Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Ways and means of strengthening the networks for the provision of information on and exploitation of applied RTD programmes in Europe'
Date: 1998-07-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, information network, new technology, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises

14.9.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 284/19

7.10.
The Commission is should report every three
years on the effectiveness of the Regulation, on the basis
of reports made by Member States.

7.11.
The Commission should consult Member
States, the airline industry and consumer groups about
how the rights available under the Regulation might best
be brought to the attention of the travelling public.

7.12.
The Commission should carry out a full assess-
ment of the Regulation’s costs and benefits, in consul-

tation with interested parties, before the Regulation is
reviewed again. This assessment should include the costs
of the reporting and collating of the data required under
the Regulation. More frequent reviews might be appro-
priate prior to changes in compensation levels.

The Commission should undertake a compara-
7.13.
tive analysis of EU and US denied compensation payment
rules to check whether there is scope for simplifying the
EU rules.

Brussels, 1 July 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Ways and means of strengthening the
networks for the provision of information on and exploitation of applied RTD programmes
in Europe’

(98/C 284/06)

On 29 January 1998 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under the third paragraph
of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Ways and means of
strengthening the networks for the provision of information on and exploitation of applied
RTD programmes in Europe’.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion unanimously on 17 June 1998. The
rapporteur was Mr Malosse.

At its 356th plenary session of 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 1 July), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

I. RECOMMENDATIONS

ments in order to be able to disseminate new technologies
tailored to European enterprises,

The Economic and Social Committee,

I.1.
the urgent need for a ‘structural’ strategy to
strengthen the competitiveness of European industry in
the interests of growth and employment,

I.2.
the vital role played here by back-up and infor-
mation networks in ensuring that enterprises, and
particularly SMEs with an unexploited innovative
capacity (‘vanguard’ enterprises), are able to participate
in research programmes,

the vital need to set up a mechanism for exploiting
I.3.
research findings and monitoring technological develop-

I.4.
the opportunity afforded to the 5th Framework
Programme on Research and Technological Develop-
ment (hereinafter 5th RTDFP) to help rise to this
challenge of competitiveness, thereby permitting a clear
break with previous programmes, as the European
Parliament, Council and Economic and Social Com-
mittee have advocated,

I.5.
the excessive dispersal of existing national and
Community networks which, in the view of the Com-
mittee, are unable to make an effective contribution to
any new strategy designed to break with the past,

C 284/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.98

presents the following recommendations in this own-
initiative opinion to the Council, the European Parlia-
ment and the Commission:

ries, universities and back-up organizations. The Group
could operate in conjunction with the ESC and carry
out monitoring, evaluation and observation work.

Recommendation No 1

Recommendation No 5

The Committee calls upon the European Commission
to present a communication laying down an overall
strategy for networks providing information, exploi-
tation and back-up in RTD and innovation.

Such a strategy should embrace the rationalization of
existing mechanisms and incorporate a number of
different European policies, viz.: the action plan on
innovation;
the 5th RTDFP; economic and social
cohesion; educational and training programmes; policies
in favour of competitiveness; enlargement and external
policy.

Recommendation No 2

Within the context of this overall strategy, the Economic
and Social Committee recommends that existing mech-
anisms (5th RTDFP, Structural Funds, educational and
training programmes, SME programme ...) be used to
help specialized support networks in promoting the
principle of ‘mediation’.

The aim of such ‘mediation’ networks would be to a)
promote strategies for linkages between enterprises, b)
further interaction between enterprises, research and
universities, c) encourage the monitoring of technologi-
cal developments, d) advance economic intelligence, and
e) promote project management (legal, financial, etc.).

The Committee considers that the third horizontal
action of the future 5th RTDFP (promoting innovation
and encouraging the participation of SMEs) should be
largely given over to achieving this objective.

Recommendation No 3

The Committee urges the European Commission to take
steps to improve the coordination between Community
information/back-up networks and networks for the
exploitation of RTD findings. In so doing it should also
seek to achieve the vital goal of ensuring that the two
types of networks remain complementary.

The Commission must bring these networks within a
larger mechanism of support for ‘mediation’ and must
gear them exclusively to meeting the needs of users.
Networks must not be allowed to further their own
policy objectives.

Recommendation No 4

With the aim of ensuring genuine consistency, the
Committee proposes the organization, via telematics, of
a conference of Community, national and intergovern-
mental networks (Eureka, OECD ...) to which would be
invited the ‘innovation units’ of specific programmes
forming part of the 5th RTDFP.

A vademecum of national, Community and intergovern-
mental activities would offer better guidance to the
competent authorities in their vitally important task of
securing improved coordination.

Recommendation No 6

In the interests of transparency and comprehensibility
for the parties concerned (enterprises, researchers, uni-
versities, new business entrepreneurs ...) the Committee
proposes that Euro-info-centres be allotted the task of
guiding the activities of specialized networks, including
Community networks. Operating locally and in close
touch with reality, Euro-info-centres would initially
steer users towards the most appropriate information,
exploitation and back-up network.

Recommendation No 7

The Committee would recommend that the strategy
proposed today be extended to all applicant countries
as part of the EU’s pre-accession policy.

The Committee also understands the case for a strategy
of preferential partnership with the Euro-Mediterranean
area, other European countries and the signatories to
the Lomé Convention. Appropriate instruments would
have to be brought into play to achieve this objective.

The Committee would finally recommend that Europe
work together with its developed international partners
to achieve mutually beneficial synergistic effects.

1.

Introduction

This initiative follows on directly from the most
1.1.
recent Committee opinions on research, and in particular
the opinion entitled ‘Towards the Fifth Framework
Programme — scientific and technological objectives (1)’
and the own-initiative opinion entitled ‘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)’.

The Committee proposes the setting-up of a ‘Users’
Group’ for Community networks. Represented on the
Group would be a variety of users: enterprises, laborato-

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 38.
(2) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 31.

14.9.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 284/21

1.2.
In these opinions the Committee made the point
that the industrial impact of Community RTD activities
is too weak, particularly in the case of small and
medium-sized enterprises which make up 99,8 % of all
European enterprises. This view is widely shared by a
variety of bodies and institutions such as the EU’s
Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST)
which, as the Fifth Framework Programme was being
prepared, adopted a report on the participation of SMEs
in RTD activities. The recommendations made by
CREST were concerned inter alia with the question of
access to information.

1.3.
In its opinion on the Fifth Framework Programme
the Committee said that it was desirable (1) ‘to directly
involve research players and end-users, particularly the
various types of SME, from the planning of the RTDFP
right through to the innovative application of research
results’.

In its opinion on SMEs and RTD (2) the Com-
1.4.
mittee drew a distinction in particular between three
categories of SMEs: (‘simple users of technologies’;
‘vanguard’ enterprises, i.e. those with an unused capacity
for innovation; and finally ‘high-tech SMEs’. It then
recommended that Community action be concentrated
on ‘vanguard’ enterprises, or ‘technology followers’, of
which there are thought to be between 1 and 1,5 million
in the European Union.

1.5.
The present opinion is being drawn up as
preparations go ahead to present the Community’s Fifth
Framework Programme. However, mindful of the need
for coherence, the Committee has deliberately widened
the scope of its analysis to include all Community
policies and programmes dealing with the concepts
of innovation and related procedural matters. The
Committee’s work is also placed within a context that
takes into consideration the capacity of enterprises to
develop, achieve competitiveness and create jobs. The
Committee intends to draw up proposals which are
consistent with regional, national and intergovernmental
mechanisms such as Eureka.

2. The aims of the own-initiative opinion

2.1.
The foremost task of this own-initiative opinion
is to recommend courses of action and make concrete
proposals offering guidance in determining the practi-
calities of Community action. The Union is preparing
to adopt a Fifth RTDFP which, through the concept of
key actions, seeks to exert a genuine impact on European
industry and its level of competitiveness; in so doing it
departs from previous programmes. The Committee’s

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 38, paragraph 1.3.
(2) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 31.

own initiative is concerned with two questions which
are essential to the success of this strategy, viz.:

2.1.1.
the ways and means of ensuring, through the
provision of information and assistance, that enterprises,
and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises,
are able to genuinely participate in research activities,

2.1.2.
prises (insofar as they are potential users thereof).

the exploitation of research findings by enter-

The opinion needs to be strategically aware of
2.2.
the dual need to make a clear distinction between
the specific functions of a) information and b) RTD
exploitation, whilst at the same time ensuring that the
two aspects remain complementary and operationally
interlinked. The route to information and exploitation
is not a linear one, leading straight from the research
laboratory to industrial applications but is made up of
a criss-cross pattern of interactions.

Information about applied RTD programmes
2.2.1.
is geared both to identifying circles liable to promote
RTD activities but also to raising awareness of potential
opportunities for innovation, the transfer of technologies
and the exploitation of RTD. It embraces elements which
are as diverse as they are complementary: observation,
training, advice, hearings, analysis of requirements. A
permanent two-way flow of ideas is therefore required
if information is to effectively fulfil all these various
tasks.

2.2.2.
The exploitation of RTD, seen as a means of
introducing scientific elements into mechanisms which
are not particularly well suited to integrating them,
more especially when we are talking about SMEs, needs
to be conceived as a system which feeds into the processes
of transfer and innovation a whole range of other factors
such as: a culture of innovation, the identification of
needs and innovative capacity, adaptability to new
technologies, the transfer of expertise and know-how,
business-plans and commercial planning.

2.3.
Despite a number of praiseworthy initiatives
which seem to be scattered about loosely among various
European Commission departments (Contact points
within the Craft network, Innovation Relay Centres,
Cordis network, Euro-Info-centres, Regional Innovation
Strategies, associations of universities and enterprises,
etc.), the impact of European RTD on industry remains
weaker than expected. A ‘Hearing’ on these networks,
organized by the Committee’s study group, has led to
the clear realization that each of the networks addresses
a unique and different set of concerns and adopts its
own distinct but nevertheless legitimate approach to
achieving goals such as: increasing the participation of
SMEs in the Community’s RTD programmes, setting
up a European network for the exploitation of RTD
informing SMEs more widely of European
results,
affairs, consolidating regional innovation strategies with
a view to economic and social cohesion in the Union,
improving links, through training schemes, between
research and the business world. Thus a clear distinction
has not always been made between information and
back-up on the one hand and the exploitation of findings

C 284/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.98

on the other. The set-up as a whole throws up problems
of consistency, comprehensibility, coordination and
efficiency. Mindful of the need to make an overall
response to the problem of competitiveness through
specific, appropriate support,
the Committee thus
intends to make a number of suggestions aimed at
ensuring that the 5th RTDFP is quite different from its
predecessor.

2.4.
Since Community research only represents 4 %
of all research activities carried out within the European
Union, it is also necessary to widen discussions to take
in the complementarity, or reasons for the lack of
complementarity, between European activities on the
one hand and national or local activities on the other.
The Committee would recall here the comments and
recommendations made in its opinions on the 5th
RTDFP (1), and particularly its call for a comparative
set of tables, a vademecum whereby the progress of
national, European and intergovernmental programmes
can be compared and monitored, topic by topic.

3. Efforts to achieve coherence and integration

3.1. Whatever the area of discussion and line of
enquiry, vigilance is required to combat the continuing
tendency of innovation support networks in Europe
— be they of Community, intergovernmental, national,
regional or private origin — to remain compartmental-
ized. The search for coherence — be it within the Fifth
RTDFP itself, or in respect of other Community actions
on innovation or in respect of national programmes —
must first and foremost involve the presentation of
proposals concerned with instruments and means.

3.2.
In addition to the search for coherence, any
future proposals will have to ensure the effective
integration of objectives with actions, more especially
in: the promotion of competitiveness; the integration
of economic and social cohesion with job-creating
objectives; consideration of the strategic role of SMEs
and of their specific needs; the systematic search for
complementarity and synergies between networks and
between different types of enterprises: hiving-off ten-
dencies of big firms, new relations between big firms
and SMEs, concept of clusters. The success of this
integration strategy is contingent upon the establishment
of a framework that encourages a large number of
interactions between all the actors concerned, viz.:
industrialists, professional organizations, chambers of
commerce, industry and trade, universities, research
centres, regions, educational and training establish-
ments, companies specializing in the funding of inno-
vations.

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 38 and OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 133.

3.3.
After having analysed the problem and verified
the state of play at both national and Community level,
we need to draw up a number of proposals aimed at
achieving these goals of coherence and integration.
Priorities would include:

3.3.1. Widening the circle of users of the information
network(s) about Community RTD, the prime target
being ‘vanguard’ enterprises which should be involved
in the programmes but whose potential is ill-defined
and not easy to bring up to date.

Redefining the function of exploiting RTD
3.3.2.
results, especially in relation to SMEs, regarding it as a
continuous and complex process of transferring exper-
tise and know-how — something to be achieved first
and foremost through the use of training and advisory
services.

3.3.3.
Establishing a suitable framework for breaking
down the barriers between existing innovation-support
networks in order to give them a truly European
dimension.

3.3.4.
Taking on board the innovations of the Fifth
Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development, viz.:

3.3.4.1.
The Fifth Framework Programme is highly
ambitious in its thematic approach and is innovative in
combining the new concept of ‘key actions’ with the
traditional idea of specific programmes. It enumerates
a wide variety of methods for implementing plans and
within the 21 lines of the paragraph promoting the
participation of SMEs under the Third Activity (‘Action
specific to the innovation and participation of SMEs’
activity’) no less than eleven proposed strategies can be
identified. Unless further information is forthcoming,
there is therefore a danger that the least well prepared
categories of enterprises, notably the vanguard enter-
prises, will back off or show no interest in the strategies.

3.3.4.2.
In the view of the Committee, another major
innovation of the Fifth Framework Programme lies in
the obligation on all promoters of action to draw up a
‘technological implementation plan’. The Committee is
happy with this measure if it makes it possible to
effectively use such plans as flexible follow-up mecha-
nisms with a view to measuring the impact of the work
carried out and, as a corollary, to facilitate economic
exploitation and the acquisition of development funds.
With this in mind, the role of networks for exploiting
RTD may be of vital importance in providing back-up
for the effective implementation of such plans.

4. Theoretical proposals

Enterprises, and particularly vanguard SMEs,
4.1.
have specific needs in terms of back-up, technical
support and specialized services, viz.:

4.1.1.
Information — back-up training — both in
connection with RTD programmes and technologies
(products, markets).

14.9.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 284/23

4.1.2.
of innovations, including intellectual property rights.

Advice about the technical and legal feasibility

4.1.3.
Development of innovative technological pro-
jects: identifying possibilities, technological and eco-
nomic feasibility, evaluation and licensing of projects,
scientific and technical cooperation.

4.1.4.
projects.

Study, setting up and development of European

Back-up and follow-through of technological
4.1.5.
applications: training, evaluation, introduction of proto-
types, advice on utilization by third parties, etc.

4.1.6.
Economic and commercial back-up and exploi-
tation: research surveys, commercial launch, marketing,
development for European market, financial manage-
ment of projects.

All these activities concerned with back-up,
4.2.
support, advice and follow-through should be resolutely
pro-active and should encourage a spirit of enterprise
where risks are minimized and opportunities maximized.

5. Operational proposals

The Committee believes that if the challenges of
5.1.
the new Fifth Framework Programme (key actions,
technological development plans) are to be met,
if
instruments are to be coherent, and if objectives are to
be integrated with policies, then the Commission must
put in place an overall, consistent and integrated strategy
that guarantees complementarity and synergy between
activities concerned with information/back-up and
mechanism for exploiting RTD.

In the view of the Committee this strategy should

5.2.
be based on the following:

— the need to promote and remove barriers between

specialized support services;

— the need to set up initial guidance units;

— the need to develop Community instruments to
ensure that this strategy of consistency and inte-
gration gets off the ground;

— the need to guarantee consistency beyond the bounds

of the European Union.

6. Promoting and removing the barriers between spe-

cialized support services

6.1.
The aim would be to develop the principle of
‘mediation’, which would mean internal or external
(public or private) back-up services being used to
offer advice and support to enterprises and research
organizations in respect of the transfer of technologies,

inter-firm relations, the hiving-off activities of major
firms, strategic link-ups, strategies on the ‘clustering’ of
firms, relations between firms, universities and research
centres.

Ways must be found of stimulating the activities of these
services by combining Community aid with regional/
national aid, as well as public funds with private support.
The European Union can make a vital contribution in
this area, notably by taking the following action:

compiling a record of best local and regional
6.1.1.
practices (both in Europe and elsewhere) and using this
as a platform to introduce ‘benchmarking’ pilot schemes;

6.1.2. making back-up organizations (trade associ-
ations, chambers, technical centres) eligible (alongside
enterprises) for indirect RTD activities under the Fifth
Framework Programme, giving them the specific tasks
of a) identifying the innovative potential of small and
medium-sized enterprises and craft-based firms and b)
running collective schemes concerned for example with
participation in RTD activities and trial schemes on the
transfer and tailoring of new technologies to a given
sector;

6.1.3.
supporting regional innovation strategies (RIS)
by ensuring that they are perfectly consistent with the
new objectives of the Fifth Framework Programme, and
strengthening the implementation of such strategies in
the least developed countries and regions, through
Structural Funds, and in applicant countries, through
partnership schemes focused on eventual accession; such
regional innovation strategies must nevertheless have a
cross-border as well as a national dimension;

6.1.4.
giving an additional stimulus to inter-firm
link-up strategies by integrating existing mechanisms
(BC-NET, Interprise ....) with key thematic actions of
the Fifth Framework Programme, and possibly using
the ‘Joint European Ventures’ financial instrument to
support joint ventures;

6.1.5.
offering more vigorous support for contractual
relations between universities, research institutes, train-
ing centres and firms in order to develop, through
partnerships set up to share knowledge, a culture of
innovation, link-ups and the transfer of know-how;

6.1.6.
strengthening, and removing barriers between,
sectoral or horizontal technology monitoring mecha-
nisms which today are insufficiently developed and too
centred on the Member States themselves, the aim being
to ensure that European enterprises have access to a
coherent economic intelligence mechanism capable of
rapidly detecting adaptable technologies at the lowest
cost.

6.2.
The European Union must therefore ensure that
its own networks (Innovation Relay Centres, Craft
Contact points ...) are part and parcel of this ‘mediation’

C 284/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.98

mechanism. Community networks must be set up
within existing organizations and must be known and
recognized by potential users. Their function is to offer
a complementary service and they must focus on clear
objectives to avoid duplication and dilution. Above all,
the Union must support the principle of ‘mediation’
networks and ensure that their compartmentalization is
broken down with financial help from the 5th RTDFP,
without such networks being linked exclusively to
Community programmes.

7. The establishment of guidance units

An initial survey of current national and Com-
7.1.
munity measures to promote information and RTD
exploitation shows that there is already a very rich and
deep vein of initiatives, networks and programmes
involving a wide spectrum of players. A large number
of public bodies, associations, consultancies and enter-
prises specializing in RTD exploitation are active in the
different areas covered by these specialized services. But
if activities are pursued in watertight compartments,
this rich diversity can very quickly develop into an
overabundance and end up by creating considerable
confusion and inefficiencies. So rather than superim-
posing new networks on existing ones, the Committee
proposes to explore the possibility of improving syner-
gies between existing mechanisms.

7.2.
The Committee therefore considers that if the
specialized services which enterprises require are to be
encouraged, top priority should be given to removing
barriers between the different networks. It is not a
question of creating new structures which would provide
the whole range of services but of supporting existing
local organizations in their new task of offering guidance,
identifying problems and supporting specialized services
in order to organize resources and coordinate the
provision of services to SMEs. Such organizations would
therefore be both ‘first-stop shops’ and guidance units.
Whilst having a light profile, these units should neverthe-
less be firmly established within representative orga-
nizations or at least organizations recognized by indus-
try. Ideally, they should not be completely dependent
on the State, nor be subject to mere commercial interests,
but should come under the umbrella of non-profit
making associations or similar institutions governed by
private law, professional associations, or chambers of
commerce, industry or the small business sector. In the
interests of efficiency, such units must reflect local
realities and could be organized on either a local or
sectoral basis.

7.4.
(EIC),
The network of Euro-Info-Centres
strengthened recently by associated EIC and head-of-
network EIC, fits in well with this concept of initial
guidance units. The Committee therefore recommends
that Euro-Info-Centres be allotted the tasks of initial
guidance units.

8. The need to provide the Community with instru-
ments to implement this strategy of coherence and
integration

The essence of these proposals is the desire for
8.1.
coherent actions and integrated objectives. The present
situation cannot be regarded as satisfactory. The Com-
mittee refuses to make proposals which would be
tantamount to superimposing structures or creating new
networks. The Committee considers that problems of
coordination and coherence must be tackled at a political
level. This would entail:

The publication by the Commission of a
8.1.1.
Communication on RTD information and exploitation
networks, with a prioritization scheme, a description of
complementary features, and a mention of the resources
available for guaranteeing coherence. The European
Commission must assume its responsibilities and work
on improving synergies.

The organization of a Users’ Group, for net-
8.1.2.
types of users (enterprises,
works, comprising all
intermediate agencies,
research centres, universities,
professional associations, chambers of commerce, indus-
try and trades) and with the task of monitoring the
objectives of coherence and integration and ensuring
that the mechanisms of information and RTD exploi-
tation are available to a wider audience. This Group
could be organized in conjunction with the ESC and its
Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research
within the framework of its role of monitoring and
evaluating.

8.2.
The role of the European Union would also be
to organize a ‘standing conference of networks’ (in the
form of a ‘virtual conference’ with the help of modern
communication technologies. The conference would be
responsible for organizing the interfaces between the
different ‘mediation’ networks belonging to, or sup-
ported by, the Union, the innovation units of the
different thematic programmes of the 5th RTDFP, the
initial guidance network (EIC) and the other European
and national mechanisms for the provision of infor-
mation and RTD exploitation, including Eureka actions,
OECD networks, etc.

9. Guaranteeing consistency beyond the bounds of the

European Union

It is nevertheless vital for the units to satisfy a
7.3.
certain number of criteria such as the capacity to
mobilize local expertise, the ability to open up lines of
communication with the different parties involved in
research, familiarity with the various programmes of
public support for research, links with universities and
private laboratories, etc.

In preparing for future enlargement the European
9.1.
Union and its Member States should be invited forthwith
to expand this overall strategy to applicant countries as
part of the pre-accession strategy. As far as the other
countries of central and eastern Europe, the countries
the former USSR and non-EU Mediterranean
of
countries are concerned, enterprise partnership pro-

14.9.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 284/25

grammes and industrial cooperation centres should be
set up to stimulate the exchange of technological
know-how and promote technological agreements
(licences, transfer of patents ...), between enterprises.
The Committee recommends that the resources of Phare,
Tacis and MEDA be mobilized to this end.

9.2. Notwithstanding the priority given to the appli-
cant countries, our other neighbours and the Euro-
Mediterranean Area, it is desirable for the European
Union to join forces with our main developed partners
in promoting the opening up of networks for the
promotion, exploitation and provision of information

on RTD on the basis of the principles of reciprocity and
mutual interest.

Schemes could be launched with the developing
9.3.
countries, and more especially our partners under the
Lomé Convention, to create favourable conditions for
the dissemination of technologies geared to the needs
of their economies and particularly SMEs and local
craft-based industries. In its opinion on the Green Paper
on the future of the Lomé Convention (1), the Committee
had proposed horizontal instruments for cooperation
and the dissemination of technological
innovations
under the new European Development Fund.

(1) OJ C 296, 29.9.1997, p. 65.

Brussels, 1 July 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Costs of poverty and social exclusion
in Europe’

(98/C 284/07)

On 11 July 1996, the Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion, in
accordance with Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, on the ‘Costs of poverty and social
exclusion in Europe’.

The Section for Social, Family, Education and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 June 1998 (the
rapporteur was Mr Burnel).

At its 356th plenary session held on 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 1 July), the Economic and
Social Committee (ESC) adopted the following opinion by 130 votes to six, with 14 abstentions.

I. THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
CALLS ATTENTION TO THE SEVERITY OF THE
SITUATION

— Interim programme to combat poverty (3).

— Specific action to combat poverty (4).

1.
The ESC has always paid considerable attention
to inequality and injustice; it has therefore always been
concerned about poverty and its extreme manifestation,
namely social exclusion. The following opinions and
reports issued by the ESC serve to demonstrate its
concern for this issue:

— Programme of pilot schemes and studies to combat

poverty (1).

— Modifications to the programme of pilot studies to

combat poverty (2).

(2) OJ C 263, 17.11.1975.
(3) OJ C 180, 28.7.1977.

— Amendment to the decision on a specific Community

action to combat poverty (5).

— Information Report on poverty (March 1989) (not

published in the Official Journal).

— The economic and social integration of the least-

privileged groups (6).

(4) OJ C 113, 7.5.1980.
(5) OJ C 25, 28.1.1985.
(6) OJ C 263, 20.10.1986.
(7) OJ C 159, 26.6.1989.