Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the Proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities concerning the specific programmes implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community for research and training activities, and (COM(2001) 279 final — 2001/0122 (CNS) — 2001/0123 (CNS) — 2001/0124 (CNS) — 2001/0125 (CNS) — 2001/0126 (CNS))the Amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme 2002-2006 for research, technology development and demonstration aimed at integrating and strengthening the European research area (COM(2001) 594 final — 2001/0122 (CNS))
Date: 2002-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EAEC, EU programme, EU research policy, innovation, research and development, research programme, technological change

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/97

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes implementing the
Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research, technological
development
specific programmes
implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy
Community for research and training activities’, and

and demonstration activities

concerning

the

(COM(2001) 279 final — 2001/0122 (CNS) — 2001/0123 (CNS) — 2001/0124 (CNS)

— 2001/0125 (CNS) — 2001/0126 (CNS))

— the ‘Amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme 2002-
2006 for research, technology development and demonstration aimed at integrating and
strengthening the European research area’

(COM(2001) 594 final — 2001/0122 (CNS))

(2002/C 221/21)

On 6 July 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

On 8 November 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned amended 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 8 May. The rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 391st plenary session (meeting of 30 May 2002), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously
adopted the following opinion.

1. Recommendations in brief

The European Economic and Social Committee, having

1.1.
regard to:

1.1.1.
the need to incorporate the specific programmes into
the strategic objective of the Lisbon process as reaffirmed by
the European Council in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March 2002,
above all
in terms of competitiveness and the sustainable
development of a knowledge-based European economy;

1.1.2.
the need to set an increase of about 50 % as a
medium-term goal for the period beyond the VIth framework
programme, while calling on Member States and industry to
do likewise, as formally underlined in Barcelona with regard
to both financial and human resources;

1.1.4.
the catalyst role which the specific programmes can
play in integrating the various European components (public
and private, academic and business, large and small) and in
integrating national and regional, Community and European
efforts, with a view to scientific/technological/innovative devel-
opment and informed choices for the future 2006-2010 VIIth
framework programme;

the vital need to accompany the development of the
1.1.5.
lines of action with a well-
programmes and individual
organised and defined system of management and advisory
bodies at various levels, to provide dialogue interfaces and
platforms, and direction and supervision, and thus build a
consistent and balanced framework of governance for the
integrated research and innovation area.

Recommends
1.2.
Council and the Commission:

that

the European Parliament,

the

the need to respond to the challenges indicated
1.1.3.
therein by fully integrating research and innovation efforts by
means of: the concentration of objectives, a balanced set of
traditional and innovative instruments, continuity of action,
simplification,
flexibility, transparency and autonomy, but
above all by expanding the common technological base and
proving an open and attractive partner on the international
stage;

1.2.1.
develop a plan of attack for a strong and coherent
common research and innovation policy, encompassing the
VIth framework programme and an integrated research-
education strategy, modernising the rules for public involve-
ment in supporting interactive technological innovation pro-
cesses, promoting the release onto the market of research
results, of public research in particular, promoting stronger

C 221/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

and more organic interactions between the business world and
scientific community and academia, broader and more flexible
forms of public-private partnership, and a firm and transparent
European system of innovation services;

on ‘Structuring the European Research Area’, and within each
line of the thematic priorities (minimum of 15 %) with their
own independent proposals and collective and cooperative
research instruments;

improve the structure of the specific programmes to
1.2.2.
make them as clear and transparent as possible and better able
to bring together all the elements, regardless of their type and
size, for the balanced broadening of the common scientific
and technological base in a concentrated number of thematic
priorities;

1.2.3.
Strengthening the European Research Area’ into two:

split the specific programme on ‘Integrating and

— a specific programme with medium-long term priorities
with seven dedicated budget lines and short-medium term
horizontal activities organised around three dedicated
budget lines;

— a specific programme on coordinating and developing
the European Research Area coherently,
to include:
supporting the coordination of national/European activi-
ties with pre-defined cooperation protocols; supporting
coherent policy development; creating a permanent cycle
of Distributed Strategic Intelligence not least to foster a
clear, informed and transparent approach in the VIIth
framework programme;

1.2.4.
broaden international cooperation fields, plans and
procedures by extending the areas covered to include Latin
America and Asia, the ACP countries and South Africa, and
provide for cooperation opportunities suited to smaller bodies,
in the mould of Craft international;

build into the specific programme on ‘Structuring
1.2.5.
the European Research Area’ a budget line dedicated not only
to research/innovation interfaces, but also to regional RTD
initiatives;

1.2.6.
give full application to the European Charter for
Small Enterprises, and in particular to the Committee’s pro-
posals in the area of research and innovation by means
of appropriate instruments, technology mediators and an
information and advice policy involving economic and pro-
fessional
intermediaries such as industrial associations and
chambers of commerce and craft associations directly and
more actively;

1.2.7.
provide SMEs with opportunities to take part both
in specific horizontal activities designed for them and the
budget line on ‘Research/innovation interfaces and regional
research and innovation initiatives’ of the specific programme

1.2.8.
develop the specific ‘JRC-EC’ and ‘JRC-Euratom’ pro-
grammes as the hub of a pan-European research network, a
European network of scientific technical reference systems,
acting as an integrator of knowledge and researchers at
international
level and a bridge between research and civil
society and policy makers, complementing permanent staff
with 15-20 % international fellowship holders;

bolster the specific programme on ‘Nuclear Energy’,
1.2.9.
for safe, clean and risk-free energy, supporting fusion and
the ITER project, shoring up and broadening activities on
radioactive waste and nuclear safety in the enlarged Union, in
particular by developing new safer technologies that generate
less waste;

1.2.10.
offer — but not predetermine — a toolbox of
instruments to all the potential players, so as to energise
participation and not straitjacket it: ‘new’ and ‘old’ instruments
should be set off against each other to promote the best and
most user-friendly tools that respond best to the needs of the
final users;

1.2.11.
ensure that the basic Community decisions within
the institutional decision-making process, lay down trans-
parent characteristics, criteria and procedures for the new
integrated projects, networks of excellence and collective
research projects: in particular, the selection and evaluation
criteria must
form part of a predefined set of elements
from which the most relevant can be chosen for the work
programmes, information packages and individual calls for
proposals;

1.2.12.
provide for Nano Integrated Projects with fewer
participants, a shorter duration and dedicated calls for appli-
cations, in order to ensure that at least 15 % of the thematic
priority resources go to smaller bodies in the Community and
the applicant countries, while also including ‘Tuition Projects’
among the implementation instruments for the specific pro-
grammes, as a means of supporting above all the smaller
partners in research and innovation initiatives, and accelerating
their progress on the stairway of excellence;

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/99

1.2.13.
ensure that the system for governing the specific
programmes of the VIth framework programme is able to
support, steer and control this large-scale integration process
by means of a systematic and intercommunicative advisory-
management framework embracing: programme committees
and their organisation into theme-based and specific subcom-
mittees; the relaunch of a new Crest; the European advisory
groups (EAGs) for each specific programme and budget line
and relations with the scientific committees for the integrated
projects and networks of excellence, on the one hand, and
with the new EURAB on the other.

2.

Introduction

2.1.
On 10 December 2001, the Research Council came to
a political agreement on the two framework programmes and
a common position was adopted on 28 January 2002. On
30 January 2002, the Commission then adopted amended
proposals for decisions on the specific programmes, with a
five-programme structure to implement its proposals under
the two 2002-2006 framework programmes.

On 10 January 2002,

2.2.
the Commission presented
amended proposals on the rules for participation, on which
the Committee issued an opinion on 21 February 2002.

2.3. With regard to the VIth EC framework programme,
the Commission is proposing to organise the specific
implementing programmes as follows:

— grouping together all thematic areas under a specific
programme on ‘Integrating and Strengthening the Euro-
pean Research Area’, along with all coordination and
coherent development of research and innovation actions,
for a total of EUR 12 855 million;

— grouping together all horizontal, structural and support
activities under a specific programme on ‘Structuring
the European Research Area’, earmarking resources of
EUR 2 655 million;

— establishing, in accordance with the provisions of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, a specific
programme for the ‘JRC — Joint Research Centre’, with
budget appropriations of EUR 760 million.

— a specific programme for JRC activities carried out on
behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, with
Community funding of EUR 290 million.

3. General comments

3.1.
The Committee is firmly convinced that the implemen-
tation of the VIth framework programme, through the full
development of its constituent specific programmes, should
be fully incorporated into the strategic objective set by the
Lisbon European Council and reiterated at the Stockholm and
Gothenburg summits, namely that of making the European
Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy in the world, in terms of sustainability, with more
and better jobs and greater economic and social cohesion
throughout the Union, over the next decade.

3.2.
The Committee regrets the slowness of the response to
that objective and especially the fact that various components
essential to the strategy have been put on hold, such as the
adoption of the Community patent and of a transparent and
competitive European patenting system (1), the effective launch
of the Galileo joint undertaking (2) and faster progress on the
ITER decision. The Committee also believes that to optimise
the economic and social impact of Community research and
innovation activities, a more pro-active approach must be
taken to technological challenges and the Community must
boost its capacity to harness all existing and potential forces,
broadening the European scientific and technological base of
human, academic, industrial and financial resources.

3.3.
The Committee welcomes the Council’s common
position, which ‘indicates a strong convergence of the position
of Council with respect to both the European Parliament and
the Commission’ (3), leaving grounds to hope that the VIth
framework programme and its specific implementing pro-
grammes will be adopted rapidly. This, together with the
definitive adoption of the rules of participation (4), will enable
the timely and appropriate development and implementation
of Community RTDD activities, making a smooth transition
from the Vth framework programme.

2.4. With regard to the VIth Euratom framework pro-
gramme, the Commission proposes two specific programmes:

— a single specific programme for nuclear fission and
fusion, and safety and disposal of nuclear waste, known
as ‘Nuclear Energy’, for a total of EUR 940 million;

(1) OJ C 155, 29.5.2001.
(2) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.
(3) See Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament SEC(2002) 105 final of 30.1.2002.

(4) See EESC opinion on the rules for participation in the VIth

framework programme, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

C 221/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

3.4.
In the Committee’s opinion, the structure, instruments
and scientific and technological content of the VIth framework
programme’s specific programmes and the way they are
implemented must therefore provide a clear response to that
challenge:

3.7.
As it reiterated in its opinions on the European research
area, on the evaluation of the impact of RTD (from the
Vth framework programme towards the VIth framework
programme), and on the proposals for a VIth framework
programme, the Committee would stress the ongoing need to
focus on:

— in terms of the internal integration of research efforts:
structuring the lines of action, concentrating resources
on a limited number of priority themes, establishing
a balanced framework of old and new instruments,
simplifying their internal management, and increasing the
flexibility, independence and continuity of Community
research and innovation;

— and also in terms of transparency and equal access,
appropriate and predefined selection and evaluation
criteria, open and simple access, a user-friendly approach
for potential players of all sizes and types, a clear
economic and social impact, more highly skilled jobs and
new and more technologically innovative companies,
integration and more dialogue between the scientific
world and society and between academia and business, a
more present and globally visible international dimension
that can attract scientific and technological cooperation
and intelligence in a broader spectrum of subjects and
geographical areas, on the basis of mutual interest and
coherence with the relevant Community policies.

3.5.
The Committee believes that the implementation of
the VIth framework programme should fully reflect the central
importance of the Lisbon strategy. Practically speaking, the
challenge is how to make a positive shift
the
establishment of a European research and innovation area that
can unite an increasing number of companies, research centres
and universities of all sizes on the road to excellence and the
knowledge-based society, while also making Europe a magnet
for excellence and intelligence from the rest of the world.

towards

3.6.
In this respect, for the Community action to succeed,
the Committee would stress the need to ensure that the
approach taken by the implementing programmes of the VIth
framework programme reflects these aspects sufficiently to
generate the necessary accumulation of new research and
innovation players within the EU and also to attract more new
players and expertise from outside the EU. Meanwhile care
must be taken to ensure that the need for integration and a
critical mass, flexibility, independence and streamlined internal
management are not bought at the cost of the basic principles
of
transparent and equal access, firm and unambiguous
eligibility, selection and evaluation criteria, clear points of
reference and a user-friendly approach, and visibility in the
economic and social impact of research and innovation efforts.

— securing continuity and minimising the risks associated
with the introduction of new untested structures and
instruments;

— applying both the current instruments and new ones
provided for in the VIth framework programme in
parallel as tools for the players in each call for proposals
to choose from;

— avoiding closed circles or unfair or unequal access to
resulting calls, and making predefined selection and
evaluation criteria transparent;

— bolstering the new instruments with accompanying
measures (tuition outside the Commission), training and
feasibility/exploratory studies/projects, training external
tutors to accompany individual projects using the new
instruments;

— avoiding an overall increase in bureaucracy and reducing
the cost and management burden of projects, regardless
of who is supporting them;

— preserving both basic research, as the source of new
concepts and resulting technologies, and applied research
and innovation to foster a fully inter-active process, with
efficient and responsible financial management;

— establishing a European research area that is open to
cooperating with the associated countries and the other
relevant third countries, with joint research projects based
on mutual interest, covering a broader spectrum of areas,
including: Latin America and Asia; the ACP countries
and South Africa; cooperation with the industrialised
countries,
Japan, Canada and Australia in
particular, must be encouraged on the basis of reciprocal
openness and mutual interests;

the USA,

— enlarging and enriching the participation of SMEs in the
VIth Framework Programme beyond the present level of
20-22 %, in the spirit of the European Charter for Small
Enterprises (1), with a special emphasis on small and
micro-enterprises involved in traditional activities and
intermediate technologies, by means of an active aware-
ness-raising policy offering advice on how they can make
the most of their potential capacity both as players in the
priority thematic areas and in short-term incremental
research applying a bottom-up approach;

(1) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/101

— encouraging all sources of innovation,

including tra-
ditional ones, by allocating a large portion of
the
resources reserved for SMEs in the thematic priorities, by
means of flexible participation instruments;

3.10.
At the same time, the Committee would once more
stress the validity of its recommendation of ‘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’ (1).

— gearing mobility initiatives towards increasing academia-
interactions and developing the European
business
Research Area, with the full involvement of the applicant
countries and greater international cooperation;

— ensuring greater research/innovation interaction with
measures centred on the establishment and streamlining
of networks, economic and technological
intelligence
activities, and new regional RTD initiatives, giving a
regional dimension to the new instruments;

— boosting the JRC’s strategic inter-institutional role of
helping decision-makers in the interests of public safety,
providing a neutral scientific and technological frame of
reference for policies and for the Community institutions
including the Committee itself;

— creating strategic intelligence networks to monitor and
control quality and excellence, and develop new perspec-
tives for the transparent and effective preparation of the
VIIth framework programme;

— strengthening the Euratom programme, to promote safer
nuclear energy, including the aspects of production and
transport and the storage of nuclear waste, and to
enhance the development of the fusion option.

The Committee is of the view that despite the efforts
3.8.
made up to now to hammer out an action strategy for a strong
and coherent common European research and innovation
policy to underpin a competitive knowledge-based society,
further practical efforts are needed in this direction. These
must include creating a genuinely integrated area with an
integrated research-education strategy, modernising the rules
on state aid in support of interactive innovation processes,
encouraging the release onto the market of public research
results, stepping up networking between industry and academ-
ia and public-private partnerships, and supporting the creation
of a European system of innovation services.

3.9.
In the Committee’s view, this action strategy must not
only encourage scientific and technological development, but
also develop complementary measures to accompany the
structural changes, in order to fully exploit the potential of
new findings and new technologies. The aim should be to
ensure that society as a whole can share in the resulting
benefits and uncork the Union’s considerable innovative
potential in terms both of human resources and of financial
legal, fiscal,
and technological capital, removing structural,
administrative and operational hurdles and establishing appro-
priate economic framework conditions.

4.

Implementation structure and content of the EC
specific programmes

4.1.
The Committee believes that the VIth EC framework
programme must comply with criteria on maximum clarity
and transparency, concentration and balance,
internal and
external consistency, controllability, visibility and accessibility.
The programme must be fully integrated in the action strategy
for an integrated research and innovation area, as set out in
points 2.8 and 2.9, beginning as of now to build integration
pathways as constituent parts of the next multi-annual plan.

In the Committee’s view, the VIth framework pro-

4.2.
gramme should be structured as follows:

— a specific programme on two groups of priorities: one on
priority medium/long-term theme-based research areas,
the other on specific short/medium-term priorities, each
priority with its own budget line;

— a specific structural programme, with three dedicated
budget and management lines: one for research and
innovation interfaces and regional research initiatives;
one for researcher mobility, another for research infra-
structure;

— a specific programme for coordination and coherent
development of research actions between the various tiers
of the European research area, science/society relations,
the gender balance and distributed strategic intelligence;

— a specific programme for the EC JRC.

5. The

first

specific programme:

integrating

and

strengthening the European Research Area

The first specific programme should, in the Committee’s view,
be set out as follows:

(1) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, point 4.1.1.1.

C 221/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

5.1.

Priority medium/long-term research themes

5.1.1.
foundations for our standard of living and resources:

for maintaining,

improving and securing the

A)

5.1.1.1.
nology for health, comprising two separate fields:

A dedicated budget line for genomics and biotech-

a)

b)

Advanced genomics and its applications for health (gene
expression and proteomics, structural genomics, com-
parative genomics and population genetics, bioinformat-
ics, multidisciplinary functional genomics approaches to
basic biological processes, applications of knowledge and
technologies in the field of genomics and biotechnology
for health, technological platforms for the development
of new diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic tools).

Combating major diseases (combating cardiovascular
disease, diabetes and rare diseases, combating resistance
to antibiotics and other drugs; studying the brain, combat-
ing diseases of the nervous system; studying human
development and the ageing process; combating cancer;
combating communicable diseases linked to poverty, in
particular HIV and TB; combating malaria).

The Committee recommends placing a greater
5.1.1.1.1.
emphasis on bio safety and biomonitoring among the research
priorities, as highlighted in the Committee opinion on the
strategic vision of life sciences and biotechnology (1). Further-
more, it welcomes the Commission’s statement for the minutes
of the Research Council on 10 December 2001 on aspects of
bioethics. Greater emphasis should also be placed on biomedi-
cal technologies and degenerative diseases. Furthermore, the
themes of non-food allergies and rheumatic diseases should,
in the Committee’s view, be included under sub-section b).

5.1.1.2.
sustainable development and global changes:

A dedicated budget line for energy, transport,

a)

Sustainable energy systems (2): 1 — short/long-term
activities: clean energy, in particular renewable energy
sources and their integration in the energy system,
including storage, distribution and use; energy savings
and energy efficiency, including the results obtained from
the use of renewable raw materials; alternative motor
fuels; 2 — medium/long-term activities: fuel cells, includ-
ing their applications; new technologies for energy car-
riers, transport and storage, in particular hydrogen; new
concepts and technological discoveries in the field of
renewable energy resources.

b)

c)

Sustainable surface transport: 1 — environmentally
friendly transport systems and means of transport: new
technologies and new concepts for all modes of surface,
rail, road and waterway transport; advanced design and
production techniques; 2 — safer, more effective and
more competitive transport: rebalancing and integration
of the various modes of transport; road, rail and waterway
safety and combating traffic congestion.

Climate change and ecosystems: impact and mechanisms
of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollutants
on climate, ozone depletion and carbon sinks such as
oceans, forests and soil; water cycle, including soil-related
aspects; biodiversity and ecosystems; strategies for the
sustainable use of land, with emphasis on coastal zones,
agricultural land and forests; operational forecasting and
modelling, including global climate change observation
systems; complementary research on the development of
advanced methods for risk assessment and methods
for appraising environmental quality, including relevant
prenormative research on measurements and testing.

5.1.1.2.1.
The Committee is very pleased to note that its
comments (3) on the priority themes of ‘Energy’ and ‘Transport’
have been taken on board but would argue that conventional
fuels should also be included as a theme, not least in view of
the forthcoming absorption of the ECSC Treaty. It recommends
amending the titles of those priorities as suggested above to
‘Energy and Transport, Sustainable Development and Global
Changes’. It would also stress once again that the ‘sustainability’
aspect should be highlighted in the recitals as a feature of all
the VIth framework programme specific programme themes.

5.1.1.3.
including:

A dedicated budget line for food quality and safety

— Epidemiology of

food-related illnesses and allergies,
including the impact of diet on the health of children;
environmental health risks linked to the food chain;
impact of
food on health (new products, products
resulting from organic farming, functional foods, prod-
ucts containing GMOs (4), and those arising from recent
biotechnology developments); traceability processes all
along the production chain; methods of analysis, detec-
tion and control; safer and environmentally-friendly
production methods and healthier foodstuffs; impact of
animal feed and medicine on human health; environmen-
tal health risks linked to the food chain (chemical,
biological, physical).

( 1) See EESC opinion CES 1425/2001, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002, and new

opinion in preparation.

( 2) The Committee is preparing an additional opinion on energy

research.

(3) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, points 1.1 and 7.3.2.
(4) Genetically modified organisms.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/103

5.1.1.3.1.
The Committee welcomes the emphasis placed
on food quality alongside the essential safety aspects, with a
view to improving safety for both consumers and producers.
However, it cannot ignore the fact that certain aspects of this
priority theme overlap with the first priority theme and
priority 2c, with the risk that potential participants may be
confused. In any case, this theme should be linked to the
relevant JRC activities and the horizontal activities supporting
Community policies, especially regarding the common agri-
culture and fisheries policies. Furthermore, the Committee, as
highlighted in its opinion on the strategic vision of life sciences
and biotechnology (1), recommends launching new areas of
research to address the questions that are still raised concerning
GMOs and giving priority to strategies aimed at improving
food quality. The Committee believes that projects must be
planned to facilitate adjustments in the food industry to take
account of new quality standards, new findings and new
technologies.

5.1.1.4.
and new forms of governance/ science and governance:

A dedicated budget line for citizens, democracy

— Implications of European integration and enlargement
for governance and the public; breakdown of areas of
issues
responsibility and new forms of governance;
relating to conflict resolution and the restoration of
peace and justice; new forms of citizenship and cultural
identities.

5.1.1.4.1.
The Committee sets great store by this line of
humanities and social sciences research, but believes that it
should also include the ‘Science and Society’ actions currently
included in the second specific programme entitled ‘Structuring
the European Research Area’ with which it is closely linked.
This applies in particular to the ‘Science and governance’
aspects, with which coordination would in any case be
necessary. It is also important that there be a link with the
activities of the JRC, especially in the area of techno-economic
foresight. The theme ‘Knowledge-based European society and
social cohesion’ should definitely be included, along with
‘Science and the world of work and business’.

5.1.2.
B) For improving and promoting scientific know-
ledge and technological development with a view to sharpen-
ing competitiveness:

5.1.2.1.
technologies:

A dedicated budget line for information society

— applied IST research addressing major societal and econ-
omic challenges: technologies for trust and confidence;
research to resolve major societal problems; research to
resolve problems associated with business and employ-
ment; complex problem solving in science, engineering,
business and society in general;

( 1) See EESC opinion CES 192/2002 of 20.2.2002, OJ C 94,

18.4.2002.

— communication, computing and software technologies:
communication and network technologies; software tech-
nologies, embedded and distributed systems;

— components and microsystems: micro, nano and opto-
electronics; micro and nano technologies, microsystems,
displays;

— knowledge and interface technologies: knowledge tech-
intelligent interfaces and

nologies and digital content;
surfaces.

take

These

5.1.2.1.1.
a different
thematic priorities
approach aimed largely at problem solving while also focusing
on technologies that in some cases can also be found under
priority 6. The Committee feels that greater clarity may be
required, not least to give potential participants clear direc-
tions. The approach taken in the Council’s common position
appears clearer. According to the Committee, there should be
a greater emphasis on research into digital security.

5.1.2.2.
A dedicated budget line for nanotechnology and
nanoscience, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, new
production processes and devices:

— nanotechnologies and nanosciences: long-term interdisci-
plinary research into understanding phenomena, mas-
tering processes and developing research tools; nanobio-
technologies; nanometre-scale engineering techniques to
create materials and components; development of hand-
ling and control devices and instruments; applications in
areas such as health, chemistry, energy, optics and the
environment;

— knowledge-based multifunctional materials: development
of fundamental knowledge; technologies associated with
the production, transformation and processing of know-
ledge-based multifunctional materials and biomaterials;
engineering support for materials development;

— new production processes and devices: development of
new processes and flexible and intelligent manufacturing
systems; systems research and hazard control; optimising
the life-cycle of industrial systems, products and services
(hybrid technologies and new organisational structures).

5.1.2.2.1.
The Committee believes that research into prod-
uct and material safety should be given an explicit mention. It
would also be useful to include the subject of supramolecular
and macromolecular architecture, as suggested in the Council’s
common position, along with image-guided robotic surgery
and nano- and micro-robotics.

C 221/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

5.1.2.3.

A dedicated budget line for aeronautics and space:

— Aeronautics: strengthening competitiveness; improving
the environmental impact of engine emissions and noise;
increasing aircraft safety;
increasing the capacity and
safety of the air transport system; Space: Galileo; GMES.

5.1.2.3.1.
The Galileo programme research conducted in
close cooperation with the ESA is very important and must be
treated as such in view of the major implications it will have
on the competitiveness of many sectors of European business
and society. On the subject of aeronautics, the Committee
would also stress the need to explicitly include all types of civil
aircraft, in accordance with the decisions of the Council and
the Parliament at the first reading. This is necessary in order to
safeguard the skills and knowledge of major European indus-
trial sectors facing intense international competition and to
harness the efforts of a greater number of players.

5.2.2.
Research and incremental innovation for SMEs, for
cooperation between SMEs, research centres and universities,
joint research groupings and
for business and professional
organisations, for the establishment of new high-tech com-
panies, and for the creation of new innovative SME networks.

5.2.2.1.
In the Committee’s view the horizontal research
activities for SMEs should be considered as additional to the
15 % minimum quota for SME-related activities within the
thematic priorities of the first specific programme. It stresses
the horizontal ‘bottom-up’ activities in the free section, should
be sure of a critical mass of financial resources of over 50 %
more than the level allocated in the first reading. The rules for
participation in cooperative and collective research projects
should enable an increasing number of small companies to
take part in both horizontal and thematic activities, partly
through national- or regional-level intermediary bodies such
as industrial or professional associations and chambers of
commerce and craft associations. This is explained in the
Committee opinion on the subject (1).

5.2.

Specific priority short/medium-term horizontal actions

5.2.3.
International cooperation, with actions of mutual
interest aimed at the economic and social needs of groups of
third countries.

5.2.1.
scientific and technological needs:

supporting Community policies and anticipating

— Research to back up Community policies: sustainable
management of Europe’s natural resources; offering the
people of Europe health, security and a future; under-
pinning the economic potential and cohesion of a larger
and more integrated Europe.

— Research to explore new and emerging scientific and

technological issues.

5.2.1.1.
The Committee endorses the intended support for
Community policies such as the common agricultural and
fisheries policies, common transport policy, the environment
and energy policies, and the Community policy objectives set
by the European Councils. As far as the exploration of new
cutting edge technologies is concerned, especially in multi-
thematic and interdisciplinary areas, it is important that they
be selected transparently in the context of multi-annual
planning, taking full account of the opinions expressed by the
European advisory groups which are to follow the develop-
ment of
the framework programme’s thematic priorities,
by the specific programme management committees (and
subcommittees) and by the EURAB body. Activities in this area
should be the subject of an independent activity report
including forward studies from the Seville IPTS and summaries
on distributed strategic intelligence activities, to be submitted
annually to the European Parliament, the Council and the
European Economic and Social Committee, not least with a
view to preparing the future guidelines for Community RTTD.

5.2.3.1.
The Committee stresses that international cooper-
ation is essential for the establishment of a European research
and innovation area that is attractive and open and able to
focus EU and non-EU human and financial resources on the
goal of a European knowledge-based society at the vanguard
of sustainable global economic development. It recalls that the
international cooperation activities include two lines of action
of equal bearing, one developed in the context of the thematic
priorities and the other in the context of the horizontal
activities. The Committee feels that it is crucial that the two
lines be coordinated as a single entity and that responsibility
for coordination be clearly identifiable within and above all
outside the European Union.

The Committee cannot overstress the need to lend
5.2.3.2.
clarity and transparency to the international dimension of
European research policy and once again proposes that the
horizontal
international cooperation activities involve the
following groups of third countries: Mediterranean and Balkan
countries, Latin American and Asian countries; former Soviet
Union countries, ACP countries and South Africa; for the
industrialised countries, such as the USA, Japan, Canada and
Australia, participation should be encouraged on the basis of
real openness and reciprocal interests.

(1) See EESC opinion, CES 185/2002, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/105

5.2.3.3.
The Committee believes that specific mechanisms
should be provided to facilitate international cooperation for
SMEs and small research centres (Craft international being a
case in point). The Committee would underline the importance
of predefined plans with automatic mechanisms to allow for
real synergy in the implementation and running of inter-
national scientific and technological cooperation with Com-
munity cooperation and technical assistance programmes in
the above-mentioned country groups, with a view to ensuring
that the Union’s policies have a consistent and visible profile
abroad.

6. The second specific programme: structuring the Euro-

pean Research Area

6.1.2.
The Committee would stress the importance of the
economic and technological intelligence actions and would
like to see a more heavyweight financial appropriation for this.

6.2.
The mobility of human resources, including: exchanges
between university/industry and between public and private
research centres; support for individual researchers; the pro-
motion of excellence;
the return and reintegration of
researchers; support for young researchers and the gender
balance. More specifically:

— Host-driven actions: training networks by means of Marie
Curie research; Marie Curie host fellowships for early
stage research training; Marie Curie host fellowships for
the transfer of knowledge; Marie Curie conferences and
training courses.

A second specific programme should be dedicated to the
structural aspects of the framework programme, with a view
to completing the European research and innovation area,
using the following three dedicated budget lines:

— Individual-driven actions: Marie Curie intra-European
fellowships for EU and associated country researchers;
Marie Curie outgoing international fellowships for EU
and associated country researchers; Marie Curie incoming
international fellowships for third country researchers.

6.1.
Research/innovation interfaces and regional research
and innovation initiatives; to coordinate and improve the
various types of existing and emerging networks; to establish
national/regional CORDIS services linked up with European
CORDIS services; to strengthen economic and technological
intelligence services; to optimise the flow of risk capital
towards innovation in the euro market; to bolster interregional
structures and networks with instruments through integrated
transregional programmes and transregional networks of
excellence; to coordinate the innovation and dissemination
activities of integrated thematic projects and networks of
excellence; to develop regional benchmarking and road map-
to help small entities set up and manage
ping projects;
European research projects;
to support the establishment
of GRID systems between companies, research centres and
universities at regional and interregional level and also with
areas bordering the Union; to set up RTDD actions tied in
with the Structural Funds and other relevant financial and
cooperation instruments, in particular the Innovation 2000
initiative, the EIF and the EIB.

6.1.1.
The Committee is disappointed that the financial
resources of this budget line are actually lower than those
indicated in the previous framework programme and calls for
them to be increased. With the Lisbon process in mind,
innovation activities and regional and interregional initiatives
will play a critical role in the establishment of the European
area for research and innovation, with a view to countering
the European innovation paradox. The Committee would also
stress the importance of dedicated instruments for integrated
projects and transregional networks of excellence as well as
tuition measures, especially for small bodies. There should
also be predefined plans for joint implementation with the
Community measures for innovation and regional develop-
ment.

— Excellence promotion and recognition: Marie Curie excel-
lence grants for a research programme to be developed;
excellence awards for recognition of researchers; Marie
Curie chairs.

— Return and reintegration mechanisms: grants to help EU
and associated country researchers, those that have had a
Marie Curie
fellowship in Europe and European
researchers outside Europe, return home to their country
or region of origin and reintegrate professionally.

— Initiatives to foster synergies with national and regional
programmes,
for
researchers and national and regional support for net-
working and new management methods.

‘proximity

involving

support’

— Support for training actions in other framework pro-
gramme activities, providing assistance regarding com-
mon evaluation and selection criteria and the promotion
of common approaches among the activities.

6.2.1.
The Committee takes the view that scientific and
technological human resource training and mobility activities
are crucial for Europe and in that respect it welcomes the
considerable financial resources allotted to this budget line. It
also believes that a significant portion of these resources (at
least a third) should be linked more directly to the framework
programme’s thematic priorities. In addition, the (two-way)
link between the academic world and industry should have
top priority in terms both of the critical mass of financial
resources and the development of activities. Resource manage-
ment should be as decentralised, red tape-free, lean and close

C 221/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

to the final user as possible. Lastly, there should be research
into administrative, tax- and social security-related obstacles
to the mobility of scientists, engineers and researchers within
Europe, in order to back up the work to remove the barriers
to mobility decided on by the Council and to create a career
structure for these professionals that is accepted throughout
Europe, both by industry and the academic world.

the dissemination and exploitation of research results, and set
up high-quality centres of excellence for regional transnational
development. Synergic use of the Community’s regional policy
instruments would be easier if they were more focused on the
strategic objective of establishing, throughout the Union, the
most competitive knowledge-based society in the world.

6.3.
Research infrastructure with support geared towards:
major infrastructure and networks; the development of infra-
structure on a small and medium scale; the development of
new infrastructure. The aim of this budget line is to:

— ensure that European researchers have access to the

infrastructure they require;

— support a coordinated approach to the development of
new and existing research infrastructure, at regional and
transregional level.

6.3.1.

Five support schemes are proposed:

— transnational access to major infrastructure for research

groups or individual researchers;

— integrating activities for the supply of network services
and the execution of joint projects to facilitate the
exploitation of research findings, especially by SMEs, with
integrated initiatives and coordination measures;

— development of a communication network in connection
with the thematic priority ‘Information Society Tech-
nologies’ for all European researchers by means of Geant,
GRID-type distributed computational models, specific
high performance test-beds, and electronic publishing
services;

— preparatory and technical feasibility studies to prepare
new infrastructure taking into account all the potential
users and in synergy with contributions from the EIB and
the Structural Funds;

— development of new infrastructure with a limited number
of projects taking into account
the Member States’
opinions, giving additional support to EIB or Structural
Fund contributions.

6.3.3.
The Committee would stress the importance of the
excellence of network capacity — irrespective of whether the
participating bodies are large, medium or small — for
providing effective support, not least in terms of network
proximity,
for the establishment of a well-equipped and
cohesive European area for research and innovation.

6.4.
The proposed Science and Society budget line is
discussed in point 5.1.1.4.1 above, which reiterates comments
made in the relevant Committee opinion (1).

7. The third specific programme: coordinating and

developing the European Research Area coherently

A third specific programme should, in the Committee’s view,
be dedicated to ongoing activities such as coordination,
coherent policy development, and building and developing
a permanent cycle to monitor/evaluate/assess/and forecast
research and innovation activities at the various levels of the
European research area, using the following budget lines:

Support for the coordination of activities, in particular

7.1.
developing joint initiatives, such as:

— the coordination of national activities, especially in the
field of health, biotechnology, the environment and
energy, providing incentives and supporting joint initiat-
ives for a number of countries and developing instru-
ments to promote synergy between national activities of
common strategic interest;

— the coordination of European-level activities, developing
cooperation and joint initiatives with COST, Eureka, and
the ESA and also working platforms with ESO, EMBL,
ESRF, ILL and CERN, and possible similar new European
initiatives, promoting international cooperation with
initiatives such as Intelligent Manufacturing System and
Human Frontiers;

6.3.2.
The Committee agrees with the importance given to
the support of research infrastructure, which clearly has great
capacity to contribute to the future competitiveness of the
Union, in order to raise and accelerate the performance of
European research, provide top-level services to SMEs, foster

(1) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/107

7.2.
Support for coherent policy development: creating
warning systems for bottom-up processes and for new process-
es and ideas and possible concepts; pinpointing challenges and
sectors of common interest; harmonising the benchmarking
of national policies; providing systematic synoptic and perma-
nent frameworks, broken down by like groupings of national/
regional research and innovation initiatives for the use of
public and private operators; setting up a strong network of
planning bodies with JRC support to underpin government/
parliament decisions; developing a benchmarking system for
research and innovation policies at the various European,
levels; expanding the activities on
national and regional
mapping excellence; conducting studies and identifying and
disseminating best practice in order to improve the regulatory
and legislative environment for research and innovation in
Europe, and thus encourage private sector investment in
research and technology.

coordinated and coherent co-normative and pre-normative
activities as an essential factor in the competitiveness of the
European system and harmonised statistical survey systems,
also at disaggregated level. The Committee would stress the
need to use cooperation protocols, such as the one agreed
with CERN, to formalise cooperation with the other European
research bodies and also agreed Community standard proto-
cols for cooperation between Member States and between
regions.

Lastly, the Committee would repeat the comment it
7.3.3.
made in its opinion on the VIth framework programme (1), that
a strong, adequately financed Distributed Strategic Intelligence
measure as described in point 6.3 is essential for the establish-
ment of a cohesive and coherent European area for research
and innovation, for effective and informed implementation of
the VIth framework programme and for a clear, informed and
transparent approach to the VIIth framework programme.

7.3.
Permanent cycle of Distributed Strategic Intelligence
(new budget line): to secure a single vision, a clear and
transparent economic and social impact, and real momentum
and legitimacy for forward-looking Community programmes,
as part of the coherent and coordinated completion of the
European research and innovation area, a network for the
dissemination of
intelligence at European, national and
regional level must be set up and financed in order to monitor
and evaluate technological developments and their impact,
and provide for possible future developments as part of
an integrated, bottom-up, monitoring-evaluation-assessment-
forecasting cycle.

7.3.1.
The Committee believes that coordination within the
framework programme and at Community level with other
international, European, national/regional levels should be a
major element of the VIth framework programme as should
that Community
consistent policy development. The fact
budget resources are still too restricted compared with the
global sum of the European effort means that the Community
can only act as a catalyst in this area. For this reason, it is
that such activities be formulated in a specific
essential
independent programme with its own management committee
and European advisory group (EAG), which should be the hub
of future planning of the VIIth framework programme and its
full
incorporation into the action strategy for a genuine
integrated research and innovation area, as described above in
points 2.8 and 2.9.

7.3.2.
The Committee is therefore in favour of bolstering
these activities and recommends developing joint voluntary
plans for standardising procedures for calls for applications,
for selection and evaluation systems, and for publicising access
and making it transparent. It also recommends developing

8. The JRC-EC specific programme

8.1.
The Commission proposal for the content of the
specific JRC-Joint Research Centre programme can be broken
down as follows:

— food, chemical products and health, with priority
measures for: food safety and quality; genetically modified
organisms; chemical products, biomedical applications;

— environment and sustainable development: assessing and
preventing global changes; protection of the European
environment
(air and water quality and terrestrial
resources); contributing to the sustainable development
of energy, environmental assessment, supporting the
Global Monitoring for Environment
and Security
initiative;

— technological foresight: techno-economic foresight; inter-

national foresight cooperation forum;

— reference materials and measurements: Community
Bureau of References and certified reference materials;
metrology in chemistry and physics;

— research into public safety and protection against fraud:
international civil protection; natural and technological
hazards and emergencies; cyber-security; monitoring
respect for EU regulations and the fight against fraud;

— research training and access to infrastructure: training

grants and international researcher mobility.

(1) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, points 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2 and 11.4.3.

C 221/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

8.2.
The JRC conducts vital networking activities to support
the European research and innovation area, other EU policies,
product and process safety, international cooperation, enlarge-
ment and Mediterranean cooperation, researcher training and
mobility, and technology foresight to back up the permanent
cycle of Distributed Strategic Intelligence. The Committee
would stress the strategic interinstitutional role that the JRC
can play in assisting policy-makers, by providing a neutral
scientific and technological basis for policies and the Com-
munity institutions,
including the European Economic and
Social Committee.

8.3.
In the Committee’s view, the JRC is the EU hub of a
pan-European research network, a European network of
scientific technical reference systems, acting as an integrator of
knowledge and researchers at international level and a bridge
between research and civil society: with regard to this last
point, the Committee would underline the importance of
synergies with the thematic priority ‘citizens, democracy and
new forms of governance/ science and governance’. The
Committee feels that
the horizontal activities, and more
specifically the technology foresight activities, should be
allocated more financial resources, as should the other research
training and infrastructure access support measures. The
Committee is strongly in favour of giving the JRC an oppor-
tunity to play a full part in all the Community instruments, in
addition to the direct actions of
its own institutes. The
Committee stresses the role that the JRC must play inter-
nationally in training scientific staff,
to attract
intelligence and knowledge within the international scientific
and industrial Community. The planned 10 % cut in permanent
staff must be more than made up for with a quota of 15-20 %
of international fellowship holders.

in order

9.

Implementation structure and content of the Euratom
specific programmes

9.1.1.
Nuclear fusion is full of potential in terms of safety,
the almost unlimited availability of resources, the minimal
amount of waste generated and the absence of any ‘greenhouse
gases’. Although research on the subject is still at the develop-
ment stage, European tests have produced impressive results
and the Committee is convinced of the need to continue and
accelerate Community efforts and give this positive option full
backing with appropriate financial resources.

9.1.2.
The fission reactors have generated ten-yearly results
showing a significant efficient and safe contribution to the EU
electricity market and, by their very nature, to a reduction in
CO2 levels. However, one of the problems intrinsic to existing
fission reactors is that they produce significant quantities of
nuclear waste, although there are no emissions of CO2 or any
other greenhouse gases. Another problem is plant safety. The
absence of a broad consensus on the treatment and storage of
waste is one of the main obstacles to the more widespread
future use of energy from fission. The Committee would
reiterate the need for research in order to develop and
certify disposal technologies, locate appropriate sites, promote
scientific knowledge of safety assessment methods, develop
fair decision-making processes, and explore new types of
reactor and fuel cycles, as well as clarifying the prospects for
industrial scale disposal with proper safety outlay.

9.1.3.
The Committee believes that one reason for society’s
aversion to nuclear technology is of a socio-economic nature
and lies in the lack of adequate and reliable information on the
opportunities and risks involved. That gap must be bridged,
first and foremost by means of broad educational programmes
in schools and universities, and research and teaching must
not be restricted to major projects in those disciplines. In a
broader context, this shortcoming is part of the more general
problem of the general public’s poor education in the field of
the natural sciences and the associated modern technologies,
as the Committee noted in its opinion on ‘Science, society and
the citizen in Europe’ (1).

The Committee endorses the implementation structure for the
VIth Euratom framework programme specific programmes,
i.e.:

9.2. The specific programme on nuclear energy

— a specific programme on nuclear energy;

The specific programme on nuclear energy centres on three
priority thematic research areas:

— a specific JRC (Joint Research Centre) — Euratom pro-

gramme.

— controlled thermonuclear fusion;

9.1.
There are currently two different methods of producing
energy by means of nuclear reactions: fusion, which uses very
light nuclei such as deuterium, tritium and helium, and fission,
which uses very heavy nuclei such as uranium. The Committee
notes that the two methods differ significantly in terms of
techniques used, the related problems, the resources required
and available, and environmental aspects. Assessment of their
long-term potential and measures taken must therefore be
differentiated accordingly.

— nuclear waste management;

— radiation protection.

(1) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/109

In addition to these three budget lines there are other activities
in the field of nuclear technology and safety.

9.2.1.
Regarding the dedicated budget line for controlled
thermonuclear fusion, the Committee believes that the pro-
gress made in research into nuclear fusion justifies a major
effort to build a fusion-based power station. In the latter half
of the century, energy from fusion could help to generate
emission-free electricity on a large scale. The contribution
made to this process by JET and the other European laboratori-
es bears witness to the success of the European research area,
which has already been established in this field.

9.2.1.1.
The Committee approves of the proposed contents
of the Next Step project for demonstrating the scientific
feasibility of fusion, using JET and existing installations to back
up the Next Step with the development of concepts, such as
the ‘stellarator’, optimising specific techniques for commercial
use and developing the physics and technology basis of fusion
materials.

9.2.1.2.
The Committee would once again recommend an
increase in the financial resources earmarked for fusion beyond
the EUR 750 million indicated in the Council common
position and adopted by the Commission, in particular to
support the ITER project (with EUR 200 million) and the
negotiations for the establishment of an ITER legal entity,
its location in Europe and its implementation jointly with
international partners. The Committee is pleased to note that
the European Parliament shares this view.

is concerned,

the Committee feels that

As far as the budget line for radioactive waste
9.2.2.
management
the
Commission’s proposals regarding the content of the specific
budget line should be expanded to incorporate the processing
and conditioning of waste in addition to research on storage
processes, research to reduce the impact of waste, and research
on new reactor technologies and in particular on the High
Temperature Reactor (HTR) and the study of power conversion
systems and their application.

9.2.2.1.
As for the resources provided, the Committee is
disappointed by the excessive and in its view unjustified budget
cuts, especially in the field of radioactive waste management,
where the figures first proposed by the Commission have been
cut by 40 %. This reduction is in clear contradiction with the
need to develop appropriate and proven technologies that can
provide decision-makers and the public with evidence that
risks are being minimised and the most is being made of the
opportunities for emission-free nuclear fission power stations
that generate smaller and wholly manageable quantities of
radioactive waste.

9.2.3. With regard to the radiation protection budget line,
the Committee feels that radiation protection activities, studies
into innovative concepts for new and safer processes, edu-
cation and training in nuclear safety and radiation protection
are essential for Europe and its industry, above all, for the sake
of protecting the public and preserving fission energy as a
major element and a long-term option for the supply of safe
and risk-free power. The Committee would reiterate the
recommendations made on the subject in its opinion on
the VIth RTD framework programme (1) concerning existing
nuclear power stations in the applicant countries and neigh-
bouring states. The European Union and its industry must
develop a policy and appropriate technical and scientific
solutions here, bearing in mind recent developments and the
plans of Russia and the United States to develop advanced
types of reactor and build a large number of new plants.

On the subject of budget appropriations,

the
9.2.3.1.
Committee believes that
the limited resources earmarked
should be restructured to reflect the importance of the activities
in this field.

9.2.4.
The other activities in the field of nuclear tech-
nologies and safety concern support for Community health,
energy and environment policies, the aim being to maintain a
high capacity in areas not covered by the thematic priorities
and to contribute to the establishment of the ERA. The
financial resources allocated to these activities could, in the
Committee’s view, be reshuffled in order to increase the budget
line for radioactive waste management.

9.3. The JRC-Euratom specific programme

The activities proposed for the JRC-Euratom specific pro-
gramme are as follows:

— radioactive waste management and safeguarding nuclear
materials: spent fuel and high level waste treatment and
for
storage; Euratom and IAEA safeguards; support
activities aimed at the non-proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction;

— safety of different

types of reactor, monitoring and
metrology of ionising rays: safety of different types of
reactor, monitoring of ionising radiation.

The Committee wonders why the specific JRC-
9.3.1.
Euratom programme includes no activities relating to the
medical applications of nuclear research, despite their having
a long tradition of success and being of great interest to
university networks, research centres, medical associations and
the pharmaceutical
industry. The mention made of these
activities in the JRC-EC specific programme appears neither

(1) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

C 221/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

adequate nor relevant. The reduction in the budget
for
the overall programme is unjustified, particularly for waste
management and the safety of fissile material and reactors,
above all with enlargement on the horizon. The Committee
also sets great store by the targeting of clearly identified
financial resources for training researchers and highly-qualified
staff to maintain and develop nuclear expertise in the Union
and the associated States, particularly in the light of enlarge-
ment.

10. The instruments proposed for the implementation

of the specific programmes

10.1.
The Committee has already commented on the
general framework relating to the new instruments proposed
in the draft
framework programme for specific thematic
programmes. It called unanimously for:

— the relevant mechanisms to be defined and assessed for

effectiveness and feasibility;

— these mechanisms to be backed up with some of the
instruments currently available in the Vth framework
programme. This would extend rather than restrict stake-
holder participation;

— the mechanisms provided for in the back-up measures to
be bolstered with instruments for tuition, training and
feasibility/exploratory studies;

— the scale and duration of projects to be flexible, in order
to ensure that they are accessible to and can be managed
by all potential participants — including minor ones;

— the players to be given a choice of ‘toolbox’ that is not

predetermined in the calls for applications;

— definition of

the conditions whereby consortia may
‘arrange their own competitive calls (...), provided that
they act within the framework defined by the Commission
in order to ensure transparency, equal treatment and
consistency with the programme’s objectives’ (1).

On this note,

10.1.1.
the Committee is glad that the
Commission has taken on board a few of the suggestions it
for instance on
made in its opinion of 11 July 2001,
maintaining certain Vth framework programme instruments
such as the specific research projects along with the new
instruments proposed for the VIth framework programme, in
order to secure greater participation of players, large and small,
in Community research activities, as protagonists in the
European Area for Research and Innovation.

10.1.2.
The instruments provided for the various strands of
the specific programmes need a clear, transparent and simple
framework of access arrangements and procedures for financial
involvement, and must fit in with the Commission’s own
guidelines for State aid to research.

10.2.

Instruments planned in the proposed specific programmes

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

10.2.1.1.
The Committee feels that the elements demon-
strating the level of integration of the networks of excellence
should necessarily include the level of integration between
industry and academia, that the level of excellence in services
supplied to the scientific and industrial community should be
among the main criteria considered and that this criterion
should provide the networks of excellence instrument with a
clear dynamic, avoiding crystallisation into predefined closed
circles, with predetermined interim objectives that can be
measured and monitored by the Commission’s scientific
officer. The Committee is also firmly convinced that, where
appropriate, the group of participants in the networks of
excellence should expressly include an industrial partner and
network users,
in order to ensure it
dovetails with the action strategy described in points 2.8 and
2.9 of this opinion. The Committee feels that the selection and
evaluation criteria should in all cases belong to a predefined
set of elements from which those specified in the work
programme and information package may be chosen. These
must take into account the need to encourage the establish-
ment of new networks of excellence and networks of excellence
for small/medium-sized bodies. Changes in objectives and
partners mid-project must be made with maximum trans-
parency and on the basis of common predetermined rules,
under Community supervision and control.

in particular SMEs,

10.2.1.2.
The Committee has serious misgivings about the
proposed system of joint and several liability and would refer
back to its opinion on the rules for participation (2). In the
Committee’s view, immediate clarification is required of the
two divergent approaches to eligible costs: the negative list
proposed for the VIth framework programme and the positive
list given in the rules on State aid for RTDD.

( 1) See EESC opinion, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

3.2.5.2.

(2) See EESC opinion, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002, points 3.2.5, 3.2.5.1 and

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/111

10.2.1.3.
The management subcommittees to be set up for
every dedicated budget line should share in the decision-
making on final evaluations for accepting proposals on
changes to networks of excellence.

and specific support measures for international cooperation
included in these budget lines. Likewise, this instrument should
the budget line for research/
be used in the context of
innovation interfaces and regional research and innovation
initiatives,
in the specific programme on structuring the
European research area.

10.2.2.

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

10.2.3.2.
Furthermore, a significant portion of the increased
budget line for horizontal research activities involving SMEs
should be reserved for use through this instrument.

10.2.2.1.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the scale
of an integrated project will no longer be used to discriminate
in access to the instrument and that the critical mass of
the integrated project will be assessed qualitatively and not
quantitatively, although all forms of discretion will have to be
avoided. The Committee believes that for these projects too,
the consortium must achieve a strong synergy between
industry and academia, and between private and public bodies,
with the full participation of smaller bodies, SMEs in particular,
and of the final users. On this note, provision must be made
in each integrated project for the presence of partners from
academia and from SMEs and also users as key participants.

The Committee thinks that in the interests of
10.2.2.2.
adaptability and flexibility,
the integrated projects should
include a category for smaller bodies in the form of Nano
Integrated Projects to account for a large portion of the 15 %
of resources earmarked for SMEs in the thematic priorities,
with a shorter duration (two to three years), fewer partners
(two bodies from two different countries) and dedicated calls
for applications.

Each integrated project must have clearly defined,
10.2.2.3.
measurable
including clear
and quantifiable objectives,
elements relating to forecasts of innovation potential in terms
of the use of knowledge acquired on route and at the end (i.e.
new activities or expansion of existing activities, spin-offs,
establishment of new innovative companies and the marketing
of knowledge). As for the networks of excellence, the selection
and evaluation criteria must belong to a set of elements
predefined in the relevant rules. Maximum transparency must
be secured at Community level in changes to the integrated
projects’ objectives and membership.

10.2.4. C o o p e r a t i v e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s

The Committee is pleased that this instrument is
10.2.4.1.
being retained, as it has already proved its worth in previous
framework programmes. The Committee believes that the use
of this instrument should be extended to the implementation
of the budget lines for the entire programme on integrating
the European research area, especially in the area of financing
thematic activities and international cooperation, for which
the Committee is in favour of supporting CRAFT International.
Furthermore, as stressed in its opinion on the rules for
participation (1), the Committee recommends taking appropri-
ate measures to simplify the method of submitting documenta-
tion and calls on the Commission to draft an action plan to
define such procedures, for instance through the decentralis-
ation of the pre-selection systems and the allocation of global
grants to intermediaries.

10.2.5.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n
g r a m m e s c a r r i e d o u t
A r t i c l e 1 6 9 o f t h e E C T r e a t y )

n a t i o n a l

p r o -
j o i n t l y ( u n d e r

i n

the VIth framework programme. Their

These programmes will cover priority research
10.2.5.1.
areas of
joint
implementation will involve drafting harmonised work pro-
grammes, coordinating the assignment of budgets, redirecting
certain actions to increase complementarity, and launching
joint calls for proposals (2).

10.2.3. C o l l e c t i v e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s

10.2.5.2.
The Committee has already commented on this
area in its opinion on the framework programme proposals
(point 7.4.5 and those following in particular) (3).

10.2.3.1.
The Committee would reiterate its fully positive
stance on this new instrument. Its use should not be limited to
the budget line dedicated to SME horizontal activities, but
should also be made available for the other specific budget
lines of the specific programme on integrating the European
research area and, in particular, for the thematic priorities

(1) See EESC opinion, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.
(2) See COM(2002) 43 (EN), p. 86.
(3) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

C 221/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

10.2.6.

S p e c i f i c t a r g e t e d r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s

10.2.6.1.
These projects are structured like those in the
1998-2002 Vth framework programme, and the Committee
feels that they should be an integral part of the options offered
in parallel to the other instruments mentioned above, in each
for proposals concerning the implementation of the
call
thematic priorities. The Committee feels that it would be a
positive and progressive idea to put the various implemen-
tation instruments in competition with each other, in order to
measure their actual efficiency and degree of adaptation to the
requirements of public and private users, who are the main
players in the achievement of technological progress and its
application for the realisation of the Lisbon strategy and of an
integrated research and innovation area in Europe.

10.2.6.2. While agreeing that the new network of excel-
lence and integrated project instruments should be used ‘from
the start of the programme in each thematic priority area’, the
Committee feels that all the instruments described above
should be offered in parallel for the implementation of the
specific programme on integrating Community research, to
ensure that the winners are those that are the best and most
user-friendly and those that respond to the requirements of
the participants rather than to the requirements of those
responsible at Community level
for programmes and the
relevant calls for proposals.

10.3. Other instruments

10.3.1.
of the specific programmes include:

The instruments proposed for the implementation

— coordination actions;

— specific support actions;

— specific targeted innovation projects;

— integrated infrastructure initiatives;

and international excellence, particularly young people; be to
a large extent associated with the priority themes (1); provide
simple decentralised procedures, close to the potential users.

As for the integrated initiatives for research infra-
10.3.4.
structure, the Committee agrees that support should be given
to the network activities associated with support or research
activities, financing new infrastructure but also bolstering
smaller existing structures. As for the specific support actions,
interconnection with the GEANT project should definitely be
built into all of these, as nearly a third of the Community
resources for this budget line are earmarked for this.

10.3.5.
Lastly, on coordination and the other specific
support actions, concerning both the first and second specific
programmes and the one relating to policy coordination and
cohesion and distributed strategic intelligence, the Committee
feels that there should be more detail as to their working
procedures and that they should at all events not be limited to
just organising conferences and meetings and setting up expert
groups.

10.3.6.
These actions are strategically and operationally
vital for securing the establishment of the integrated research
and innovation area and its harmonious development, and for
laying the foundations for its responsible and informed
projection into the VIIth 2006-2010 framework programme
and subsequent Community action planning. The specific
support actions could include grants for feasibility studies and
exploratory projects for the smaller research bodies, and not
just for new research infrastructure, in order to help them
to participate in the framework programme, especially in
peripheral and remote areas and in the applicant countries.

— actions to promote and develop human resources and

mobility.

11. The governance of the specific programmes

10.3.2.
According to the Committee, the implementing
instruments of the second specific programme on structuring
the European research area should also include a specific
‘Tuition Projects’ instrument to support smaller organisations,
above all, in research and innovation initiatives, accelerating
their progress on the stairway of excellence for full partici-
pation particularly in integrated projects and transregional
networks of excellence.

11.1.
The implementation of the VIth framework pro-
gramme introduces major new aspects in its aims, approach
and structure and in its implementing instruments and pro-
cedures. It aims to be a catalyst for a major process integrating
the various public, private, academic and industrial strands of
European research and of national, regional, Community and
European efforts, and it demands strong links between the
relevant decision-making levels.

10.3.3.
The Committee takes the view that the actions for
the promotion and development of human resources and
mobility should: have as their main objective the intercon-
nection between academia and industry; aim to attract internal

(1) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/113

11.2.
It is therefore indispensable that the Commission
have access to a well-organised and well-defined system of
management and consultative bodies for interface and dia-
logue, conferring about decisions and policies in the implemen-
tation of the specific programmes of a framework programme
designed to establish an integrated research and innovation
area in Europe, which by its very nature must
involve
diverse parties from the Member States and the applicant and
associated countries.

11.3.
In this light, the presence of governmental pro-
gramme committees, the European committee of govern-
mental experts for research and technological development
— CREST, the independent body of academic and industrial
representatives — EURAB, and the European advisory groups
from industry and research — EAG, should in the Committee’s
view, be able to operate on the basis of the proactive and
interactive support of Commission action so that all the prime
elements of the European research and innovation system can
move in a transparent, harmonious and cohesive way. As
regards the JRC, the Committee believes it would be useful for
the relevant management boards of the institutes to act as
supervisory bodies in addition to observers from the other
European institutions, including the European Economic and
Social Committee.

11.4.
As regards the programme management bodies, the
Committee is in favour of a horizontal committee for each
specific programme that can bring the various actions of the
programme together into an overall picture. A central role
would be given to that committee and its respective subcom-
mittees for each thematic action and sub-theme. These bodies
would, in the Committee’s view, provide the main place for
forming and galvanising a genuine European research area for
every field of science and technology, and the starting point
for task allocation and cooperation.

Brussels, 30 May 2002.

11.5.
The Committee believes, for this reason, that the
scope of the activities and responsibilities of these committees
must be clearly defined and based on predefined schedules for
meetings whose make-up will vary in accordance with the
individual thematic budget lines planned for each individual
programme. These committees should meet on a regular basis
and their functions should be not only consultative but also
co-decisional, in particular regarding the definition of work
programmes, information packages, calls for proposals, pro-
posal evaluation and user guides.

11.6.
The Committee feels that the role and function of a
new CREST — a body which was set up several decades ago
— in the implementation of the VIth framework programme
must be reassessed and strengthened, to enable it to provide a
valuable link between players and specialists on specific topics
at Community, national and regional level, the aim being to
establish an integrated research and innovation area. To this
end, the new CREST should also be organised around specialist
framework programme
groups for the various individual
themes, promoting integration between the Community level
and national/regional level.

11.7.
The Committee is of the opinion that European
advisory groups (EAGs) should be set up for each budget line
of the specific programmes, in order to encourage the full
involvement of the scientific and industrial worlds and of
in the gradual
SMEs and intermediate and final users
implementation of the VIth framework programme, and also
in preparing for the VIIth framework programme. The EAGs
should also develop contacts and links with the recently
formed body EURAB, whose tasks and functions should be
better defined and whose work must be sufficiently trans-
parent, visible and publicised.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS