Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area, and the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area
Date: 2001-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: financing, research and development, research policy, teaching, technological change, technology

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/3

5. Conclusions

The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal
5.1.
for reducing the pollution from non-road mobile machinery
fitted with internal combustion engines.

The limits laid down for engine emissions and the
5.2.
dates from which they are to apply are sensible and merit the

support of the Committee. The Committee also supports the
new testing methods set out in the annexes because of their
high technical standard.

5.3.
In view of the questions raised by the voluntary
averaging and banking system, such a system should not be
used for a period of more than 10 years. After that, there will
have to be clear and quantified emission limits for all
machinery.

Brussels, 11 July 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the
Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research,
technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the
creation of the European Research Area’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme
2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training
activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area’

(2001/C 260/02)

On 30 April 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 166(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 June 2001. The rapporteurs were
Mr Bernabei and Mr Wolf.

At its 383rd plenary session (meeting of 11 July 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
unanimously the following opinion.

1. Summary

gramme) and appealing to Member States and industry
to act likewise on their part;

1.1.
Summarising here the detailed analysis and conclusions
which are described in the following text and which are derived
from the strategic objectives decided for instance at Lisbon
and Stockholm, the Committee recommends the following:

— reallocating some specific financial resources envisaged
for FP6, combined with a modest increase from EUR
17 500 million to EUR 18 930 million of the budget;

— setting an increase of about 50 % in the overall
Community RTD&D Budget as a medium-term political
goal for the period beyond FP6 (6th Framework Pro-

— ensuring the continuity of the existing RTD&D pro-
gramme and minimising the risks associated with the
introduction of new untested structures and instruments;

C 260/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

— applying both the current and proposed new instruments
for FP6 in parallel: together they should become elements
to be selected flexibly in a bottom-up approach and
further developed according to the needs of the individual
elements of the various thematic actions;

— structuring new instruments on the main principles of
transparency and equal access in order to avoid closed
shops, non-neutral sub-calls and absorption of all finan-
cial resources by only a few large projects and networks;

— remodelling of FP6 around three main targets, as the
Commission proposed, but with the following modifi-
cations: Target one should contain the long-term thematic
priorities/actions, Target two short- and medium-term
projects and Target three permanent activities;

— restructuring the three Targets around five specific blocks

of actions:

— harmonising the Community programme with the vari-
ous national programmes by introducing a sufficient
number of appropriate bodies and corresponding scien-
tific/technical advisory groups, but

— avoiding the exclusion of new ideas and options and
narrowing the diversity of RTD&D objectives and instru-
ments within each individual Member State;

— long/medium-term priority goals (thematic actions)

ties, including such enterprises and SMEs;

— focusing on leading-edge and longer-term research activi-

— inter-action research/innovation, SME incremental
and new

research/networking/start-up facilities
regional initiative

— underlining the need to increase over the present level
the participation of SMEs in FP6, in particular through
cooperative
research (EUR
700 million allocation);

research and collective

— human resources mobility

— international cooperation

— coordination of permanent activities and infrastruc-

tures

— introducing a specific heading ‘energy and transport’ in
the thematic actions to give more emphasis and visibility
to the energy and transport problem, and particularly —
in view of sustainable development — to renewable
energy systems (including storage and distribution) and
to energy savings (EUR 1 500 million);

— developing a clarity on industrial and intellectual property
rights (‘IPR’) for activities under Art. 169 and the opening
of national programmes;
instruments like a ‘memor-
andum of understanding’ between participating Member
States could be considered;

— supporting planning, development and operation of
research infrastructures as an integral element of the
European Research Area (ERA);

— combining new instruments with other Community ones
like regional funds to support the transnational regional
development of clusters, networks or infrastructures;

— strengthening the Euratom Programme accordingly by
including production,
aiming at safer nuclear energy,
transport and storage of nuclear waste, and by enhancing
the development of
the fusion option (fission EUR
350 million, fusion EUR 950 million);

— supporting the trend — expressed by new instruments —
to decentralise and strengthen self-organisation and self-
administration and also transferring credits — which
could amount to 7 % of the budget — required for
creating and maintaining related structures;

— defining in more detail new instruments like networks
of excellence,
integrated projects and actions under
Article 169 and addressing control, decision processes,
in/out dynamics and potential conflicts of interest, while
preserving toolbox instruments such as the present FP5
ones;

— accompanying new instruments with measures for tui-

tion, training and feasibility/exploratory studies;

— applying the principle that new measures should not lead
to an overall increase in bureaucracy but that they must
reduce the cost and management burden of projects;

— underlining the importance of human mobility for acade-
mia-industry relations, for developing the ERA, for includ-
ing Candidate Countries and international cooperation
with allocation of 1/3 of mobility credits directly to
specific thematic actions;

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/5

— supporting a strategic intelligence network within the
ERA for monitoring and control of quality, excellence,
transparency and the development of new perspectives;

— The Community and the Member States shall coordinate
their research and technological development activities
so as to ensure that national policies and Community
policy are mutually consistent;

— enhancing the scientific visibility of JRC institutes and
their role by creating/appointing scientific advisory/-
independent high-level experts
supervisory panels of
(selected for instance by EURAB), similar to analogous
procedures of
the excellent scientific institutions in
Member States;

— considering the possibility of creating a new European
Agency for RTD&D Management, under
the direct
responsibility of the Commission, for project proposals
under the threshold of EUR 10 million.

2. Background

2.1.
For many years, guided by the principle of subsidiarity,
the European Commission has been supporting Research,
Technological Development and Demonstration (‘RTD&D’) at
European level by means of so-called Multiannual Framework
Programmes of the European Community and of the European
Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

— ... to promote and facilitate nuclear research in the
Member States and to complement it by carrying out its
own programme of research and training;

They are thus complemented by,

2.2.2.
for example,
(Health),
(Industry), Article 157; Title XIII
Title XVI
Article 152(1); Title XIX (Environment), Article 174; and
Title XVII (Cohesion) of the Treaty. Further guidelines are the
European Charter for Small Business adopted by the FEIRA
Council, the need for a secure and safe energy supply as laid
down in the Green Paper COM(2000)769 of the Commission,
and the need for safe food and products.

In January 2000, the Commission issued its Communi-
2.3.
cation ‘Towards a European Research Area’ outlining its policy
towards this goal.

2.3.1.
As the main motivation for the need to significantly
strengthen RTD&D within the EU, the Commission quoted
several extremely disturbing facts, among others:

2.2.
The EU remit in this area derives directly from the EC
Treaty, specifically Title XVIII (Research and Technological
Development), Articles 163 to 173 and Title II (Provisions for
the Encouragement of Progress in the Field of Nuclear Energy
Articles 4 to 11 of the Euratom Treaty.

— The average research effort in the EU is currently only
1,9 % of Europe’s GDP, as against 2,8 % in the USA and
2,8 % in Japan. What is more, this gap seems to be
increasing.

2.2.1.

Some of these Articles read:

— In terms of employment, researchers account for only 2,5
in every thousand of the industrial workforce in Europe,
against 6,7 in the USA and 6 in Japan.

— ... strengthening the scientific and technological bases of
Community industry and encouraging it to become more
competitive at international level, while promoting all the
research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other
chapters of this Treaty;

2.3.2.
Responding to the above Commission Communi-
cation, the Committee prepared an in depth Opinion (1) sharing
the worries expressed. The essence of this Opinion — relevant
also to the present paper — can be summarised as follows:

— ..., encourage undertakings, including small and medium-
sized undertakings, research centres and universities in
their research and technological development activities of
high quality; ...

— implementation of research, technological development
and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooper-
ation between undertakings, research centres and univer-
sities;

— The Committee emphasises the crucial importance of
RTD&D for prosperity, social progress, ensuring competi-
tiveness and safeguarding the future of Europe.

— The Committee appeals to governments, industry, the
Council and the European Parliament to step up their
support for RTD&D, to strengthen scientific/technical
education and training at school and university, and to
make career prospects rewarding enough to attract the
most talented people.

— promotion of cooperation in the field of Community
research, technological development and demonstration
with third countries and international organisations;

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2001, p. 70.

C 260/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

— The measures/instruments proposed provide important

means of reaching this goal.

— However, to establish a structure that encourages initiat-
ive, creativity and innovation, it is important to have a
trial period during which the measures/instruments are
implemented.

— Administrative procedures

award,
reporting etc. must be simplified and standardised for the
institutions involved so that total costs for applicants are
minimised.

application,

for

— Obstacles must be removed in order to improve and
strengthen the interplay between basic research and
product- and process-oriented development crucial to
innovation.

— Effective incentives must be provided to promote mobility
of scientists and engineers between industry (including
SMEs), universities and research centres.

2.4.
The commitment of the European Councils of Heads
of State or Government, in particular since the Lisbon summit,
and the Councils of Research Ministers (Resolutions of June and
November 2000) and the European Parliament (resolutions on
the European Research Area), strengthens the political basis
for Community.

2.4.1.
The objectives set in this context by the Council and
Parliament can be summarised: establishment of a European
research and innovation area with a view to job creation and
economic growth; effective coordination of activities of the
Commission, Member States and economic players; improving
future RTD&D while maintaining the current programme’s
achievements.

On 21 September 2000, the Committee adopted an
2.4.2.
Opinion on ‘Follow-up, evaluation and optimisation of the
economic and social impact of RTD: from the Fifth Framework
Programme towards the Sixth Framework Programme’ (1)
where it:

— defended the Commission’s role in ‘coordinating and
guaranteeing the cost-effective operation of the strategic
intelligence cycle, controls on quality, excellence and
transparency ...’

2.4.3.
The March 2001 European Council in Stockholm
confirmed the strategic objective for the next decade as decided
in Lisbon:
‘to become the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable
economic growth with more and better jobs and greater
social cohesion’. Such a strategy ‘includes promoting new
technologies by strengthening the Community research and
development policy and making particular efforts in new
technologies, especially biotechnology.’
In June 2001, the
European Council in Göteborg emphasised in particular the
relevance of RTD&D for Energy and Transport.

2.5.
In October 2000, the Commission issued a further
Communication (2), which gave more details on the intended
specific ‘instruments’ to be developed for that purpose.

2.6.
The present Commission proposal builds upon the
above mentioned papers and contains essentially (i) proposals
for the measures/instruments required for implementing and
structuring the European Research Area (ERA) and handling
the RTD&D Programme, (ii) proposals for its thematic activities
and the allocated budget, and (iii) the proposed programme of
the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

3. The Commission proposal

The present Commission Communication comprises

3.1.
two different elements, namely:

— firstly, the structure, architecture and measures/instru-

ments of these programmes;

— secondly, the main topics/envisaged actions to be sup-

ported.

In the proposal, the Commission identifies as the main

3.2.
structural aims:

— stressed the need for a Community strategy based on a
core of shared priorities and focusing on a much more
limited number of actions through a technological offens-
ive capable of harnessing the strengths of the European
system;

— integrating European research

— structuring the European Research Area

(1) OJ C 367, 20.12.2000, p. 61.

(2) COM(2000) 612 ‘Making a reality of The European Research

Area: Guidelines for EU research activities (2002-2006)’.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/7

— strengthening the foundations of the European Research

Area.

No indication is given of consultation and management bodies
as used, for instance, in the 5th Framework Programme.

3.6.
As regards the proposed criteria for selection of
priorities and themes for EU intervention, the principle of
‘European added value’ (EAV) is retained as the basic rule,
assessed by ex-ante evaluation as well as the ex-post evaluation
of actions. The criteria for EAV cover cost and scale beyond a
single country (critical mass), the importance of collaboration
in economic terms and complementing expertise in the various
countries.

As the main instruments for integrating European

3.3.
research, the Commission proposes:

— networks of excellence;

— integrated projects;

— EU participation in research programmes of the Member
jointly (opening of national pro-

States carried out
grammes).

Moreover, there are further instruments for collective research
and cooperative research activities of SME, measures for
innovation, fellowships for mobility, grants for research infra-
structure and for science & governance initiatives, and grants
for coordination and policy coherence.

In respect to the financial resources proposed , the
3.7.
maximum overall amount
for both the 6th Framework
Programme EC and the 6th Framework Programme Euratom
is EUR 17 500 million

of which EUR 16 270 million for EC FP6 (13 700 in the
previous EC FP5). Breakdown:

— 12 855 for the implementation of research, development
and demonstration programmes (10 843 in the previous
EC FP5)

The main principles applied by the Commission for

3.4.
the proposed new Framework Programme are:

— 600 for

the promotion of cooperation with third
countries and international organisations in RTD matters
(475 in the previous EC FP5)

— concentrating on a selected number of priority research

areas;

— directing various activities so as to enable them to have a
more structuring effect on research activities in Europe
through a stronger link with national, regional and other
European initiatives;

— simplifying and streamlining implementation arrange-
ments on the basis of the indicated intervention methods
and envisaged decentralised management procedures.

3.5.
In accordance with its mission of providing scientific
and technical support for EU policies, the Joint Research
Centres (JRC) — along with their specific programmes as
indicated by the Council Resolution of 16.11.00 (1) — ‘will
focus on priority themes relating to the formulation and
implementation of sectoral policies’ with ‘a strong European
dimension’ and ‘in close cooperation and by networking with
scientific circles, national research organisations and business
in Europe’.

— 300 for the dissemination and exploitation of the results
of EC RTD activities (363 in the previous EC FP5)

— 1 800 for improving human research potential and the
socio-economic knowledge base (1 280 in the previous
EC FP5)

— 715 for the Joint Research Centre/EC activities (739 in

the previous EC FP5)

and EUR 1 230 million for Euratom FP6 (1 260 in the previous
FP5). Breakdown:

— 200 for nuclear fission (191 in the previous Euratom

FP5)

— 700 for nuclear fusion (788 in the previous Euratom FP5)

(1) OJ C 374, 28.12.2000, p. 1 — Council Resolution of 16 Novem-
ber 2000 on making a reality of the European area of research
and innovation: guidelines for the European Union’s research
activities (2002-2006).

— 330 for the Joint Research Centre/Euratom activities (281

in the previous Euratom FP5).

C 260/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

4. General comments

The Committee welcomes the Commission’s Proposal
4.1.
for the European Community and Euratom RTD&D frame-
work programmes, usually named FP6.

Considering the proposed budget, however,

the
4.1.1.
Committee is seriously concerned that
the total volume
foreseen will not suffice to reverse the trends indicated under
2.3.1 and to fulfil the strategic aims of the Council as quoted
under 2.4.3.

4.1.1.1.
Therefore, the Committee recommends setting an
increase of about 50 % as a medium term political goal for the
period beyond FP6, while appealing to Member States and
industry to act likewise on their part.

Respecting the present financial constraints, how-
4.1.1.2.
ever, this level of increase is not yet reflected in the rec-
ommended corrections to the overall FP6 budget and its
allocations as outlined in point 12 and 13. Instead, only minor
and specific reallocations are recommended, the arguments
and details of which will be given later in the text.

4.1.2.
The proposed measures/instruments provide a new
and ambitious approach to FP6 and are part of the effort to
establish the ERA, which the Committee has already been able
to endorse.

The Committee considers that in principle such an
4.2.
approach deserves full endorsement.
to make
the Treaty provisions effective in relation to the practical
integration of national and European research and innovation
efforts.

is vital

It

On the other hand, the Committee is concerned as to
4.3.
how the continuity of
the existing research actions and
programme will be ensured. In that sense, the Committee must
draw attention to the risks associated with the — particularly
abrupt — introduction of new and as yet untested concepts
and measures/instruments. Therefore, the Committee strongly
recommends that experience be gained with the new structures
and instruments and that during FP6,
the old and new
instruments should be used in parallel, thus providing a
sufficient trial period.

4.4.
Therefore, the Committee also recommends that the
proposed new instruments, together with those presently used,
should become elements of a tool-box, to be selected flexibly
and — as a result of future experience — further developed
according to the specific requests and benefits of the individual
thematic elements of the programme.

4.6.
The Committee feels that one criterion for introducing
and applying measures/instruments should be to secure a
coherent, transparent and user-friendly approach.

4.7.
The Committee is also concerned with the problem of
ensuring that the Candidate Countries obtain a fair chance of
participating in the ERA and the associated RTD&D pro-
grammes on an equal basis.

Convergence towards a Single Market and a single
4.8.
currency within the EU must be accompanied by convergence
of research and innovation policies towards an effective joint
EU effort. There should not be 15 + 1 parallel, fragmented
RTD&D systems without harmonisation, integration and the
formation of complementary systems.

4.9.
However, the Committee urges that wealth of diversity
should be maintained as an advantage in global competition
and as a breeding ground for new ideas.

4.10.
The aim should be to make full use of past experience
and to ensure sufficient continuity while avoiding radical
changes harmful to research activity in academia and industry.
This means exploring future policy options consistent with the
above and with the principles of subsidiarity and cohesion.

4.11.
lished by the Treaty, which are, for example:

The Committee also supports further objectives estab-

— full integration between Community RTD&D policy and
all the other Community policies, cooperation with third
countries and international organisations, and promotion
of training and mobility of researchers;

— simplification of decisions:

the new decision-making
process of the Amsterdam Treaty will give the Com-
mission a more significant role in defining the framework
programme (due to the qualified majority vote procedure
in the Council together with a consultation procedure on
specific programmes).

4.12. Moreover, the Committee recommends focusing on
leading-edge and longer-term research activities in undertak-
ings and promoting the scientific, technological and industrial
profile of Europe’s regions, with the help of SMEs in particular.
This would promote a free and attractive area of mobility
for researchers between Member States, research-business
mobility, attracting researchers to Europe, and re-launching an
intense ‘science and society’ dialogue (1).

The Committee is pleased to take note of the ongoing
4.5.
discussions on the different instruments and their specific
characteristics and problems.

(1) ESC Opinion on the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000)
1973 ‘Science, society and the citizen in Europe’, OJ C 221,
7.8.2001, p. 151.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/9

5. The Committee’s view on the principles and objec-

— continuity of FP4 and FP5, to assure proper transition;

tives of the new Framework Programme

— respect for transparency, equal access and treatment;

5.1.
The Committee takes note that the EU policy, con-
firmed at the Lisbon and Stockholm Councils, for sustainable
development, more and better employment, more and better
cohesion, also includes some aspects which indicate differences
from its major world partners and have implications for the
Community’s RTD&D policy (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).

— concentration on more long term thematic priorities and

on focused mobility;

— emphasis on SMEs/innovation/technology transfer/re-

gions;

— visibility and coherence of international cooperation;

5.1.1.
The Committee underlines the necessity to include
the aim of sustainable development in the long term objectives.

— networking of large/medium infrastructures throughout

the Community;

5.2.
The Committee wishes to emphasize as an essential
aim of the new FP6 to make the RTD&D efforts ‘European’ at
all
levels and to prevent any attempt at re-nationalisation
and ‘closed-shop’ perspectives for Community research and
innovation policy.

To this end, the Committee underlines the need to
5.3.
strike the right balance between competitiveness and policy
support, concentration and comprehensiveness, focus and
flexibility, short term and long term aims, basic and applied
top-down and
research, established and emerging items,
bottom-up, simplification and complexity, decentralisation
and Europeanisation, change and continuity.

— streamlined and simplified procedures avoiding any form

of re-nationalisation;

— simplified and low-cost procedures for small/medium

sized projects/networks as against closed-shop regimes;

— integration of both small/medium newcomers and scien-
tifically and technologically less-developed regions and
relevance of target-tailored projects;

— cohesion of an enlarged Europe.

5.6.
The Committee proposes to complement the main
principles for FP6 proposed by the Commission, i.e. concen-
tration, structuring effect, simplification, by the following
ones:

In particular, the Committee draws attention to two

5.4.
basic aspects and an associated problem:

— visibility of the EU’s efforts;

— there should not be a narrowing of the diversity of RTD
& D objectives and instruments within the Member States;

excellence;

— coordination and strategic cycle controlling quality and

— a trial and transition period is needed for the proposed
new instruments and approaches, adapting instruments
to the requirements of the programmatic objectives.

5.5.

The Committee emphasises the following basic aspects:

— problem-orientated long term goals and problem-solving
short term actions both for academia and industry;

— preservation of both basic research as the source of new
concepts and resulting technologies and applied research
and innovation to foster a fully inter-active process;

— efficient and responsible financial management.

— integration of national, Community and European efforts;

6. Structure of the new Framework Programme

— a balanced top-down and bottom-up approach for the

coordination of RTD&D/Innovation policy;

6.1.
The Committee takes note of ongoing discussions and
endorses the restructuring of FP6 around the three main
targets, as proposed by the Commission:

— implementation of Chapter XVIII and of other relevant

chapters of the Treaty;

1.

Target one: integrating European Research,

C 260/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

2.

Target two: structuring the ERA,

— Anticipating emerging EU needs;

3.

Target three: strengthening the foundations of the ERA,

— JRC activities supporting ST policies and assessment;

but with the modifications described below.

— Distributed strategic intelligence networking;

6.1.1.
Target one should address long term thematic priorit-
ies, be ready to admit other long term priority areas but shift
the following four fields towards other targets:

research;

— International cooperation.

— Science, Citizen and Society, including socio-economic

— Citizen and Governance: ongoing present-day action;

— Anticipating EU needs: mainly incremental research for

short/medium term structural action;

— JRC activities: mainly supporting other EU policies and

furthering assessment and coordination;

6.2.
In the Committee’s opinion, all these activities must be
organised in accordance with Title XVIII, Articles 164 and 165
of the Treaty under the following specific group of actions:

— Actions for new emerging problems: a reserve fund
dedicated to multi-thematic and inter-disciplinary areas
strengthening present and future ERA initiatives.

— Target one organised as a single specific Group of actions
but articulated in sub-programmes for each of the six
long-term thematic priorities;

6.1.2.
Target two should incorporate short/medium-term
projects and actions as well as networking. For the Committee,
this target should include:

— Inter-action of Research/Innovation;

— Human resources mobility;

— SME incremental research/networking/start up and other

facilities;

— New RTD regional initiatives.

6.1.2.1.
The ‘Science and Governance’ theme should be
linked to ‘Citizen and Governance’ and moved to Target three,
together with ‘Large and Medium Research Infrastructures’.

6.1.3.
Target three should cover ongoing actions constitut-
ing a common strategy for present and future actions with
both internal and international outlook:

— Coordination of RTD&D activities;

— Large and medium-sized research infrastructure;

— Target two organised in two specific Group of actions:
one covering ‘Human Resources Mobility’ and the other
‘Research/Innovation Interaction’,
‘SME Incremental
Research/Networking/Start up/and other facilities’ and
‘New RTD Regional Initiatives’;

— Target three organised in two specific of actions: one
covering ‘International Cooperation’ and one all other
ongoing actions such as ‘Coordination of RTD&D activi-
ties’, ‘Large and Medium-sized Infrastructure’, ‘Anticipat-
ing the EU emerging needs’, and ‘Science, Citizen and
Society’.

JRC activities are covered by one specific Group of action and
by Euratom.

6.3.
To meet the requirements of the above targets, the
Committee recommends the introduction of a sufficient
number of bodies representing stakeholders with an efficient
and relevant scope. A particular aim is to ensure sound
harmonisation between the several national programmes and
the European programme. In the same vein, the Committee is
in favour of a network of scientific/technical advisory groups
parallel to these bodies, together with corresponding national
advisory groups for monitoring, assessment and forward-
planning of European and national efforts, however without
delaying the evaluation, selection and financing process or
narrowing the diversity of the objectives and instruments
within the Member States.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/11

6.3.1.
The Committee proposes the creation of trainer
platforms both for political and administrative authorities and
decision-makers, and scientific/technical/industrial qualifi-
cations. The basis for building such platforms should be
transparency and feedback, assuring dynamic in the selection
process of top level representation and advice.

7.3.1.
Considering the vital and unique role of energy for
our living conditions and economy, the Committee feels that
the FP6 and Euratom-Programme are of special importance in
view, for example, of the serious warnings made in the ‘Green
Paper’ (2), and the corresponding recent Opinion (3) of the
Committee, stating that:

7. The first specific group of actions on long/medium-

term priority goals (thematic actions)

7.1.
In the Committee’s view, FP6 must preserve the
coherence, homogeneity and equilibrium of the thematic
priorities; this means that the first group of actions must be
focussed on a few scientific and technological aims, drawn
from problem-orientated long-term aims, such as safety of
products/food and the relevant production processes.

7.1.1.
The Committee, while endorsing the proposed Euro-
pean Added Value criteria, thinks that these must be comp-
lemented by economic and social aspects, visibility, excellence,
geopolitical cohesion and innovation potential. Without weak-
ening its own recommendations made later in this text (and
particularly in Table 13), the Committee would prefer to
receive more information on the arguments and criteria
applied so far by the Commission when optimising the relative
distribution of the budget which is allocated to the different
specific thematic areas of research, in particular in view of the
general goal of European competitiveness, prosperity and
welfare.

7.2.
Taking note of the recent Commission’s Proposal on
the Specific Programme (1) which addresses the thematic
actions of FP6 plus Euratom in more detail, the Committee
reserves its in-depth assessment on the thematic actions for its
future Opinion on this Proposal of the Commission. Therefore,
concerning the thematic actions,, it presents in the following
section a short, headline-type of compilation only, without
justifying its choice in any detail.

7.3.
Already at this stage, however, the Committee proposes
structuring somewhat differently the thematic actions which
fall under the first specific group of actions . This suggestion is
guided by two sets of considerations, i.e.

— grouping together related objectives

— the EU will become increasingly dependent on external
energy sources; enlargement will not change the situation;
based on present forecasts, dependence will reach 70 %
in 2030;

— at present, the EU is not in a position to respond to the
challenge of climate change and to meet its commitments,
notably under the Kyoto Protocol;

— in comparison with the 1990 value, the energy related
CO2-emissions of Europe-30 may increase by 30 % by
2030.

In its recent Opinion on the Green Paper, the
7.3.1.1.
Committee stated that
important measure for
the most
reducing the risks associated with energy supply and other
risks is to ensure the most diverse and balanced possible use
of different types and forms of energy, and that RTD&D
and the 6th Framework Programme are crucial here. The
Committee recommends also including the RTD&D funds
provided by the ECSC Treaty.

As regards transport, the improvement of Europe-
7.3.1.2.
wide interoperability of modes of transport and the serious
problem of traffic congestion is fundamental. The Committee
underlines the necessity of achieving clean, efficient and time-
saving transport technologies.

7.3.2.
Thus the Committee proposes introducing a specific
headline for energy and transport where visibility and more
emphasis (and the financial means of EUR 1 500 as quoted
under point 13) should be given to RTD&D for energy and
transport, but in particular into renewable energy systems,
including storage, distribution and energy saving/conservation.
Also,
the Euratom programme (see point 12) should be
strengthened in view of the gravity of this problem.

7.3.2.1.
The Committee feels that the goal of sustainable
energy supply requires more support for research, develop-
ment and dissemination of technology on:

— emphasising the energy and transport problem.

— clean and renewable energy sources;

(1) COM(2001) 279 final.

(2) COM(2000) 769 final.
(3) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 45.

C 260/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

— safer nuclear energy, including the production, transport

and storage of nuclear waste (see point 12).

natural catastrophes, natural and cultural heritage,
environmental friendly agriculture & forestry, food and
fish quality, oceanography & marine technologies (quotas
foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and international
cooperation).

Consequently, accounting also for the European
7.3.3.
choice for sustainable development as confirmed at
the
Stockholm Council, the Committee recommends (for the first
specific group of actions)
the following modified list of
thematic actions and complemented list of key words.

— Genomics and biotechnologies for health, including bio-
geno safety, biomedicine, neurosciences , epidemiology
and public health,
cancer,
environment
immunity and infec-
tion(quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and
international cooperation );

cardiovascular diseases,

related diseases,

— Information society technologies, including digital safety,
educational multimedia and contents, convergence of
new mobile/Internet/satellite communications, electronic
and mobile commerce, integrated business management,
industrial information technology, working life, e-govern-
ment,
‘value constellation’, magneto-electronics, super-
conductors, new sensors and processors/storage systems,
electroceramics, quantum computers (quotas foreseen for
human mobility, SMEs and international cooperation );

7.4. Access systems — measures/instruments — under the new

Framework Programme

7.4.1.
Generally, the Committee feels that the discussions
concerning FP6 should be mainly focussed on the needs of
future research in the different scientific and technical fields,
while the measures/instruments and their final financial vol-
ume should be developed and adapted to these needs in a
flexible way.

7.4.1.1.
In particular, the current FP5 instruments should
be maintained as complementary or alternative options, to be
chosen according to the needs of specific thematic aims.

7.4.2.
Following the Commission’s proposal, three major
measures/instruments for distributing funds and organising
RTD&D for the thematic priorities are foreseen in the 6th Fra-
mework Programme:

— Nanotechnologies/process/product/intelligent new ma-
terials including product/process/materials safety, hybrid
technologies, misosystems, micro-actuators, bio-sensors,
intelligent manufacturing, multi-functional
intelligent
nano-systems (quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs
and international cooperation);

— Networks of Excellence

— Integrated Projects

— Activities based on Art. 169.

— Energy and transport,

transport safety, clean fossil

including energy security and
fuel, micro-tur-
safety,
bine/fuel cells, combined technologies, renewable ener-
gies,
their storage and distribution, hydrogen tech-
nologies, fuel cells, high quality travel time, intermodular
intelligent logistic
traffic transportation,
systems, clean transport, standards harmonisation (quotas
foreseen for mobility, SMEs and international cooper-
ation);

intermodality,

— Aeronautics and space, including aerospace safety, noise
reduction, reduction of greenhouse gas emission, inte-
grated avionics, GMES, Galileo, inter-sectoral linked tech-
nologies (quotas foreseen for human mobility, SMEs and
international cooperation);

Based on information provided by the Commission
7.4.2.1.
proposal, the Committee does not yet feel able to give a final
the new measures. Rather it recommends
assessment of
developing a more detailed definition of
the proposed
measures/instruments. Nevertheless, the Committee presents
some general and basic considerations for this purpose.

New measures should not

7.4.2.2.
lead to an overall
increase in bureaucracy. Additional administrative loads for
applicants should be as low as possible. While the Committee
admits that programmes will be regularly subjected to evalu-
ation and measures taken to encourage participation by SMEs
or other small research entities from all EU regions, the
positive aspect of more autonomy for networks and projects
should not be offset by an increased administrative load.

— Global environment, agriculture and natural resources,
including food safety, environmental safety, water &
soil safety, global climate change, desertification, floods,

The Committee is happy to note the Com-
7.4.2.2.1.
mission’s intention to provide access to FP6 for any qualified
organisation or group.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/13

7.4.2.3.
During the initial exploratory phase which charac-
terises the introduction of such a novel concept, a balance has
to be struck between sufficient freedom and flexibility on the
one hand and simple but clear rules on the other. It will be
important to allow for continuous feedback between the
Commission and the scientific players involved.

7.4.2.4.
The Committee stresses that the new instruments
for thematic priorities should increase the participation of
firms, research centres and universities, in particular of new
participant entities of the Candidate Countries. The nature and
size of instruments should be designed in such a way as to
concentrate European efforts on the thematic priorities but at
the same time to allow newcomers and new SMEs to be part
of or initiate new proposals, even as main contractors playing
a leading role.

7.4.2.5.
The principles of transparency and equal access
should be taken into account when structuring the new
instruments in order to avoid closed-shop circles, unclear and
non neutral sub-tenders, the absorption of financial resources
by a few large integrated projects and networks of excellence
precluding new ideas and new options.

7.4.3. N e t w o r k s o f e x c e l l e n c e

7.4.3.1. While the concept of ‘networks of excellence’ is
supported in principle, by the Committee, a number of delicate
aspects have to be considered when setting up such networks
and the consequences taken into account.

7.4.3.2.
The very concept of ‘centres of excellence’ and
‘networks of excellence’ has to be seen as a dynamic instrument
to be developed and approached with great sensitivity, re-
cognising that the standing of any institution may change with
time and scientific excellence is a subtle quality.

7.4.3.3.
The Committee repeats its recommendation that
the candidates for networks of excellence should be selected
and set up on a competitive basis with the aim of achieving
high quality; the working rules should be developed so as to
account for what has been said above.

Responsibilities must be clearly defined in respect
7.4.3.4.
of both the technical coordination of all the research strands
and of budgetary powers, so that the synergistic effects of
these networks of excellence can be harnessed.

7.4.3.5. With the above in mind and based on the positive
experience with scientific self-organisation if carried out in a
well-defined and transparent process, the Committee supports
the Commission’s intention of having the networks of excel-
lence and the integrated projects administered autonomously
by the participants to a large extent.

7.4.3.6.
The Committee recommends that not only coordi-
nation activities should be considered but also research
activities, which are part of the common working plan. It also
acknowledges that the programmes will be defined on the
basis of research themes and general objectives and not on the
basis of fixed and predefined results. The proposals and later
results will have to be evaluated according to the accepted
rules of the technical/scientific community, acknowledging in
particular novel ideas and approaches. However, before setting
up such a network of excellence it is necessary to check
carefully whether the field of research justifies the extra cost of
this kind of organisation, i.e., whether added value can really
be expected.

7.4.3.7.
As far as applied or product oriented research is
concerned, each joint programme of activity within a specific
network should be structured using plans addressing the
different aspect related to the build up of the virtual centre
of excellence (i.e. the development and use of electronic
information for virtual and interactive works; exchange and
mobility; joint use of infrastructure; …). These plans, with
defined and measurable intermediate objectives, must be
checked by the Commission in order to ensure a correct
control of the network growth.

7.4.3.8.
An in/out dynamic mechanism for the entities
participating in the network should be established on the basis
of the network performances. The selection of the incoming
partners should be under the Commission’s responsibility;
large excellence networks should be tutored and controlled
directly by the Commission. In addition, for medium-size/small
excellence networks, leadership by small entities should also
be allowed; in this case, simplified procedures of tutoring and
evaluation could be foreseen.

7.4.4.

I n t e g r a t e d p r o j e c t s

In certain fields of RTD&D,

7.4.4.1.
‘Integrated Projects’
can be the appropriate management and funding instrument.
This appears to be the case where the size and structure of the
projects require a well-coordinated joint approach between
industry, research centres and academia, and where well-
established cooperation networks already exist. The Committee
is convinced that the experience resulting from FP5 must be
preserved, thus also providing a wider choice of size and
characteristics.

C 260/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

7.4.4.2.
However, the selection criteria for integrated pro-
jects must be clearly defined, while the financial volume should
not be such a criterion. Since it is foreseen by the Commission
that coordinators of
integrated projects will be able to
announce calls for proposals and to select additional project
partners on their own account, integrated projects will take on
more the character of programmes than of projects. Therefore
the usual project criteria will not be adequate. For instance, the
task and position of the project coordinator will have to be
defined in a way which guarantees neutrality and avoids or
controls possible conflicts of interest (which could occur if he
is both a working partner and also responsible for the selection
of additional projects).

7.4.4.3.
The Committee also addresses and questions the
administration of integrated projects. Should the administrat-
ive load, which has been taken on by the Commission up to
now, be transferred to project coordinators or to programme
agencies? In both cases the administration costs for project
coordination should be funded at 100 % and not at 50 %,
otherwise only large entities will be able to coordinate
integrated projects. Moreover, while the Commission would
be relieved from the relevant administrative burden, which
previously had been part of its mission, the required additional
financial volume accounting about 7 % of the total budget is
not included in the budget of the FP6! The Committee feels
that this should be the case (see 13).

7.4.4.4.
The Committee welcomes the idea of adapting the
project plan during the project’s duration. This offers the
chance to take the latest results and new developments into
account. However,
the use of
external advisory bodies may create difficulties concerning IPR
(intellectual property rights).

in the Committee’s view,

7.4.4.5. While the Committee has drawn attention above
to some points needing clarification, the following remarks
may contribute to structuring the proposed instrument ‘Inte-
grated Projects’ in the future:

— The objectives and sub-objectives of ‘Integrated Projects’
should be clearly defined and measurable in order to
permit evaluation of the intermediate results.

— Modification of the initially declared objectives must be
agreed with the Commission. The project plan should be
based on a problem-tackled approach, and also include
the socio-economic aspects.

— Integrated Projects should be controlled and tutored
directly by the Commission, with a mechanism similar
to FP5.

— ‘Integrated Projects’ should also permit leadership by

small entities (except what is mentioned in 15).

— Small projects within the thematic priorities, with dedi-
cated calls, should be provided, in particular for SMEs
and other small entities.

7.4.5. A r t i c l e 1 6 9 a c t i v i t i e s

7.4.5.1.
Article 169 of the Treaty allows the Commission
to participate in programmes carried out jointly by several
Member States.

Article 169 stipulates:
‘In implementing the
7.4.5.1.1.
multiannual
framework programme the Community may
make provision, in agreement with the Member States con-
cerned, for participation in research and development pro-
grammes undertaken by several Member States,
including
participation in the structures created for the execution of
those programmes.’

7.4.5.2.
powerful
grammes and for the development of ERA.

In principle, the rules of this Article can become a
instrument for the coordination of national pro-

7.4.5.2.1.
Countries must also be ensured.

Therefore,

the participation of Candidate

7.4.5.3.
However, the legal rules for applying this new
instrument require further clarification. The Committee rec-
ommends that the Commission define the procedures in more
detail. Especially, it should be clarified whether each activity
must undergo a separate co-decision process with EP and
Council. The Committee takes note of
the Commission
Communication on the Framework Rules for implementation
under Article 169.

7.4.5.4.
Equally the very discussion process between Mem-
ber States should be described in more detail, so that initiatives
can be taken. The Committee feels that the definition of topics
and the formation of consortia should start as a bottom-up
process, to be approved/confirmed by the required decisions
of the Member States and the EU Parliament.

7.4.5.5.
In addition to Art. 169 activities, the Commission
proposes ‘opening of national programmes’ as a further
funding instrument for the third group of activities. The
Committee believes that ‘opening of national programmes’ can
become a further useful instrument for developing the ERA,
applied to both third group and also first group of actions.
However, it is not yet sufficiently clear what such an instrument
could mean in practice.

Therefore the Committee feels that

7.4.5.5.1.
there is
need for further clarification concerning the decision-making
processes and structure of such initiatives. In particular, the
role of the Commission in project selection and programme
control should be defined.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/15

7.4.5.5.2.
must be ensured.

Here too the participation of Candidate Countries

7.4.5.6.
As far as the initiative of joint national programmes
under Article 169 is concerned, this must be part of a package
of voluntary initiatives by the interested Member States, in
order to ensure a geo-political balance of initiatives financed
by the EU budget.

7.4.5.7.
A clear perspective of industrial and intellectual
property rights (‘IPR’) related to these initiatives must be
developed. The Committee recommends considering instru-
ments like a ‘memorandum of understanding’ between partici-
pating Member States.

7.4.5.8.
Project partners should also come to an agreement
on the exploitation and commercialisation of the results in
conformity with the interests of the Community as a whole
and with the interests of those Member States where the
project participants have their legal base.

7.4.6. A c c o m p a n y i n g m e a s u r e s

Apart from the accompanying measures provided
7.4.6.1.
for in the Commission proposal (i.e. conferences, workshops,
diffusion of information, evaluation and follow-up activities)
the Committee recommends including the following measures:

— Feasibility/explorative studies in order to provide a basis
for new ideas for possible new research lines (within the
thematic areas). The Committee proposes launching short
term projects in order to explore various new ways of
approaching the same problems, to stimulate creativity,
excellence and innovation which can provide a test basis
for the ‘ex-ante’ clusters.

— Tuition. The Committee recommends the training and
selection of Commission tutors to accompany the core
groups responsible for running the new instruments.

— Training. Measures must be foreseen for training the
members of core groups for their new responsibilities
(i.e. organising ‘ex-ante’ clusters, enlarging partnership,
managing the projects).

8. The second group of actions on research-inno-
vation/SME incremental research & other facili-
ties/new regional initiatives

Council, European integrated efforts for the interaction of
research and innovation, incremental research for short-term
problem solving, and the new Regio RTD&D Innovation
Initiative are clearly and transparently identified and fostered.

8.1.1.
The Committee subscribes to the following statement
made by the European Council: ‘We will strengthen existing
programmes aimed at promoting technology dissemination
towards small enterprises as well as the capacity of small
business to identify, select and adapt technologies’.

8.1.2.
The Committee underlines the need to enlarge and
enrich the participation of small businesses in the 6th Frame-
level of 20-22 %,
work Programme beyond the present
ensuring appropriate resources both as a quota of a minimum
15 % of dedicated financial resources in the first group of
actions and as specific resources within the actions of the
second group focused on incremental short-term research (not
restricted to the defined long-term priorities, but based on a
bottom-up approach)
to be financed with EUR 700-
800 million (i.e. cooperative research and collective research).
This short-term action should cover RTD&D excellence pro-
jects in order to foster the number of SMEs participating in
research.

8.1.3.
In addition to this, the Committee underlines the
importance of ensuring that Research/Innovation interaction
makes tangible improvements in Europe’s innovation perform-
ance by working towards a more coherent policy and regulat-
ory environment in the EU.

8.2.
As for the sub-group dedicated to Research/Innovation
interaction, the Committee believes that these actions must be
fostered and rationalised so as to coordinate the dissemination
and exploitation activities within the FP6. The actions of
European Networks, in line with the recommendations of the
Committee’s Opinion (1), must build up efficient proactive
interfaces between research and firms, firms and finance, and
research and finance, during the entire research/innovation
process, from the moment of a project’s conception.

8.1.
The Committee considers it essential that, in line with
the European Charter for small firms adopted by the European

(1) Opinion on RTD&D Expenditure

and SMEs

(rapporteur:

Mr Malosse).

C 260/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

technology parks,

8.2.1.
The actions should be clearly focused on those
customers where the highest leverage effects can be achieved
and where the core competencies can be used the best.
Particularly, the networking of stakeholders in the European
innovation system (i.e.
incubators and
RTD&D angels) and the economic and technological intelli-
gence activities must have priority. For this harmonisation of
instruments and
innovation programmes,
national/regional
measures and the creation of national branches of CORDIS
(run by Member States), should give a clear and transparent
overview of and easy access to all the European innovation
systems, particularly services of assistance on technological
transfer, IPR protection, the use of the future Community
Patent system, and access to risk capital and start up facilities.

8.3.
The SME-Incremental Research sub-group plays a
key role in promoting problem-solving short-term research,
development and transfer of new technologies into industrial
and commercial success. This is the ultimate aim of the Lisbon
agenda targets as well as the creation of an integrated research
area and of the actions laid down in the EU and EURATOM
framework programmes.

districts and EIGs representing the interests of SMEs to take
part in a project as main contractor. Even in such case,
tutoring, training and ‘take-up’ actions must be foreseen,
especially for larger projects.

A new RTD&D transnational regio Initiative must be

8.4.
provided by the FP6 in order to:

— reinforce the regional structure of RTD&D Europe, to
enable rapid diffusion of knowledge at regional level,

— foster a mix of specialisations and complementarity

approaches between the regions of the Union,

— improve research and application of appropriate user-

friendly information society technologies,

— create networks of excellence of learning-communities
including less-developed and/or peripheral regions,

8.3.1.
Along these lines, the Committee would like to stress
the need for bottom-up open actions with dedicated resources
to be added to the quota dedicated to SME participation in the
actions on long-term objectives. These should be for all SMEs
which represent the vital source of innovation in Europe both
for sustainable growth and for more and better jobs and
cohesion.

— provide sound mapping, assessing and forecasting facili-

ties for decision-makers at regional level,

— tutor firms, research centres and universities in providing

feasibility awards, financial networks, spin-off facilities,

The two main activities of cooperative research and
8.3.2.
the new collective research are useful tools for strengthening
European competitiveness and ensuring sound economic and
social development of the Union. The Committee recommends
that these actions cover both the long-term technological
priority objectives as also other fields.

8.3.2.1.
As far as cooperative research is concerned, the
Committee points out that the size of the projects must be
variable and allow for the full development of prototypes. The
activities must be coordinated centrally but administrative
procedures and evaluation mechanisms kept simple. Tutoring
measures must be foreseen by the Commission in order to
prepare and assist small business on the way to present and
run larger projects or clusters of projects.

8.3.2.2.
Concerning the new area of collective research, the
Committee stresses that this new formula must be flexible
in order to allow industrial associations and Chambers of
Commerce as well as other groupings such as industrial

— establish GRID systems among firms, research centres

and universities at inter-regional level,

— play a role in external inter-regional RTD&D efforts with
the neighbouring Mediterranean, Balkan and ex-Soviet
Union areas,

— coordinate, interface and optimise joint actions with the
relevant Structural, Cohesion and Safard and Ispa Funds,
Phare and Tacis activities and EIB-EIF actions.

The RTD&D regional dimension should also play a
8.4.1.
useful role in developing new FP6 instruments such as
integrated projects, networks of excellence, joint programmes
under Art. 169 as well as the collective research instruments.
Regions can promote, tutor and cluster regional participation
in specialised sectoral schemes; they can develop inter-regional
networks of excellence into virtual centres across Europe in
order to provide measuring and testing prototypes and quality
management as well as networking of industrial districts;
they could promote joint regional programmes in research,
innovation,
technology transfer and technological bench-
marking.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/17

8.4.2.
In particular, the RTD regio Initiative must develop
schemes of complementary measures to foster the ERA by
enhancing cooperation with the other Community instruments
outside the FP6, especially within the Structural Funds (1) and
the EIB/EIF.

These complementary measures could provide for
8.4.3.
the creation of a ‘Rotation Financial Fund’ to cover gaps in
different timing and procedures which in the past prevented
synergetic use of FP instruments and structural ones.

— financial contribution to national or

regional pro-
grammes in support of researcher mobility open to
researchers from other European countries;

— support for European research teams of the highest level
of excellence, more particularly for leading edge or
interdisciplinary research activities;

— scientific prizes for work of excellence carried out by a
researcher having received EU financial support
for
mobility.

9. The third group of human resources mobility actions

9.1.
The activities proposed by the Commission under this
heading are intended to support the development of abundant
and excellent human resources in all regions of the Community
by promoting transnational mobility. Its purposes are the
the
training of scientists and especially female scientists,
development of expertise,
in
the transfer of knowledge,
particular between different sectors, supporting the develop-
ment of excellence and helping to make Europe more attractive
to third country researchers.

9.2.
The Committee supports the Commission statement:
‘Promoting transnational mobility is a simple, particularly
effective and powerful means of boosting European excellence
as a whole, as well as its distribution in the different regions of
the EU. It creates opportunities for significantly improving the
quality of the training of researchers, promotes the circulation
and exploitation of knowledge, and helps to establish world-
class centres of excellence that are attractive throughout
Europe. A critical mass of action undertaken at EU level in this
area, and in relation to human resources in general, conducted
at level, will inevitably have considerable effects’.

9.3.
According to the Commission’s proposal, the specific
‘mobility’ activities, in the whole field of science and tech-
nology, will take the following forms:

— global support measures for universities, research centres,
businesses and networks, for the hosting of European and
third country researchers;

— individual support measures for European researchers for
the purposes of mobility to another European or third
country and for top-class third-country researchers wish-
ing to come to Europe;

— mechanisms for return to the countries and regions of
origin, as well as professional (re-integration) mechan-
isms, in particular linked to the granting of overall and
individual support;

(1) Especially INTERREG III Strand A and C, RISI-IRISI actions, ERDF

Innovative Actions 2000-2006, URBS...

9.4.
The Committee feels that these are very important
aims which also follow its previous recommendations and
should be fully supported. The Committee draws particular
attention to the aim of also

— supporting the mobility of researchers and of research
teams between the present Member States and the
Candidate Countries

— enhancing inter-action between academia and industry

(in both directions)

— supporting mobility with and in particular from top-class

third countries (e.g. USA or Japan).

9.5.
However, the Committee also recommends that one
third of the mobility budget proposed by the Commission (i.e.
EUR 600 million) should be shifted and linked directly to the
thematic priority actions promoted within the FP6 and the
Euratom Programme. This switch is intended to strengthen
further the provisions for mobility already included there: this
re-allocation is reflected in the revised financial table proposed
by the Committee.

The Committee urgently recommends taking immedi-
9.6.
ate action to remove the administrative, fiscal and social
security obstacles to the inner-European mobility of scientists,
engineers and researchers which still exist, and to establish a
European-wide career framework for these professions.

10. The fourth specific group of actions on international

cooperation

10.1.
The Committee would stress that international coop-
eration and relations with third countries must not be con-
sidered in the next Framework Programme, as a sporadic and
optional element within individual programmes but should
represent an autonomous specific Group of actions with its
own budget of EUR 400 million. A similar quota of dedicated
financial resources (2 %) must be included as such in the
first Group of actions concerning each of
the thematic
technological and scientific priorities.

C 260/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

The Committee

10.1.1.
strongly persuaded that,
is
especially in the framework of growing globalisation, the
European Research Area needs to be opened up in order to
stimulate cooperation with the Associated Countries as well as
with all the other relevant third countries. This needs with
clear, visible and on-going actions and objectives within a
specific identified group on the basis of reciprocal interest for
the Union too, as well as coherence in Community external
policy and action.

10.4.
The Committee lays great stress on the advantages of
opening up the networks of excellence and the ‘Integrated
Projects’, on the basis of mutual interest and human resources
mobility, to researchers from third countries,
in particular
Japan and USA, and to provide, where relevant, appropriate
return-fellowships. The Committee recommends that particu-
lar efforts be made to encourage international cooperation
between SMEs, with measures for the promotion of technologi-
cal joint ventures, especially within the Mediterranean, ex-
Soviet Union and Mercosur countries.

10.2.
must be identified and provided with dedicated resources.

According to the Committee, several lines of action

10.2.1.
following:

On the one hand cooperation mainly with the

— Mediterranean third countries, with the aim of supporting
the creation of a ‘Euro-Mediterranean Research Area’ in
the context of the Barcelona process towards a Free Trade
Area.

— Latin American and Asian Third countries, especially
Mercosur countries within the process towards a Free
Trade Area and countries with whom cooperation agree-
ments have been signed;

— third countries of the ex-Soviet Union area, taking into
account the positive INTAS experience as well as the
presence of the Moscow Science and Research Centre
which is supported by the Community;

— third countries of the ACP Convention and South Africa
where special cooperation links have been developed and
where specific joint research actions are needed to fight
against diseases, in particular AIDS and tropical diseases;

— third industrialised and emerging countries that represent
a critical area of cooperation in the framework of
globalisation.

10.5.
The Committee recommends clear visibility and easy
access for this specific group of actions together with consist-
ency with Community external relations, aid and development
cooperation and economic assistance policies as well as with
Members States’ policies on these fields.

11. The fifth specific group of actions on coordination

of ongoing activities and infrastructure

11.1.
An essential element for scientific and technological
progress is the development and availability of novel and
appropriate instruments and infrastructure. The Committee
therefore welcomes and backs the Commission proposal to
include research infrastructure in FP6. Examples of medium-
and large-scale infrastructure are databases and animal model
collections in the field of life science, or large-scale radiation
sources for exploring the structure of (for instance biological)
matter showing clear evidence of a contribution to the EU’s
future competitiveness.

11.2.
Given the significance of this for success with the
ERA, the Committee suggests that FP6 should also part finance
the attendant planning, development, investment and running
costs.

10.2.2.

On the other hand cooperation mainly with

The Committee draws attention to the importance
11.3.
of large-scale facilities for regional development. Therefore,
regional funding should also be made available.

— Australia, Canada, Japan, USA

— other highly developed countries.

The Committee considers that

the joint actions
10.3.
above must be developed on the basis of clear analysis of
opportunities and needs, identified in terms of technological
development and scientific excellence with priority for areas
near at hand and for those moving towards closer association
with the Union, safeguarding mutual advantage as well as
contributing towards solving common problems.

11.4.
The Committee believes that the new approach to
research and innovation foreseen for the ERA requires a
strategic intelligence network, quality control and transparency
with clear and evolving perspectives.

11.4.1.
The changing nature of technology, new patterns of
communication and interaction amongst ever more numerous
actors within the ERA bring the need for strategic monitoring,
evaluation and forecasting.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/19

11.4.2.

Specifically there is need for

— a network of Distributed Intelligence (D.I.) for research
and technological innovation at European, national and
regional levels to monitor technological evolution and to
identify openings in the internal and global markets;

— promotion of

joint projects of Strategic Intelligence

between different communities;

— development of interfaces between science and tech-
nology on the one hand and industry and the general
public on the other to help sustain policy-makers through
bottom-up processes.

The Committee recommends providing a specific
11.4.3.
budget
line of 100 M Euro for the action ‘Distributed
Strategic Intelligence Network’ to support the development of
systematic measures under the 5th specific group, including
interaction between the various RTD&D entities and also with
the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville.

12. Multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 of
the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)
for research and training activities aimed at con-
tributing towards the creation of the European
Research Area

12.1.
cover the following main fields:

The EU action, as proposed by the Commission, will

— fission technology and radiation protection

— fusion energy research

— JRC activities.

12.1.1.
In line with point 7.2 above the Committee presents
in this section a short, headline-type of compilation only
without commenting or justifying its choice in any detail, and
reserves in-depth assessment for its forthcoming Opinion on
the Commission Proposal on the Specific Programmes.

12.1.2.
The Committee also repeats its comments of 7.3.1:
that more emphasis and visibility must be given to energy
requiring the development of all possible options and including
a significant commitment within the Euratom programme. In
its recent Opinion on the Green Paper on Energy (1), the
Committee stated: ‘The EU’s research framework programmes

(1) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 45.

must continue to support research into nuclear power, includ-
ing in particular fusion, by means of extensive international
cooperation. These efforts are important both for developing
the technologies of the future and retaining an essential level
of know-how.’

Since major changes in fossil fuel availability will
12.1.3.
intervene only later, and since world-wide energy consumption
is expected to grow further, the Committee expects the energy
problem to be at its most serious in the second half of the
century.

12.2.

The fission and radiation protection activities cover:

— waste treatment and storage: long term in deep geological
strata, new concept and technologies to produce less
waste or reduce its hazards (e.g. partitioning or transmu-
tation);

— safety and security: existing reactors (also Candidate
Countries!), new generation reactors, monitoring, decom-
missioning, control of fissile materials and control of
non-proliferation.

12.2.1.
The Committee notes that fission presently supplies
35 % of electricity in Europe, does not emit CO2 or other
‘climate change’ gases, but is not politically desired/accepted in
all Member States because of safety and waste. The Committee
also recalls the existing nuclear power stations in the Candidate
Countries and in their immediate neighbourhood for which
the EU — and European industry — must develop a policy
and appropriate technical and scientific expertise and solutions
, and refers to recent plans of Russia and the USA to develop
advanced types of reactors and build a large number of new
power stations.

12.2.2.
The Committee therefore endorses the proposed
RTD&D fission programme, but feels strongly that the budget
will not be sufficient for the proposed objectives. It therefore
recommends allocating EUR 350 million to the fission pro-
gramme (see point 13).

12.3.
cover

As far as the fusion activities are concerned, they

— realising the ‘Next Step’ (ITER) intended to demonstrate

the scientific feasibility of fusion power;

— exploiting JET and existing installations in support of the
Next Step and developing technologies and concepts (e.g.
the Stellarator) essential for optimising the techniques for
a commercial fusion power station.

C 260/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

12.3.1.
The Committee points out that the use of fusion
power is a novel method and that a fusion power station —
depending on the required RTD&D support — is expected to
become operational towards the middle of this century, with
great advantages concerning safety and minimising nuclear
waste and with practically unlimited fuel supply.

Therefore, the Committee endorses the objectives
12.3.2.
of the fusion programme as proposed by the Commission and
outlined under 12.3. Considering, however, that such an
ambitious and international RTD&D programme also requires
specific actions and broad support by Member States, including
the necessary basis of infrastructure, expertise and human
resources, the Committee is concerned that the proposed
budget is incommensurate with the stated objectives and

FP6 for EC RTD&D actions

recommends allocating EUR 950 million to this part of the
programme (see point 13). It is worth-while repeating earlier
comments of the Committee, i.e. that in the spirit and structure
of the EU fusion programme, the principles of the ERA have
already been applied.

13.

Financial resources and their distribution for FP6
and FP6 (Euratom)

As a result of its considerations and recommendations, but
referring to its remarks under point 7.1.1, the Committee
recommends allocating the following financial resources:

First group of actions on long-medium term thematic priority goals (thematic actions)

EUR 11 000 million

— Genomics and biotech for health

— Information Society

— Nanotech/Process/Product/Materials/Hybrid tech

— Aeronautics & Space

— Energy & Transport

— Environment/Agriculture/Natural Resources

2 200

3 600

1 400

1 000

1 500

1 300

(including an additional EUR 600 million for human mobility, + 15 % min. for SMEs, and EUR
400 million for international cooperation)

Second group of actions on inter-action research/innovation, SME incremental research,
networking, start-up facilities and new regional initiative

EUR 1 500 million

— Innovation/Research Inter-Actions

— SME Incremental Research/Networking/Start-up Facilities

— New Regional Initiative

Third group of actions on human resources mobility

Fourth group of actions on international cooperation

400

700

400

EUR 1 200 million

EUR 600 million

Fifth group of actions on coordination of permanent activities and infrastructures

EUR 2 200 million

— Coordination of RTD&D activities

— Large and Medium-sized Infrastructures

— Strategic intelligence

— Anticipating the EU’s emerging needs

— Science, Society and Citizen

400

1 000

100

400

300

JRC activities

EUR 750 million

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/21

Euratom FP6

Euratom specific programme

— Fission

— Fusion

— Other activities

JRC Euratom activities

total EC FP6

total Euratom FP6

Total proposed by the Committee:
(instead of 17 500 proposed by the Commission)

EUR 1 350 million

350

950

50

EUR 330 million

EUR 17 250 million

EUR 1 680 million

EUR 18 930 million

13.1. Where the Commission transfers administration to
other bodies like agencies or project coordinators, the respect-
ive above budget lines have to be increased by 7 % (see 7.4.4.3).

14.3.
concentrate its activities the following priorities:

The Committee is persuaded that the JRC has to

The Committee’s proposal

13.2.
in line with the
increment for research expenditure provided in the Lisbon
Summit, in particular in the light of the fast integration of the
Candidate Countries and of the participation of associated
third Countries.

is

14. The activities of the Joint Research Centre

14.1.
The Committee has always acknowledged the import-
ance of the role and activities of the Joint Research Centres in
providing customer-driven scientific and technical support for
the conception, development, implementation and monitoring
of European Union policies. The Committee has insisted on
the JRC’s strategic inter-institutional role to help decision-
makers with neutral and independent contributions and fore-
casting at the service of citizens’ safety, providing expertise not
only to Commission services but also to the other Institutions,
such as the European Parliament, the Council and the Econ-
omic and Social Committee itself.

14.2.
The Committee underlines that, in response to the
the JRC is contributing significantly to a
ERA initiative,
common scientific and technological basis of reference for
policy and has a long tradition of maintaining a healthy flow
of resources and facilities for researchers and top level scientists
as well as of developing high added value networks inside and
outside the Union and of fostering cooperation with industry,
especially with small and medium-sized enterprises.

— food safety and health

— environment and sustainability

— nuclear safety

— public security and the fight against fraud

— technological forecasting

— training and mobility of resources

— international cooperation

— scientific and technological reference systems

— participation in research networks

— EU enlargement and Mediterranean cooperation.

14.4.
The Committee underlines that, to fulfil its important
tasks, the JRC has to be provided with appropriate financial
and human resources: in the Committee’s opinion, the JRC
must be provided with EUR 750 million for EC FP6 and
EUR 330 million for Euratom FP6 and must be able to
maintain the present level and quality of human resources.
Given the increasing role played by science and technology in
the political arena, the functioning of the JRC is expected to
become even more important in the future, as is the case with
the current debate on science and governance. In this respect
the Committee believes that the role of the JRC can be
amplified once it operates as the EU focal point of a pan-
European research network, as a knowledge integrator and
bridge between policymakers and organised civil society.

C 260/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

14.5.
The Committee would point out that by their very
nature, direct actions are most suited to providing research
services on a short-term basis, as is often required by pol-
icymakers: the FP6 must clarify the links between direct and
indirect actions given the synergy that can result.

15.2.1.
Along this line, the Committee recommends that
the Commission consider the possibility of creating a new
European Agency for RTD&D Management. This Agency
should remain under the direct control of the Commission in
order to avoid any tendency of re-nationalisation.

The Committee proposes enhancing the scientific
14.6.
visibility of the JRC institutes by appointing scientific advisory/-
supervisory panels of independent external high-level experts
selected/appointed by EURAB, similar to the procedures within
scientific institutions of Member States.

15. Simplifying procedures: Decentralisation of systems

and limits

15.1.
The Committee underlines the need for management
procedures to be faster, simplified and user-friendly, but at the
same time clear, transparent and neutral. Equal treatment and
equal access to participants whether large or small has to be
ensured.

The Committee,

15.2.
in its Opinion of 21 September
2000 (1), also stressed the need for differentiated procedures
concerning large projects where project leaders will have to
take over many tasks currently performed by the Commission,
and for medium-sized projects where other solutions may be
appropriate.

15.2.2.
For larger project proposals exceeding the threshold
of EUR 10 million, the Committee recommends that the
Commission itself continue to provide the same mechanisms
as currently enforced.

15.3.
The European Agency together with national/regional
agencies could provide tutoring and accompanying measures
as foreseen under point 7.4.6.1.

15.4.
Any new management procedure must be conceived
so as to reduce the present costs and the heavy administrative
constraints of projects, since currently administrative costs are
typically 7 % of the global cost of each project. Any new
procedures must therefore lead to a lower percentage in order
to preserve the maximum budget for research proper. Shifting
the cost and the burden of project management to the core
group of main contractors does not change the situation, since
these costs have to be 100 % financed by the EC budget in any
case.

15.5.
signing of the contract should not exceed 6 months.

The time-lag between selection of a proposal and

15.6.
defined in order to

The provisions concerning IPR must be clear and pre-

— exploit results rapidly and fully;

— create spin-offs and set up new firms;

(1) OJ C 367, 20.12.2000, p. 61.

— capture larger quotas on the global market.

Brussels, 11 July 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/23

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Structure of the 6th Framework Programme Modifications proposed by ESC

Financial resources and their distribution for FP6 (Total EUR 18 930 million)