Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development and innovation'
Date: 1999-03-11
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, innovation, research policy, technological change

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/41

52.
The requirement that heavy metals, dioxins and furans
in exhaust gases must be measured at least twice a year (see
Article 11) seems undemanding compared with the strict
requirements governing measurement of waste water. Given
the wide differences in waste incineration operating conditions,
the COR feels that the measurement requirements for exhaust
air and waste water should be clarified further by an expert
group.

Lastly, the COR would highlight the positive aspects of
53.
the Commission’s proposal and would point out
that a
generally applicable directive on the incineration of hazardous
and non-hazardous waste should be adopted as quickly as
possible. It would point out that the draft directive’s more
stringent environmental requirements imply higher financial
costs for local and regional authorities, insofar as they bear
responsibility for both setting up and operating incineration
plants, as well as monitoring the environmental impact of
such plants.

Brussels, 10 March 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions — Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological
development and innovation’

(1999/C 198/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to ‘Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development
and innovation’ (COM(1998) 275 final);

having regard to the Commission decision of 8 June 1998 to consult the Committee of the Regions on
the matter;

having regard to the COR Bureau decisions of 15 July 1998 and 18 November 1998, in accordance with
Article 198c(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to instruct Commission 5 — Social
Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism — to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the 1998 Annual Report: Research and technological development activities of the
European Union (COM(1998) 439 final);

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programmes implementing
the fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technical development and
demonstration activities (1998-2002) (COM(1998) 305 final);

having regard to the COR Opinion on the First action plan for innovation in Europe — Innovation for
growth and employment (CdR 68/97 fin) (1);

(1) OJ C 244, 11.8.1997, p. 9.

C 198/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.1999

having regard to the COR Opinion on the First Cohesion Report (CdR 76/97 fin);

having regard to the COR Opinion on the 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) (CdR 158/97 fin) (1);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 278/98 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 5 on 9 November 1998
[rapporteurs: Ms Olander, Ms Morichaud (COM 6) and Mr Tindemans (COM 1)],

adopted the following opinion at its 28th plenary session on 10 and 11 March 1999 (meeting of
11 March).

1. Background

1.1.
This Communication reflects the Commission’s wish
to boost competitiveness in the least-favoured regions by
making it easier for business to apply R&D and innovation. If
the goal of stimulating firms to make a greater commitment
to R&D and innovation is to be realized, an in-depth appraisal
must be made of the difficulties they encounter when they
seek to do so.

1.2.
Since most jobs are created in small and medium-sized
firms, efforts must therefore focus on enabling them, at a local
and regional
to assimilate existing technology and
incorporate innovations.

level,

1.3. Measures to foster an innovation culture encompass,
among other things, the creation of networks to facilitate
contacts between SMEs and the relevant RTD environment.
The COR endorses the Commission’s starting point
that
‘knowledge policies’ should be adjusted to the economic
development of the regions concerned and at the same time
be integrated into a broader European perspective via national
RTD systems (in line with Article 130h of the EU Treaty).

1.6.
Since RTD and innovation potential are heavily con-
centrated on the prosperous regions, these will benefit most
from the EU’s RTD and innovation policy. That can generate
higher economic growth in regions which are already thriving
while there is a risk that the LFRs’ economic and technical
development may fall even further behind. The Commission’s
Communication is a challenge which seeks to alter this pattern
to the LFRs’ advantage.

1.7.
The COR therefore welcomes the Commission’s pro-
posal to bring together cohesion, competitiveness and RTD
and innovation in a single, coherent framework to underpin
the framing of guidelines for the EU Structural Funds and to
provide a point of reference when evaluating how RTD and
innovation activities can be integrated into the Structural
Funds.

1.8.
The COR appreciates the Commission’s intention of
encouraging a high level of participation in the work of putting
forward proposals for Structural Fund guidelines for the period
2000-2006. RTD and innovation activities are to contribute
towards solving existing social problems. The guidelines for
the new Structural Fund programmes should be shaped so that
the programmes give greater support than at present to
both local and regional social needs and Community policy.
Ongoing dialogue between the Commission and the COR is a
vital factor in realizing the opportunities which will be offered
by future Structural Fund programmes.

The COR Opinion on the first Cohesion Report (2)
1.4.
called for closer coordination between Structural Policy and
other areas of policy embracing the entire Community so that
integrated action can be taken to frame coordinated measures
to assist the LFRs.

2. General comments

1.5.
The purpose of cohesion policy is to alleviate discrep-
ancies in development levels between regions and to promote
development in the LFRs and rural areas. The most important
financial instruments deployed for this purpose are the Struc-
tural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and, increasingly, the EIB.

(1) OJ C 379, 15.12.1997, p. 26.
(2) CdR 76/97 fin — OJ C 379, 15.12.1997, p. 34.

The COR endorses the thrust of the Commission
2.1.
proposal viz. that there should be a shift in cohesion policy so
as to boost economic activity in LFRs.

The COR would highlight the interaction between RTD
2.2.
and innovation at local and regional
level and point out
already at this stage that the positions of greatest relevance to
the municipalities and regions are those which relate to the
details of new Structural Fund programmes and to the changes
to be made in them.

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/43

2.3.
All studies show that RTD and innovation are vital to
meet international competition in an increasingly competitive
world. Concurrently relations between research circles and
small and medium-sized firms and industries are extremely
complex; attempts must be made to simplify such contacts in
order to achieve significant results through the introduction of
help systems. In particular it is necessary to enhance the quality
of both the product and the production process, and one way
of doing this is to integrate Community programmes and
national initiatives, giving priority to establishments in less-
favoured areas.

2.4.
Stepping up the regional dimension of research policy
is consistent with EU policy efficiency criteria, whilst the
increased emphasis on the competitiveness of LFRs respects
EU policy fairness principles. Nevertheless, the Commission
communication gives the impression that the aim of the
proposed strategic frameworks to promote cohesion and
competitiveness through RTD and innovation is to streamline
Structural Funds regional programmes rather than to promote
regional RTD and innovation as such. Moreover, it is still
unclear whether opportunities exist to improve LFR access to
fifth framework programme RTD funds.

2.7.
Despite the fact that firms are the main target group
for intervention, RTD and innovation are just as important in
such areas as environment, health,
infrastructure, energy
and spatial planning. European, national and regional/local
programmes must therefore be coordinated in line with the
EU’s subsidiarity principles. Regional and local authorities are
the decisionmaking authorities closest to economic players
and the ordinary citizen. RTD and innovation also usually
come within the scope of these authorities’ decisionmaking
powers. Innovation processes are multifunctional in emphasis
and therefore interlinked with all areas of policy in which
regional and local authorities are authorized to take decisions
(education, vocational training, environment, spatial planning,
local development activities and support for small businesses).

The COR observes that EU RTD programme inter-
2.8.
vention has been effective in promoting cooperation between,
for instance, regions in the Nordic countries and regions in
Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece. In 1997 Objective 1
regions participated in 47 % of the projects funded under the
fourth framework programme. Again in 1997, 13 463 part-
nerships (out of a total 56 478) were established between
regions in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece and regions in
other Member States.

Earlier framework programme participation procedures were
so complicated and time-consuming that they scared LFR
players away from RTD and innovation, rather than improving
access. Whether their applications were granted or not was
often a matter of luck. The same applies to partnership projects
with CEEC regions. The new Community programmes must
improve on this state of affairs.

2.9.
The COR considers that RTD and innovation must be
integrated into the regions’ productive fabric and agrees with
the Commission’s conclusion (point 13) that regions which
are less adept at attracting high added value activities can
gain particularly by synchronizing their RTD and innovation
strategies with their economic plans.

2.5.
The COR would stress that several of the analyses
made and conclusions drawn also have implications for
regions which are admittedly not ‘growth regions’ but do not
qualify for the LFR category in the strict sense of the term.
Future development in Europe could well create a ‘two tier’
Europe, with a handful of strong growth regions, spread
throughout the continent and normally concentrated around
large conurbations, and the rest of Europe. This split is already
clearly noticeable in several highly developed Member States.

2.6.
RTD and innovation provide the foundation on which
industrial competitiveness can be built. Small and medium-
sized firms and industry can lead the way in several ways:

— modernising production

2.10.
The COR would also stress that efforts to integrate
RTD and innovation aid into the regions’ productive fabric
should not be seen purely in terms of ‘technical’ implemen-
tation. It is a question of implementing rather than disseminat-
ing knowhow and technology. In particular, it is important at
regional level to influence local and regional mentalities and
attitudes which, in the regions concerned, can often be highly
resistant to new ideas and change. When the climate is hostile
to change, forceful intervention may not achieve the intended
results.

Further,

local and regional authorities in LFRs,

in
2.11.
tandem with practical business promotion measures, should
take incisive action to modernize the region’s infrastructure
— not just in the narrow sense (i.e. road,
IT and other
communications) but also in terms of building up ‘cultural’
infrastructure to provide the ‘lifestyle’ that a well-educated and
relatively young workforce expects of the region.

— adapting to new demands, e.g. pressures for environmen-

tally-friendly production

— technological improvements to protect market share, etc.

The COR would highlight the opportunities for active
2.12.
and purposeful
involvement of Europe’s research parks in
Community RTD and Structural Fund programmes. Compared
with the United States and Japan, Europe still does not seem
to take sufficient interest in its research parks despite the fact
that these have grown in number by over 30 % during the past
three to four years.

C 198/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.1999

2.13.
Japanese
International cooperation with US or
research parks can be highly profitable. The setting-up of
multinational consortia [or European economic interest group-
ings (EEIGs)] has been helpful in giving small- and medium-
sized firms greater access to the EU’s RTD and innovation
programmes.

both parties; what is offered must be tailored to the needs of
SMEs, and should include an awareness campaign. There is no
point helping small and medium-sized firms if we ignore what
is going on in laboratories or research parks etc. The reverse is
also true.

The Communication’s objectives

3. Specific comments

3.1.
Since coordination policy is of a structural nature, it is
by definition a long-term policy. All regions now have access
to a European database to disseminate knowhow about the
best ways of coordinating RTD and innovation with regional
industry.

3.2.
The COR applauds the Commission’s drive to boost
the LFRs’ competitive capacity, integrate RTD and innovation
into the regions’ productive fabric and show that the different
Community instruments can contribute to cohesion and
competitiveness, provided that they are mutually complemen-
tary. The COR also agrees with the Commission’s emphasis on
the many benefits that the new candidate countries can derive
from local and regional experiences of EU support for RTD
and innovation in LFRs.

The fact that the fifth framework programme covers
3.3.
1998-2002 whilst the new structural policy covers 2000-2006
could be a disadvantage, despite the fact that, under the
Structural Funds general regulations, plans can be revised
during the programme period. Moreover,
the regulations
require a formal assessment at the half-way mark. However,
this should not be seen as giving carte blanche to amend the
guidelines needed for RTD and innovation, or the regulations
for revising the plans.

3.4.
The Commission claims that the opportunities under
the current Objective 4 and Adapt are included under the new
Objective 3. It should therefore be pointed out that, under the
current proposals, Objective 3 will not apply in Objective 1 or
Objective 2 regions. The Commission proposes that the new
Objective 3 should only be applicable in the regions covered
by the transitional regulations, outside the regions where
Objective 1 and Objective 2 are applicable. The regional
authorities in the latter two groups of regions will thus find it
difficult to coordinate national Objective 3 plans and the
regional needs for a regional RTD and innovation strategy.

4. Taking stock of past and present initiatives

4.1. The Structural Funds — past and present activities

4.1.2.
There are many signs that the IT gap between north
and south is widening. Small firms must participate more
actively in RTD and innovation; the authorities can help, for
instance, by encouraging electronic commerce. The COR
would stress the importance of framing specific projects so as
to give SMEs an opportunity to take part. The more expensive
and ambitious the project, the more difficult it is for small
businesses to participate because of practical obstacles and the
necessary financial arrangements.

4.1.3.
Any measures the Commission decides to take must,
first and foremost, address the need for easier access to
clear information, centralized at regional level, available in a
catalogue which meets the requirements of users in SMEs and
industries. The catalogue should also list the organizations
which serve as a go-between for RTD and SMEs; funding
options; existing networks which companies can sign up to;
research training options and opportunities for researchers to
find a placement with a company. Many areas and regions
have experience of the growth opportunities generated by RIS
and RITTS projects. The network of RIS and RITTS regions
has a wealth of experience which can be harnessed in LFRs to
encourage SME participation in EU programmes.

4.1.4.
During the first phase of Structural Fund action, the
EU confined aid to investment in RTD centres and projects.
During the second phase the EU stepped up its support for
dissemination of technology and other innovation measures,
and for centres which could potentially serve as a network for
contacts between universities/institutes of
technology and
industry, with a view to putting industrial firms in touch with
the latter’s RTD resources. In the third phase of the EU’s
RTD and innovation policy for Structural Fund intervention
(2000-2006), the aim is to extend the RTD-innovation link to
areas such as funding mechanisms, human resource training
and high tech firms.

The Commission shows that, in the least developed
4.1.1.
regions of
the richest Member States, RTD systems are
more demand-oriented than in the poorest Member States. If
research is to bear fruit, there must be joint input from both
the firm and the research worker, with measures targeting

4.1.5.
The Committee of the Regions would therefore stress
that small businesses cannot be treated as structurally distinct
from the large firms which often contract out to them. There
is thus every reason to involve large firms in projects to
facilitate and support the implementation of new technology
in SMEs.

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/45

4.2. The Community framework programme for RTD

4.2.1.
In its review of the fourth EU RTD framework
programme, the Commission shows that Spain and Greece
have made substantial advances in IT, biomedicine and health
but that progress remains to be made in industrial and material
technologies and biotechnology. The components of
the
fourth framework programme which have proved most helpful
to LFRs have been demand-oriented CRAFT technology stimu-
lation measures for SMEs. Other effective measures include the
training and mobility of researchers, promotion of innovation,
dissemination of
and networking of
researchers.

research results

4.2.2.
The COR is also pleased to note that the Commission
has opted to develop the fifth framework programme in
consultation with the COR, among others. This dialogue has
shown that the challenges and opportunities which underpin
the framework programme are the same at local and regional
level. The interaction between large and small towns and rural
areas and the prerequisites for SMEs to be able to exploit
research results are two major aspects which should be
explored. The COR welcomes the setting up of the Seville IPTS,
whose main task will be to develop prospective technological
studies and carry out research into the interaction between
technology, employment and competitiveness.

4.2.3.
In 1997 Community research policy underwent
far-reaching changes since the Amsterdam Treaty altered the
legal base for research and Agenda 2000 reinforced the key
role now played by research,
innovation, education and
vocational training in the EU. Progress in implementing the
EU Innovation Action Plan has mobilized local and regional
players in a drive to boost the climate for entrepreneurship
and innovation in Europe. The December 1997 report on RTD
indicators also provided data and comparative analyses of EU
and Member States’ research in an overall perspective, as a
basis for ranking local and regional RTD and innovation
priorities.

such examples bear out the importance of encouraging local
and regional groups which develop complementary activities
within major RTD and innovation clusters with a view to
stimulating local and regional players and exploring ways of
integrating RTD and innovation support into their region’s
productive fabric.

6.

Integrating RTD and innovation into regional econ-
omic development

6.1. RTD and innovation — a shared responsibility

6.1.1.
The COR agrees with the Commission’s analysis that
local and regional bodies must integrate RTD and innovation
into their region’s development strategy so as to alleviate the
increasing gaps between the EU regions. The Green Paper on
innovation and accompanying action plan and the European
Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) are of considerable
relevance for the guidelines on RTD and innovation structural
aid. The integration of various policy areas forms part of
Structural Fund strategy. Different policy areas also need to be
coordinated at local and regional level.

The ESDP document

6.1.2.
(June 1997) proposes that
structural aid be allocated (a) to improve access to IT experts
and increase awareness of the challenges and potential benefits
that the information society can bring to regions which still
lag behind in this respect, (b) to build up technology centres,
strengthen contacts between higher education, applied RTD,
innovation centres and business in less developed regions, (c)
to achieve a minimum level of access to higher education
and research and innovation centres in remote or sparsely
populated areas, and lastly (d) to raise schooling and vocational
training standards as part of an integrated development
strategy in regions where such standards are low.

6.1.3.
Negotiations on the new Structural Funds are now
proceeding at a fast pace. Hence the COR would stress the
need to involve areas and regions closely in integrating RTD
and innovation activities into the Structural Funds’ intervention
for the period 2000-2006.

5. Developing competitiveness and cohesion at national

and regional levels

7. Three priorities

5.1.
The COR welcomes the Commission’s finding that
Objective 2 regions have been able to exploit the economic
advantages of large cities and that rural and coastal areas have
profited from other assets in which environmental technology
and tourism have played a major part. In LFRs, research parks
focusing on the strong expansion of a number of IT and
biotechnology firms have boosted local and regional develop-
ment by making commercial use of research carried out by
universities and RTD-based firms. The COR considers that

7.1. Promoting innovation

7.1.1.
The COR agrees that cohesion policy should shift
towards narrowing the technology and IT gap between the EU
regions, that EU intervention should focus on demand for new
technologies and IT solutions through various information
programmes, and that development of total quality manage-
ment at local and regional level should be prioritized. Cooper-

C 198/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.1999

ation between research institutes and SMEs should be encour-
aged and efforts made to achieve more effective coordination
of aid channelled to firms for purposes of starting up
new businesses, consolidating and developing businesses and
expanding key firms in RTD clusters which the region
prioritizes. The use of IT methods for the benefit of local
community groups (e.g. information of the general public,
educational purposes, electronic commerce) should be pro-
moted. The COR would point out that almost 8 000 SMEs will
have participated in the fourth framework programme for
research, technical development and demonstration activities
by the end of its lifespan, in 1998. Over 60 % of these firms
have never previously taken part in either Community or their
own Member State’s RTD programmes at national, regional or
local level.

7.2.

Improving networking and industrial cooperation

7.2.1.
The COR would point to the Swedish legislation
governing universities, which indicates cooperation with busi-
ness as a university’s ‘third task’. Such partnership between
universities and regional groups of firms in research parks
plays a highly important role in a region’s productive fabric.
These research parks bring researchers, entrepreneurs, finan-
ciers and consultants into close quarters on a day to day basis,
which is a major prerequisite for creating new jobs in
the main
technology- and research-based firms. One of
functions of RTD and innovation activities during the lifespan
of the new Structural Funds should be to disseminate best
practice in such research park cooperation.

7.2.2.
As a result of the Amsterdam and Luxembourg
European Councils’ strong support for funding of innovation
activities, EIB, EIF and Community resources have been made
available for high tech innovation enterprises in 1998-1999.
The COR would stress that this is an essential complement to
the intervention provided for in the fourth RTD framework
programme. In the COR’s view, regional and local authorities
promote socio-economic cohesion by supporting the dissemi-
nation of knowhow or RTD and innovation results in the
policy spheres for which they have decisionmaking powers
(education, vocational training, environment, spatial planning,
local development work and SME aid). The Structural Funds
should encourage the establishment of
inter-regional and
cross-border channels of communication between RTD and
business so as to exchange information and disseminate
knowhow in these fields (cf. the ‘key measures’ in the fifth
RTD framework programme). The ‘Innovation Relay Centres’
network also needs to cover a sufficiently wide geographical
area to ensure that these centres’ activities have a more effective
impact on SMEs. Community networks such as technology
agencies, Euro-info centres, and Business and Innovation
Centres (BIC) can also provide support for small business in
LFRs.

7.3. Strengthening human resources potential

The COR would draw attention to the need to
7.3.1.
provide opportunities for students, research students and
established researchers to carry out coursework and trainee-
ships in SMEs. Here Community initiative structural support
to promote exchanges between RTD and universities in
developed regions and LFRs could contribute. The EC Joint
Research Centre (JRC) should be able to help in providing
resources for such activities with the help of direct measures
to assist SMEs in LFRs. Multinational consortia (EEIGs) provide
a framework within which SMEs can carry out research and
invest in refresher training and skills development.

7.3.2.
During the lifespan of the fourth framework pro-
gramme, some 6 500 researchers have received financial assist-
ance to pursue their research and a further 5 600 or so,
through the Marie Curie fellowship scheme, have had access
to Community RTD facilities with funding from the framework
programme. In the COR’s view, it is most important for the
new Structural Fund programmes to make such facilities
available to firms, research students and researchers in LFRs,
thereby helping to promote IT development and more effective
integration of vocational colleges and research parks into the
innovation process in the RTD clusters of greatest priority for
each region.

8. The Commission’s conclusions

in particular,

8.1.
The COR endorses the four aims stated in Point 25 of
it would
the Commission’s Communication;
stress the subsidiarity principle, viz. that it is important, since
the majority of the proposed activities are to be implemented
in the municipalities and regions, to provide these authorities
with the time and opportunities they need in order to
participate in framing new Structural Fund programmes for
their respective regions before the start of the next program-
ming period, on 1 January 2000.

8.2.
In the COR’s view, international cooperation between
research parks should be eligible for Structural Fund support.
Facilities in the context of CORDIS for setting up regional web
sites on RTD clusters of research parks, universities and firms
should also be reinforced and expanded. CORDIS should also
indicate established networks for distance learning at university
and researcher training level. However, it must be realized that
distance learning will
in future mainly take place on-line;
computers will ensure direct contact between the course
organizer and the ‘end-user’ at times convenient to the user.
Course organizers can be anywhere in the world without
diminishing interactivity.

9. Conclusions of the Committee of the Regions

9.1.
the Commission intends to consult

The Committee of the Regions is happy to note that
it when drawing up

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/47

for

guidelines
reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness
through RTD and innovation in the new Structural Fund
programmes for 2000-2006. This dialogue shows that the
challenges and opportunities behind the creation of a common
coordinated framework for cohesion, competitiveness, RTD
and innovation are the same as those found at local and
regional level.

9.2.
The COR has studied carefully the widening technology
and IT gap between the EU regions and agrees with the
Commission’s conclusion on the need to boost the capacity of
the authorities and economic players to develop strategic
frameworks for integrating RTD and innovation into economic
activity. Research has shown consistently that in an ever-more
competitive world, RTD and innovation are essential to keep
abreast of
international competition. The COR therefore
welcomes the thrust of the Commission’s proposal, namely
that a shift in cohesion policy is required.

9.3.
The Committee of the Regions endorses a real strength-
ening of the regional dimension of RTD and innovation policy
as such. To optimize the RTD and innovation learning process
for regional players, the COR considers that advantage should
be taken of the opportunities for involving Europe’s research
parks in the Community’s RTD and Structural Fund pro-
grammes. These research parks should also receive encourage-
ment to cooperate with the United States and Japan. In many
countries too little contact between state-financed research
institutes and university education, combined with a lack of
cooperation with entrepreneurs, produces a bottleneck which
closer liaison between research parks can help to remove.
Relations between research circles and SMEs are extremely
complex, and must be simplified if significant results are to be
achieved via the introduction of aid systems.

In the light of its keen commitment to IT development
9.4.
and lifelong learning, e.g. in the context of the EU’s Green
Paper on organization of work and the Member States’ national
employment plans, the COR wishes to highlight the need for
intervention to help firms and institutions to
structural
overcome the difficulties that arise when adjusting to new
types of working structures.

Brussels, 11 March 1999.

9.5.
The COR would stress the need to frame guidelines for
the promotion of innovative vocational training programmes
for SMEs and institutions; the task of assessing innovation
processes and bringing them to the attention of the public
must,
in its view, be linked with regional education and
vocational training programmes.

To narrow the technology and IT gap between
9.6.
developed regions and LFRs, RTD and innovation policy must
be integrated into the regions’ most important RTD clusters
and production structures. The COR therefore feels that the
guidelines for integration of RTD and innovation in future
structural programmes should be framed so as to achieve
a consolidated ‘bottom-up method’ which pays particular
attention to SME requirements in the production structures of
a number of sectors. The scope for interaction between
Structural Fund instruments and the fifth RTD framework
programme’s key measures should be clarified in the guidelines
and the scope for including local/regional representatives on
the groups which are to manage the key measures should be
explored.

Some EU regions are making considerable efforts to develop
extremely useful, effective systems easing access to RTD and
innovation information for the various players concerned
(researchers, businesses,
local authorities, etc.). The COR
believes that these efforts should be rewarded by the Com-
munity institutions, and that support measures should be
introduced in those regions taking such action and producing
tangible and effective results.

The Committee of

the Regions would like to be
9.7.
involved in framing the guidelines for the inclusion of RTD
and innovation in cohesion policy and the new Structural
Funds’ programmes. The COR feels that arrangements must be
made at local and regional level to give researchers and firms
their
the opportunity to gain a better understanding of
common interests and common ground. Instruments must
also be introduced to enable firms to harness the fruits of
research to their needs. This is the key to a form of
development which will make it possible to step up cohesion
across the EU’s regions and boost the EU’s competitiveness
worldwide.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER