Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the implementation of the framework programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)" (COM(2001) 823 final/2 — 2001/0327 (CNS))
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, dissemination of information, nuclear energy, regulation, research body, research programme, shareholding, university

C 241/160

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

4.8.
There is broad consensus that Objective 3 interventions
are a crucial aspect of a successful strategy for achieving
economic and social cohesion, and that these measures should
be retained under future reforms to the structural policies. An
important task within this Objective is to develop efficient
pathways of integration into employment for the most disad-
vantaged groups in society. Within this context, consideration
should be given to the role of enterprise — or entrepreneurship

— in the delivery of training and re-training measures. While
difficult to measure, there is general acceptance that cultural
and educational attitudes towards entrepreneurship play an
important role in releasing the economic development poten-
tial at the regional
level. The Committee urges that such
considerations form part of the review process, both at the EU
level and at the level of the Member State.

Brussels, 18 July 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amended proposal for a Council
Decision concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and
universities in the implementation of the framework programme 2002-2006 of the European
Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)’

(COM(2001) 823 final/2 — 2001/0327 (CNS))

(2002/C 241/30)

On 28 May 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 7 in
conjunction with Article 3 of the Euratom Treaty, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to instruct the Section for the Single Market, Production
and Consumption to prepare the Committee’s work on the subject, and to appoint Mr Malosse as
rapporteur-general.

At its 392nd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 July 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion unanimously.

1.

Introduction

The delay in making the referral

1.1.
is regrettable, the
EESC having exclusive powers regarding consultation on
Euratom Treaty matters. The EESC attaches great importance
to these powers, in view of the controversial nature of nuclear
energy within society and the need for proper information and
consultation.

security evaluation models in this area by means of permanent
information, consultation and training structures. The aim is
to launch a process of better governance with a view to
identifying the best strategic options, and to addressing public
concerns about the use of nuclear energy and its long-term
impact.

1.2.
Atomic energy raises serious public involvement issues,
on account of the need to exploit new, non-polluting sources
of energy and the major risks and waste processing problems
inherent in the nuclear sector. The EESC calls for a clear
statement of intent to strengthen performance and safety/

2. Rules for participation in the 6th RTD framework

programme (Euratom)

2.1.

On 21 February 2002 the EESC issued an opinion on

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/161

participation and dissemination rules for the implementation
of the European Community framework programme (1).

2.5.3.
the existence of specific rules under the priority
thematic area ‘fusion energy research’, providing for contracts
of association with Member States, Associated States or legal
entities established in those states.

2.2.
In its opinion, the EESC made practical proposals, one
of their aims being to bring about simplification, greater
transparency and more consistency with the European Union’s
objectives. All other things being equal, the comments made
then remain relevant and apply to the rules for the Euratom
programme. The Committee would draw special attention to
the need for more thorough simplification of the arrangements
for presenting proposals. Arrangements for the participation
of small and medium-sized entities (businesses, universities,
etc.) should also be made clearer, since the joint and several
liability requirement placed upon participants may represent a
serious obstacle for them. A substantial proportion of Euratom
sector research activities could well be allocated to small and
medium-sized entities too.

2.3.
The EESC also repeats its warning regarding the
ability consortia would henceforth have to arrange their own
competitive calls for some work or to extend activities. The
Committee strongly urges that they act within the framework
defined by the Commission in order to ensure transparency,
equal treatment and consistency with the programme’s objec-
tives (2).

2.4.
The EESC draws attention to the importance of bring-
ing together all the financial provisions, including relevant
checks, under a single dedicated heading of the proposal, in
the interests of greater clarity.

2.5.
Participation rules for Euratom programmes differ
from those concerning European Community programmes in
three essential areas:

3. Specific comments

3.1.
The rules for the participation of undertakings, research
centres and universities must evidently take account of the
great sensitivity inherent to atomic energy, involving scientific,
industrial and political factors; they must therefore be tighter
and more closely checked. However, these rules must be
looked at afresh in a spirit of openness to and support for all
the actors concerned,
the candidate
countries, who face the same problems regarding energy
research, waste management, radioactivity protection, and
nuclear safety and security. Subject to all the usual safeguards,
cooperation should be established with countries which have
developed advanced technologies (Canada, Japan, USA) or
which face comparable problems (e.g. Russia vis-à-vis certain
candidate countries such as Bulgaria or Lithuania).

first and foremost

In spite of the absence of rules on dissemination, and
3.2.
for the same precautionary reasons, the EESC must point to the
equally significant danger that would result from inadequate
dissemination of the sector’s scientific and technical
infor-
mation. Some restrictions should be laid down, but the doors
must be kept open. This means drawing up a highly specific
technical protocol for dissemination content and methods,
reflecting safety and security requirements while maintaining
the highest possible level of transparency.

2.5.1.
associated candidate countries are mentioned);

access for third countries is more limited (only

2.5.2.
of the sector’s highly sensitive nature;

the absence of dissemination rules, on the grounds

3.3.
The EESC would emphasise the relevance of a safety/
security approach in training for personnel and the general
public. Atomic energy is universally regarded — sometimes in
simplistic and vague terms — as being a high-risk area. Two
lines of action in particular are to be preferred:

( 1) EESC opinion 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
(rapporteur: Mr Malosse — OJ C 94, 18.4.2002, p. 1).

( 2) OJ C 94, 18.4.2002, p. 1, point 3.3.5.

3.3.1.
robust, finely-tuned instruments and procedures to
develop reliable, trustworthy models for evaluating atomic
energy safety and security;

3.3.2.
qualified personnel.

training and information for the general public and

C 241/162

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

3.4.
Regarding content, the EESC formulated a number of
proposals in its opinion on the specific programmes, which
would enable the overall direction of research to be aligned

with citizens’ concerns (especially concerning waste pro-
cessing). Research on nuclear safety/security was one of the
priority issues discussed in the opinion.

Brussels, 18 July 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and
remedying of environmental damage’

(COM(2002) 17 final — 2002/0021 (COD))

(2002/C 241/31)

On 6 March 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 June 2002. The rapporteur
was Mrs Sánchez Miguel.

At its 392nd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 July 2002) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 63 votes, with three votes against and one abstention.

1.

Introduction

Following a lengthy period of time between publication
1.1.
of the Green Paper (1) and the subsequent White Paper (2), the
Commission has now published a proposal for a Directive on
environmental liability, which lays down the Community legal
framework for the prevention or remedying of environmental
is also intended to set in motion,
damage. The proposal
under the Sixth Environment Action Programme (3), measures
intended, inter alia, to implement the ‘polluter-pays’ principle.

1.2.
Damage to biodiversity has accelerated over recent
decades, as highlighted by the proposal for a Community

strategy for sustainable development (4), which notes that the
deterioration of the environment may be one of the most
serious threats to nature in the future. The main nature
protection legislation (5) has failed to have the desired impact,
which has been compounded by the lack of provisions on
liability for environmental damage. There is thus a need for
Community legislation aimed at repairing and preventing
environmental damage, which ensures that those responsible
bear the costs of remedying the situation.

1.3. Whilst recognising this need, it should be said that
drawing up the proposal has posed some difficulties, insofar
as account had to be taken of the conflicting interests which
the proposal is designed to regulate — on the one hand, the

( 1) 1993 Commission Green Paper, (COM(93) 47 final). Opinion CES

sustainable development of 15 May 2001.

226/94 (OJ C 133, 15.5.1994).

( 2) 2000 Commission White Paper, (COM(2000) 66 final). Opinion

CES 803/2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000).

( 3) Opinion CES 711/2001 (OJ C 221, 7.8.2001).

(5) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
22.7.1992) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979
on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979).

(4) European Commission proposal for a Community strategy for