Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (1998-2002)', and - the 'Amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for Research and Training Activities (1998-2002)'
Date: 1997-12-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EAEC, EU programme, EU research policy, research and development, technological change

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/133

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which were supported by at least one-quarter of the votes cast, were
defeated during the debate.

Point 5.3.1

Amend as follows:

‘The Committee calls on the Member States to deal with this aspect comprehensively under their criminal
law.’

Result of the vote

For: 13, against: 19, abstentions: 3.

Chapter 5

Insert a new point, worded as follows:

‘Preparation within the IT industry

The ESC feels that business, the public authorities and consumers should not have to bear repeated
computer system adjustments to cope with dates after the year 2000 and the introduction of the euro. In
the interests of cost reduction, reliable planning and confidence building, IT suppliers, with strategic
support from the Commission, should provide overall system update packages on time.

On this point the ESC welcomes the move to organize a euro IT forum, and would like to see it held in
the first half of 1998 to avoid delays.’

Result of the vote

For: 15, against: 17, abstentions: 5.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the
Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological
Development and Demonstration Activities (1998-2002)’, and

— the ‘Amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth Framework Pro-
gramme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for Research and
Training Activities (1998-2002)’

(98/C 73/31)

On 30 September 1997, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph
of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned
amended 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 26 November 1997. The
rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 11 December 1997) the Economic and Social Committee
unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1. Recommendations

The Economic and Social Committee, having regard to:

for a Decision on the Fifth Framework Programme for
research and training activities
(1998-
2002) (1), in which the Committee reserved the right to
comment on the financial perspective established by the
Commission;

(Euratom)

1.1.
its opinion adopted unanimously on 1 October
1997 on the Proposal for a Decision on the Fifth RTDD
Framework Programme (1998-2002) and on the Proposal

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

C 73/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

1.2.
its opinion of 30 May 1996 on the Green Paper
on Innovation (1) and its own-initiative opinion of
1 October 1997 on the Impact on SMEs of the steady,
widespread reduction in funds allocated to research and
technological development in the EU (at Community
and national level) (2);

1.3.
the conclusions of the extraordinary European
Council meeting on employment, held on 20-21 Novem-
ber in Luxembourg, which placed the unemployment
problem at the heart of EU concerns and emphasized that
research policy, and in particular the Fifth Framework
Programme, must play an important role in competi-
tiveness and job creation, in particular by disseminating
innovation and the transfer of technologies towards
SMEs;

1.4.
for a
the Commission’s amended proposal
Decision of 11 August 1997 (3), containing the budgetary
strand of the Fifth Framework Programme, which
confines itself to providing overall funding of ECU 16 300
million, shared between the thematic programmes
according to the percentages indicated in the original
proposal;

1.5.
the lack of any breakdown of these resources
between key actions, or of any indication of the criteria
to be used for the future breakdown of resources between
generic RTD activities, infrastructure support activities
and key actions;

reiterates the need:

1.6.
to provide funding of at least ECU 17 000 million
for the Fifth Framework Programme, to be allocated as
follows: ECU 15 533 million for the RTDD Framework
Programme, and ECU 1 467 million for the Euratom
programme;

to maintain a minimum flexibility reserve of

1.7.
4,5 %, or ECU 700 million;

1.10.
to redefine the strategic role of the JRC, so as
to enhance its strategic importance as a neutral centre
of excellence both within and beyond the Community,
to provide back-up for Community decision-making
and other EU policies, and for the development of a
strong European identity in the field of RTD and
innovation, open to the global market and with appropri-
ations of ECU 815 million;

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

to ensure close interaction between the Frame-
1.11.
work Programme and European, non-EU cooperation
frameworks, particularly Eureka and Cost, and to
develop, on the basis of analyses for each geographic
area, coherent action for the CEEC, the Mediterranean
Basin, the Newly Independent States (NIS), the dynamic
economies of Asia and Latin America, developing
countries and industrialized third countries;

1.12.
to reframe and strengthen the SME innovation
and participation action, with regard to streamlining
intervention already planned under the Fourth Frame-
work Programme, but supplementing it with new,
specific features to promote a spirit of enterprise amongst
researchers and scientists, and to create a new ‘ad hoc’
support mechanism for the setting-up of technological
joint ventures, so that the results of Community research
can be harnessed by industry and business;

to make the level of funding conditional on
1.13.
a larger percentage being earmarked for exchanges
between the academic world and industry, universities
and SMEs, major research centres, and industrial labora-
tories and SMEs;

1.8.
for a minimum threshold of public and private
funding of ECU 1 000 million for each key action, which
should be limited to ten or so, selected according
to quantified criteria and objectives with a specific,
performance-related timescale;

1.14.
to safeguard consistency between the need
for an integrated approach to the Fifth Framework
Programme and concentration and interoperability of
the generic research, support for major infrastructure
and key actions which make up the new Community
framework;

1.9.
to provide the horizontal programmes with
sufficient funding to enhance efficiency, to be allocated as
follows: ECU 575 million for international cooperation;
ECU 550 million for innovation and SMEs, and
ECU 1 402 million for developing human potential;

(1) OJ C 212, 22.7.1996.
(2) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.
(3) COM(97) 439 final.

1.15.
to identify a range of qualitative/quantitative
indicators to guide and control key action activity such
as helping to improve the socio-economic foundations
for the development of sustainable growth and employ-
ment capacity, potential take-up rate, level of strategic
visibility and European dimension, interaction between
Community, European and national action, involvement
of SMEs in the sector, potential spin-offs in terms of
new business start-ups, new jobs and new occupations;

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/135

1.16.
to distribute the ECU 11 491 million overall
funding for the thematic programmes so that a substan-
tial portion is reserved for key actions, keeping an
average quota, which would vary from one thematic
programme to another, of no more than 25 % for generic
RTD activities and major infrastructure;

1.17.
to ensure that each key action has an adequate
percentage of funding for demonstration, innovation
and SMEs, in order to bolster the research-innovation-
market sequence;

1.18.
to integrate and thereby streamline the content
of the proposed key actions by refocusing them — where
possible — within the framework of the thematic
programmes proposed by the Commission;

to select ten or so key actions relating to the
1.19.
Community RTDD Framework Programme and one
relating to the Euratom Programme, and provide them
with sufficient funding to achieve critical mass, take-up
rate, scientific excellence and strategic visibility;

1.20.
to make the provision of funding for the key
actions contingent on performance assessments, in order
to avoid a five-year freeze, during which RTDD activities
with a low level of scientific excellence and innovation
are funded merely as a matter of routine;

the relevant proposal. The amended proposal (2) was
adopted by the Commission on 11 August 1997.

2.3.
The Commission proposes an increase of 3 %,
or ECU 16 300 million, based on GNP forecasts. This is
in line with its decision on Agenda 2000 (3), adopted on
15 July 1997, advocating an increase faster than GNP
growth for certain internal policy programmes which
have been given priority, including research.

the maximum overall

The Commission proposes the following break-
2.4.
down of
amount: ECU
14 833 million for the Fifth RTDD Framework Pro-
gramme, and ECU 1 467 million for the Euratom
Framework Programme.

In the financial statement,

2.5.
the Commission
renews its proposal to organize RTDD action around
three thematic programmes,
three horizontal pro-
grammes and one direct action for the JRC; this is
without prejudice to any Council decisions relating to
the application of Articles 130k, l and n.

The proposal confines itself to a breakdown of
2.6.
the maximum overall amount on the basis of the
percentages given in the original proposal. For key
actions,
the proposal provides no breakdown of
resources, nor does it indicate the criteria for a future
breakdown of resources between generic RTD activities,
infrastructure support activities and key actions.

to provide modern, simple, , transparent man-
1.21.
agement procedures capable of capping administrative
costs and red tape by assigning clear responsibilities to
a restricted number of bureaucratic and decision-making
levels, with collective decisions being confined to the
highest levels, i.e. the Commissioners responsible.

in the amended proposal’s cost-
2.7. Moreover,
the Commission (4) merely
effectiveness analysis,
describes the specific objectives of each of the six themes
as ‘quantifiable’, without providing any details of the
quantification procedure or of any arrangements for
accurate monitoring and evaluation of the declared
objectives throughout the lifetime of the actions.

2.

Introduction

3. The financial perspective and the new format of the

Framework Programme

2.1. On 1 October 1997, the Committee unanimously
adopted its opinion on the Proposal for a European
Parliament and Council Decision on the Fifth RTDD
framework programme (1998-2002), and the Proposal
for a Council Decision on the Fifth Framework Pro-
gramme of the European Atomic Energy Community
(Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-
2002) (1).

In this opinion, the Committee reserved the right
2.2.
to issue an additional opinion, once the Commission
had established the financial perspective and adopted

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

3.1.
The Committee would reiterate the recommen-
dation made in its opinion of 1 October for provision
of funding for the Fifth Framework Programme of at
least ECU 17 000 million, ‘to be shared between a limited
number of thematic programmes and key actions, and
focusing more on measures within and beyond the
horizontal actions’ (5). The ECU 16 300 million suggested
by the Commission would be supplemented by a
flexibility reserve of ECU 700 million for the Fifth
Framework Programme. This would provide a reserve
quota from the outset, and would avoid the need for the

(2) COM(97) 439 final.
(3) COM(97) 2000 final.
(4) Point 9 of the financial statement appended to the amended

proposal.

(5) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

C 73/136

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

complicated discussions which took place under the
Fourth Framework Programme for the allocation of
extra funding following the mid-term report; it would
also meet the recommendations of the various assessment
reports, and the Davignon report in particular.

3.2. Whilst the Committee endorses the proposed
appropriation of ECU 1 467 million for the Euratom
programme, subject to the specific comments made in
this opinion and in particular the reservation expressed
about the ‘thermonuclear fusion’ key action, it feels
that the Community RTDD appropriation should be
increased to ECU 15 533 million, thus giving an aggregate
total of ECU 17 000 million for the two Framework
Programmes.

In this respect, the Committee would reiterate

3.3.
the recommendations already made, viz.:

— to retain a flexibility reserve of ECU 700 million
(4,5 %) to deal, on the one hand, with urgent,
unforeseen problems, and on the other, with pilot
activities and demonstration projects for any new key
actions and/or actions adopted under Article 130 k, l
and n;

— to require a minimum threshold of combined public
and private funding of ECU 1 000 million for each
key action, in order to ensure the critical mass needed
to provide adequate visibility and concrete results
which can be assessed in the short- and medium-term;

— to concentrate research efforts on some ten key
actions, selected according to quantified criteria
and objectives with a specific, performance-related
timescale;

— to increase funding for horizontal actions so as to
provide, in particular, visibility and consistency for
international cooperation at least on a level with
that of the Fourth Framework Programme; boost
dissemination and optimization of results, particu-
larly for SMEs; refocus researcher training and
mobility to provide greater balance between the
academic world and industry;

— to redefine the role of the JRC and its institutions,
enhancing its strategic importance, and making
allocation of funding subject to its providing more
efficient interinstitutional back-up for Community
decision-making, helping to develop the European
and international aspects of RTDD, and ensuring
high-grade back-up for Community policies, particu-
larly by stepping up measurement and testing, the
setting of Europe-wide standards, and checks on

fraud; and making the allocation of funding con-
ditional on its openness to the European scientific
and industrial community, and to the global market;

— to provide each thematic programme with a fore-
casting and assessment system which would be
employed in the sectors covered by the programme
for technology and industrial trend analyses, and
could be used to refocus short- and medium-term
objectives ‘in progress’, and identify new options
and needs as they arise.

3.4.
Pursuant to these recommendations, the Com-
mittee suggests the following breakdown for the
ECU 15 533 million:

Committee
proposal
(in million
ECU)

Commission
proposal
(in million
ECU)

575

550

1 402

(491)

(350)

(1 402)

Horizontal programmes

International cooperation

Innovation and SMEs

Researcher mobility

Thematic programmes

11 491

(11 775)

Flexibility reserve

JRC

Total

700

815

(0)

(815)

15 533

(14 833)

4. Breakdown of

funding for the horizontal pro-

grammes

4.1.

International cooperation

4.1.1.
The Committee would emphasize the vital
importance of international cooperation in a global
EU-third country market, and the need to ensure
close interaction with non-EU cooperation frameworks,
particularly Eureka and Cost.

4.1.2.
This area needs to maintain an independent
cooperation strand to complement and bolster the
activities of the thematic programmes, in an integrated
approach.

4.1.3.
The Committee reiterates the need to develop
a proper analysis for the different geographical areas,
identified in terms of technological development and
scientific excellence and giving precedence to neigh-
bouring areas and applicant countries, with a view
to solving common problems and securing mutual
advantages.

It is the Committee’s view that the breakdown
4.1.4.
of funding should give priority to areas bordering on

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/137

the EU, and that around 50 % of the total amount
should go to the first two of the following six specific
areas: the associated and applicant countries of central
and eastern Europe; the third countries of the Mediter-
ranean Basin, strengthening the technological research
and innovation dimension of the Euro-Mediterranean
partnership; the countries of the former Soviet Union,
preserving their research potential and scientific excel-
lence and helping to solve the economic transition and
security problems; the dynamic economies of Asia and
Latin America, as emerging international players in
various RTD sectors, developing countries, particularly
as regards protection of the environment and health;
and industrialized third countries, which are both
competitors and partners of the EU in the global market.

4.1.5.
In addition to the action for specific geographic
areas, the Committee feels that the horizontal pro-
gramme for international cooperation should address
the important task of ensuring closer links with the
non-EU European cooperation frameworks, and with
international organizations. Greater consistency and
better
coordination are
required, particularly with Eureka and Cost, as their
flexibility, voluntary coordination arrangements, and
bottom-up approach make them a model of scientific
cooperation and technological innovation which can
help to resolve the European innovation paradox.

integrated, more regular

4.1.6.
The Committee considers that the strategic
importance of both international cooperation strands
warrant maintaining funding at least equal to the
ECU 575 million available under the Fourth Framework
Programme. ECU 75 million of this should be earmarked
for strengthening the cooperation frameworks, particu-
larly with Eureka and Cost, and the remaining
ECU 500 million divided between the six specific
geographical intervention areas.

4.1.7.
Further to this specific funding and to the
resources which will have to be allocated for the key
actions, it will be necessary to establish joint, systematic
activation mechanisms with the Phare, Tacis, Meda,
ALA and EDF-ACP programmes.

4.2.

Innovation and participation of SMEs

It is not enough for the only new input to consist
4.2.2.
innovation units to complement
of one-stop shops,
for cooperative
exploratory awards and support
research, networks and services providing information
and assistance on intellectual property and innovation
funding, if this is not accompanied by arrangements to
facilitate the creation and growth of innovative firms,
and by more direct, non-intermediary instruments to
support the various types of small business which
constitute the key players in innovation.

4.2.3.
For this reason the Committee suggests creating
specific mechanisms for setting up new innovative firms
to harness directly the fruits of Community research,
and the encouragement of a spirit of enterprise amongst
researchers and scientists, providing them with the
know-how needed to translate patents and licences into
industrial and commercial successes, thus instilling a
European dimension to the global market.

The full

4.2.4.
implementation of the horizontal
programme on ‘researcher training and mobility’ will
have to be backed up by an adequate budget heading
(ECU 50 million) for training industrial and academic
researchers, parallel to that of the specific sector in
order to ally strategic, organizational, managerial and
commercial skills with technological skills linked to
strategic business sectors and partnership networks.
This would enable researchers to acquire practical ‘hands
on’ experience through internships and development
programmes carried out in conjunction with industry,
and help them to assess the market potential for
patenting their discoveries and the potential economic
and commercial outlets for their work (in conjunction
with the European Patent Office and national patent
offices).

4.2.5.
In order to make it easier for businesses to
promote transnational cooperation between SMEs and
researchers and harness the results of Community
research, entrepreneurial initiative must be supported
by measures to bring together and consolidate different
areas of scientific and industrial excellence.

4.2.1.
The Committee feels that if this strand is not
reframed and stepped up, by upgrading the content and
increasing funding, then the whole new format of the
Fifth Framework Programme and the very idea of
‘problem solving’ at the service of the individual,
business and society, could be called into question.
‘Innovative’ results and a ‘break with the past’ cannot
be guaranteed by simply continuing with the current
activity framework.

To this end, a specific support measure should
4.2.6.
be provided for the establishment of technological joint
ventures between two or more partners from different
Member States, to cover expense on market research,
legal work, environmental impact, the implementation
of quality technical standards, and, more generally, the
business plan they need in order to pool their own

C 73/138

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

resources or those from the venture capital and banking
sector, with a possible Community contribution of up
to 10 % of total investment in the new joint venture.

5. Breakdown of funding for the thematic programmes

4.2.7.
Support for these activities within the Fifth
Framework Programme should include a new specific
budget heading of ECU 150 million for this horizontal
programme, to ensure it has the visibility needed to
launch pilot projects.

4.2.8.
The other horizontal programme activities —
after being skewed towards the real end users and
complemented by trend charts of national innovation
measures and codes of good practice showing an
innovation-friendly financial,
regulatory and legal
framework for industrial property- should be provided
with Fourth Framework Programme levels of funding,
topped up by a 3 % increase in real terms, equal to ECU
350 million.

4.2.9.
Funding for the SME innovation and partici-
pation programme must be tied in with that available
from the Structural Funds, the EIB and the EIF, and
with existing mechanisms for new innovative start-ups
in the Jop and Ecip third country markets.

4.3. Researcher mobility

4.3.1.
In keeping with the Fifth Framework Pro-
gramme’s new ‘problem solving’ approach, the pro-
gramme will have to be firmly skewed towards inte-
grating the academic world and industry, with greater
emphasis on the development of new occupations, with
reference to point 4.2.4 above and the future needs of
the proposed key actions. Again with an eye to the
horizontal programme for SME innovation and partici-
pation and the thematic programmes, the Committee’s
earlier opinion highlighted the need for measures to
provide
university
researchers and those working in corporate research
centres — especially in SMEs — ... [in order] to
disseminate best practices, and monitor the needs and
potential for technology development and scientific
cooperation.’

secondments

‘temporary

for

of

level

Consequently,

4.3.2.
funding
the
(ECU 1 402 million) which the Commission proposes
for this action must be conditional on a larger percentage
being earmarked for exchanges between the academic
world and industry, universities and SMEs, major
research centres, and industrial laboratories and SMEs,
with a view to cohesion, dissemination of technology
and promotion of scientific excellence and top-quality
standards.

5.1.
In view of the new ‘problem solving’ slant of the
Fifth Framework Programme, based on quantified,
priority targets with performance-related timescales for
research, the Committee welcomes the Commission’s
new simpler thematic approach, focusing on three major
areas, but feels the environmental strand could stand
alone.

5.2. Moreover, the Committee endorses the approach
mainly as a means of reducing the number of programme
committees, facilitating research link-ups, and providing
greater leeway to review and fine-tune the priority
themes within the specific thematic programmes.

5.3.
Indeed, the Commission seems to regard the
thematic programmes as the main source of flexibility
for allocating funding priorities for the individual
key actions contained therein, thus making refocusing
possible both ‘within each programme’ as it progresses
and with the generic and basic research activities and
those in support of research infrastructure.

In this respect, the key actions become the main
5.4.
tool for focusing EU research strategies. Consequently,
the Committee would stress the lack of objective
qualitative/quantitative indicators which could be used
to give a breakdown of funding per key action, and
establish the link between key actions and both generic
RTDD activities and support for research infrastructure.

5.5.
To this end, the Committee feels that it is essential
to establish a number of performance indicators, e.g.:

— the contribution to improving the socioeconomic
foundations for the development of sustainable
growth and employment capacity; here the Com-
mittee advocates close collaboration on innovation
with the social partners, relevant social
interest
groups and SMEs;

— potential take-up rate: a yardstick for the industry’s
ability to invest its own resources in Community
projects; in order to safeguard scientific excellence
in the selection of projects, there must be an
appropriate proposal/selection ratio, given that
below the minimum threshold, research is deprived
of scientific excellence and the necessary selectivity;
whilst above the maximum ceiling, participation is

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/139

discouraged, and resources are wasted in planning
and presenting proposals;

the thematic priorities, earmark the relevant funding,
refocus the activities and re-allocate funding.

— strategic visibility and European dimension: a yard-
stick for the strategic position of the key action with
regard to global competition and internal cohesion;

— degree of interlinkage between Community and
national actions: assesses the degree of coordination
between research actions at various levels;

— presence of SMEs in the sector: identifies the number
of ‘developers of technology’, ‘technology users’ and
‘technology followers’ in the areas covered by the
key actions;

— potential spin-offs: measures the potential spin-offs
of innovative research in key action areas in terms
of new business start-ups, new direct and indirect
employment and new occupations;

— levels and quality of employment.

5.8.
The Committee would emphasize the need for
the appropriations for each key action to include a
percentage of funding for demonstration, innovation
and SMEs, in order to speed up the research-innovation-
market sequence and be consistent with the actions
envisaged under the horizontal programme on SME
innovation and participation.

6. Selection and funding of key actions

6.1.
As the Committee pointed out in its earlier
opinion, the selective streamlining of key action research
areas and relevant appropriations is held back by the
lack of joint industrial and technological forward studies,
and of the means to mobilize all the various levels of
European research in a concerted effort (trend charts).

5.6. On the basis of these indicators, the critical mass
set by the Commission at ECU 1 000 million per key
action, and the fact that the key actions would be limited
to ten, the Committee proposes that ECU 11 491 million
be reserved for the thematic programmes, focusing
mainly on key actions and keeping an average quota,
which would vary from one thematic programme to
another, of no more than 25 % for generic RTD and
major infrastructure.

6.2.
Similarly, with regard to the data bases for each
intervention area, the inconsistent, piecemeal nature of
the available data regarding the indicators identified by
the Committee can only, at this juncture, provide
sweeping generalizations; however, the general message
is that resources should be focused in order to avoid
scattering them over such a myriad of themes that
critical mass is not achieved.

5.6.1.
This breakdown complies with the strategic
objective of concentrating considerable resources on key
actions which are likely to yield concrete results in the
short to medium term, boosting competitiveness and
employment, and providing visible, tangible fulfilment
of real everyday needs. At the same time a sufficient
percentage must be earmarked for generic and basic
research and for infrastructure support research, in
order to provide wider options for refocusing the key
actions over the medium- long-term and to take on
board new strands and emerging scientific and industrial
needs.

As each key action combines technological
5.6.2.
research,
innovation, dissemination, demonstration,
assessment and coordination, the percentage of funding
recommended by the Committee is warranted by the
need to maintain high industrial participation levels of
50 % in order to reach the minimum threshold of
ECU 1 000 million.

5.7.
Given that in selecting key actions, account must
be taken of the fact that there is a ceiling on the number
of actions, and that each action must achieve an overall
critical mass of ECU 1 000 million in public and private
funding, the above criteria would be used to identify

6.3.
The Committee anyway emphasizes, in accor-
dance with its previous opinion of 1 October 1997 (1),
the need ‘for the number of key actions to be cut to no
more than ten or so’ and ‘to be selected for their
prospects of direct impact in terms of application and
concrete results, which should also have a strong media
impact’.

6.4.
By way of example, the Committee has selected
three key actions in the field of health, the environment
and natural resources; three key actions relating to the
creation of the information society; and five key actions
in the field of production, energy and transport systems.

6.5.
To ensure a critical mass of shared actions that
would make it possible to exceed the overall threshold
mentioned of ECU 1 000 million, the Committee con-
siders it appropriate to keep Community financing for
each key action between ECU 700 and 900 million, in
accordance with the take-up capacity of the economic
sectors concerned, maintaining levels of scientific excel-
lence and taking account of the indicators mentioned in

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

C 73/140

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

point 5.5, especially with regard to the impact on
competitiveness of the business structure, new and better
jobs and the creation of new occupational profiles.

6.6.
Such an arrangement requires substantial inte-
gration between Community and national programmes,
not to mention an adequate proportion of actions in the
areas of demonstration, innovation, optimization and
dissemination of results, and training for new occu-
pations.

6.7.
The Committee believes, however, that it should
be possible to vary the funding arrangements during
the programme according to performance and the
innovative, practical benefits, as well as new market,
industrial and scientific trends. It is important to avoid
a five-year ‘freeze’ during which activities with low
take-up capacity would be allocated funds as a matter
of routine, which would diminish scientific excellence
and, ultimately, European competitiveness in global
markets.

6.8.
Implementation of the strategy envisaged by
the Commission for the activities covered by the Fifth
includes a key
Framework Programme (Euratom),
action on ‘controlled thermonuclear fusion’ and generic
research into ‘nuclear
fission’. Bearing in mind
the political,
financial and technical uncertainties
surrounding research into nuclear fusion, particularly
as regards the forthcoming quadrilateral ITER (Inter-
national Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) agree-
ment — currently the main international programme
under the JET programme — the Committee feels
that a substantial portion of the resources earmarked
for this key action should be put aside and their
allocation at the end of the two-year period be made
conditional on an assessment of the action’s consistency
with international strategies. In any case, initiatives
which are likely to make substantial headway in
building constructive relations with industry should be
encouraged.

Brussels, 11 December 1997.

6.8.1.
In this respect, the Committee believes that
ECU 500-600 million should be earmarked for this key
action, with the remaining ECU 900-1000 million being
allocated to nuclear fission RTD, with the bulk of this
being allocated to the following three areas of activity:
(i) reactor safety and protection from radiation, (ii) the
nuclear fuel cycle and the development of a comprehen-
sive nuclear waste disposal policy taking into account
the desire of the public for long-term waste to be stored
in a retrievable state, and (iii) assistance with the design
of a new generation of reactors which are safer, more
competitive and smaller than the existing designs. Special
priority must be given to improving nuclear safety in
central and eastern Europe, and to closing down unsafe
plant, within the framework of the EU enlargement
negotiations.

A quality control assessment system for up-and-
6.9.
running Euratom RTD projects must be created to
assess such aspects as scientific excellence, originality,
and the potential success rate for both science-based
and user-based projects.

7. Keeping down costs and running time

7.1.
The Committee would emphasize that it is
imperative for the Fifth Framework Programme’s new
integrated approach, in the run-up to the 21st century,
to be backed up by: modern, simple, transparent, and,
most of all, efficient management procedures that will
the
limit costs and time spent on administration;
assignment of precise, detailed responsibilities within
the relevant Commission departments; and confinement
of collective decision-taking to the highest levels, i.e. the
Commissioners responsible.

7.2.
The Committee believes that this reorganization
is indispensable if the new Framework Programme
format is not to undermine the need to keep down costs
and time spent on administration, and the economies of
scale which are an integral part of the new key action
strategy, as recommended by all interested parties, and
by industry in particular.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS