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 — Making a reality of The European Research Area: Guidelines for EU research activities (2002-2006)"
Date: 2001-06-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European Union, cooperation policy, exchange of information, research policy, technological change

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/15

21.
considers, however, that even in the information society
regulatory mechanisms will need to be brought into effect with
the participation of the social partners, in order to ensure that
account is taken of collective agreements on minimum wages,
holiday entitlement, sick pay etc. when creating new jobs;

22.
also believes that, in order to tap the undoubted employ-
ment potential of the transition to the information society, job-
creating product innovations and the purchasing power-based
demand which is essential for the mass consumption of new
goods and services should be specifically promoted;

23.
supports the establishment of networks of IT compani-
es for the analysis of needs, exchange of experience and

cooperation on recruiting and training skilled workers. In this
context the establishment of industry associations for initial
and further training should be initiated or mediated, and
support for these provided via coordination or guidance bodies
involving providers of training services. Suitable guidance
bodies could be set up, e.g.
in collaboration with local
structural and economic support organisations and associ-
ations. This is the way to persuade more IT firms to provide
training places;

24.
recommends examination of ways in which support
can be provided to the central and eastern European applicant
states,
in order to help them develop socially acceptable
strategies for jobs in the information society.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

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 — Making a reality of The European Research Area: Guidelines for EU research activities
(2002-2006)’

(2001/C 357/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Making a reality of The European Research
Area: Guidelines for EU Research Activities (2002-2006) (COM(2000) 612 final);

having regard to the Commission Decision of 4 October 2000 to consult the Committee on the subject,
in accordance with Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision taken by the COR president on 7 February 2001 to instruct Commission 5
— Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism — to draw up the opinion
on the matter;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 63/2001 rev.) adopted by Commission 5 on 19 April 2001
[rapporteur: Mr Torchio (I/EPP)],

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 39th plenary session of 13 and 14 June 2001 (meeting
of 13 June).

C 357/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

1. General comments

1.1.
The document opens up a new horizon for scientific
and technological activities and for research policy in the
European Union.

1.2. Moreover, the Commission document aims to lay the
foundations for a new contract between European citizens and
human science and research, by putting research and its
applications at the heart of civil society, and encouraging a
policy debate which is increasingly necessary owing to its
social impact.

1.3. More than 20 years ago voices were raised warning
against Europe falling behind the United States in the major
fields of the third industrial revolution. Europe is still suffering
from serious structural weaknesses, having invested EUR 70
billion less than the United States in 1999, and spent a meagre
1,8 % of GDP on research, compared to 2,7 % for the United
States and 3,1 % for Japan.

1.4.
Europe is also lagging behind in terms of the number
of research workers, patents and high technology exports per
capita. The Commission therefore proposes giving a dynamic
boost to public and private research, with closer coordination
arrangements between Member States, and equipping citizens
with the tools to develop knowledge in a spirit of renewed
confidence in technological progress.

1.5.
The Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March
2000 endorsed the plan to create a European Research Area
as a central component of the establishment of a European
knowledge-based society. The Economic and Social Com-
mittee, the Committee of the Regions and the applicant
countries welcomed the plan, as did the European Parliament
in its Resolution of 18 May 2000. There have also been
comments from several hundred companies, research bodies
and from industry.

1.7.
Achieving this common area will require a bold,
decisive pooling of efforts by the European Union, the Member
States and researchers, who must be guaranteed freedom
of movement, including for knowledge and technology, to
encompass scientific careers, social protection and intellectual
property systems, and the provisions concerning transfers of
knowledge and dissemination of results.

1.8.
The Committee of the Regions is keen to know the
results of the various analyses and proposals made by the
evaluation panels which were established jointly by the
Commission and the Member States.

1.9.
In view of the above, support actions for EU research
must be reviewed in order to reconcile the need for competi-
tiveness with citizens’ expectations, the need to promote
excellence and guarantee balanced technological development,
and finally the need to define, implement and follow up the
EU’s sectoral policies which, since the launch of intergovern-
mental scientific cooperation in the 1950s, have made a
significant contribution to strengthening European research
capabilities.

1.10. While the average 50 000 partnership and cooper-
ation links formed every year between 1995 and 1999 are
doubtless a considerable achievement, the programmes were
not dovetailed with those of the 15 Member States, which
have continued to overlap in the absence of any real ‘control
centre’ founded on the principle of complementarity of EU
and Member State actions, as provided for in the Treaty.

1.11.
The Commission’s mid-term review of the Fifth RTD
Framework Programme, compiled in accordance with Article 6
of Decision 182/1999/EC and Decision 1999/64/Euratom, is
a useful starting point for a more structured approach to
identifying future projects, particularly for 2002-2006.

2. Assessment of the broad lines and objectives of

research

1.6.
The globalisation of the economy and communications
and the acceleration of scientific and technological progress
and its many social implications make the European Research
Area particularly necessary.

2.1.
If the EU is to achieve fully its research and technologi-
cal development objectives as defined in the Treaty: ‘strengthen
the scientific and technological bases of Community industry
and encourage it to become more competitive at international
level; promote the research activities deemed necessary by

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/17

virtue of other EU policies’, it will have to act in the following
areas:

mobilisation of EU capacities for the benefit of the
international community in areas of excellence in which
Europe has recognised expertise.

— developing a more solid basis for scientific and social
research by devoting more time to scientific and social
subjects in the school curriculum;

— improving the performance of research through net-
working and coordinated implementation of national
programmes and of the centres and areas of excellence in
the public, university and private sectors, and by carrying
out large-scale, targeted industrial research;

— boosting support to research for and in SMEs through
the dissemination, transfer and take-up of knowledge and
technologies, exploitation of the results of research, and
setting up hi-tech businesses, via a policy favouring
access, construction and financing of European research
infrastructure and the development of
large-capacity
electronic networks;

— support

for the development of a knowledge-based
economy in the areas of science, technology and inno-
vation, by increasing cross-border mobility, developing
European careers, increasing the participation of women
in research, making the scientific professions more
attractive to young people and stepping up cooperation
with third country researchers;

2.3.
The Commission recommends framing measures to
complement those of European international scientific cooper-
ation structures and organisations of both a general (e.g. the
European Science Foundation, COST and Eureka) and a
specialised nature (e.g. ESA, EMBL, ESRF and CERN).

2.4.
To these can be added the Structural Funds, regional
initiatives and European Investment Bank initiatives, as well as
the programmes for economic and technical assistance to
northern, eastern and southern third countries, and instru-
ments of international cooperation.

2.5.
To justify public funding, research activity must gener-
ate ‘public benefit’ in addition to the direct benefit of the
researcher, with regard both to basic research and targeted
research.

In order to implement public policies to boost Euro-
2.6.
pean competitiveness, a public support level has to be fixed
and defended, thus enabling companies to carry out risky or
long-term research which is not immediately cost-effective.

— establishing a new social contract founded on the pre-
cautionary and sustainable development principles, and
taking account of the social and ethical implications of
scientific and technological progress.

2.7.
Another novelty is the principle of ‘European added
value’ as a criterion for selecting priorities and themes for EU
research.

Implementation of

2.2.
account of:

the projects will have to take

1)

2)

3)

the continuity and coherence of EU scientific and techno-
logical cooperation, with better coordination of
the
activities of the various organisations and more system-
atic use of the potential for joint or converging measures;

full use of the potential of the regions by networking
their capacities with regard to research, innovation and
technology transfer, in the various sectors where they
work jointly;

integration of the applicant countries and more especially
the whole world via cooperation enabling EU
of
researchers and businessmen to access knowledge and
technologies produced elsewhere in the world; and full

In addition to the past list of criteria regarding the cost
2.8.
and scale of research above and beyond the possibilities of a
single country, a critical mass of human and financial resources
must be assembled by making economies of scale through
research-focused economic cooperation.

Complementary expertise must be combined with interdisci-
plinary issues, and comparative studies carried out on a
European scale, to establish links with EU priorities and
interests in the various fields, from SMEs to the information
society, agriculture, the environment, etc.

2.9.

Priorities include:

— ‘post-genome’ research and research into major diseases;

C 357/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

— nanotechnologies — an interdisciplinary research field;

As far as the future is concerned, the experts rec-

3.3.
ommend:

— development of the information society, particularly in

conjunction with the eEurope initiative;

— continuing to use the ‘key action’ concept as a means of

focusing the programmes;

— research and development work in the industrial sectors

most at risk at European level;

— the aeronautical and space sectors;

— biodiversity, identification and protection of plant and

animal genetic resources;

— increasing the emphasis on research needed to achieve

the objectives of EU policies;

— in addition to reinforcing the emphasis on excellence,
offering the best European researchers a framework for
‘bolder, riskier’ research;

— traceability of substances in food and food safety.

— a shift

towards greater flexibility in the use of

the

instruments provided for in the Treaty.

Research for a sustainable development model will
2.10.
require selection policies and a check on whether any exclusion
policies exist.

The mid-term review of

the 5th Framework Pro-
3.4.
gramme enables the Commission to suggest major changes,
both in terms of design and implementation.

Priorities must be ranked in the light of the declared
2.11.
objectives, and combining measures of various kinds in
several areas, such as the various forms of research activities,
innovation, infrastructure, human resources, etc.

2.12.
Alongside sector-specific intervention, funding must
be provided to incorporate different projects in various sectors.

3. Analysis of past and current activities and recommen-

dations

3.5.
New types of intervention and new guarantee and
intervention mechanisms must be developed, and a stronger
link must be established with national activities, by monitoring
more closely the options offered by the Treaty.

Finally, research must focus on a limited number of
3.6.
priorities set according to the changes which have occurred in
various fields, and in particular the new virtual economy and
food and industrial safety.

It is important to analyse the independent expert

3.1.
panel’s opinion, and the ensuing Commission assessment.

4. Specific recommendations

A panel of 11 experts assessed the results of the

3.2.
programme implemented over the past five years:

EU

intervention

4.1.
average
EUR 700 000 per project for the 4th Framework Programme,
and EUR 1,7 million for the 5th Framework Programme.

amounted

an

to

— generally, it is necessary to place EU research projects in
the context of a genuine European research policy. To
this end, the Commission must facilitate the emergence
of coherent policies, particularly looking ahead to enlarge-
ment;

4.2.
This includes small-scale and short-duration projects
(3 years on average) selected by the Commission following
public calls for proposals. Other forms of intervention can be
envisaged under this procedure, but they will have to be
integrated and implemented in a perspective of closer partner-
ship between the Member States and the EU:

— as far as the past

the experts noted
is concerned,
the beneficial impact of concentrating the Framework
Programme, which enabled ‘academic and industrial
researchers to carry out applied work together’. However,
the Framework Programme’s management structures and
procedures must be reassessed.

— The Commission thus proposes moving from a system in
which the EU has sole responsibility for funding individ-
ual projects, to a system of overall financing plans in
which the EU contribution would represent only a part
of the total cost.

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/19

— Moreover,

intervention will have to span more than
4 years, based on forms of support mid-way between
project aid and permanent ‘institutionalised’ financing. It
will thus be possible to expand certain schemes concern-
ing mobility or infrastructure to a level making it possible
to boost the impact of research and highlight national
initiatives.

universities and research centres, on the basis of pre-established
overall financing plans and transparent rules (involving a ‘peer-
review’).

4.8.1.
A variable proportion of the total cost should be
linked to the result in terms of technological achievements and
economic and social impact.

— Finally, use of ‘variable geometry’ instruments mentioned
in the Treaty but little exploited thus far, will provide a
certain overall flexibility.

4.8.2.
‘clustering’ of separate components of a major project.

Another option which should be mentioned is the

The various needs of public and private research, basic
4.3.
research, targeted research and industrial research will have to
be taken into account, with a substantial
increase in the
scale of the projects financed by the EU, while streamlining
administrative procedures.

4.4.
Networking of National Research Programmes must
be achieved on two levels: the first in the context of the ‘open
method of coordination’ advocated by the Lisbon European
Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, with the commitment to a
mutual opening of national programmes; the second consisting
of the coordinated implementation of national programmes
by several Member States (Article 169 of the Treaty) and
via joint or coordinated calls for proposals, with increased
encouragement for supranational programmes which would
also be open to associated countries.

The current framework for existing or planned inter-

4.5.
ventions must not be compromised.

4.6.
Networks of excellence will have to be established,
especially for public and private university teams, with: long-
term joint programmes of activities and, in any case, of a
longer duration and greater magnitude than the current
research projects; long-term staff exchanges; intensive use of
computer tools and electronic networks, with interactive
working methods.

4.7. Mechanisms for cooperation, co-management and co-
responsibility need to be fleshed out in greater detail when
drawing up research guidelines and coordinating the financing
of specific regional programmes with the Framework Pro-
gramme.

The large-scale targeted research projects vary in
4.8.
magnitude from several tens to several hundreds of millions of
euros, and are to be carried out by consortia of companies,

4.8.3.
In the case of industrial research, the validation of
various integrated technologies could give rise to ‘technological
platforms’, in the form of prototypes which could benefit from
the support of the Eureka initiative.

4.9. With regard to research and innovation, ‘start ups’ and
SMEs, the focus should remain on regional and national efforts
in support of research for and in SMEs, and on setting up
technology companies, in accordance with the Commission
Communication ‘Innovation in a knowledge-based society’,
which provides for ‘collective research’ activities in the form of
support for research carried out for the benefit of European
industrial associations or groups of national associations, on
themes of interest to SMEs in the Member States.

4.9.1.
lected.

Similarly, ‘co-operative research’ must not be neg-

4.9.2.
The Commission recommends stepping up techno-
logical and economic intelligence activities: collection, pro-
cessing and dissemination of information of interest to SMEs,
networks for research workers, entrepreneurs and financiers,
as well as support for the creation of spin-offs from universities
and of technological company ‘incubators’.

4.9.3.
In this respect, important financial synergies can be
created between companies, industrial associations, the EIB
and Eureka.

4.10. With regard to the research infrastructures, the Euro-
pean Union currently provides support for transnational access
to certain Member State infrastructures which provide services
on a European scale.

4.10.1.
The Communication proposes covering a limited
proportion of the development and construction costs by
cofinancing feasibility studies in the case of new infrastructures
of European interest. This could be done within the framework
of a synergy combining funds of national and regional origin
from the European Investment Bank, and the Structural Funds,
etc., to support the development and use by the different
scientific communities of high-speed and high-definition elec-
tronic networks.

C 357/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

4.11.
Regarding human resources, a substantial increase in
mobility grants is envisaged for researchers in the EU countries,
applicant countries and third countries.

4.11.1.
The Communication also proposes setting up a
grant system for the transfer of knowledge and technologies
to SMEs, boosting the participation of women at all levels in
scientific careers, and encouraging young people to take up
scientific studies in a knowledge-based economy and with
teams built around eminent scientists.

4.11.2.
The relationship between science, society and citi-
zens is very important. Research activities must take into
account the social consequences of scientific and technological
progress and can be grouped together under the following
themes: support for policymaking and a European scientific
reference system, research and the needs of society, dialogues
between science and society, women and science, and ethics.

Project selection on the basis of public calls for
4.11.3.
proposals and evaluation by ‘peer-review’ should be main-
tained. However, tenders and calls for proposals different from
the traditional calls for proposals should also be envisaged.

4.11.4.
The change of management is conducive to large-
scale blocks of activities for the operation of the networks of
excellence,
large-scale targeted research projects, collective
research projects for the benefit of SMEs, activities relating to
research infrastructures carried out in the context of associ-
ation agreements with the Community, mobility grants allo-
cated through the host fellowship scheme, which should be
entrusted to specialist Community public structures such as
the ‘implementing agencies’.

4.11.5.
the Joint
The Davignon Panel’s evaluation of
Research Centre’s activities recommended focusing efforts on
activities in scientific and technical support of the implemen-
tation of Community policies and European policymaking,
especially where it can contribute the greatest possible added
value.

4.13.
One of the main obstacles to having an operational
European research area is that patents in Europe, compared
with the USA, mean a substantially higher financial outlay
and/or a longer period of time before they are in force in the
respective states. This is particularly due to the fact that there
are different requirements in the individual states, one is
dependent on the patent lawyer in the respective country and
this involves translation costs.

4.14.
CRAFT supports must be forced, the number of
evaluation appointments must be doubled, access conditions
must be relaxed and SMEs’ share of self research must be
substantially increased.

5. Conclusions

5.1.1.
The action plan will have to take account of the
proposals on the following themes: a European space strategy;
benchmarking methodology and indicators; science, society
and citizens; research infrastructures; mapping of excellence,
and by June 2001, human resources and mobility; regional
dimension; and opening up to the rest of the world.

5.1.2. With the 5th Framework Programme, the Com-
mission intends to increase the size of projects significantly by
raising the financial
thresholds and introducing flat-rate,
results-related financing.

5.1.3.
In the short term, the ‘work programmes’ of several
research projects will be amended to encourage the various
scientific communities to use large-capacity electronic net-
works, based on the ‘GRID’ concept of high-performance
distributed computing.

5.1.4.
Several programmes plan to apply the ‘integrated
project’ concept, based on the ‘clustering’ of research projects
and training activities and fellowships, and to launch a small
number of ‘integrated projects’ on the theme of ‘genomics’ as
well as activities in the fields of nanotechnologies and action
to combat major diseases.

5.1.5.
In the medium term the Commission envisages
networking centres of excellence, but only the next Framework
Programme will make it possible for the objectives of the
European Research Area to be fully reflected in EU activities.

4.12.
the notification of approval must be reduced to a minimum.

The period between the submission of a project and

The Committee of the Regions supports the Com-
5.1.6.
mission’s broad drive to set a European value added on EU
research investment.

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/21

5.1.7.
In particular, overlapping of individual research on
the same subject must be avoided, and the direct and potential
results of research must be checked, especially as regards the
practical activities of industrial companies and SMEs.

5.1.8.
Recent European discussions in this area reaffirmed
the need for an overall increase in resources earmarked for
research, in order to avoid an increasingly worrying brain
drain to the other side of the Atlantic.

5.1.9.
In particular, genuine synergies must be promoted
between the Member States, the associated countries and third
countries, by guaranteeing researchers adequate pay and social
security arrangements.

In this context, the role of the regions and local
5.1.10.
authorities is to act as specific go-between for their scientific
and technological communities, and the national and European
level, as part of a framework of co-funding of research
innovation and promotion and bringing in new blood,

especially younger academics, via transnational (including the
USA) university exchanges.

5.1.11.
The Committee of the Regions, which represents
the interests of the regions and local authorities, wishes to
ensure a level playing field for Europe, the United States and
Japan.

5.1.12.
The European research system is currently under-
funded compared to that of our main competitors. This
situation must be remedied, and there most be wider accept-
ance of checks on results. Human activity, business and
the upcoming generations must also be offered concrete
development prospects in the field of knowledge, new tech-
nologies and high-definition networks.

5.1.13.
This broad focus on developing research will not
only benefit local communities, it will also bring advantages in
terms of combating disease and, more generally, of making
the EU technologically independent of third countries.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT