Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community (1998-2002)', and - the 'Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the implementation of the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (1998-2002)'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EAEC, EU programme, EU research policy, research and development, technological change

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/51

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the rules for the participation of
undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research
results for the implementation of the Fifth Framework Programme of the European
Community (1998-2002)’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the rules for the participation of
undertakings, research centres and universities and for the implementation of the
Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)
(1998-2002)’ (1)

(98/C 214/13)

On 6 January 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, in
accordance with Article 130 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and
Article 170 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, on the
above-mentioned 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 7 April 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr Malosse.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to one.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Rather than making a point-by-point analysis of
a text which is generally satisfactory as to its form, the
Committee intends to present a set of general comments
in order to clarify certain imprecise points, and where
appropriate to recommend additions to the content.

These comments refer to four main requirements:

The first of these concerns the need,

1.1.1.
in a
measure setting out rules for participation and dissemi-
nation, for an approach which would impart momen-
tum. Indeed, the aim of an administrative framework is
to set limits and to open up the way, but not to be a
succession of obstacles. Any administrative framework
has important implications in terms of both method and
content. It seems to us that several definitions must be
clarified; some procedural points could also result in
delays and obstruction.

1.1.2.
The second requirement is for consistency
between the new approach of the framework programme
for RTD, particularly through key actions which require
an integrated approach, and Community priorities, in
the forefront of which are cohesion, employment and
involvement of SMEs in development policies.

1.1.3.
The third requirement concerns the competi-
tiveness of European industry. The European research
effort must primarily have the effect of restoring the

position of European firms on international markets.
Overall, their competitiveness has declined over the
last two decades, particularly because of inadequate,
fragmented research and innovation capacity.

The fourth requirement is for a radical reform
1.1.4.
of the procedures for allocating Community assistance
to research projects. Despite praiseworthy efforts, the
scientific world and enterprises, especially SMEs, are
increasingly discouraged by the slowness and complexity
of European procedures, with decreasing chances of
success at the end.

The spirit of the Commission proposal is summed
1.2.
up in its preamble in the phrase ‘innovation within
continuity’. The initiatives listed under ‘innovation’
seem to us to correspond fully to Community concerns,
and particularly:

— the simplifications introduced by the option of

paying general costs on a flat-rate basis;

— varying the conditions for use (exclusiveness, prop-
erty) according to the project’s proximity to the
market, where indirect actions are concerned;

— protection for pre-existing know-how;

— the inclusion of ethical considerations among the

selection criteria;

— extension of the ‘SME’ definition to cover firms with

(1) OJ C 3, 7.1.1998, p. 5-13; OJ C 40, 7.2.1998, p. 14.

a staff of between 250 and 499;

C 214/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

— the role of the technological implementation plan,
which now constitutes a detailed and structured
instrument for monitoring the use made of research
results.

1.3.
These innovations reveal a desire to take into
account both the criticisms made of earlier R&D
framework programmes — that they were too slow, too
bureaucratic, and too remote from the market — and
the main recommendations of the Davignon Report
which stated that the RTD framework programme must
be regarded as a way of financing measures to encourage
competitiveness. The Committee congratulates the
Commission on these guidelines, which correspond to
the wishes it had expressed. In order to ensure that
these proposals are workable and consistent with the
objectives pursued, the Committee would make several
specific recommendations:

2. Comments on the form

Given the innovative nature of the fifth frame-
2.1.
work programme by comparison with the fourth, it is
desirable to ensure proper interpretation of the new
concepts and the new implementing procedures. To this
end, and to complement the efforts made to provide
common definitions for the two proposals, the Com-
mittee takes the view that:

— a tool for comparison between the two framework

programmes should be proposed;

— users should be able to find a summary of all the
new rules and the philosophy of the fifth RTD
framework programme in the form of a ‘vade-
mecum’.

2.1.1.
These two elements, which should be made
available to participants, would make it possible to find
the implementing rules, would remove ambiguities and
would constitute a practical expression of the declared
intention to clarify and simplify.

2.2.
Given the innovative nature of the principle of
key actions as multi-disciplinary tools, it is essential to
lay down uniform rules for participation in all types of
action (research, applications etc.), even if the contracts
themselves for indirect actions can vary according to the
nature of the project. This aspect should be taken into
account in the new provisions on participation instead
of maintaining different rules, such as those maintained
for specific actions in favour of SMEs.

2.3.
As for the definitions proposed, they would
benefit from being expanded and clarified. Some con-
cepts, which appear in the body of the text to be decisive
for the content and scope of the proposal, are simply

mentioned without being dealt with in detail. In particu-
lar, the following terms were noted:

— flat-rate payments of general costs: this idea should
be clarified with practical details (payment scales,
calculation methods etc.);

— proximity to the market: mentioned in the preamble
but not taken up in practical terms in the text,
although it is a decisive element in the new arrange-
ments;

— protection of know-how: insufficiently dealt with in
the body of the proposal, particularly as regards
arrangements for promoting intellectual and indus-
trial property and the necessary reference to the
problems of patents.

2.4. On the same general theme, it should also be
stressed that Article 5 on the ‘conditions for the
participation of legal entities from the Member States
and associated states’ does not clearly demonstrate that
it is possible for an SME to have access to the RTD
framework programme, particularly because of the
imprecision of the criterion ‘about to carry out a
research ... activity’ which could give rise to diverging
interpretations or disputes when the programme is
implemented.

2.5.
Similarly, in Article 8, the requirement to ‘have
the main resources needed for carrying it out’ contradicts
the principles of cooperative research (Craft programme)
under which SMEs entrust research work to third
parties.

3. SMEs in Europe and their specific problems

3.1.
It is regrettable that the proposed rules for
participation in and dissemination of RTD are based on
an insufficiently precise definition which (a) does not
lend itself to a practical, strategic approach, and (b)
excludes large numbers of SMEs from the benefits of
the RTD framework programme.

3.1.1.
Given their numbers, their impact on employ-
ment (66 % of Community employment) and their share
of net assets (65 % in the European Union), they are
likely to play an increasingly significant economic role.
However, they do not form a homogeneous group, and
it is essential in tackling this problem to draw up a
typology of SMEs according to their RTD needs and
capacities. Indeed, a single definition of an SME has no
meaning in this context and would not enable any valid
practical conclusions to be drawn.

The Committee has already proposed, in a recent
3.2.
opinion on the impact on SMEs of the steady, widespread

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/53

reduction in funds allocated to research and technologi-
cal development in the EU (at Community and national
levels) (1), that three categories of enterprise be dis-
tinguished according to typological characteristics which
are now generally accepted:

3.2.1.
Those which have a well-established RTD
capacity and supply or make use of technology. Such
enterprises are in the minority and it is estimated that
they account for less than 3 % of the total number of
SMEs. A sizeable percentage of SMEs in this category
are involved in research projects funded by the European
Union.

3.2.1.1.
Their contribution to Community research
is in fact, in most cases, complementary to that of large
enterprises. That is why, by associating them with the
majority of key actions, alongside research institutions
and large enterprises, innovation and creativeness can
be ensured and greater involvement of these enterprises
in RTD programmes can be guaranteed. The Committee
feels that this strategy of complementarity is more
appropriate than the approach too often adopted in the
past of reserving certain marginal actions for SMEs.

3.2.2.
Those which can be described as ‘vanguard’
enterprises, which lack the characteristics of the first
category but are able to develop new products with a
technological input. These are generally the SMEs which
are the most highly developed from a technological
standpoint in their sectors; it is estimated that they
account for less than 10 % of the total number of SMEs.

These are able to identify, define and express
3.2.2.1.
RTD requirements, but they have to outsource research
work as they lack adequate RTD capacity.

3.2.2.2.
Even if enterprises in this category frequently
manage to find solutions (the provision of suitable aid
at national and regional level), they are increasingly
coming up against the need for technological solutions
which only specialized research partners can provide.

3.2.3.
Thirdly, there are those enterprises which
merely make use of the products of technological
research. These represent the vast majority of SMEs in
the EU and are solely interested in the final products of
RTD.

3.2.3.1.
By means of sufficient funds, awareness-
promotion, information, preparation and back-up, these
enterprises must have access to the technological oppor-
tunities yielded by RTD programmes, particularly the
Community programmes.

3.3.
It should also be pointed out that, in the proposal
as a whole, the term SME is used only in paragraphs c)

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

and d) of Article 5, relating respectively to ‘exploratory
phase awards’ and ‘cooperative research projects’, and
therefore to relatively marginal aspects of the RTD
framework programme. There is no reference to SMEs
in the proposal relating to the Euratom Treaty, despite
the fact that there are many small enterprises working
in this field.

In this context, the Committee would stress that

3.4.
specific questions concerning SMEs do exist:

3.4.1.
The difficulties which SMEs have in defining
their real technology needs. Not only do the majority of
SMEs lack the management capacity required of them
by the framework programme, e.g. when compared
with the management requirements for European RTD
consortia, but there is also the ‘upstream’ problem of
evaluation and strategic choices.

In order to participate in the RTD framework
3.4.2.
these enterprises need complementary
programme,
measures which should be contained in the proposals.
These measures should:

— set out rules giving access to the framework pro-
gramme on RTD to intermediaries as ‘technological
mediators’ alongside enterprises, in order to assist
the identification and formulation of SMEs’ own
needs as regards products, markets and technology;

— allow bodies (associations, chambers,

technical
centres and others) whose activities are orientated
towards SMEs and craft industries to propose and
manage RTD projects designed specifically for such
enterprises;

— strengthen the advisory and flanking role of infor-
mation networks in the field, particularly with a
view to helping SMEs to identify their real interest
in participation in Community RTD actions.

Thus it would be advisable to insert a specific

3.5.
paragraph on this category of enterprises:

— differentiating on the basis of technological level;

— guaranteeing a priori access to research for non-high-
tech SMEs. Indeed, no-one would nowadays dispute
that technology is a decisive factor for acquiring a
competitive advantage, but in the first place these
technologies need to be developed, and it can prove
difficult for SMEs to carry out RTD work alone
to a meaningful level. Cooperation with research
centres and large enterprises and the involvement of

C 214/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

legitimate intermediaries — ‘technological media-
tors’ — constitute one solution to this problem,
since they make it possible to pool resources and
since partners can often bring complementary skills
to a project.

4.

Integration of the main lines of Community policy

At this level

4.1.
it is advisable to ensure that
management arrangements and the proposed rules for
participation and dissemination:

— do not run counter to the basic policies of the
European Union, particularly employment and
cohesion policies aimed at reducing inter-regional
disparities and discrepancies;

— contribute to regulating and solving these problems.

4.2. RTD programme and employment

The term ‘employment’ appears only once, in
4.2.1.
Article 2 as part of the presentation of the Community’s
interests, whereas the Commission’s statement of intent
in preparing the Fifth RTD Framework Programme
refers explicitly to the need to put research in the service
of the citizen by orienting it towards the economic and
social needs of Europe.

Employment is an important factor in the
4.2.2.
debate on the Community’s future research prospects.
The importance of this problem also justifies its being
taken into account in any consideration of economic
and technological development in Europe. In this respect
an essential element is that of transforming research
into innovation, new products and services.

4.2.3.
It is regrettable that this aspect is not explicitly
included in the proposal on criteria for selecting projects
to be assisted by the European Union.

Similarly, there should be an explicit mention
4.2.4.
of the direct or indirect impact on employment in the
plans for technological implementation.

4.3. RTD programme and cohesion

Closing economic and technological gaps is
4.3.1.
one of the main priorities of all Community policies

since the Maastricht Treaty. RTD policy can play a
dominant role in this process, given that a scientific
basis is essential for sustainable growth.

4.3.2.
It is a fact, however, that the most disadvan-
taged countries and regions are often tempted to
concentrate their efforts on low-technology sectors
requiring a large labour force. It is therefore necessary
to assist these regions in participating in RTD activities
so that they can increase their scientific and technological
capacity.

4.3.3.
SMEs play a fundamental role in this process;
in these priority countries and regions they need specific
assistance to give them access to research and technologi-
cal
innovation activities, and will be all the more
receptive to any form of support which seeks to improve
their technological component.

4.3.4.
Again there is only a fleeting reference to this
question in Article 2 of the proposal, presenting the
Community’s interests. This point ought to be dealt
with in greater depth under the heading of selection
criteria. It should be noted that this initiative would
accord with the Commission’s declared intention of
giving more importance to innovation in the redefinition
of the Structural Funds.

5. Coherence of RTD actions in Europe

Given that Community RTD constitutes only
5.1.
about 4 % of research and development in the European
Union, the question of complementarity between the
Community actions themselves and national/regional
or private actions is fundamental. To this end the
Committee advocates practical arrangements such as:

— coordination with other Community programmes,
first and foremost those in the education and training
field, actions linked with the Union’s ‘innovation
plan’ and actions to encourage mobility of re-
searchers;

— integration of information and advice networks for
research programme applicants, so that European
programmes on offer — whether of Community,
intergovernmental (Eureka), national or private ori-
gin — are presented in an overall way for the sake
of transparency and efficiency;

— more active promotion of technology dissemination
and its commercial use through cooperation and
coordination links with other mechanisms, such as
Eureka.

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/55

6. RTD programme, competitiveness and definition of

technological implementation

6.1.
The question of international competitiveness is
referred to only in Article 2 (‘Interests of the Com-
munity’). It is absent from the entire exposition of the
two proposals.

Any reflections and proposals on technological and
economic development must take full account of this
essential factor.

suggests that a proportion of the Community aid be
earmarked for this follow-up tool, particularly when it
is entrusted to specialized bodies such as technical
centres, development agencies or consultants on inno-
vations for SMEs. The Committee takes the view that
these plans must not be restrictive:
they must be
adaptable to changes during the development stage.
Indeed, the Committee recommends that these plans be
used as follow-up mechanisms to measure the impact of
the work carried out and to facilitate the technological
conditions for use and the search for financial resources
for development.

The practical details should therefore be stated

6.2.
more explicitly by:

7. RTD programme and simplification of procedures

— setting out the principles whereby available resources
are concentrated on the priorities of the European
Union, selected for their economic, technological
and social relevance and their European added value;

7.1.
Apart from expressing good and praiseworthy
intentions, the proposals on the procedures do not
involve any innovation as regards selecting and allo-
cating funds. The Committee deeply regrets this.

— tailoring all developments in the participation and
dissemination rules to changes in the legal framework
currently governing the framework programmes,
with a view to increasing flexibility and concen-
tration;

— seeking systematically to give priority to this objec-
tive of competitiveness in all recommendations
for new approaches to implementing the RTD
framework programme.

6.3.
The Committee asks the European Commission
to lay down explicitly, e.g. in the form of a uniform
presentation model, that technological implementation
plans must specify the objectives of projects in terms of
‘Community interests’, particularly in terms of likely
impact on employment in the short and long term, on
European competitiveness, on the environment, etc.

it

is

for

important

6.4.
Emphasizing, as it does, through the technologi-
cal implementation plans, the obligation for a research
project to have industrial aims, the Fifth Framework
Programme is indeed a step in the right direction.
However,
these technological
implementation plans to be not just a monitoring
instrument but also a management tool for operators,
in order to guarantee full exploitation and application
of research work. Thus these plans, with a validation
procedure which could be conducted by the JRC, would
make a contribution to the industrial development of
the research projects, not least as support, of the
risk capital or development capital type, vis-à-vis the
financial institutions and mechanisms. The Committee

7.2.
The ESC would advocate trying out simplified
procedures, particularly for SME projects. In particular,
it recommends exploring the following approaches:

— decentralization of the ‘preselection’ arrangements,
without restoring the programme to national control,
on the lines of the arrangements set up by the
Leonardo programme (national information agen-
cies, pre-examination of proposals, etc.);

— a permanent, generally available mechanism for calls
for expression of interest, in order to identify precise
research priorities, giving rise to well-targeted calls
for tenders to optimize the chances of success for
promoters applying at this second stage;

— a system of expert assessment to be formalized in
the participation rules, taking account of the main
guidelines:
and
cohesion.

competitiveness,

employment

7.3.
The ESC stresses that the procedures set up
should be coordinated with national arrangements or
the Eureka programme, so that each project can be
guided towards the most appropriate programmes.

To ensure that the procedures are totally clear,
7.4.
operators must have access — particularly through new

C 214/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

technology — to a broad information and exploitation
network, which is consistent with all national and

Community arrangements. The Committee is preparing
a specific own-initiative opinion on this project.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
on Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy (White Paper for a Community
Strategy)’

(98/C 214/14)

On 19 December 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 April 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr Morgan.

At its 354th plenary session held on 29 and 30 April 1998 (meeting of 29 April), the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 106 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the
white paper as a constructive and positive follow-on to
the earlier green paper (1).

The white paper is written in four chapters:

— Setting the scene;

— The action plan;

— Campaign for take-off;

— Follow-up and implementation.

Our opinion follows this outline.

2. Setting the scene

2.3. We are pleased to see that the strategy and action
plan in the white paper are directed towards the goal
of achieving 12 % penetration of renewables in the
European Union by 2010. We have already given
our support to this ambitious and radical objective.
However, we have made no attempt to evaluate or
substantiate the claims in the document for job creation,
power generation, reduced CO2 emissions etc. We have
simply accepted them as a basis of the programme.

2.3.1. With respect to Member States’ targets and
strategies, we are pleased to support a conclusion in line
with our response to the green paper. The relevant
passages are as follows:

2.1.
The first two sections of this chapter re-state the
green paper thesis and report on the submissions received
in response to it. In this context we have nothing to add
to our submission in response to the green paper.

2.2.
The third section of the first chapter re-states the
strategic goals in a form with which the Committee
positively agrees.

(1) OJ C 206, 7.7.1997.

‘Achievement of the average 12 % overall indicative
objective for the Union clearly depends on the success
and growth of the various individual renewable
technologies. Views expressed during the consul-
tation process on the green paper confirm that it is
important to analyse how the overall objective can
be achieved by a contribution from each sector and
hence to estimate the contribution each renewable
source is likely to make.’