Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission The European Research Area: Providing New Momentum Strengthening — Reorienting — Opening up new perspectives" (COM(2002) 565 final)
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU action, EU research policy, cooperation policy, research programme

C 95/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.4.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission “The European Research Area: Providing New Momentum Strengthening —
Reorienting — Opening up new perspectives”’

(COM(2002) 565 final)

(2003/C 95/13)

On 17 October 2002 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

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 29 January 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Wolf.

At its 397th plenary session on 26 and 27 February 2003 (meeting of 26 February) the European
Economic and Committee adopted the following opinion by 72 votes to 7 with 4 abstentions.

1. Summary

— The Committee welcomes the Commission Communi-

cation in principle and supports its aims.

— The Committee once again emphasises the importance of
a European research area. It appreciates the progress
already made towards this aim and towards an internal
market for research.

— In this context, the Committee supports the Commission’s
efforts to create a European scientific infrastructure
including the necessary large apparatus.

— The Committee supports the Commission’s intention to
provide more funding from the Regional Fund, as a matter
of priority, for promotion of scientific and technological
cooperation between regions at different stages of techno-
logical development.

— In general the Committee also endorses the specific

measures proposed.

— On the important subject of science and society, the

Committee refers readers to its recently issued opinion.

— However, the Committee recommends adapting new
measures on research promotion, coordination, net-
working or integration, and their timing, to the delicate
operating conditions of top-quality science and research.

— The Committee stresses the fundamental importance of
adequate mobility for scientists and researchers in terms
of spreading information and acting as a catalyst for
networks; accordingly it supports the Commission pro-
posals. It recommends that in support measures and rules
the costs associated with mobility be taken into account
and compensated for, to ensure that no disadvantages
arise, and that sufficient incentives are provided.

— The Committee strongly supports the creation of a

European Community Patent.

— As regards the coordination of

the Member States’
the
research policies aimed at by the Commission,
Committee recommends a differentiated approach.
It
supports all measures which encourage coordination by
the research institutes themselves and their participants,
including European-level coordination. Coordination by
the Commission itself, bearing in mind the subsidiarity
principle, should concentrate on and confine itself to
those thematic aims and organisational needs (large
infrastructure) for which such coordination
apparatus,
going beyond the individual Member States is really
useful or necessary.

— The Committee is drawing up an opinion on the subject

of boosting private investment in research.

2. Background

The European Research Area initiative and proposed
2.1.
measures for its implementation were put forward by the
Commission in early 2000 (1), and were confirmed and
endorsed as early as March 2000 by the Lisbon European
Council. Further developments of this initiative followed in the
Commission’s proposal on the Sixth Framework Pro-
gramme (2) and in the proposals (3) on the participation rules.

The Committee issued detailed opinions on these
2.2.
proposals (4). In them it firmly supported the creation of a
European Research Area and emphasised the fundamental
importance of science, research and development as the basis

(1) COM(2000) 6 final.
(2) COM(2001) 94 final — 2001/0053 (COD) and 2001/0054 (CNS).
(3) COM(2001) 500 final as amended by COM(2001) 822 final —
2001/0202 (COD) and COM(2001) 823 final/2 — 2001/0327
(CNS).

(4) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000; OJ C 260, 17.9.2002; OJ C 241, 7.10.2002;

OJ C 221, 7.8.2001 and OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/49

and engine of prosperity and competitiveness. The Committee
also pointed out that most scientific and technological achieve-
ments up to now have been the product of a common
European cultural effort, which brings out
the historical
importance of the European Research Area and which con-
tributes substantially to European integration.

2.3.
The Committee also analysed the details of the Com-
mission proposals mentioned above, expressed specific reser-
vations and issued practical recommendations for changes and
further development. The main aim was to ensure optimal
operational conditions for successful research and develop-
ment, and balanced support for the three pillars — fundamen-
tal research, applied research, and development — in the
context of their interaction and interdependence. Some of these
earlier recommendations and comments by the Committee are
also relevant to the present Commission Communication and
are given further consideration below.

— boosting private investment in research;

— intellectual property;

— a trans-European electronic network for research;

— the international dimension of the European Research

Area;

— the regional dimension of the European Research Area;

— issues relating to science and society;

— creating the conditions for genuine coordination of

research policies;

— making greater use of legal instruments;

— optimising the impact of European cooperation initiat-

ives;

3. The present Commission Communication

— fully involving the candidate countries.

its Communication,

As the starting point of

3.1.
the
Commission notes that its earlier initiatives and measures have
contributed to a change in the research policy landscape in
Europe. In the Member States people have become aware of
the European dimension of research; those active in and
responsible for research in Europe have come closer together,
and new cooperation initiatives have been created; in this
it has been possible to give the new research
context,
framework programme a radically new form and to adopt it.
However, despite the progress in these areas, the Commission
maintains that adequate cooperation with the Member States
is still
lacking. This restricts the scope of the measures
undertaken and casts doubt upon the creation of an internal
market for research.

On the basis of an assessment of the measures taken
3.2.
so far, the Commission Communication aims to highlight
further necessary measures designed to give the project a new
impetus.

The following aspects are addressed, and correspond-

3.3.
ing proposals are made:

4. General comments

4.1.
The Committee welcomes the present Commission
Communication in principle and supports its aims. Once again
it stresses the importance of a European Research Area. Except
where otherwise stated below, the Committee also endorses
the individual measures proposed.

4.1.1.
The Committee takes the view that the Commission
underestimates the remarkable progress already made if it
regards the creation of an internal market for research as
generally in doubt. The Committee endorses and strongly
supports the aim of creating an internal market for research
and of encouraging and promoting cutting-edge research
throughout Europe. However, this aim can be achieved only
through a longer-term development process on a commensur-
ate timescale. This applies both to the clarification of questions
of responsibility and to interaction and division of labour —
and thus the application and interpretation of the subsidiarity
principle — between the Commission and the governments of
the Member States, as well as to the necessary adaptation
process to be followed by individual research institutes and
their players (see also the Appendix on this question).

— benchmarking of research policies;

— mapping of scientific and technological excellence;

4.1.2.
There is of course still much to do and to improve;
and the Committee will deal with some of these points under
point 5 below.

— mobility of researchers;

— research infrastructures;

— networking of national research programmes;

4.1.3.
It is particularly important to maintain the necessary
political impetus, in order to develop further and complete the
set of rules for the Community internal market in general. At
the same time the related measures also lay the foundation on
which the European Research Area and the internal market for
research can be further developed and organised.

C 95/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.4.2003

4.1.4.
It must, however, also be borne in mind that to
achieve competence, efficiency or even a leading position in a
particular scientific area, the persons and groups involved in
research and development must first undertake a demanding
period of training usually lasting several years. In addition,
high-quality technical equipment must often first be set up
and a stimulating environment - research structures - created.
This is a valuable and expensive investment in human capital
and in research infrastructure.

4.1.4.1.
Good and successful research cannot therefore be
switched on and off, redirected or subjected to new support
instruments or rules at the whim of economic cycles or
current political
trends, but requires sufficient continuity
and reliability (1). This also applies to the timescale for the
implementation of the new measures and procedures which it
is hoped and expected that the Commission will produce.
Otherwise there is even a risk that essentially sensible measures
prepared by the Commission with good intentions could
encounter animosity and resistance on the part of the insti-
tutions and players concerned.

4.1.4.2.
In this connection the Committee is pleased to
note that the Commission has followed (unfortunately only in
part) its earlier recommendation, that the calls for tenders
should offer the instruments proposed by the Commission for
the Sixth Framework Programme together with those already
introduced by the Fifth Framework Programme. It would also
be desirable in a call for tenders for a special research package
not to specify the instrument available for it, but to allow
applicants scope for initiative and freedom of choice, to select
whichever is the most suitable instrument in their view.

The Committee has already issued a very detailed
4.2.
opinion on the extremely wide-ranging set of questions
relating to science and society (1), the points made in which
are still valid, e.g. in relation to the issues addressed here by
the Commission. Some of them are briefly recapitulated below
with reference to current questions.

— guaranteeing researcher independence and scientific free-
dom, with respect for ethical concerns and the law;

— protecting and strengthening - within the framework of
policy directives - the scientific community’s autonomy
and its right to run its own affairs;

— studying the impact, administrative burden and effective-
ness of the various application and approval procedures;

— taking account of the diverse range of social aims and

interests;

— also fostering and being open to knowledge in which

‘society’ currently has no interest.

Science and research depend on competition for
4.2.2.
the best
ideas, procedures and findings, on independent
confirmation (or disproving) — i.e. ‘certification’ — of new
findings, and on their dissemination, deepening and extension.
Even duplication of research contributes to scientific knowl-
edge and progress.

Thus it is necessary to facilitate and foster diverse,
4.2.3.
interdisciplinary research approaches, assessment procedures
and research structures, in order to stimulate and utilise the
resulting competition for the best ideas and findings.

4.2.4.
A key principle of any research policy should
therefore be to adopt a ‘bottom-up’ approach as often as
possible and a ‘top-down’ approach only as often as necessary.
Similarly, there should be as much decentralisation as possible
and only as much centralisation as required. In the EESC’s
view, this principle does not run counter to the objectives of
the European Research Area, but means that — depending on
the aims in each case — the Commission and its research
policy should also delegate responsibilities and the powers of
decision and initiative etc to the greatest possible extent.

4.3.
Boosting private investment in research is the subject
of a Commission Communication (2) on which the Committee
made its own recommendations, in a separate opinion endors-
ing the Commission proposals in principle. This subject will
therefore not be dealt with further here.

4.2.1.
Priority should be given to the economic, political,
in which creativity and
social and cultural environment
inventiveness can best develop, and to making it possible to
attract
the best scientists and engineers to the European
Research Area and keep them there. This should involve
measures to maintain or create optimum operating conditions
for good science, such as:

5. Specific comments

5.1. Mobility

— strengthening

the

between fundamental
research and applied research/development in a diverse,
multi-polar scientific system;

interplay

It is people who are responsible for knowledge transfer,
contacts and networking. That is why mobility is the key to
the organisation of the European Research Area.
In this
connection the Committee would also refer to its earlier
opinion (3).

( 1) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, point 4.3.

(2) COM(2002) 499 final.
(3) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, point 8.

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/51

5.1.1.
The question of mobility for scientists and tech-
nicians, however, covers a variety of aspects or categories,
such as:

adequate incentives and instruments to promote the mobility
of highly-skilled people. This need and the specific set of
problems connected with it have already been fully explained
in the earlier Opinion (1) on the European Research Area.

— reciprocal mobility between the academic world and

industry;

— mobility between the Member States of the EU;

5.2.

Intellectual property rights

— mobility between the EU and non-member countries;

— promotion of the return to the EU of researchers in non-

member countries;

— promotion of mobility through financial

incentives/

grants e.g. by the Commission;

— the obstacles to mobility (for the various categories
mentioned above) and ways of overcoming them.

Some of these categories are dealt with in the Commission
Communication. In particular, measures to improve incentives
and provide better information for potential candidates are
proposed. The Committee fully supports these proposals.

5.1.2.
In addition to the obstacles to mobility mentioned
by the Commission, the Committee would point out the
following further problems hindering the desired mobility of
scientists and engineers:

— the effects on the cohesion of families or family partner-
ships. This involves finding solutions consistent with the
career aspirations of family partners and the schooling
needs of children. This is in fact an important aspect of
family policy;

It

recommends once again that

The Committee supports the Commission in its ongoing
efforts — so far, alas, not particularly successful, because of
resistance from the Member States — to create a European
Community Patent.
the
procedures required to establish and operate a European
Community Patent system be made simpler, shorter and
cheaper, as this would have an enormous economic impact. It
would refer to its earlier views on this question, particularly
regarding language arrangements, the role of national patent
offices and legal protection for them. A grace period, which
does not jeopardise the novelty of the patent, should also be
introduced (as in the USA), so that findings published in
advance by an inventor are not excluded from patenting from
the start.

5.3. Research policy coordination

In the Commission’s view, coordination of individual states’
research policies is a key task of the European Research Area.

supports

The Committee

5.3.1.
those Commission
measures which encourage and promote coordination (2) of
research policy and projects at European level by the Member
States themselves and by the institutions and players respon-
sible for research and development.

— the costs involved in moving or buying/selling a house,
which can be considerable (estate agent, taxes, legal fees,
renovation etc.). Here too solutions must be found, so
that those concerned are not disadvantaged, and no
insuperable obstacles to mobility therefore arise;

5.3.2.
Top-down coordination by the Commission itself,
however, should concentrate on and be confined to those
thematic aims and equipment needs (large apparatus, infra-
structure) for which such coordination, going beyond the
individual Member States, is really useful or necessary.

— the inadequate compatibility and transferability of social
security entitlements and insurance at present (eligibility
requirements/qualification periods for pensions,
inval-
idity benefits, sickness insurance etc.).

5.1.3.
The problems mentioned under 5.1.2, however, have
implications not only for scientists’ mobility, but also for other
occupational groups and hence the entire internal market. This
makes it all the more urgent to solve them.

5.3.3.
This is therefore a delicate question — one which
needs to be handled in a flexible way, and one which touches
on the key problem of subsidiarity. In this connection the
Committee refers back to its first Opinion on the European
Research Area (3), chapter 9 of which is entitled The European
dimension: subsidiarity, concentration and diversity, compe-
tition and order. Because of the fundamental importance of
this question, an extract from this chapter is appended (up to
and including point 9.8.5); it supplements this opinion.

However,

5.1.4.
in order to facilitate and encourage the
participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in
the research and development programme, and to overcome
the obstacles to this which persist, there is also a need for

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, points 7.7, 7.8, 8.2.2 and 11.7.5.
(2) Also called ‘open coordination’ by the Commission.
(3) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

C 95/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.4.2003

5.4.

Infrastructure and large apparatus

5.4.1.
A particularly important, indeed priority, subject in
this connection is the very expensive infrastructure and large
apparatus needed for cutting-edge research, the cost and utility
of which usually exceed the possibilities and also the needs of
individual Member States. Consideration of need, optimal
location, new construction, use, development etc. would
therefore appear to be a clear case of a common European
task, to be promoted and then coordinated by the Commission.
The large apparatus concerned would include accelerators,
radiation and neutron sources, astronomical observation plat-
forms and satellites, energy research testing plant (ITER), and
testing plant for aviation and space travel. It follows naturally
from this that the procedures, scientific work etc. needed for
their operation must be influenced, coordinated and supported
by the Commission (e.g. by promoting mobility). Thus the
Committee fully supports the Commission’s efforts in this
field.

5.4.2.
The Committee endorses the proposal to set up, in
the European infrastructure forum, formal mechanisms for
consulting and advising the Member States; it reserves the

Brussels, 26 February 2003.

right to issue a specific opinion on the practical proposals to
be put forward on this matter.

5.5. The regional dimension of the European Research Area

In the development of the European Research Area there are
two approaches, each with its own assessment standard.

5.5.1.
On the one hand there is the networked participation
of the best researchers and research institutes in the various
thematic, Europe-wide
research and development pro-
grammes: this is carried out in accordance with the rules of
the Framework Programme.

5.5.2.
On the other hand there is the intention to promote
scientific and technological cooperation between regions
which are at different stages of technological development,
and to involve more isolated regions in this as well.

The Committee welcomes and endorses the Commission’s
intention to support both the above objectives, not least
through separate assistance programmes. While the pursuit of
excellence, referred to in point 5.5.1, is the main task of the
R & D Framework Programme, the regional aspect mentioned
in point 5.5.2 should be covered primarily, and more than
hitherto, by the Regional Fund.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/53

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received more than a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the
discussions:

Point 5.3.1

Amend to read as follows:

‘The Committee supports those Commission measures which encourage and promote coordination of research
policy and projects at European level by the Member States and by the institutions and players responsible for
research and development.’

Reason

The idea of ‘self-coordination’ is not comprehensible; if it is intended to imply a ‘bottom-up’ process, that is
inappropriate when talking of research policies and too limiting when talking of research programmes.

For the reasons already given in point 5.3.1 of the opinion, the suggested limitation of the Commission’s action is
not acceptable.

The reference to the EESC’s earlier opinion on the European Research Area, already published in the Official Journal,
is sufficient; there is no need to reproduce the opinion as an appendix, particularly as its content is not exactly the
same as the text which it is proposed to delete (in the current points 5.3.2 and 5.3.3).

Results of voting

In favour: 20, against: 25, abstentions: 33.

Point 5.3.2

Amend to read as follows:

‘The Commission should work in particular to achieve the objective of becoming the world’s most competitive
knowledge-based economy by 2010, laying down general objectives and guidelines at EU level, from which would
follow specific objectives and policy measures on the part of each Member State.’

Reason

See the reason given for the point 5.3.1 amendment.

Results of voting

In favour: 26, against: 45, abstentions: 7.