Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006"
Date: 2002-02-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, dissemination of information, research body, research programme, type of business, university

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 94/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research
centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of
the European Community framework programme 2002-2006’

(2002/C 94/01)

On 14 November 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 167 and 172(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-mentioned
proposal.

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 4 February 2002. The rapporteur was
Mr Malosse.

At its 388th Plenary Session of 20 and 21 February 2002 (meeting of 21 February), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 68 votes to 1, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

The rules for participation and dissemination ensure
1.1.
that the conditions for the implementation of the 6th European
Community RTD framework programme (1) and its specific
programmes are met. It is to be noted that, for the first time,
this text is subject to the co-decision procedure between the
Council and the European Parliament.

of research bodies have complained about excessive formalities
in European research and the Committee has raised this issue
on several occasions.

2.

Innovations in the Commission’s proposal

1.2.
Notwithstanding the technical nature of the proposed
decision, it does lead to a number of political choices, for
example, about the participation of legal entities from third
countries, priority criteria for project selection and access to
knowledge produced by the research projects.

2.1.
The intention behind the new rules is to reflect the new
approaches in the 6th framework programme, in particular the
inclusion of two new types of assistance: support for networks
of excellence and integrated research projects. Direct grants
will be allocated to their budgets.

The European Economic and Social Committee should
1.3.
consider the question of administrative simplification,
in
accordance with the code of conduct it adopted (2). A number

(1) EESC opinion, OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.
(2) EESC opinion, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001.

2.2.
Participants from Member States and associated candi-
date countries have exactly the same rights and obligations, as
do the international organisations for scientific cooperation
with a European focus, such as the European Space Agency
(ESA) or the European Organisation for Nuclear Research
(CERN).

C 94/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.4.2002

2.3.
The applicant countries are, of course, eligible with
equal rights. For the first time, organisations from other third
countries are fully entitled to participate in actions carried out
under the bulk of the framework programme. Organisations
in third countries eligible to take part in specific international
cooperation actions under the framework programme (Russia
and the States of the CIS, third countries of the Mediterranean,
developing countries, the ACP countries and Latin American
and Asian countries) will in addition be fully entitled to receive
funding.

3. Comments

3.1.
The participation rules focus on increased simplifi-
cation, greater transparency and more consistency with the
EU’s strategic objectives. The aim is to enhance the profile and
effectiveness of European action and make sure that the
programme meets the aspirations of the public.

2.4.
Consortia responsible for networks and integrated
projects are given the opportunity to change the partnership,
including through competitive calls under the supervision of
the European Commission. This measure could be beneficial
to SMEs whose participation in the framework programme
has been set at 15 % minimum.

3.2.

Simplification

2.5.
There is to be greater flexibility with an individual
work programme for each specific programme, which can be
modified at any moment, and calls for tender with dates
varying according to needs.

2.6.
Financial rules are to be relaxed to allow for payment
of advances. However, at the same time, ex-post controls will
be stepped up and it will become compulsory to have accounts
certified by an independent auditor, for which the costs may
be fully covered by the European Union. Independent experts
will be appointed to monitor the networks of excellence,
integrated projects and, if necessary, some traditional actions.

2.7.
The rules for dissemination of information among
participants in a consortium have been made more flexible,
for example by giving participants the option to exclude some
of their pre-existing know-how from the requirement to grant
access to other participants, or to limit access rights to
knowledge arising from the work to particular participants.

2.8.
Bodies submitting proposals for indirect actions are no
longer obliged to prove, when they sign a contract, that they
have sufficient resources to carry out the action. This used to
mean the requirement to provide a bank guarantee, which
was either impossible or very costly for small businesses,
particularly start-ups. In exchange, the Commission has made
the members of a consortium jointly and severally liable. This
means that the Commission formally reserves the right to take
action against the most solvent partners in case of default.
Exceptions will be allowed for public bodies and each consor-
tium will be able to draw up internal rules whereby participants
can only be held responsible for that part of the Community
budget allocated to them.

In particular,

3.2.1.
The Committee welcomes the proposals inasmuch
as they will provide greater flexibility, more transparency and
it approves the lifting of the
equal access.
requirement to provide a bank guarantee, which could be
costly and difficult to secure. It also approves the system of
advance payments as this is a welcome replacement for the
reimbursement of expenses, which used to create cash-flow
problems. These two innovations should be beneficial to SMEs,
who should be considered the priority target of the 6th RTD
framework programme, given their crucial role in developing
European competitiveness and employment.

3.2.2.
However, no specific arrangement has been put
forward to simplify formalities for the submission of dossiers,
in particular decentralisation proposals that the EESC formu-
lated for the Fifth Framework Programme. This is fundamental,
and the Committee therefore calls on the Commission to
present an action plan to simplify procedures, using the SLIM
method. The Committee also regrets that the Commission has
taken up its other proposals to simplify procedures
not
and facilitate the participation of SMEs,
for instance by
decentralising pre-selection systems and granting overall sub-
sidies to intermediaries. Such an arrangement would help to
compensate for the uncertainty about tender publication dates
and also provide an assistance service for project presentation.

3.2.3.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the Com-
mission has taken on board its suggestion to make business
associations, such as chambers of commerce, trade organis-
ations and technical centres, as well as other civil society
organisations, eligible as entities. It would suggest that these
associations be allowed to participate in projects as follow-
in particular to ensure that projects are
up coordinators,
disseminated and exploited. They should be encouraged to
participate in projects involving SMEs.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 94/3

3.2.4.
The Committee suggests that trans-national cooper-
ation projects by business groupings also be made eligible,
the objective being to set up a permanent framework for
technological cooperation between companies. Such actions
could be undertaken, both within the EU and with partner
countries,
in particular in the European Economic Area,
Central and Eastern Europe, non-EU Mediterranean countries,
and Latin America.

The joint liability of participants could discourage
3.2.5.
large groups from associating with small entities, on the
grounds that they are more likely to default. To lessen this risk,
the Committee suggests the idea of an insurance scheme which
would be fully covered by the EU budget and would thus allow
the Union to defend its financial interests well. The Committee
believes that introducing the principle of joint liability would
be detrimental unless such a scheme was set up.

There are concerns, however,

3.2.5.1.
such an
insurance scheme, financed by the Community budget, would
drastically reduce the financial resources directly available for
research and development. Therefore, initial experience on the
possibilities and costs of such an insurance scheme should be
gained in a pilot phase.

that

3.2.5.2.
In addition it must be guaranteed that public
institutions or state-supported bodies, which are not permitted
to assume a joint and several liability, are thereby not excluded
from participation nor disadvantaged in any way.

3.2.6.
The Committee recommends leaving the choice of
instruments open to operators. The various operating modes
would thus be offered as a ‘toolbox’ from which it would be
possible to choose individual instruments depending on needs
and to develop them as and when experience is acquired.

3.2.7.
The Committee approves the use of advance pay-
ments and hopes that priority in awarding them will be given
to small research bodies and SMEs and that they will be
awarded before an operation begins. The Committee approves
the use of external auditors provided that they are chosen by
the project promoter, that the European Commission only has
to check that they are independent and that their costs are
fully covered by the Community budget, as long as there is not
an overall increase in administrative expenditure.

The Committee appreciates the principle of drawing
3.2.8.
up a list of non-eligible expenditure (negative list) instead of a
list of eligible expenditure (positive list). This system would be

attractive as it should lead to simplification. However, it must
not open the way for the European Commission to dispute
expenditure commitments systematically. A pilot phase seems
necessary before definitively introducing this principle.

3.2.9.
Finally, the Committee stresses the need to provide
operators with information tools and aid to set up and manage
projects, in particular a model contract for each intervention
instrument and a guide including recommendations for each
stage of a project’s progress.

3.3. Transparency

3.3.1.
The way in which networks of excellence are to be
selected and defined remains very unclear. The proposed
decision does not give answers to several questions,
in
particular as to project assessment criteria and the arrange-
ments for disseminating results. The Committee would like the
Commission to clarify its intentions.

The requirement for networks of excellence to have
3.3.2.
three independent legal entities established in three different
Member States or Associated States (of which at least two must
be EU Member States), should not end up as a scramble to find
partners of convenience nor, in certain justified cases, exclude
more modest partnerships.

3.3.3.
Some definitions (Article 2) could be clarified. For
instance, the definition of SMEs should take account of the
European Commission’s new proposals, in order to give a
stricter definition of the independence criterion and avoid the
abuses that have arisen in the research field. Other definitions,
particularly for budgetary matters, should also be clarified.

3.3.4.
The Committee welcomes the clauses moderating
the rules on property, which enable participants to exclude
their pre-existing know-how from dissemination and will help
the innovative process. However, some
them to exploit
measures which might leave some results out of the usual rules
on dissemination among consortium participants, could prove
prejudicial to SMEs or other small-scale research entities. A
complementary measure should be envisaged to help these
entities by advising them on best possible practice for applying
internal rules to a consortium.

C 94/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.4.2002

3.3.5.
The Committee approves the opportunity given to
consortia to arrange their own competitive calls for some
work or to extend activities, provided that they act within the
framework defined by the Commission in order to ensure
transparency, equal treatment and consistency with the pro-
gramme’s objectives. The Committee stresses the importance
of finding flexible ways of doing this, so that groups of small
and medium-sized enterprises can participate.

3.3.5.1.
In order to ensure this transparency, the Committee
suggests publishing calls for tender on CORDIS, as well as
involving the Commission or experts duly appointed by the
Commission at all stages of these competitive tenders, from
ideas through to contracts.

3.4. Consistency with EU objectives

3.4.1. Without wishing to question the principle of suf-
ficiently broad access to the programmes for third countries
associated with the EU, the Committee feels that the clause
that makes provision for ‘Any legal entity established in a third
country [to] participate in the 6th Programme’
is a little
extreme. It would seem wise, in order to promote the EU’s true
interests, to fine-tune this provision by drawing a distinction
between, on the one hand, the countries of the European
Economic Area and the associated applicant countries, as fully
fledged participants, and, on the other hand, non-EU countries
eligible for specific international cooperation actions in the
framework programme (Russia and the CIS, non-EU Mediter-
ranean countries and developing ACP, Latin American and
Asian countries). The Committee also recognises the economic
and scientific value of cooperation with developed countries.
However, in accordance with its opinion of 11 July 2001 (1),

the Committee urges that the principle of reciprocity be
properly applied and calls on the Commission to present a
report on our partners’ implementation of this principle.

Article 20 of

3.4.2.
the decision concerning the rules
for participation in the 5th RTD framework programme (2)
required the compulsory presentation of a Technological
Implementation Plan. The Committee approved this measure
as it was intended to ensure that the project does in fact have
an industrial impact and it also included conditions about
disseminating and exploiting knowledge. The Committee
wonders why this measure has been replaced by a promotion
and dissemination programme only to be presented when a
project is launched. Such a step seems to run counter to the
conclusions of the Lisbon European Summit in March 2000
which aimed to make the EU the most competitive knowledge-
based economy in the world by 2010.

3.4.3.
If the objectives set out at the Lisbon European
Summit are to be achieved, it is essential that (a) as many
people as possible receive an appropriate basic education in
science and technology and (b) a balance should be struck and
fruitful interaction assured between longer-term basic research,
on the one hand, and product-orientated development, on
the other hand. This duality must also be reflected in the
participation rules and the corresponding project assessment
criteria.

3.4.4.
Bearing in mind the observations made in point 3.4.3
above, the Committee hopes that major EU priorities, such as
employment, the creation of new activity, entrepreneurship
and competitiveness will also be taken into account as overall
criteria for project assessment.

(2) EESC opinion on the evaluation of the 5th RTD framework

(1) EESC opinion in OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

programme, OJ C 367, 20.12.2000.

Brussels, 21 February 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS