year for about eight years.(2) For an ITER built in the United States it was thought that the European contribution to the cost would be of the order of ECU 100 million a year, also over eight years.(Note: The reason it will cost more to Europe to build the ITER on its soil is because the 'home continent' obtains a better return scientifically and technologically, and its industry is better placed to obtain greater benefits due to its closer proximity. Thus, there is what is known as a 'host premium').(3) If neither of these options materializes, and Europe decides independently to build its own Next Step device (NET), the annual cost was thought to be of the order of ECU 400 million a year over a period probably longer than eight years.(Note: all the figures quoted above seem to be based on the assumption that Russia would pay the same proportionate share as the other three participants).11.3.3.11. It is obvious there will be a not insignificant cost penalty to Europe (as indeed to each of the other partners) if an international design for ITER cannot be agreed upon, and it is decided to go it alone.11.3.3.12. The Committee is on record as supporting an international approach through the ITER collaboration, but making it clear nevertheless that if a design can be agreed upon ITER should be built in Europe. In the absence of international agreement to this, the Committee took the view that Europe should go ahead with NET.11.3.3.13. That is in principle still the Committee's disposition, but a final opinion on the matter cannot be determined until (i) the findings are known of the independent review body the Commission is to set up before a decision is taken to proceed with the Next Step, and (ii) satisfactory assurances have been received from the Commission about the implications of any decision for the funding of energy research other than the fusion programme. The Committee discusses this latter point in the following Chapter.11.3.3.14. Whatever the eventual decision is, it is obvious that it can only be taken following wide and informed consultation, and in the light of very many different and complex, sometimes contradictory, considerations.11.3.4.Financing research into controlled thermonuclear fusion11.3.4.1. Given that it is the Commission's intention that all the key decisions about the Next Step will be taken between now and 1998, the Committee believes that the financing of fusion research does - for the reasons set out below - require some public discussion.11.3.4.2. The Union finances fusion research exclusively from the budget for energy research. Excluding only the unknown four year figure for the current (i.e. second) Thermie programme, the total budget for energy research for the duration of the 4th framework programme is ECU 2,221 million.11.3.4.3. Of this sum fusion research receives ECU 840 million, or 37.2 % of the total. This compares with ECU 1,002 million (44.5 %) allocated to non-nuclear energy research, and ECU 414 million (18.3 %) allocated to research into nuclear fission safety and safeguards.11.3.4.4. Therefore it is also reasonable to question whether the Commission is justified in such an approach to the allocation of research funds between competing demands on them? The Scientific and Technical Committee wrote in its November 1993 Opinion, already quoted:'Significant progress towards the application of fusion energy will depend on our mastery of both the physics and technology of fusion. At this stage, fusion research has not provided the demonstration of feasibility which Enrico Fermi achieved for nuclear fission in Chicago in 1942'.11.3.4.5. In other words, fusion research is still in its very early stages. It has yet to be established whether it is feasible. It is not surprising that Eurelectric, the body which represents the Union's electricity utilities (embracing both generators and distributors) does not consider that priority should be given to fusion at present.11.3.4.6. As the Committee wrote in point 3.4 of its Opinion on the fusion programme proposed for 1990-1994:'The Committee can do no more than reiterate the concern expressed in its previous Opinion that the Fusion Programme should not be funded at the expense of other research programmes....'11.3.4.7. The Committee reinforced this view when commenting on the funding of the research programme for nuclear fission in 3.6 of that Opinion. Referring to the 'need to put considerable effort into researching and developing reactor safety, given that this is one of the Community's essential duties and that it is of considerable importance to the Community's future' the Committee stated:'This urgent task should under no circumstances be neglected in favour of an extremely long term programme, the results of which cannot be predicted.'11.3.4.8. The Committee holds the same views about these matters today as it did in its previous Opinion. In particular, the allocation to nuclear fission research remains too small for it to be commensurate with its requirements.11.3.4.9. But while holding these views the Committee acknowledges that there are other relevant perspectives which have to be taken into account.11.3.4.10. The Committee is aware, for example, that if there were no fusion programme only a proportion of the funds currently allocated to it would be likely to be made available to other activities covered in the present energy budget.11.3.4.11. The Committee is fully aware that national fusion research programmes are concentrated almost exclusively on the Community programme; hence the particular value of this programme as the only truly European research programme. It started out as a European venture and has so far remained a European venture throughout.11.4.Conclusions11.4.1. The Committee has always felt that fusion research deserved its sustained support, and that remains the Committee's view now. The Committee understands that by its nature fusion research will take a very long time, and require long-term funding, before it will be known for sure whether the outcome will be successful. But this approach is justified by the magnitude of the possible prize.11.4.2. It is the function of the Council, not of the Committee, to make a political judgement about how much money can or should be found to back fusion research. It is a political decision.11.4.3. The Committee's responsibility lies in advising on the judgements behind the relative allocations proposed for different activities. Since fusion is financed as part of the budget for energy research the Committee is inevitably concerned to ensure that the funding of fusion research does not squeeze out funds for other activities covered by the energy budget which, for the next several decades, are far more relevant to the energy needs of Europe and its citizens.11.4.4. That concern remains and, if anything, is heightened by the knowledge that a decision to proceed with the construction of ITER will almost certainly require a greater annual allocation to fusion research than in the programme under review now, even if the decision is to construct it outside Europe. A decision to construct it in Europe would definitely require additional annual funds, while a decision to build NET could possibly double the annual allocation required.11.4.5. It is for these reasons that the Committee welcomes the Commission's unambiguous undertaking in Annex 1 to its 'Proposal for a Council Decision' that:'... Before a firm decision is taken to commit the funds needed for the construction of a Next Step device, and in principle not later than 1996, a rigorous, independent assessment of the prospects for fusion should be undertaken, and its conclusions based on evidence of real progress towards the programme's ultimate goal.'11.4.6. The Committee believes this is a very important undertaking. It means that a decision to go ahead with a Next Step device will not be a step in the dark, but is likely to have a reasonable chance of securing the breakthrough to ignition that is essential to any further progress.11.4.7. As a corollary the Committee believes it will be necessary for reasons of public confidence that the members of the assessment team must be scientists of international reputation who are not involved, directly or indirectly, with the fusion research programme in Europe or elsewhere.11.4.8. In addition to this valuable initiative of the Commission there should be another. Before the presentation of the next (i.e. the fifth) framework programme, the Commission should specifically consider the relative allocation of research funds between the three main headings against the background of the Committee's observations in this Opinion.11.4.9. Further, the Commission should review on a long term basis how fusion research can continue to be funded without it being apparent or reasonably inferred that the funds are found at the expense of research into existing or 'on the horizon' energy technologies.11.4.10. These proposals and the Commission's response to them require public discussion involving the Economic and Social Committee.11.4.11. The Committee would welcome an early response from the Commission to these propositions.12. Transport programme [94/0090 (CNS)] 12.1.Introduction12.1.1. The aims of the proposed programme are:- to develop a more efficient, safer and more environmentally friendly transport system for passengers and goods;- to facilitate the interconnection and interoperability of the separate transport networks;- to increase the efficiency of each individual mode and improve cooperation between them;- to promote the design and management of infrastructure with a view to reducing the damage to the environment and improving the quality/price ratio.12.1.2. To achieve this goal, the Commission sees the need for a European approach to research activities in the field of transport. This approach must take into account the research conducted by the Member States and relevant organizations and any findings which are already available; finally it must come up with specific solutions to improve transport.12.1.3. The present programme is intended not only to encourage synergies between the RTD activities carried out by research centres, universities and firms, but also covers the dissemination and exploitation of the results of these activities, targeting SMEs in particular, especially in Member States and regions participating least in the programme. To this extent it also serves, in line with the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, to reinforce competitiveness and improve the employment situation in the Community.12.1.4. Funding is estimated at ECU 240 million spread as follows between the various areas of research (as a %):- Strategic research for a trans-European multimodal network (definition, demonstration and validation) 18-22- Network optimization 78-82 - Railways 16-18 - Integrated transport chains 5-7 - Air transport 16-18 - Urban transport 10-12 - Maritime transport and inland waterways 19-21 - Road transport 8-1012.2.General comments12.2.1. The Committee welcomes the programme's objectives:- to develop an environmentally friendly and socially acceptable transport system;- to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of transport;- to improve the conditions for intermodal transport.12.2.2. The Committee considers out that the specific programme for transport RTDD is an appropriate means of underpinning the political objectives of economic, safe, environmentally friendly and socially acceptable transport.12.2.3. The RTD programme can, however, be only part of an overall, integrated, European transport master plan. The research should therefore be geared closely to the goals of such a master plan and be ranked in order of priority according to the urgency of the problems to be solved and the importance of the anticipated benefit.12.2.4. The need to draw up and implement the RTD programme is highlighted by the expected growth in traffic and consequent pressure on people and the environment. In the case of road transport, the Commission states that congestion, inefficiency and safety performance cost the Community economy some ECU 50,000 million a year. Expanding the transport infrastructure merely to satisfy the growing demand for transport would be misguided. What is needed is an approach to transport which, before any expansion of transport infrastructure, studies how transport can be organized more economically by improving the efficiency of each individual mode and the interaction of all modes, based on the strengths of the system and taking into account environmental and social requirements. Modern information technologies can also make a useful contribution, as can the Commission's proposed strategic research into improving the organization and interoperability of the transport system, into developing intermodality, into a trans-European multimodal network, as well as the research into the establishment of a European database intended to highlight links and types of flows for which modal switching could be considered.12.2.5. The differentiation of network optimization according to the sectors- railways,- integrated transport chains,- air transport,- urban transport,- maritime transport,- inland waterways and- road transportis justifiable, although 'integrated transport chains' and 'urban transport' cut across all modes.12.3.Specific comments12.3.1.Railways12.3.1.1. All R &  D work in the railways sector should be coordinated with the current activities of the UIC and CER. For instance, research is already under way into a European high speed network and train safety and information systems.12.3.1.2. The development of a European rail traffic management system is crucial to close cooperation between European railways, will increase network capacity and reduce the risk of accidents.12.3.1.3. The planned research into improving rail safety is welcomed.12.3.1.4. To improve the interconnection and interoperability of railway networks, the research programme should also encompass the general compatibility of electrical power systems, safety systems, EDI systems, gauges and production processes.12.3.1.5. The strategic prospects of international rail goods transport would be further enhanced by the creation of international quality products with uniform parameters for travel times, punctuality and additional logistical services.12.3.2.Integrated transport chains12.3.2.1. Nowadays all carriers already think and act in terms of integrated transport chains when they canvass their customers. The transshipment of goods when transferring from one mode to another raises costs and frequently means that it makes more sense economically to make a throughtrip by lorry. The Commission's aim of helping to optimize transport, and also to ease the pressure on roads, by establishing integrated transport chains will be really successful only if this approach is backed up by regulatory measures.12.3.2.2. Research into practical obstacles to transfers between modes should be added to the list of priorities in this area, namely:- improving the interfaces between transport modes and transfer points;- intermodal vehicles and loading units;- transport networks and their suitability for intermodal operations;- logistics with modern information technologies.The findings should provide a starting point for further strategic reflections on the transfer of goods to rail and waterways as a way of relieving the roads.12.3.3.Air transport12.3.3.1. In the Committee's view, the RTD programme for air transport needs to be more specific if the available funds are to be used rationally and efficiently.12.3.3.2. Besides the general objectives of increased capacity and safety in air transport, the research should focus on:- cooperation and infrastructure requirements,- interface problems with modal switching, and- coordination of airline and other timetables and of reservation systems,- air traffic management.12.3.4.Urban transport12.3.4.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's views and welcomes its research proposals.12.3.5.Maritime transport12.3.5.1. The objectives of the research, viz- increased efficiency,- improved safety, and- environmental protection,should be expanded to include- relief for land transport under the slogan 'from road to sea' by using coastal shipping.The integration of coastal shipping into the intercontinental transport system would ease the pressure on infrastructure, is environmentally benign, has high safety standards and can call on virtually unlimited capacity.12.3.5.2. It would in the Committee's view be helpful if telematics plans were developed for maritime transport and sea-based transport chains, encompassing- the rationalization and automation of traffic and freight information;- traffic centres to control fully integrated transport and information management systems;- value-added services (e.g. information on navigation, weather conditions and currents).European short-haul maritime transport in particular would benefit from the rationalization and automation of traffic and freight information. The amalgamation of all operational services, possibly including private port authorities and brokerage houses, could go a long way to making ports and interfaces more attractive in the transport chain. Value-added services would increase the safety and convenience of maritime shipping, particularly in coastal waters and the inland waterway network.12.3.6.Inland waterways12.3.6.1. The text, which is couched in general terms, covers all the key areas where research projects in this sector are needed and would be appropriate.12.3.6.2. The interlinking of combined transport operations through goods traffic centres as the interface between the three main modes is very important for the research into the role of this particular mode in the whole chain. Research into how goods traffic centres can manage goods traffic most efficiently should also be expressly mentioned as a further topic of study, to be examined from the angles of organization, technical equipment, use of telecommunications, and operational-logistical facilities.12.3.6.3. The proposed research into the obstacles which could hamper the development and transfer of goods transport demand to inland waterways should be supplemented by proposals for appropriate measures to eliminate these obstacles and attain the desired objectives.12.3.6.4. River-sea through-traffic will probably become more important in future and should be considered as a new research topic.12.3.6.5. The research into barge construction and characteristics should also cover the feasibility of shallow-draught vessels where water depths are inadequate, in addition to increased speed, reduced emissions and energy consumption.12.3.6.6. In the indicative breakdown of the available funding in the Commission proposal, maritime shipping and inland waterways are grouped together and allocated 19-21 %. Their respective shares should be clearly indicated, as is the case for all other modes. At all events it must be ensured that both modes are given appropriate consideration in the distribution of funds, in accordance with their importance.12.3.7.Road transport12.3.7.1. The aim of the research proposed by the Commission is to increase the efficiency of road transport, enlarge the capacity of road infrastructure and rationalize movements. The development and application of traffic management systems will certainly increase the ability of roads to absorb more traffic, but should not be allowed to exacerbate pollution and congestion. On the other hand, the aim of raising road transport efficiency by avoiding unladen journeys is expressly welcomed.12.3.7.2. Besides the Commission's proposed research into possible telematics applications in transport, studies should be made of how capacity can be managed flexibly in the transport of goods by road and into cooperation between small and medium-sized transport firms.13. Targeted socio-economic research [94/0091(CNS)]13.1.Introduction13.1.1. The proposed programme is the second innovation, after the transport programme, of the fourth framework programme. Its main aim is to 'contribute to the decision-making required at decentralized, national or Community level, to lay the foundation for sustainable development of Europe's economies enabling them to withstand international competition and create jobs'.13.1.2. The targeted socio-economic research activities proposed by the Commission thus aim to 'elucidate decision-making in future by developing a shared knowledge base on the challenges facing Europe, based on research and other work in three areas:- evaluation of science and technology policy options;- research on education and training;- research into social integration and social exclusion in Europe'.13.1.3. With regard to the first of these areas, the proposed programme will follow up the Community programme in the field of strategic analysis, forecasting and evaluation in matters of research and technology (Monitor programme), adopted by the Council on 27 June 1989 for a period of four years (). The Committee had earlier issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 14 December 1988 (). The activities to be undertaken will also build on the work done by the JRC's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, recently transferred from Ispra to Seville.13.1.4. The Commission proposes to allocate ECU 105 million from the Community budget for the implementation of this programme; the breakdown between different research areas (as a %) will be as follows:- Evaluation of science and technology policy options in Europe 45-51 - analysis of the RTD situation in Europe in a world context; - evaluation of relations between short- and medium-term socio-economic needs and changes, and new scientific and technological developments; - methods, tools and approaches.- Research on education and training 20-27 - methods, tools and technologies: innovation and quality in education and training; - policies, action and needs.- Research into social integration and social exclusion in Europe 25-32 - forms and process of social exclusion; - causes of social exclusion, in particular unemployment; - analysis of migration; - evaluation of the impact of social integration policies.13.1.5. Of the total amount proposed, approximately ECU 1 million will be allocated to the dissemination and exploitation of results.13.1.6. It should be noted that more than one quarter of the appropriations are intended to cover staff and operating costs.13.1.7. The JRC is asked to contribute to research activities under the present programme to the tune of an additional ECU 33 million.13.2.General comments13.2.1. In its Opinion on the above-mentioned fourth framework programme, which has already been quoted, the Committee welcomed inclusion of such a programme which gave tangible expression to several recommendations which it had itself made earlier.13.2.2. The Committee thus endorses the presentation of the programme and approves the main thrust of the Commission proposal. Its endorsement is nevertheless accompanied by the following comments.13.2.3. This type of action, which is new to the Community, does not solely reflect a keen awareness of the relentless rise in unemployment. The thread linking the three proposed types of action is:- the capacity of research to create new jobs via the development of the production sector;- training as a way of being able to permanently meet the new and dynamic needs of the production sector;- social marginalization as a phenomenon with a new and disturbing dimension, stemming as it does from the creation of new production structures (including the phenomenon of geographical relocation), with unemployment being created as social policies themselves face crisis situations.13.2.4. In the field of research it is generally recognized that there is a need to evaluate:- the potential benefits of RTD and the advantages it can offer from various points of view - scientific (e.g. new insights into natural phenomena, new methods), economic (improving the competitiveness of companies in various sectors) and social (job creation, new forms of work, consumer protection, etc.);- the potential costs and risks from the economic point of view (e.g. widening of the gap between regions) and from the social point of view (e.g. destruction of jobs, marginalization of technically illiterate sections of society, psycho-sociological effects, etc.).13.2.5. In the same vein the Committee would emphasize that socio-economic research should be concerned with all specific programmes, whilst giving priority to its own particular area of responsibility. In this way Community research policy would be consistent with the main objective, which is to establish close links with the dissemination and exploitation of results (area of activity 3) and with specific programmes.13.2.6. A logical extension of Community action, as well as a preliminary phase necessary for the consolidation of Community activities, is a) the gathering and ordering of information about research activities being carried out in the Member States, and b) the promotion of networks which bring together researchers as well as trainers.13.2.7. The essence of the proposed initiative is clearly described in the following words: 'The objective of the Community's research activities on education and training must be to support the efforts made by the Member States to strengthen the links between research, education and training and to improve their education and training schemes by stepping up research, and disseminating the results and innovations which it produces'.13.2.7.1. The objective of such activities is to help to promote the development in Europe of a society in which lifelong training and education permanently play a central role.13.2.8. The Commission then affirms with more timidity: 'Poverty and social exclusion are major problems facing the Member States. Research into social integration and social exclusion in Europe is necessary in order to gain a fuller understanding of these problems so that remedies can be found'. There is a two-fold objective here:- to study how far the current process of European integration (single market, economic and monetary union, world context, etc.) itself gives rise to particular causes of social exclusion and integration, as opposed to factors specific to the changes at national and local level;- to allow all Member States to benefit from successful social integration schemes, by conducting comparative research and by joint application of the results of evaluations of the most innovatory projects.13.2.8.1. Research under this heading is closely linked to Community initiatives (notably the new medium-term action programme against social exclusion) and national initiatives aimed at combating social exclusion in Europe.13.2.9. The inspiration behind the proposal, which is traceable because of references in the document, is Delors' White Paper. This White Paper is an essential adjunct to the proposed programme.13.2.10. We are indirectly led to the conviction that research and the development of production must be linked and that efforts must be focused on the difficulties as well as the positive consequences of such a link. Support for research options which are more favourable to job-creation is perfectly valid but poses major problems. This understood, it is important to identify those points (at least those points illustrated in the document) which are consistent with the views of the social partners.13.2.11. It is also important to highlight any affinities in the field of training between the views set out in the proposal and the views held by the social partners.13.2.12. The section of the proposal on social marginalization, which is currently a much more tragic phenomenon than is portrayed, is basically weak. None of the various aspects of the problem (its scale, action taken, and the possible removal of causes) is put across with any clarity. At the same time this is understandable because we are faced here with a political, economic and cultural context that is both highly complex and diverse. It also needs to be made clear that matters become complicated when social policies have been eroded or cut back to the extent that appropriate action is often whittled down to the provision of mere welfare assistance.13.2.12.1. The document nevertheless deserves praise for having at least raised the problem.13.2.13. A recurrent theme of the document is the need to strengthen the synergies of RTD activities carried out in the field of socio-economic research. In this context it is important to involve the JRC and ensure that it can play its part in achieving the Community's RTD objectives. The JRC could then play an even stronger role, given the significant amount of research it is already carrying out in conjunction with Community Institutions.13.2.14. In conclusion, we believe it necessary to recall the views which have already been expressed by the Economic and Social Committee on a number of occasions and reiterated in point 7.6.10 of the Opinion of 25 November 1993 on the proposals for Council Decisions on the fourth framework programme.14. SECOND AREA OF ACTIVITY:COOPERATION WITHTHIRD COUNTRIES ANDINTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS[94/0092 (CNS)]14.1.Introduction14.1.1. This specific programme is intended to implement the second of the four lines of research action provided for in the fourth framework programme.14.1.2. 'The essential aim of this activity is to add value to Community RTD via targeted RTD cooperation and synergy with other Community activities, to improve the Community's scientific and technological base and to support the implementation of other Community policies'.14.1.2.1. 'It will also aim at stepping up coordination of the S &  T cooperation between Member States and third countries in order to avoid duplication and to better define the Community's areas of activity on the basis of the subsidiarity principle'.14.1.3. For the implementation of this programme the Commission proposes allocating ECU 540 million from the Community budget, spread as follows between the various areas of cooperation (as a %):- Scientific and technological cooperation in Europe 46-55.5 - collaboration with other fora for scientific and technical cooperation in Europe (COST, Eureka, international organizations) 7-8.5 - cooperation with the countries of central and eastern Europe and the new independent States of the former Soviet Union 39-47- Cooperation with the non-European industrialized countries 6-7.5- Cooperation with the developing countries 39-4714.1.4. The EFTA countries which have joined the European Economic Area are full participants in the fourth framework programme; this action does not, therefore, apply directly to them or to the other EFTA countries and non-European industrialized countries which are or will be linked to the Community by bilateral scientific and technical cooperation agreements for the purpose of their participation in specific RTDD programmes.14.1.5. As regards cooperation with the developing countries, the proposed research activities will in particular ensure the continuation of the actions undertaken as part of the programme in the field of life sciences and technologies for developing countries adopted by the Council on 7 June 1991 for the period 1990-1994 (). The Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 19 September 1990 (). A total amount of ECU 126 million was allocated to the implementation of that programme.14.1.6. Of the total amount proposed, about ECU 4 million will be allocated to the dissemination and exploitation of results.14.2.General assessment14.2.1. The Committee broadly approves the Commission proposal which for the first time groups together in a single programme, following an approach which is intended to be coherent, all the Community's international scientific and technical cooperation activities, some of which have hitherto been carried out outside the framework programme, e.g. with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and with the new independent States of the former Soviet Union.14.2.1.1. At the same time the Commission's proposals reflect, in line with the fourth framework programme, a desire to develop qualitatively and extend geographically these international scientific and technical cooperation activities.14.2.2. The Committee considers that this cooperation will not only help to capitalize on European scientific and technical potential but will also add an extra dimension to Community policies vis-à-vis third countries and to its relations with international organizations.14.2.3. The Committee profoundly deplores the fact that, despite official speeches on the importance of the external dimension of Community action and the need for the European Union to strengthen its relations with third countries, in particular those of Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and Latin America, the Council has thought fit to cut by nearly one third (from ECU 790 to 540 million) the funds proposed by the Commission for implementing the second area of activity under the fourth framework programme.14.2.3.1. It notes with deep regret that as a result the Commission's scope for action is severely reduced and that the first victims of these budget cuts are those countries with, in many cases, the lowest level of economic and social development in the world and with the most acute need for scientific and technical cooperation.14.2.4. The Committee stresses how important it is for such international cooperation to be conducted in close synergy with the scientific and technical cooperation activities of the Member States and of the third countries concerned, so as to avoid any duplication and waste of resources.14.2.5. With this in mind, international scientific and technical cooperation projects must comply with precise objectives and apply to clearly targeted areas of cooperation where Community action will give real added value, particularly in the light of the transfrontier dimension of the problems to be resolved, in this way avoiding spreading the appropriations too thinly by trying to satisfy everyone.14.2.6. The Committee notes that the proposed distribution of appropriations is fully justified in view of the nature and scale of the serious economic and social difficulties facing those countries which are intended as the main beneficiaries of this programme.14.3.General comments14.3.1.Cooperation with Eureka14.3.1.1. Like the Commission, the Committee is of the opinion that Community research programmes should be dovetailed as closely as possible with activities under the Eureka initiative.14.3.1.2. This could help to improve and speed up the exploitation of the results of Community research projects.14.3.1.3. The Committee would, however, point out that one of the main obstacles to such synergies is the difference in project presentation, selection and financing procedures between (i) the Community RTD framework programme and (ii) Eureka.14.3.1.4. The Committee urges the Commission to study with the officials responsible for Eureka how these differences can be remedied so that all possible links can be exploited effectively.14.3.2.Cooperation with the Central and Eastern European countries and with the new independent States of the former Soviet Union14.3.2.1. The Committee is convinced that the principle of mutual interest, on which international scientific and technical cooperation must be based, fully justifies the importance which is attached to cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the new independent States of the former Soviet Union.14.3.2.2. Just when they are going through a particularly critical phase in their economic and social development, specifically the transition to a market economy, these countries are confronted by a frequently permanent exodus of their intellectual elite, especially from among the scientific and technical community.14.3.2.3. The R &  D sector, a victim of budget cuts forced on these countries by their economic situation, is undergoing a crisis which could have a lasting effect on their economic and social recovery.14.3.2.3.1. For instance, between 1989 and 1993 the Russian authorities cut R&  D funding by two-thirds.14.3.2.4. On top of this the new independent States of the former Soviet Union have had to convert their military scientific and technical potential to peaceful purposes.14.3.2.5. Both national and Community cooperation actions have already been undertaken with these countries under the Phare and Tacis programmes, aimed for instance at encouraging the development of their scientific and technical capacity and promoting the employment of researchers and engineers in these countries.14.3.2.5.1. It should also be noted that the Community is party to the agreement setting up an International Centre for Science and Technology in Moscow, signed on 27 November 1992 (). Its aim is to encourage military scientists and engineers in the Russian Federation to switch to non-military activities.14.3.2.6. These initiatives have made it possible for teachers who had emigrated from the Central and Eastern European countries to return home; it has also encouraged some of these countries, such as Hungary, to set up a special programme to assist science.14.3.2.7. The Committee expects the actions proposed under this programme to help give a new fillip to this scientific and technical cooperation as part of a coordinated effort at Community level.14.3.2.8. It stresses that, in the case of the Central and Eastern European countries and in line with the conclusions of the European Council meetings in Copenhagen (December 1993) and Corfu (June 1994), this effort should form an integral part of the EU's strategy for developing and strengthening relations with these countries within a structured framework covering all areas of common interest.14.3.2.9. More generally speaking, the Committee would like to see all cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union include an evaluation of its impact on the environment and of its contribution to the transition towards a market economy.14.3.3.Cooperation with the developing countries14.3.3.1. The Committee particularly regrets that the funds allocated to cooperation with the developing countries are still not commensurate with the problems facing three-quarters of humanity, in particular as regards health, food and the environment.14.3.3.2. Obviously the Committee does not expect the EU to be able to solve these problems on its own. It would however point out that the EU, through its Member States, has specific historical responsibilities vis-à-vis most of the developing countries and has a key role to play in solving these problems.14.3.3.3. Scientific and technical cooperation is one of the most important instruments in a coherent overall strategy aimed at ensuring lasting economic and social development for the countries concerned, in accordance with, for instance, the recommendations put forward at the United Nations conference on the environment and development held in Rio de Janeiro on 3 to 14 June 1992.14.3.3.4. Accordingly, close coordination in the use of all the instruments at the EU's disposal for cooperation with the developing countries is essential.14.3.3.5. The Committee stresses that Community scientific and technical cooperation actions will only give real added value if they are carried out in close synergy with similar national programmes (which the Community actions should help to coordinate) and with those implemented by international organizations such as FAO and WHO.14.3.3.6. It would also highlight the importance of ensuring that the chosen research projects are entirely appropriate to the real economic and social needs of the developing countries and that they help to enhance the scientific and technical potential of these countries, in terms of both research staff and infrastructure.14.3.3.7. It further considers that a dynamic technology transfer policy is vital for the success of the actions to be carried out under this programme, especially those with countries with the least developed research infrastructure.14.3.4.Cooperation with the Mediterranean countries14.3.4.1. The Committee is convinced that the burgeoning peace process in the Middle East opens the way for closer cooperation between the EU and all the Mediterranean countries, in the scientific and technical field especially.14.3.4.2. Against this background, Community action may act as a catalyst in encouraging regional cooperation not only between the EU and the Mediterranean countries but also between these countries themselves. Irrespective of their specific situation, these countries have economic and social problems with a clear regional dimension requiring regional solutions.14.3.4.3. Therefore the Committee calls on the Commission to step up scientific and technical cooperation with all the Mediterranean countries, in particular with these countries' research institutes and centres, in line with the conclusions of the Corfu Summit.14.3.5.Cooperation with the Latin American countries14.3.5.1. Similarly the Committee considers that the development of scientific and technical cooperation with the Latin American countries must form an integral part of the EU's policy for strengthening its political and economic relations with these countries. Such cooperation should slot into the drive for regional integration currently under way in Latin America (Mercosur, Rio Group).15. THIRD AREA OF ACTIVITY:DISSEMINATION ANDEXPLOITATION OF THERESULTS OF RESEARCH,TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTAND DEMONSTRATION[94/0093 (CNS)]15.1.Introduction15.1.1. The aim of this programme is to implement the third of the four areas of research activity provided for in the fourth framework programme.15.1.2. This area of activity has three objectives:- to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the results of RTD activities carried out under Community programmes;- to ensure their optimum exploitation, i.e. to ensure, with the assistance of the various operators concerned, that the results obtained at Community level are transformed into innovations, possibly in synergy with other results, and to promote the transfer of technologies, particularly to SMEs;- to support the various initiatives launched at national or regional level so as to give them a trans-European dimension.15.1.3. This is a horizontal action since the measures proposed under the programme are intended to accompany, carry forward and complement efforts to disseminate and exploit results stemming from different research activities carried out under the first area of activity; the proposed action is also intended to avoid duplication. In this connection the fourth framework programme earmarks about 1 % of the total amount allocated for the implementation of the first area of activity to the dissemination and exploitation of results in the various sectors.15.1.4. Based on a new approach which addresses both the supply of and demand for technology, this action covers pre-research activities (preliminary information, search for partners, etc.), post-research activities (transfer of technology, licensing, etc.) and activities involving the environment for the dissemination of technologies (such as social acceptance, funding, coordination of public instruments). The Commission intends to pay special attention to SMEs.15.1.5. The proposed action thus brings together in one programme the activities carried out hitherto under two separate programmes, Value II () and Sprint () adopted by the Council on 29 April 1992 and 17 April 1989 respectively, and adapts them to the new approach.15.1.6. Total appropriations for the Value II programme (1992-1994) were ECU 66 million [Committee Opinion of 25 September 1991 ()] and ECU 109 million for the Sprint programme [Committee Opinion of 23 November 1988 ()].15.1.7. The Commission proposes that ECU 293 million be allocated from the Community budget to the implementation of this new programme, a sum to be divided as follows between the following three areas (as a %):- Dissemination and exploitation of research results 48-55 - the Community network of relay centres; - the information and dissemination service; - protection of know-how; - assistance with the exploitation of research results; - the exploitation of research and its social impact.- Dissemination of technology to enterprises 40-45 - transnational networks providing support for the transfer and dissemination of technology; - an environment favouring the absorption of technologies by industry; - exchanges of information and experience with regard to policies for the dissemination of technologies.- The financial environment for the dissemination of technology 5-7 - indirect support measures; - a pilot scheme to promote the transfer and exploitation of technologies by SMEs; - the granting of technical and management assistance.15.1.8. Scientific and technical services for Community policies are also planned, depending on the needs and requests expressed by the Commission Directorates-General responsible for the policies in question.15.2.General comments15.2.1. The Committee recognizes, like the Commission, the importance of an integrated Community programme that guarantees the widest possible dissemination and exploitation of Community RTD results.15.2.1.1. Of crucial importance to any RTD policy is its effectiveness in rapidly transforming results into innovations that can compete on the world market. As the Commission has underlined in its Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal, 'to achieve these objectives, a new approach is necessary taking account of the range of operators involved and the cumulative, interactive and complex nature of the innovation process'. The Committee is pleased that the Commission has begun to investigate more thoroughly the implications of the innovation process so as to ensure that the Commission's actions are as effective as possible. The Committee considers that similar initiatives should be taken at national and local level.15.2.2. Delors' White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment likewise recognizes that 'the greatest weakness of Europe's research base is its comparatively limited capacity to convert scientific breakthroughs and technological achievements into industrial and commercial successes' and that 'in this context, sufficient importance should be attached to small businesses'. 'Small businesses working in high-technology sectors... or applying advanced technologies in manufacturing industry, represent a significant potential source of growth. In the USA, a very large proportion of emerging technologies was first developed by small firms which are better equipped to anticipate the needs of the market and to react rapidly'.15.2.2.1. If these are the objectives, then the Community's research policy (which according to the TEU should be aimed at increasing the competitiveness of European industry) must concentrate on the rapid, widescale conversion of research results into technological innovations that are competitive and can find their niche in the marketplace.15.2.2.2. Various Community institutions () have shown that in the past the pre-competitive model of Community research, whereby competing firms work together on research projects but then exploit the results commercially on an individual basis, has been effective 'in only a limited number of cases'. Too few operators are still involved in the process and the number of patents registered by the Community is eleven times fewer than those registered by the EU Member States and seventeen times fewer than those registered by OECD countries. The Committee therefore considers that the Commission's annual report on the implementation of RTD programmes, as provided for under Article 130p of the TEU, should contain a section which describes the dissemination of RTD results and their conversion into competitive, commercially-viable innovations.15.2.2.3. The European Council in Corfu has called upon the Council to 'pursue a more systematic coordination of Community and national research policies' and invited the Commission to 'take any useful initiatives to promote such coordination'. In the view of the Committee such coordination should not be concerned solely with 'upstream' planning policies but should be involved more particularly with the coordination of policies on the dissemination and utilization of research results, partly on the basis of the reports of the European Innovation Observatory set up under the Sprint programme.15.2.3. The Committee shares the Commission's recognition that priority should be given in the fourth RTD framework programme to the dissemination and exploitation of research results.15.2.3.1. For this reason the Committee considers that the Council's decision to devote approximately 2 % of the total funds available under the fourth framework programme to the dissemination and exploitation of research results is still insufficient. The Committee also agrees with the European Parliament's earlier stance in favour of a vast Community programme of innovation and transfer.15.2.3.2. The Committee appreciates that, despite limited funding, the proposed programme is a qualitative step forward in the direction of achieving the above-mentioned objectives.15.2.4. The Committee considers it essential for the future competitiveness of European Union industry to also promote RTD activities at national and local levels, and to ensure that such activities are more in tune with the technological innovation needs of large and small firms. The benchmark here should be the proposed model for the Community programme.15.2.4.1. By way of example, a study carried out by the Science Centre in Berlin () has shown that on average it takes 14 % longer to introduce innovations in German industry than in Japanese industry. This means that the cost of bringing new products on to the market in Japan is on average 11 % lower than in German firms.15.2.5. The Committee calls for coordination and complementarity between the third area of activity and the specific programmes listed under the first area of activity, since a mere 1 % of the funds allocated to these specific programmes is intended for the dissemination and exploitation of research results.15.2.5.1. The utilization of research results should be a sina qua non for every RTD project and not just something which receives a posteriori assistance from outside. On this question the Committee would refer to the comments made in its Opinion on the third framework programme mentioned earlier.15.2.5.2. The Committee considers it essential to consolidate the process of European standardization so that the application of technological innovations in the European Union is more effective, more rapid and more attuned to market requirements.15.2.6. The Commission proposals should highlight more clearly the close link between the process of standardization and the dissemination and exploitation of results. It should also emphasize the importance of organic links with, for example, Euromanagment on questions of quality and certification necessary if firms are to be able to participate in RTD programmes and assimilate new technologies.15.2.7. The Committee would like to see more effective coordination between the various Community instruments and actions whose purpose is to support the application of research results; this can be done by ensuring that their aims and procedures are more consistent.15.2.8. As has recently been underlined at the XXIst Eureka ministerial conference in Lillehammer, it is necessary to further improve the synergies between Community RTD activities and activities carried out under Eureka. The aim would be to set in motion strategic projects that combine the development of general technologies with market-related research.15.2.9. To ensure that the productive sector becomes more familiar with the possible applications of research results, it is necessary to establish closer links with activities carried out under structural fund schemes.15.2.10. The exchange of information and experiences between those involved in the Eureka programme/ Community structural funds and those involved in the RTD programmes should be intensified. An in-depth investigation should also be carried out into whether the procedures of a) the structural funds, b) financial mechanisms such as the EIB (European Investment Bank) and the EIF (European Investment Fund), and c) the framework programme for research, need to be coordinated in the interests of securing tangible synergistic effects.15.2.11. The success of the programme, which is designed in particular to help those SMEs which do not have the internal capacity to autonomously or jointly carry out research activities, depends on its capacity to secure the involvement of users and external operators who have not taken part in previous Community RTD programmes. Hence the need for simple language and clear procedures. Priority should therefore be given to actions designed to encourage the involvement of SMEs in research consortia.15.2.12. The Committee considers that it is essential to improve coordination between individual Directorates-General of the Commission responsible, in their own sectors, for promoting measures to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs. This would prevent a waste of resources and put an end to the mushrooming of centres that do nothing to make for clear, transparent action within the European Union.15.2.13. Community information centres which, in various capacities, provide information and assistance on RTD throughout the Community's territory, should coordinate their operations more closely. Existing regional and local authorities should also be brought into play and new ones established where there are gaps. Greater coordination is needed, for example, between Value centres, Sprint centres, the Opet network and other instruments and information networks operated by DG XXIII, so that a 'single information centre' for SMEs can be set up.15.2.14. The Committee appreciates the Commission's efforts to optimize the positive experiences of previous Sprint and Value programmes by bringing them together under a single uniform policy, even though this should have been done in a more organic, innovative manner. The Committee would also have been happier if the new programme had referred more readily to the results of previous experiences.15.2.15. This overall approach would certainly satisfy the criteria of clarity and transparency necessary to secure the active involvement of SMEs.15.2.16. At national and local levels new technologies should be promoted more actively, notably through the establishment of 'technological consultants'. Such consultants would be active contact partners of SMEs with a brief to make it easier for them to assimilate new technologies and know-how.15.2.16.1. Users and firms which have taken up research only recently find that they have difficulties, unless they receive active support, in autonomously devising a strategy of involvement in the application of the results of Community research.15.2.16.2. This is particularly the case in the less developed regions of the Community where public and private structures to support SMEs are often lacking. The primary object of any activities carried out in the field of the dissemination and exploitation of research results should be to ensure that SMEs make technological advances in the less developed regions of the Community.15.2.16.3. The RTD Optimization Fund, proposed by the Committee in its Own-Initiative Opinion on the Fourth Framework Programme of Community activities in the field of research and technological development of 26 May 1993, could have financed this type of 'technological promotion' for the benefit of SMEs. The Committee regrets that its proposal has not been taken up by the Commission.15.2.17. The Committee believes that the programme should have underlined the potential for developing new telematic networks, as analyzed in the Report on 'Europe and the global information society' of 26 May 1994, in order to foster rapid systems of communication among SMEs in regions where there is a serious lack of back-up facilities. The Committee believes that such action would lead to greater economic and social cohesion.15.2.17.1. The permanent instrument of coordination discussed by the European Summit in Corfu should include the above-mentioned aspects in its list of priority areas of action.15.2.18. Although the new information system 'Cordis', which consists of eight data banks, is the result of considerable efforts by the Commission, it has only a small number of users (between six and seven thousand). According to the Committee, it would be useful to find out how many SMEs use or are likely to use the new system. The knowledge gained would help to improve and simplify access to the system, as well as making the system itself more useful. It would also be of use to the non-initiated and would make it possible to take advantage of the new trans-European telematic networks.15.2.19. The Committee considers that the reference to the involvement of third countries in implementing the programme is unsatisfactory. However, if the European Union's cooperation policy is to be effective, it is essential to involve the countries concerned in the technological advances deriving form RTD activities, whilst adhering to the principle of mutual advantage.15.2.20. The Committee would finally reiterate what was said in its 1 June 1994 Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the rules for the dissemination of the research results from the specific programmes of research, technological development and demonstration of the European Community, namely the need to define at Community level the principles applicable to the ownership of intellectual property rights resulting from RTD work so that research results can be protected, particularly at the stage when they are being disseminated.15.3.Specific comments15.3.1.Article 4(1):15.3.1.1. Insert the word 'indipendenti' after 'experti externi' in the Italian version of Article 4(1) (does not affect the English version).15.3.2.First indent of the second paragraph of point B1 of Annex 1 (page 532 of English Version)15.3.2.1. To read:'consolidation of the transnational cooperation networks of national or regional operators in the fields of technology transfer or dissemination, with particular reference to DG XXIII networks for SMEs'.16. FOURTH AREA OF ACTIVITY:STIMULATION OFTHE TRAINING ANDMOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS[94/0094(CNS)]16.1.Introduction16.1.1. This specific programme is designed to implement the last of the four areas of research activity provided for by the fourth framework programme.16.1.2. The general objectives of this action are:'- to stimulate training through research and, by means of cooperation, to foster better utilization of high-level researchers in the Community; - to improve the mobility of European researchers throughout the Community, encouraging mobility both between universities, research institutes and industry and between disciplines, thus better exploiting the research potential in the different disciplines; - to promote, for instance through networks, transnational cooperation on research activities proposed essentially by the scientists themselves and not eligible for support under the first activity; - to facilitate the access of all European researchers to existing large-scale facilities that are essential for high-quality research; - to improve the scientific and technological cohesion of the Community and contribute to the attainment of a general level of scientific excellence by offering research opportunities to scientific institutions and researchers from all regions of the Community. As was the case under the 'human capital and mobility' programme (1992-94), the return to their region of origin of researchers originating from the less-favoured regions will be encouraged and financed.'16.1.3. The proposed programme will cover the exact, natural, economic and management sciences and the social and human sciences which help to achieve the Community's research, technological development and demonstration objectives.16.1.4. This programme is designed mainly to follow on from the Human Capital and Mobility programme adopted by the Council on 16 March 1992 (); the Committee issued an Opinion on the relevant proposal on 6 November 1990 (). A sum of ECU 587 million was allocated for carrying out this programme which was to cover the period from 1990-1994.16.1.5. For implementing this new programme, the Commission proposes to allocate ECU 744 million from the Community budget shared out between four areas of activity as follows (as a %):- Creating and developing research networks for scientific and technical cooperation 40-50- Researchers' access to large-scale scientific and technical facilities 13-17- Establishment of a Community system for training through research 30-40- Accompanying measures 4-616.1.6. The accompanying measures must contribute to the efficiency of the training and mobility activities and to the proper dissemination and exploitation of the results of the programme and of scientific research in the Community. They will include in particular: the organization of Euroconferences and summer courses and the award of prizes to young scientists.16.2.General comments16.2.1. The Human Capital and Mobility programme is one of the last specific programmes to have been adopted in March 1992 as part of the implementation of the third framework programme. Furthermore, almost one year will pass before the programme can be implemented effectively, given the time necessary for issuing calls for proposals, for assessment and for selecting requests for funding.16.2.2. In this context it is clear that the experience acquired in implementing the programme was insufficient for making any necessary adjustments in the new programme.16.2.3. In fact, the Commission has adopted a realistic approach, of which the Committee approves, by retaining the main lines of the previous programme both in terms of objectives and content, while trying to rectify some shortcomings or failings which have cropped up in implementing the current programme.16.2.4. In this connection the Committee welcomes the fact that the Council, when deciding on the Human Capital and Mobility programme, took considerable account of the comments and recommendations which the Committee had made in its Opinion. These related in particular to:- the number of researchers likely to participate in the programme;- the conditions for granting financial support to scientific facilities selected for hosting scientists;- carrying out training actions as part of other specific research programmes;- the role of scientific and technical cooperation networks as part of moves to strengthen economic and social cohesion and more generally the programme's contribution to achieving this objective;- evaluation of the economic and social impact of the programme.16.2.5. Nevertheless, only when it has been possible to assess the programme's final results can it be judged whether the programme has really achieved the objectives assigned to it and whether it has contributed to the establishment of the genuine scientific and technical community in a European area 'without walls'.16.2.6. For this reason, until the assessment has been carried out, the Committee feels that the concerns it expressed in the abovementioned Opinion are still valid; it does not in the main intend to repeat these views in the present Opinion.16.2.7. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Human Capital and Mobility programme has proved to be popular, witness the vast number of requests for funding generated by the programme. This proves that the programme did respond to the needs and expectations of the European scientific community. It should nevertheless be noted that the Commission, to a large extent victim of the success of its programme, has found itself inadequately prepared to deal with all the files submitted to it and this has led to considerable delays in administering requests for funding.16.2.8. This may be because the programme is relatively new of course, but the Commission should learn from its experience and avoid a recurrence when launching the new programme; this could imply, given in particular the additional resources proposed by the Commission: a) increasing the number of staff in the teams responsible for processing, selecting and assessing funding requests, and b) more flexible and speedy assessment and selection procedures. The use of computer technology and telematic networks could contribute substantially to this goal.16.2.9. Available figures indicate that since the programme was launched, 2,487 research fellowships have been granted (including 1,755 individual fellowships), 701 research networks have been set up, 74 large-scale facilities financed and 243 Euroconferences organized.16.2.10. In addition to these figures, several failings have appeared, amongst which the following are worth mentioning:- procedures for allocating so-called 'institutional' research fellowships as compared to individual fellowship have become quite weighty; this is linked to the fact that there is a dual mechanism for selecting fellows: first by the host research body and then by the Commission;- the host establishments are obliged to enter into contracts in accordance with local laws with the research fellows; this has been the source of numerous administrative difficulties and major financial burdens for a large number of host bodies which have had to spend a great deal of time on administering the fellowships to the detriment of following up the work of the research fellows;- disparities in legal and financial arrangements (salaries, social benefits and taxes) applying to Community fellowships have meant that the various recipients have been dealt with differently from one Member State to another and from other researchers of the same level within the host Member State;- the large number of research networks set up has led to a situation where funding is being spread out too thinly and this is jeopardizing their smooth operation and even their survival.16.2.11. Many of these factors have led the Commission to make a number of adjustments in the present programme which the Committee endorses; this should help reduce, if not completely eliminate, a large number of these failings.16.2.12. Amongst the Commission's adjustments relating to the scientific and technical content of the programme, the following stand out:- the abolition of institutional fellowships to the benefit of individual fellowships only, and- the refocusing of the programme on the establishment of research networks whose number, moreover, will be limited to 250 covering a total of 1,800 laboratories. Training activities will be carried out within the framework of these networks, which will be a new element compared with the existing programme.16.3.Specific comments16.3.1. The Committee reiterates its support for the objectives of the proposed programme and in the main approves its scientific and technical content.16.3.2.Research networks16.3.2.1. The Committee fully endorses the emphasis placed on setting up research networks; it attaches special importance to this area as it could boost the programme's contribution to the objective of greater economic and social cohesion. In this connection it would refer to the comments contained in its previous Opinion and in its Opinion on the fourth framework programme, as mentioned above.16.3.2.2. While it acknowledges that it is not always easy to reconcile completely the dual objectives of scientific and technical quality and increased economic and social cohesion, the Committee nevertheless thinks that the success of the programme may in large measure be judged against this yardstick.16.3.2.3. For this reason the Committee considers that, when the networks are chosen, the Commission should give priority financial support to networks involving research teams located in the less-favoured Community regions.16.3.2.4. The level of development of research infrastructures plays a crucial role in the ability of a region to retain indigenous research staff, as the Committee has already pointed out. For this reason it totally approves the Commission proposal that part of the Community contribution granted to a network may be used to cover expenditure on 'infrastructure-equipment' when this is needed to help establish a new research team in an Objective 1 region by a researcher trained abroad on a post-doctoral fellowship.16.3.2.5. The Committee would point out, however, that such measures should be underpinned by increased synergy between Community research policy and structural policies.16.3.2.6. Furthermore, such funding should not replace any financial grant which a Member State might make for the same purposes.16.3.3.Access to large-scale facilities16.3.3.1. No new specific comments are called for on this area. The Committee refers to the comments in its Opinion on the previous programme, in particular on the need for the Commission to ensure that the financial aid granted to the installations in question is used effectively.16.3.3.2. The Committee further considers that each contract should specify what share of the financial support must be allocated to the actual researcher and what part can go on improving the host facilities.16.3.4.Training through research16.3.4.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's intention to give particular attention to training activities devoted to the management of change within firms, SMEs in particular, associated with new technology. In its Opinion on the fourth framework programme the Committee itself stressed the importance of cooperation between universities and firms with regard to training and mobility.16.3.4.2. In this connection it would ask the Commission to look into possible synergies with programmes such as Comett and Eurotechnet.16.3.4.3. The Committee urges the Commission to submit proposals on the status (salaries, social benefits and taxes) of researchers receiving a Community research grant so as to rectify the afore-mentioned disparities. The aim of these proposals should also be to relieve the host bodies of the bulk of the administrative and financial redtape involved in the payment of a Community grant so that they can devote themselves fully to monitoring the research work carried out by the research fellows.16.3.4.4. The Committee points out that it also called for a study of the status of researchers in Europe and, if necessary, the adoption of appropriate measures to rectify existing differences in remunerations and working conditions; at present these differences act as both a brake on mobility and a root cause of the brain drain, and ultimately impede the creation of the true scientific community which is one of the aims of the programme in question.16.3.5.Accompanying measures16.3.5.1. The Committee notes that in this programme, unlike its predecessor, the organization of Euroconferences is no longer an entirely separate area of activities but comes under the accompanying measures.16.3.5.2. The Committee attaches great importance to this type of activity which, by encouraging the exchange of experience and ideas, helps to break down the divisions between the scientific community in Europe. These Euroconferences also enable young researchers to establish and maintain contacts with more experienced researchers.16.3.5.3. The Committee is not unaware that the scientific community itself attaches great importance to these events; it feels, however, that greater rigour needs to be demonstrated in assessing their scientific benefits and that conferences on similar - not to say - identical themes at relatively close intervals should be avoided.16.3.5.4. Consequently the Committee would like to see the Euroconferences regarded as an entirely separate area of activities under the new programme with appropriate funding.16.3.5.5. The accompanying measures include 'study of the possibility of organizing training through distance-learning for the less-favoured regions of the Community'. In this connection the Committee would stress the synergies which would have to be established with the Telematics programme.16.4.Additional comments16.4.1. The Committee notes that since the presentation of the programme under consideration, a group of independent experts has made an analysis of the 'Human capital and mobility' programme at the half-way stage.16.4.2. Although the Committee has not had access to this analysis in time to be able to fully take it into account when drawing up this present Opinion, it nevertheless notes that the recommendations contained therein are similar to its own preoccupations.16.4.3. The Committee is pleased that the Commission intends to fully take into account these recommendations when implementing the new programme.17. PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIESOF THE JOINT RESEARCHCENTRE (JRC) AND COMPETITIVEACTIVITIES IN SCIENTIFICAND TECHNICAL SUPPORTOF COMMUNITY POLICIES[94/0095 (CNS) and 94/0074 (CNS)]17.1.Introduction17.1.1. From 1988 onwards the Joint Research Centre began to undergo a reform process intended to bring it into line with developments in the Community, notably after the entry into force of the Single Act, and to give it a new impetus so that its place in Europe's system of research and development would be unchallenged.17.1.2. The reforms, which were to be spread over an 8-10 year period, covered the role of the JRC, its future activities and the financing of those activities, its operation and management, and last but not least staff policy.17.1.3. One of the fundamental aspects of this reform was a diversification of JRC activities and their funding, notably through a gradual reduction of activities devoted to the implementation of specific programmes alongside the development of three new types of action, viz:- scientific and technical work in support of other Community policies;- research and services under contract for third parties;- exploratory research to open up new avenues for the JRC and to enable it to maintain a high level of scientific excellence.17.1.4. In a Resolution adopted on 29 June 1988 () the Council endorsed this strategy of gradual reform. The Committee had also given its general backing of the new approach on 27 January 1988 ().17.1.5. The programme of activities of the JRC for the 1988-1991 period was the first occasion on which these reform guidelines were given concrete expression. They were followed up by the Council Resolution of 29 April 1992 (), and the programme of activities of the JRC for 19921994, which was drawn up at the same time ().17.1.6. This last programme also formed part of a longer term concept (up to the year 2000) of the role and functions of the JRC drawn up by the Commission and designed not only to emphasize the impartial and independent position of the JRC in carrying out scientific and technical activities in support of Community policies, but also to highlight the significant expansion of its work for third parties. The latter should eventually account for 15-20 % of the volume of activities of the JRC.17.1.7. When the fourth framework programme was adopted, the Council, at its meeting on 26 April 1994, adopted conclusions on the role of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) (). These reflect a desire to see a major expansion of JRC activities where the JRC will be in competition with other national research laboratories and centres.17.1.8. In its conclusions the Council thus drew up a number of guidelines which would be used to define the JRC's activities, 'particularly in the context of the framework research programmes (1994-1998)'.17.1.9. These guidelines lay down three types of activity for the JRC, i.e.:- Institutional activities (direct actions)These activities are to be funded entirely from the framework programme. a) Institutional research activities in which the JRC has expertise and special, if not unique, facilities in the Community and which contribute to the implementation of the EU's research policy; b) Scientific and technical institutional support activities necessary for the formulation and implementation of Community policies and of the tasks allotted to the Commission pursuant to the Treaties, which necessitate the independence and neutrality of the JRC.- Competitive activities under the framework programmes a) Participation of the JRC in shared-cost actions (indirect actions) b) Scientific and technical support activities which are suited to a competitive approach in the context of a customer/contractor relationship. In this context, the JRC may respond, like other research centres,to requests emanating from Commission Directorates-General. The financial resource allocated to these activities will be entered in the research budget and the customer Directorates-General will be responsible for administering such resources and allocating them in a competitive framework.- Competitive activities outside the framework programmes a) Activities on behalf of third partiesThese activities comprise the conduct of research and the supply of services under contract to third parties, including contracts secured in the context of Member States' RTD programmes. b) Other Community activitiesThe JRC will be able to participate in the various actions initiated by the Community, e.g. Phare and Tacis programmes, subject to finding, in the context of a competitive approach, Community funding associated with such actions.17.1.10. On the basis of these Council conclusions, the Commission has drawn up the proposals under consideration.17.1.11.Institutional activities17.1.11.1. Under the two Council Decisions adopting the fourth framework programme, a total sum of ECU 900 million is to be allocated to activities carried out by the JRC as its contribution to implementation of 9 of the 15 specific research programmes falling under the first area of activity. These research programmes will be adopted under the aforementioned framework programme. This sum, which is included in the appropriations earmarked for implementation of the fourth framework programme, breaks down as follows (in million ECU):- Information technologies 11- Industrial/and materials technologies 84- Measurements and testing 111- Environment and climate 294- Agriculture and fisheries 47- Non-nuclear energy 20- Nuclear safety and safeguards 254- Controlled thermonuclear fusion 46- Targeted socio-economic research 3317.1.11.2. This total amount of ECU 900 million accounts for just over 7 % of the ECU 12,300 million allocated to implementation of the fourth framework programme.17.1.11.3. The JRC research work described above basically falls into the category of institutional research activities. Institutional scientific and technical support activities are nevertheless also catered for under the five headings of information technologies, environment and climate, agriculture and fisheries, targeted socio-economic research and nuclear safety.17.1.11.4. Such activities will by and large be carried out in the form of direct actions. The JRC may, however, also participate in the indirect actions (shared-cost actions) designed to implement the nine specific programme mentioned above, with a budget of ECU 32 million. These ECU 32 million, which are included in the overall sum of ECU 900 million, are divided equally between a) the seven specific programmes in the non-nuclear field and b) the specific programme in the field of nuclear safety and safeguards.17.1.11.5. The ECU 900 million also include an amount equivalent to 6 % (ECU 54 million) which may be allotted to exploratory research.17.1.12.Competitive activities17.1.12.1. In accordance with the Council's conclusions of 26 April 1994, the Commission proposals make it possible for the JRC to offer scientific and technical support for Community policies within a competitive framework.17.1.12.2. A sum of ECU 128 million, entered into in the budget of the fourth framework programme but not under the heading of the programme of activities of the JRC, is set aside for this purpose. The amount is divided as follows among the six areas concerned (in ECU million):- Information technologies 10- Measurements and testing 10- Environment and climate 26- Agriculture and fisheries 30- Non-nuclear energy 15- Scientific services for all Community policies 37 [this field of activities falls under the third area of activity of the framework programme (Dissemination and Exploitation of Results)].17.1.12.3. Annex IV of the Commission proposal states that this breakdown is for guidance only and could change according to the requirements of Community policies.17.1.12.4. The actual distribution of these ECU 128 million will be carried out by means of a structure to be organized by the Commission Secretariat General and within which the 'client' Directorate-Generals will be represented. The latter will be responsible for the actual administration of these appropriations.17.1.12.5. No competitive support activity for the implementation of Community policies is provided for in the nuclear field.17.2.Overall assessment17.2.1. The Committee solemnly reiterates its earlier stance, namely that it is important to preserve the institutional role of the JRC in offering scientific and technical support for the implementation of Community research policy and other Community policies.17.2.2. The Committee, whilst favourable in principle to the proposed changes in the institutional role of the JRC, has nevertheless already expressed doubts, in its Opinion on the programme of activities of the JRC (1992-1994) (), regarding the need to significantly develop the JRC's competitive activities, whilst at the same time recognizing that work for third parties 'could help to consolidate and upgrade the JRC's scientific and technical expertise and enhance its international prestige'. Third-party work must nevertheless 'not be given the same priority status as the other tasks of the JRC and must not jeopardize its other work'. The Committee felt at the time that such activities were not the primary vocation of a common research centre.17.2.2.1. The Committee wonders how the share of competitive JRC activities carried out within the context of framework programmes can increase to an average of 22 % for the 1995-1998 period, as stated in the Council's conclusions, without this being detrimental to traditional institutional activities.17.2.3. The Committee underlines the need to ensure that the JRC can develop to its full potential and carry out its tasks in a stable environment without its role, functions and funding methods being regularly called into question.17.2.4. Any reorientation in these areas must come about solely after an objective, independent assessment of a) the results of its activities and b) the need for Community action. It should also be based on a medium-term action programme which has clearly defined and accepted objectives.17.2.5. The Committee is pleased that no information has been brought to its attention which would call into question the judgement expressed in its abovementioned Opinion of 18 December 1991 to the effect that the reforms undertaken since 1988 have had a 'beneficial effect' on the JRC and 'have done much to provide the JRC with a new dynamism, increase its efficiency and motivate staff', thereby enabling it to re-establish an 'unchallenged' role in the EC framework.17.3.General commentsInstitutional research and scientific and technical support activities17.3.1. The Committee by and large approves the Commission's proposals since they are generally consistent with the decisions of 26 April 1994 on the fourth framework programme. The Committee would nevertheless like to make a number of comments whilst voicing reservations about some aspects of the proposals.17.3.2. The Committee is pleased that, unlike the previous framework programme, the fourth framework programme provides for a JRC contribution to the implementation of the specific programme in the field of non-nuclear energy, within the context of the development of technologies for cleaner, more efficient energy utilization.17.3.2.1. Even if the contribution remains modest, the Commission proposals reflect the concerns expressed by the Committee on an earlier occasion.17.3.2.2. The Committee would point out that on this earlier occasion it had called for consideration to be given to the possibility of increasing the JRC's activities in support of the Community's energy policy, particularly 'in connection with the THERMIE programme, with a view to implementing pilot and demonstration projects to develop techniques, processes and innovating products'.17.3.2.3. The Committee notes that whilst the decisions on the fourth framework programme provide for 'complementarity between shared-cost actions and the direct action of the JRC', neither the decisions themselves nor the proposals under consideration spell out the exact nature of the JRC's contribution to demonstration activities in the field of non-nuclear energy.17.3.3. The Committee notes that, as in the past, a major proportion of the funds allotted to the JRC will be allocated to research activities in the field of nuclear safety and safeguards.17.3.3.1. The research and training activities will cover reactor safety (ECU 37 million), fuel cycle safety (ECU 76 million) and safeguards and fissile material management (ECU 37 million). In addition, an amount of ECU 87 million is to provide a scientific and technical support for the implementation of safeguards, in accordance with Chapter VII of the EURATOM Treaty and similar support for the IAEA.17.3.3.2. As indicated above, an amount of ECU 16 million is also provided for JRC participation in shared cost actions under the indirect action programme.17.3.3.3. The Committee regrets that this detailed breakdown was not included in the Commission proposal. It would have made clear that more than two-thirds of the amount which is provided for safeguards activities is not concerned with research proper, but relates to Treaty obligations under the EURATOM Treaty.17.3.3.4. Taking this into account, the Committee notes that the proportion of funds allocated to the direct action programme will be the same as the funds available for shared cost actions to be undertaken under the indirect action programme in question, i.e. ECU 151 million and ECU 160 million respectively.17.3.3.5. The Committee is aware that nuclear safety and safeguards are a traditional field of activity for the JRC which has special responsibilities and powers in this area.17.3.3.6. The Committee does not in any way intend to call into question these responsibilities and powers. It believes nevertheless that prior to drawing up the next framework programme, the Commission should review the balance between direct actions, and indirect actions with a view to increasing the proportion of the latter.17.3.3.7. The Committee is not satisfied that the research activities carried out by the JRC were properly coordinated with those conducted under the programme of indirect actions. In this connection it would refer to its comments earlier on the specific programme in the field of nuclear safety and security.17.3.4. The Committee very much regrets that the Commission proposals, unlike the programme of activities for the 1992-1994 period, do not provide for a contribution of the JRC to the specific programme on the stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers, although it is aware that this situation arises out of the decisions adopting the fourth framework programme. Nearly ECU 25 million was allocated to the JRC for its participation in this specific programme under the third framework programme.17.3.4.1. The Committee would reaffirm here the comments made in its previous Opinion on the importance of the role of the JRC in promoting integration, and on the possibilities it has of making a direct and effective contribution to the goal of strengthening economic and social cohesion.17.3.4.2. The Committee would underline once more that these are among the most important tasks the JRC is asked to perform; as has already been stressed, its participation in the programme from this point of view is of particular importance. The Committee therefore earnestly calls upon the Commission and the Council to ensure that the JRC participates in this area in the next framework programme.17.3.4.3. The Committee also notes that no funds have been earmarked for the training activities falling specifically under the programme of activities of the JRC and to be carried out under the heading of accompanying measures.17.3.4.4. The Committee requests that an appropriate percentage of the funds allocated to implementation of the programme of activities of the JRC be expressly set aside for such training activities.17.3.5. The Committee likewise notes that the proposals also fail to include a budget for the dissemination and exploitation of the results of research carried out in the JRC. This, too, is at odds with the situation prevailing under the previous programme.17.3.5.1. The Committee has already stressed that the JRC has a particularly active role to play in the 'dissemination and exploitation of the results of its own research, notably by promoting such results among SMEs and helping to assess their potential use'.17.3.5.2. The Committee requests that a percentage to be devoted to such activities be explicitly provided for in the programme of activities of the JRC.Participation of the JRC in shared-cost actions17.3.6. The Committee approves the opportunity given to the JRC to be able to take part in shared-cost actions within the framework of the specific programmes; this gives it extra resources to perform its task of integrating European scientific and technical research.17.3.7. The Committee is convinced that the participation of the JRC in such actions, just like the work it is carrying out for third parties, will enable it to exploit its expertise in areas where it is called upon to compete with public or private national research centres.17.3.8. Such participation will also help to boost cooperation between the JRC and firms, universities and research centres. In its previous Opinion the Committee itself highlighted the need to develop active cooperation between the JRC and industry.17.3.9. The Committee also notes that in the same Opinion it invited 'the Commission to consider whether the JRC could take part in research projects with firms - and especially SMEs - which do not have research facilities of their own'.17.3.10. The Committee would underline that in this connection the JRC should take particular account of the specific needs of the peripheral regions of the Community and of those regions which are less developed in terms of scientific and technical personnel and research infrastructure.Competitive support activities17.3.11. The Committee notes that the fourth framework programme allocates ECU 900 million to the implementation of specific programmes to be carried out under the programme of activities of the JRC, an amount which the Commission proposes to allocate in full to institutional research support activities and institutional scientific and technical support activities, with a modest sum going to the participation of the JRC in shared-cost actions.17.3.12. This sum of ECU 900 million consequently excludes the ECU 128 million which the Commission proposes to allocate to activities within the framework of a competitive approach and intended for scientific and technical support. This sum is entered separately in the budget for the fourth framework programme and is not intended to finance the JRC programme of activities, as pointed out in 17.1.12 above.17.3.13. If it is also borne in mind that special arrangements are laid down for the management of this sum (see point 17.1.12.4 above), the Committee considers it totally inappropriate to include the JRC programme of research activities and competitive support activities in the same proposal.17.3.13.1. It would have been much more sensible for these competitive activities to be covered by a separate proposal for a Decision, at the same time making it possible for the JRC to participate in them under the relevant tendering procedure.17.3.14. After having examined the scientific and technical content, the Committee is also concerned about the criteria used for allocating the scientific and technical support activities between the two types of activity, institutional and competitive.17.3.14.1. The Committee notes that the bulk of the activities included among the competitive support activities call for neutral, independent action by the JRC within the framework of support for activities regulated by the Commission. They therefore do not lend themselves to a competitive approach on the part of the JRC.17.3.14.2. This is particularly true of activities in the fields of measurements and testing, environment and the climate, agriculture and fisheries, and non-nuclear energy.17.3.15. The Committee finally wonders how these competitive activities will fit in with the JRC's institutional activities and what rules of competition will be brought into play, bearing in mind that the JRC is an integral part of the Commission.Done at Brussels, 14 September 1994.The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeSusanne TIEMANN() OJ No C 113, 23. 4. 1994, p. 4-15-24.() OJ No L 126, 18. 5. 1994, p. 1.() OJ No L 115, 6. 5. 1994, p. 31.() OJ No C 269, 14. 10. 1991, p. 24.() OJ No C 19, 25. 1. 1993, p. 106.() OJ No C 201, 26. 7. 1993, p. 36.() OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 34.() OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 28.() OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 90.() OJ No C 352, 30. 12. 1993, p. 32.() OJ No C 81, 18. 3. 1994, p. 9.() OJ No L 218, 6. 8. 1991, p. 22.() OJ No C 41, 18. 2. 1991, p. 10.() OJ No L 126, 12. 5. 1992, p. 12.() OJ No C 41, 18. 2. 1991, p. 4.() OJ No L 192, 16. 7. 1991, p. 29.() OJ No C 332, 31. 12. 1990, p. 23.() OJ No L 192, 16. 7. 1991, p. 1.() OJ No C 332, 31. 12. 1990, p. 38.() OJ No L 107, 24. 4. 1992, p. 11.() OJ No C 31, 6. 2. 1991, p. 14.() OJ No L 267, 24. 9. 1991, p. 25.() OJ No C 41, 18. 2. 1991, p. 1.() OJ No L 265, 21. 9. 1991, p. 33.() OJ No C 41, 18. 2. 1991, p. 1.() OJ No L 336, 7. 12. 1991, p. 42.() OJ No C 69, 18. 3. 1991, p. 33.() OJ No L 375, 31. 12. 1991, p. 11.() OJ No C 120, 6. 5. 1991, p. 1.() OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 38.() OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, p. 10.() OJ No L 196, 19. 7. 1991, p. 31.() OJ No C 332, 31. 12. 1990, p. 40.() OJ No L 409, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.() Council Decision on the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of research and technological development of the Community - OJ No L 141, 23. 5. 1992, p. 1.() Council Decision on the implementation at Community level of the main phase of the strategic programme for innovation and technology transfer (1989-1993) (Sprint programme) - OJ No L 112, 25. 4. 1989, p. 12, as amended by the Council Decision of 20. 12. 1993 - OJ No L 6, 8. 1. 1994, p. 25.() OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991, p. 90.() OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1989, p.6.() Cf. EP hearing on 'The impact of Community financing on the competitiveness of European industry' of July 1993; the EP Report drawn up by Mr Fernandez on 4 November 1993; the Special Report of the Court of Auditors (OJ No C 133, 23. 5. 1991).() Dr. J. Wurst, The role of the transfer of technology, under the research and development programmes, for the industry of the European Community - TEC Conference, Grenoble, France, October.() OJ No L 107, 24. 4. 1992, p. 1.() OJ No C 332, 31. 12. 1990, p. 45.() OJ No C 197, 27. 6. 1988, p. 4.() OJ No C 80, 28. 3. 1988, p. 23.() OJ No C 118, 9. 5. 1992, p. 8.() OJ No L 141, 23. 5. 1992, p. 11.() OJ No C 126, 7. 5. 1994, p. 1.() OJ No C 49, 24. 2. 1992.