Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) and the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) (COM(2005) 119 final/2 — 2005/0043 (COD) — 2005/0044 (CNS))
Date: 2005-12-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU programme, EU research policy, innovation, research and development

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/9

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the
European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007
to 2013) and the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the seventh framework programme
of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities
(2007 to 2011)’

(COM(2005) 119 final/2 — 2005/0043 (COD) — 2005/0044 (CNS))

(2006/C 65/02)

On 25 April 2005 the Council decided, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, to consult the European Economic and Social Committee on the abovementioned 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 11 November 2005. The rapporteur was Mr
Wolf, the co-rapporteur Mr Pezzini.

At its 422nd plenary session, held on 14 and 15 December 2005 (meeting of 14 December), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 123 votes, with four abstentions:

Contents

1. Summary and recommendations

2. Introduction

3. Gist of the Commission document

4. General comments

5. Specific comments

lating leverage and integration effect on the necessary and
more extensive national research programmes of the Member
States, which also leads to a pooling of resources. They bring
together Europe's research elites, European industry and Euro-
pean decision-makers. They are a catalyst of European integra-
tion, cohesion and identity-building. They are the core element
of the European Research Area.

6. The seventh Euratom framework programme

1. Summary and recommendations

The Lisbon objectives (1) are about Europe's position in
1.1
global competition, which centres around the race to invest
more in research and development; this involves both the tradi-
tional
industrial nations (e.g. USA, EU and Japan) and the
burgeoning new economic powers (e.g. China, India, Brazil,
Korea) with their substantially cheaper labour.

1.2
that
Effective, high-quality research and development
enjoys an adequate level of support is in fact the basic founda-
tion and sine qua non for innovation, competitiveness and pros-
perity, and thus also for cultural development and the provision
of social services;
investments in research and development
have a high gain factor and boost economic strength accord-
ingly. This is also in line with the 3 % objective laid down in
Barcelona (2)
in 2002, though the global race makes this a
‘moving target’.

1.3
Community-funded research and development activities
create considerable European added value. They open up
potentials that plainly go beyond the capacities of individual
Member States and have already facilitated European develop-
ments of global importance. They have a decisive and stimu-

(1) This also applies to the objectives of the revamped Lisbon strategy

(European Council of 23 March 2005).

(2) Total EU spending on research and development to rise to 3 % of
GDP by 2010, with the private sector contributing two-thirds. See
also OJ C 95 of 23.4.2003.

1.4
The Commission's proposal to increase expenditure and
to devote just under 8 % of the total Community budget to
these objectives is a welcome and absolutely necessary first step
in the right direction. It is a minimum amount that must be
increased still further in the longer term so as not to gamble
away – but rather to maintain and strengthen – Europe's posi-
tion as the cradle of modern science and technology. Without
such action, it will not be possible, even in the longer term, to
meet the Lisbon objectives.

scientists and engineers

1.5
On scientific and technological performance hinge not
just economic competitiveness and the ‘pull’ that that exerts on
(‘brain-drain’), but also
investors,
cultural and political standing and influence. The EU must
remain a key, sought-after partner in cooperation and must not
lose its importance on the world stage as part of the global
network.

1.6
The Committee therefore calls on the European Parlia-
ment, the European Council and, in particular, Member State
heads of state or government to make the urgently needed
R&D investments proposed by the Commission available in full
and to ensure that these do not become a pawn in – or fall
victim to – the negotiations on the EU's future overall budget.
This decision will be a crucial touchstone for the capacity of
European policy to set the right course for the future.

C 65/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

1.7
The Committee also calls on the heads of state or
government and on European industry, including through their
national research programmes and industrial research measures,
is reached as soon as
to help ensure that
possible.

the 3 % target

1.8
The Committee welcomes the fundamental direction of
the two framework programmes proposed by the Commission
(FP7 and Euratom FP7), not only for their thematic content and
structure, but also, for the most part, for the balance they strike
between the objectives and components of
the individual
programmes.

1.9
The Committee is pleased at the inclusion of the energy,
security and space sub-programmes. One of the key priority
issues is how to secure the adequate and sustainable supply of
reasonably priced energy within the EU, which means finding
the right balance between sustainability, environmental protec-
tion and competitiveness. The answer lies in sufficient research
and development. Security too is a major issue, as the recent
heinous terrorist attacks have made only too plain.

1.13
Given the key role of small and medium-sized enter-
prises for the Lisbon process, the Committee welcomes the
Commission's plan to involve SMEs even more closely in
research, development and innovation. Accordingly, it recom-
mends increasing the budget earmarked for this area even
further where necessary, if the appropriations provided for in
the competitiveness and innovation framework programme
(2007-2013), which is not discussed here and which has a key
support and intermediary role to play, should prove inade-
quate.

1.14
To win, SMEs set up specifically to develop and market
innovative high-tech products above all need enough start
capital and venture capital to be able to bridge the first five to
ten years of operations successfully.

1.15
The Committee supports the role of the Joint Research
Centre (JRC) and the key range of responsibilities it has in
many fields, including the study of future scientific, technolo-
gical, economic and social trends, and their importance for
policy consultations.

1.16
Further, more in-depth comments and recommenda-
tions are set out in the more detailed sections 2, 4 and 5 of the
opinion below.

1.10 Many of the issues that need to be resolved cut across
different remits and a number of different sub-programmes –
including the humanities and economic sciences. In such cases,
the Committee recommends that steps be taken to ensure
overall coordination and the necessary link-ups. That might
well have an impact on the current budgetary allocation for the
individual sub-programmes. The same is true of the share of
the budget earmarked for economic research, which may be
too low.

2. Introduction

1.11
The Committee welcomes the Commission's intention
to simplify administrative procedures and reduce the effort
these involve, thus boosting the efficiency of the European
research programmes. As they stand,
the application and
approval procedures involve too much work and are too
expensive, causing difficulties for scientific and industrial users.
The European research programme must be a worthwhile
venture for those taking part in it, including in terms of the
risk involved in making the application. This also applies in
particular to smaller players, such as SMEs or smaller research
groups from universities and research centres.

1.12
A key consideration here is to ensure a sufficient
degree of continuity in the application and support arrange-
ments, and in the cooperative structures and organisational
parameters (instruments). New instruments such as the joint
technology initiatives should be introduced with great care,
and, initially, for a trial period only.

social

and cultural

Europe's economic,

2.1
future.
Europe's future development and position on the world stage
will be determined above all by the competition that exists on
the global market, with its changing industrial and economic
structures,
labour market situation and raw material para-
meters. In this context, growth, success and economic strength
– and the resultant capacity to provide social services and
secure cultural development – are critically contingent on avail-
able knowledge and thus on investment in research and techno-
logical development. Investments in research and development
have a high gain factor and boost economic strength accord-
ingly.

2.2
Global competition. On the one hand, Europe is
competing with the now-traditional industrial nations such as
the USA, Japan and Russia, with, in all R&D sectors, US invest-
ments (3) in particular considerably outstripping those of the
EU, thus steadily widening that country's existing lead. On the
other hand, Europe is also competing with rapidly expanding
economies such as China, India, Brazil and Korea.

(3) R&D spending by the US Department of Defence (DoD) – which
covers not only military research – represents a particularly impor-
tant share of these investments.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/11

2.3
The global research race. These last-named countries
not only have much cheaper labour than the EU, but they are
now also showing a rapid rise in scientific and technical
standards and are investing strongly in education, research and
development. For the EU, therefore, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to safeguard what are, in comparison, its much higher
wages and social and environmental standards by widening its
scientific
lead and delivering superior
products and processes as a result. Europe must thus do its
utmost to ensure it does not lose this global race for increasing
R&D investments that is so crucial for its future.

and technological

2.4 Overall
standing and attraction – international
cooperation. On scientific and technological performance
hinge not just economic competitiveness and the ‘pull’ that that
exerts on investors, scientists and engineers (brain-drain), but
also cultural and political prestige and influence. The EU must
remain a key, sought-after partner in cooperation and must not
lose its importance on the world stage as part of the global
network.

implementation of

2.5
The Lisbon strategy. The March 2000 Lisbon Euro-
pean Council therefore resolved to make the European Union
the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy
in the world (4). Since then,
the Lisbon
strategy, and the creation of a strong European Research Area,
which forms an integral part of the strategy, is acknowledged
as the centrepiece of EU policy. The spring 2002 European
Council
in Barcelona added quantitative objectives for the
support of research activities, with total research expenditure in
the EU set to rise to 3 % of GDP by 2010, with two-thirds of
funding coming from the private sector (the 3 % objective).
The Committee would point out, however, that, in the light of
the global investment race, this objective is a ‘moving target’.
Those who fail to reach it in time fall even further behind.

a

for

Need

strong Community

2.6
framework
programme. Community-funded research and development
activities not only complement the Member States' research
programmes, but also have considerable European added value.
They open up potentials that plainly go beyond the capacities
of individual Member States and have already facilitated Euro-
pean developments of global importance (5). They have a deci-
sive and stimulating leverage and integration effect on the
necessary and more extensive national research programmes of
the Member States. They reflect the international nature of
science, research and production and the international labour
market that that requires.

2.7
A catalyst for European integration and cohesion.
Community-funded research and development also brings
together Europe's research elites, European industry and Euro-
pean decision-makers. It is a key catalyst of European integra-
tion, cohesion and identity-building.

programme funding and content which are urgently needed to
support research and development activity, thus underpinning
the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. Although they have been
expanded, they still make up only a relatively small part – now
just under 8 % – of the proposed overall EU budget for 2007
to 2013.

The Commission's proposals are also linked to the
2.9
proposal
to establish a competitiveness and innovation
framework programme (2007-2013), which is not discussed
here. In particular, this programme could also act an inter-
mediary between the framework programme submitted here
and the innovation needed by many SMEs.

2.10
Setting priorities as a test of commitment. Adop-
tion of the proposed measures and sufficiently high priority
treatment by the Parliament, Council and particularly – with
regard to the financial perspectives – the Member States,
is
therefore a crucial test of the EU's commitment and the extent
to which its policies are credible and able to deliver results.
(See also points 4.2 to 4.6).

3. Gist of the Commission document

The seventh framework programme of the European
3.1
Community for
and
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), referred to hereafter
as the FP7, differs from its predecessor in the following
respects:

technological development

research,

— It encompasses the EU-25 from the very start.

— The programming period has been extended by two years.

— The programme envisages a substantial increase in the total

budget and annual budgets.

— It provides a clear and readily understandable breakdown of

the proposed programmes and sub-programmes.

— Research in the fields of energy, security and space are

included as explicit new sub-programmes.

By contrast, the seventh framework programme of the
3.2
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear
research and training activities (2007 to 2011), referred to
hereafter as the Euratom FP7,
is of the same duration as
before, although obviously it too covers the EU-25.

3.3
The FP7 Framework Programme will be organised in
four specific programmes, corresponding to the four major
objectives of European research policy:

2.8
The Commission's proposals. The Commission docu-
ment sets out proposals for Community actions relating to

— Cooperation

(4) This objective was explicitly confirmed and detailed in the decisions
taken by the March 2005 European Council in Brussels to revitalise
the Lisbon strategy.

(5) Examples of

successful European cooperation: Ariane, Airbus,

CERN, ESO, Galileo; JET/ITER.

With about 61 % of
the total budget,
accounts for the lion's share of FP7.
support
research activities carried out
cooperation,
third countries.

this programme
is intended to
in transnational
including cooperation between the EU and

It

C 65/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

— Ideas

— Energy

An autonomous European Research Council will be created
the
to support
European level. This may include all scientific and technolo-
gical fields, including the humanities.

‘frontier research’ projects competing at

— People

Support for training and career development of researchers,
referred to as ‘Marie Curie’ actions, will be reinforced and
expanded, with stronger links to national systems.

6,6%

5,7%

— Environment (including Climate Change)

— Transport (including Aeronautics)

13,3%

— Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities

1,8%

— Security and Space

8,9%

— Capacities

3.6

Euratom FP7 is organised in two specific programmes.

This programme is intended to support various aspects of
European research and innovation capacities: developing
new research infrastructures and building on existing infra-
structures;
regional
research-driven clusters; unlocking the full research poten-
tial
‘science in society’
issues; ‘horizontal’ activities of international cooperation.

in the EU's ‘convergence’ regions;

the benefit of SMEs;

research for

— Joint Research Centre

In addition, there will be a specific programme for the non-
nuclear actions of the Joint Research Centre.

3.4
The proposed total of Community financial participation
in FP7 is EUR 72,726 million. That amount is to be distrib-
in percentage terms, among the activities and actions
uted,
referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 2, as follows:

Cooperation

Ideas

People

Capacities

61,1%

16,3%

9,8%

10,3%

Non-nuclear actions of the Joint Research Centre

2,5%

3.5
The cooperation programme has a proposed overall
budget of EUR 44,432 million and is organised into thematic
sub-programmes on the basis of priorities. Steps are to be
taken to ensure consistency among the sub-programmes, and
joint, cross-thematic approaches. The programme covers the
following nine research subjects, which are to be approached
within the EU in transnational cooperation. The proposed
percentage budget allocation is also shown.

— Health

— Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology

— Information and Communication Technolo-

gies

18,7%

5,5%

28,5%

3.6.1

One covers two areas:

— Fusion energy research: to develop the technology for a
safe, sustainable, environmentally responsible and econom-
ically viable energy source.

— Nuclear fission and radiation protection: to promote the
safe use and exploitation of nuclear fission and other uses
of radiation in industry and medicine.

3.6.2
Research Centre in the field of nuclear energy.

The other programme covers the activities of the Joint

A total of EUR 3,092 million is to be earmarked for
3.6.3
the implementation of Euratom FP7 for the period from 2007
to 2011. That amount is distributed in percentage terms as
follows:

(a) Fusion energy research

69,8%

(b) Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection

12,8%

(c) Nuclear Activities of

the Joint Research

Centre

17,4%

3.7
The Commission document also contains a detailed
analysis and explanation of the proposed support instruments
and underlying principles. These were already outlined in a
previous Communication from the Commission (6), which the
Committee has evaluated in depth (7).

4. General comments

The Commission proposal

is a very substantial docu-
4.1
ment, which outlines an extensive research and development
programme with its many details, aspects and links to other
areas. In view of this, this opinion cannot analyse or comment
on all the components and procedures of the programme.

— Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials

and new Production Technologies

10,9%

(6) Science and technology, the key to Europe's future – Guidelines for future

European Union policy to support research, COM(2004) 353 final.

(7) OJ C 157, 28.6.2005.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/13

Detailed comments are therefore reserved for aspects to
which the Committee attaches particular
importance. The
Committee would draw attention to its earlier recommenda-
tions (8) on relevant specific issues, and notes that these still
apply to FP7. The Committee will make more detailed state-
ments in its upcoming opinions on the Commission communi-
cations on the specific programmes (9) and access rules (10).

4.2
The Committee considers both proposed budgets as
minimum amounts that must be increased still further in the
longer term so as not to gamble away – but rather to maintain
and strengthen – Europe's position as the cradle of modern
science and technology. The Committee sees this as a welcome
and absolutely necessary first step in bringing the Com-
munity at least closer towards to the 3 % objective (11) set by
European heads of state or government at
the Barcelona
summit.

and the standing and credibility of European policy would be
dented.

The Committee also calls on the Member State heads of
4.7
state or government and on European industry,
including
through their more extensive national research programmes
and industrial research measures, to make a major effort to
ensure that the 3 % target is reached as soon as possible.

4.8
The Committee welcomes the fundamental direction
of the two framework programmes proposed by the Commis-
sion (FP7 and Euratom FP7), not only for their thematic
content and structure, but also, for the most part,
for the
balance they strike between the objectives and components of
the individual programmes.

adequate

financial backing,

4.3 Without
FP7 and
Euratom FP7 will not be able to contribute to the Lisbon
further
strategy; there is even a risk that Europe will
behind in the global race. R&D are the starting point and
engine of innovation for competitive products and technolo-
gies. They can trigger a snowball effect that will then impact
on economic momentum and jobs.

fall

Furthermore, the Commission proposal is a clear signal
4.4
to Member States to follow this example and do everything
possible, including in their national research budgets, to attain
the 3 % objective.

4.5
Consequently, the Committee views the total funding
decided on for the two budgets as a crucial test of European
policies, of their credibility and ability to deliver results. It is
this funding which will reveal the extent to which Europe has
set itself the right priorities and is on the right course to
prevent the EU falling behind in the global race and to deliver
the promises of the Lisbon objectives.

4.9
The Committee notes with approval that the Commis-
sion's proposal has taken on board or attached particular
importance to many of its recommendations. In the case of the
research themes of the specific cooperation programme, these
recommendations relate to its opinions on subjects such as
nanotechnology (12), biotechnology (13) health research (14),
information technology (15), energy research (16)
(including
research (17)),
fusion
security
and
research (19). The Committee would reiterate at this point that
it considers all these issues to be very important and thus
strongly advocates that they be dealt with appropriately. Any
gaps or other specific points still identified by the Committee
will be addressed at a later stage.

space (18)

energy

It

is true that

in the case of space and security
4.10
research, the Committee had made a reasoned case for such
research to be managed and supported outside FP7. However,
it realises that there are also arguments in favour of incorpor-
ating this area into FP7; for example, management would be
more straightforward, and there would be better synergy and
coherence with other sub-programmes. Therefore,
it would
now advocate initially incorporating these sub-programmes
into FP7 on a trial basis and, depending on the results, making
the necessary changes after the mid-term review, or in FP8.

the European Council and,

Appeal. The Committee thus calls on the European
4.6
Parliament,
the
Member State heads of state or government to ensure that the
urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the
Commission are actually made available and do not
become a pawn in – or fall victim to – the negotiations on
the future overall EU budget. Major difficulties would other-
wise ensue, the Lisbon strategy objectives would not be met,

in particular,

(8) See footnotes 14 to 21 below.
(9) COM(2005) 440 to 445 final.
(10) Expected shortly.
(11) OJ C 95, 23.4.2003.

Space-based applications at the service of the Euro-
4.10.1
pean society, which falls under the space sub-programme, will,
as a typical cross-cutting theme (see section 5), be coordinated
with the themes of security, the environment and information
technology.

(12) OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.
(13) OJ C 234, 30.9.2003; OJ C 61, 14.3.2003; OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.
(14) OJ C 74, 23.3.2005; OJ C 133, 6.6.2003.
(15) OJ C 302, 7.12.2004.
(16) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002.
(17) OJ C 302, 7.12.2004.
(18) OJ C 220, 16.9.2003; OJ C 112, 30.4.2004.
(19) OJ C 157, 28.6.2005.

C 65/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

Security research themes, which are, sadly, of par-
4.10.2
ticular concern at
the moment, such as protection against
terrorism and crime, security of infrastructures and utilities,
border security, and security and society are cross-cutting
issues that should be complemented by research in the huma-
nities and sociology on themes such as conflict and peace and
culture,
the background to
conflicts and ways of avoiding or preventing them. Particular
attention should be paid to combating terrorism and the
control of menacing weapons of mass destruction (see also
point 6.4.3 below).

in order to learn more about

4.12
The Committee also welcomes the proposal to beef up
actions under the people heading and the associated ‘Marie
Curie’ programmes. This programme has so far also proven
to be an extremely successful and important means of training
and supporting European researchers, and of making the
European Research Area more attractive for researchers
from all over the world. The Committee reiterates that, as well
as creating new knowledge, researchers are also the main
agents in the transfer of such knowledge between countries and
continents, and also between research establishments and
industry, i.e. between research and application.

4.11 With regard to the ideas programme, the Committee
is also pleased to note that its recommendations (20) have been
taken up. These dealt largely with the autonomous manage-
ment of this programme by the European Research Council,
which is to be made up of outstanding scientists of interna-
tional renown. The Committee would reiterate its recommenda-
tion to involve high-calibre industrial research scientists in this
venture as well. The Committee therefore feels it is all the more
imperative that the Parliament and the Council should approve
this new type of research support, which should be organised
on similar lines to the UK Medical Research Council or the
German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft),
for example.

The objectives of

4.12.1
life-long training and career
development and pathways and partnerships between
industry and universities are particularly interesting aspects
of
the programme. Whereas the first objective applies to
training for young researchers and subsequent professional
development (including the professional development of experi-
the second
enced researchers – see also the next point),
concerns the important
launching and supporting
task of
longer-term cooperation programmes between organisations
from academia and industry, in particular SMEs, thus underpin-
ning the innovation triangle outlined above.
It is therefore
to promote mobility between the
particularly important
public and private sectors. This should also include mobility
in relation to, and partnerships with, for instance, the farming
sector or political institutions.

4.11.1
This programme, which seeks to promote excellence
in all areas of science and technology, will offer European
added value and contribute to the EU's competitiveness in the
global context. The Committee would point out in particular
that (21) basic research which is free, independent and unhampered,
even though subject to certain limits,
is the only kind of research
which can deliver the key ingredient for future prosperity – new knowl-
edge. Industry also acknowledges the value of basic research
and the need to support it (22).

4.11.2
At the same time, this ties in with repeated recom-
mendations by the Committee to give due emphasis to all three
essential sides of the innovation triangle – basic research,
applied research and development (product and process
development), in order to create the best possible conditions
for full success, while helping to promote multidisciplinarity, as
advocated by the Commission. The Committee would again
point out that the dividing lines between the terms basic
research, applied research and development have always been
fluid and arbitrary, and their importance should not, there-
fore, be artificially inflated by administrative measures.

(20) OJ C 110, 30.4.2004.
(21) Quotation from the speech of

the then German Chancellor,
Gerhard Schröder. inaugurating Einstein Year in 2005. He went on
to point out that ‘basic research also needs security, freedom from the
pressure to deliver direct applications of its findings and the compulsion to
constantly demonstrate its usefulness …’.

(22) cf. The Economic Returns to Basic Research and the Benefits of Univer-
sity-Industry Relationships. A literature review and update of findings.
Report for the UK Office of Science and Technology by SPRU - Science
and Technology Policy Research., Alister Scott, Grové Steyn, Aldo
Geuna, Stefano Brusoni, Ed Steinmueller, 2002.

4.12.2
The Committee is also touching here on the key
role of universities as research and training bodies. To be
able to meet their remit, however, it is essential that universities
have the material and tools they need, as well as an appropriate
staff budget and organisational structure (see also point 4.15.4).
There are major shortcomings on this front – not least in
comparison with top universities, for instance in the USA. The
Committee is therefore pleased that the Commission is working
on a separate communication on this issue, on which the
Committee itself will also issue an opinion. At this stage, the
Committee would just make clear one key point in relation to
FP7: namely that the support instruments must be in keeping
with the usual scale of projects conducted by university
research groups.

4.13
In addition, the Committee endorses the Commission's
efforts to establish a coherent professional profile for Euro-
pean researchers, to develop a stable career structure, and to
adapt internal market rules accordingly. The Committee has
pointed out in the past (23) that human capital is the most sensi-
tive and valuable resource for research and development and
it supports the Commission's efforts to maintain and
that
develop human resources. The Committee agrees with the
Commission that improvements are needed both in relation to
researchers' contracts and to the adaptation/portability of all
aspects of social security and retirement provision, which are
so important for all types of mobility.

(23) See also OJ C 110, 30.4.2004.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/15

4.13.1
Capable young scientists will take their research out
of Europe or turn to other activities unless we succeed in
offering them an attractive and predictable career path
(known in the USA as a tenure track). Mobility among scien-
tists is needed and wanted not only within the EU, but also
between the EU and many other countries. This must not,
lead to a net loss of the most gifted among them
however,
(brain-drain). One particular aspect of this,
in view of the
importance of family cohesion, is the option of ‘dual-career-
couples’.

4.13.2
The Committee would refer in that regard to the
Commission's recommendation of 11 March 2005 concerning
the European Charter for Researchers (24) and a code of
conduct for the recruitment of researchers designed to promote
the objectives set out above. The Committee very much
endorses the intentions expressed therein and many of the indi-
vidual proposals. It therefore regrets that in certain respects the
proposed rules go too far and thus make it difficult for the
provisions – and the fundamentally warranted concern that
underpins them – to secure acceptance among the scientific
community. In some cases, the wording and recommendations
are even misleading, or at the very least unclear or ambig-
uous (25). This can, among other things, make simplification
more difficult (see next point) or result in unsound decisions
being taken. The Committee therefore recommends that these
key provisions be revised as appropriate when the opportunity
arises.

4.14
In this context, the Committee endorses the Commis-
sion's declared intention, under the heading of simplification,
of streamlining numerous actions and rules for application and
decision-making procedures, thereby making them markedly
easier for applicants to deal with. Ultimately, the considerable
investment of time and money involved in application and
approval procedures is one of the main obstacles for scientific
and industrial users. This applies in particular to SMEs with
for innovation, and to smaller,
their considerable potential
university-based research groups. More user-friendly procedures
would considerably enhance the efficiency of European support
for research, besides helping to improve perceptions of ‘Brus-
sels’ among the European public, which, unfortunately, are
largely clouded by images of ‘red tape’ and ‘overregulation’. The
Committee reiterates its earlier recommendations to this effect
and its endorsement of the Marimon Report (26). The European

(24) OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 67.
(25) This applies, for instance to a failure to appreciate (a) the fact that
the main purpose of research is to generate new knowledge, while
the issue of what serves humanity or what is relevant to society is
not an appropriate criterion in individual cases (see also OJ C 221,
7.8.2001, points 4 and 6 – point 6.7.1 for instance – and footnote
14, or (b) the key importance of duplication, not only to safeguard
new knowledge but to ensure that such knowledge is circulated,
built on and expanded (see also OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, points 4.7.5
and 4.7.6). Good research cannot be forced by over-narrow rules,
but needs freedom in which to develop.
The most effective way to forge ahead to break new ground and
achieve good results is to appoint the most successful and particu-
larly experienced researchers to executive positions, to secure the
services of and promote the best scientists, and to make sure
adequate provision is made for proper equipment and research
resources (critical mass). See also OJ C 204, 18.7.2000 and OJ C
110, 30.4.2004. Researchers' skills cannot be quantified or assessed
in an objective way. Any judgement is bound to be subject to the
discretion of their experienced peers.

(26) Report of an Expert Panel chaired by Prof. Marimon, 21 June

2004, Sixth Framework Programme.

research programme must be a worthwhile venture for
those taking part in it, including in terms of the effort and
risk involved in making the application.

The Committee is aware that this issue touches on
4.14.1
the balance between the requirement for transparency, the
rules of the European Court of Auditors and the need for all
decision-makers to have sufficient room for manoeuvre. This
can and must lead to stakeholders from the Commission or its
authorised agencies acting more on their own initiative
(although the problem of their personal liability will have to be
considered), which in turn will place very exacting demands on
their specialist knowledge. The Committee therefore reiterates
its recommendation that specific experts with many years'
experience are needed here. The Committee would refer to its
earlier recommendations on this point (27).

4.14.2
A particularly important facet of securing innovation
and ‘going the extra mile’ is the willingness to accept uncer-
tainty and the risk of failure. No attempt to break new scien-
tific and technological ground, no quest
the
unknown can be planned or organised in such a way that
success is guaranteed. Indeed, the reverse is true. Nothing new
can be discovered if everything is known in advance. ‘Failure’
must not therefore be seen as such, but rather a useful finding
in the trial-and-error process. Opportunity and risk are two
sides of the same coin.

to discover

improvement

4.14.3
It is advisable to set up external agencies only if a
can be
clear
in administrative procedures
achieved by doing so and if there is a clear and proven cost
advantage to be gained. Any additional or external administra-
tive costs must not, under any circumstances, eat into the
budget available for actual research.

sub-programmes

The Committee also particularly welcomes the impor-
4.15
tant
capacities
included
programme. These cover the fields of research infrastructures;
research for
regions of knowledge;
research potential; science in society; and activities of interna-
tional cooperation.

the benefit of SMEs;

under

the

The important objective of

4.15.1
involving small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) more closely in research
and innovation process and creating suitable conditions and
tools for this to happen is of particular interest.

(27) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000 (CES 595/2000, point 9.8.4).

C 65/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

Support

4.15.2
from the innovation programme may
prove to be another useful means of supporting SMEs (28),
but, here too, procedures must be kept practicable and in due
proportion to the resources of SMEs. Depending on the success
of this innovation programme, the Committee feels it would be
worth considering a further increase in the share of explicit
SME support from its current level of 15 %, not least given the
requirements of the new Member States. The Committee would
reiterate its earlier statements on this issue, namely that, to
win, SMEs set up specifically to develop and market innovative
high-tech products above all need enough start capital and
venture capital to be able to bridge the first five to ten years
of operations successfully. Economic research and economic
policy can make key contributions here.

4.15.3
Equally important are the objectives of optimising
and developing research infrastructures, of developing
research-driven clusters, and of promoting and
regional
unlocking research potential
in the EU's convergence and
outermost regions. Developing research infrastructures and
establishing new infrastructures will promote and stimulate the
emergence of regional research-driven clusters. Here too, there
is above all a need for adequate venture capital – a crucial
factor in success.

4.15.4
The Committee would above all stress the impor-
tance of adequate infrastructure measures to get the universities
up to speed (see point 4.12.2 above).
In this context, the
Committee notes that,
in a number of places in the EU,
successful clusters of high-tech firms have grown up around
certain universities and/or research centres, sparking growth
and innovation in the neighbouring economic area as well
(poles of economic growth). See also point 4.16.2.

4.15.5
There is more on the role of European supercom-
puter centres as an additional and very important infrastruc-
ture measure at a later stage in this opinion (see point 5.8
below).

The Committee also recommends that, subject to its
4.15.6
inclusion under the ‘Ideas’ programme as well, the issue of
science in society – currently one of the activities under the
‘Capacities’ heading – should be switched (29) to the priority
sub-programme‘Socio-economic sciences and the huma-
nities’ which is part of the ‘Cooperation’ programme. In this
way, more effective use might be made of the potential syner-
gies between these themes, and the necessary links could also
be established. This would also make it clearer that the total
budget of these overlapping issues is 3 % of the thematic,
priority programmes.

(28) (COM(2005) 121 final – 2005/0050 (COD))
(29) This recommendation concerns only the primarily sociological
research on the subject ‘Science in Society’. On the other hand, that
share of the budget earmarked for activities (exhibitions, museums,
conferences) designed to spread scientific knowledge (‘Communi-
cating science’), i.e. its findings and methodology, should remain in
the specific programme ‘Capacities’.

4.15.7
Sound and effective international cooperation in
research and training is a key element of global partnership
and reflects with the very nature of scientific R&D. Interna-
tional cooperation activities (30), which come under the capa-
cities sub-programme,
focus on the key issue of working
together (see also point 4.13.1) with applicant countries, coun-
tries neighbouring the EU, developing countries and emerging
economies. The Committee is pleased that cooperation with
economically and technically advanced countries such as the
is
USA or Japan, which is, at the least, equally important,
the
made possible under
sub-
programmes, and that,
in individual cases, such cooperation
has even been placed on an institutional footing through bilat-
eral agreements. The Committee recognises that this coopera-
tion must grow out of actual need in the fields concerned, but
it would nonetheless recommend raising the profile of these
important facts and giving them greater emphasis.

‘Cooperation’ or

‘People’

its

4.16
Continuity and tools to promote research (forms
of support). With regard to both aspects,
the Committee
forward in a
recommendations put
strongly reaffirms
previous opinion. In view of the urgent need for greater conti-
nuity, the Committee reiterates its point that the retention of
instruments which have proved their worth is an important
means of achieving this objective, and that there should be
scope for flexibility in applicants' choices of instruments. At
the same time, however, the assessment procedure must not
sanction the choice of a particular instrument (not favoured by
the Commission), nor may it give priority to particular instru-
ments. The Committee also sees the extended duration of
FP7 as a contribution to greater continuity, provided, however,
that it is adequately funded.

recommendations

4.16.1
Some of the instruments have been re-named or are
entirely new. At this point the Committee would reiterate its
general
the
to the
Commission should, in the interests of continuity, proceed with
even
caution in introducing new instruments, or
great
renaming existing ones, and secondly, during the necessary
trials of new instruments,
it should make it clear that such
instruments may still be in the testing phase.

firstly,

effect

that,

4.16.2
In addition to the technology platforms mentioned
earlier, the joint technology initiatives are also a new instru-
ment of this kind designed to promote the establishment of
longer-term public-private partnerships. There are high hopes
for these initiatives within industry and not least among SMEs,
although the Committee notes that the Commission has yet to
produce any clearer proposals on this issue, including how the
initiatives differ from technology platforms. Such initiatives
could, among other things, also lead to the establishment of
cooperative networks between big companies and SMEs, and
also with universities and research centres, and, in broad terms,
to more private-sector R&D investment (see also point 4.15.4).
It is important, therefore, not only to work out clearer condi-
tions and operating arrangements for joint technology initia-
tives of this kind, but also, after an appropriate period, to
check whether the expectations placed in the initiatives have
been fulfilled.

(30) See also the European Commission's magazine RTDinfo, special

INCO issue, July 2005.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/17

4.16.3 When introducing new instruments, the Commission
should take care to avoid any recurrence of the mistakes that
were made during the launch of the ‘networks of excellence’
(FP6). In that instance, an ineffective information policy led to
confusion and differing interpretations among all stakeholders,
and even within the Commission itself. The Committee trusts
that it will have an opportunity to go into this subject in a
subsequent opinion. It welcomes the Commission's proposal
the EU Treaty to the
to apply Articles 169 and 171 of
funding schemes.

5. Specific comments

5.1 Most of the specific comments relate to the thematic
sub-programmes of
the cooperation programme which
form the core of the framework programme. At this point, the
Committee would like to reaffirm its support for the Commis-
sion's proposals as a whole, and to recommend their imple-
mentation.

The Committee would first of all consider the key aspect
5.2
of multidisciplinary, cross-cutting themes, which, by their
very nature, require overall coordination or direction, and thus
frequently also encompass the socio-economic sciences and
humanities sub-programme (see also point 5.8). Care should
therefore be taken to ensure that, in spite of the precise struc-
ture of the individual programmes – unavoidable for adminis-
trative and other reasons – the overall connection between
many of the issues to be tackled is recognised, dealt with and
turned to good account. The Committee therefore recommends
that steps be taken to ensure overall coordination and the
necessary link-ups.

5.2.1
combating terrorism, discussed in section 4 above.

This also includes the theme of security research and

5.2.2 Demographics is another case in point (31). Research
required in this field ranges from identifying demographic facts,
causes and trends, to the worryingly low birth rate in many
Member States and the impact of still-rising average life expec-
tancy. On this last point, the focus is on the requisite geriatric/
research and care techniques (32). The social and
medical
economic issues involved in the whole complex question are a
particularly important consideration here.

Health too is also a cross-cutting issue (see point 5.9),
5.2.3
as it is affected by lifestyle. working conditions, environment,
diet, vaccinations, and other factors such as addictions.

Some of the sub-programmes, however, are also, by
5.3
their very nature, particularly cross-cutting,
in that, besides
having a direct impact on European industrial performance,
they also benefit other sub-programmes, due to thematic links
between them. (In this regard, again see point 5.2.)

(31) CESE 818/2005 fin.
(32) OJ C 74, 23.3.2005.

This

is particularly true of

nanotechnologies, materials

5.4
the information and
communication technologies (ICT), biotechnology, and
nanosciences,
new
production technologies sub-programmes. The energy, envir-
onment, and transport sub-programmes are also closely inter-
connected.
the balance
between the individual sub-programmes can at best be only
qualitative; this reservation should be borne in mind in connec-
tion with the following remarks.

this, any assessment of

In view of

and

5.5
Information and communication technologies (ICT) are
indeed of crucial relevance to all aspects of industry, business,
the services sector, science and technology, including security
and defence. They are a critical element in global competition.
Compared to Japan and the USA in particular, Europe has
considerable ground to make up, not least in view of the need
for supercomputers in many important fields, such as climate,
security and materials research and the synthesis of new medi-
cines. This concerns both the establishment of European super-
computer centres – which could be more appropriately covered
by the capacities or infrastructure programmes – and indepen-
dent European development of the requisite hardware and soft-
ware.

for

5.5.1
However, it is striking that, as under FP6, by far the
largest share of the budget has again been allocated to the ICT
sub-programme. Given the importance of other themes, parti-
instance, health which also have
cularly energy or,
economic implications, it may be asked whether the possibility
of a certain shift in emphasis should not be kept open, in the
interests of a consistent approach to the sub-programmes. The
answer to this question partly depends on the degree to which
the ICT programme contributes to other programmes, e.g.
security research or space exploration.

5.5.2 With this specific example in mind, the Committee
recommends that in general, FP7 should be implemented in
such a way as to allow sufficient flexibility in allocating
funds between individual sub-programmes or to benefit from
the intended coherence, e.g. by means of sub-programmes
jointly issuing calls for tenders. The Committee's remarks on
ICT also apply to the transport and space sub-programmes (e.g.
aeronautics).

5.5.3
Once again, the Committee expresses its satisfaction at
the start of construction of the Galileo project which is a
prime example of the application of the subsidiarity principle.
Besides being of great value in terms of innovation, the techno-
logical solutions employed here and especially their application
are,
in the Committee's view, what makes this project truly
multi-disciplinary and cross-functional.

C 65/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

5.6
The Committee reiterates its strong satisfaction at the
incorporation of the important energy sub-programme into
FP7, in line with a recommendation that it has put forward on
several occasions. However, even though energy research is
also a very high priority for Euratom FP7, the Committee does
feel that even greater emphasis should be placed on this vital
and highly topical subject. Energy is the ‘staple food’ of a
competitive economy, yet not only is the EU currently depen-
dent on energy imports to an extremely worrying degree,
but global resources are also set to run short in the medium
term. R&D is the key to solving the energy problem.

that over the next two decades many of the existing fossil-
fuelled power stations will have to be replaced, and extra new
ones (several hundred throughout the EU!) will be needed. It is
importance that these
of vital economic and environmental
stations should use state-of-the-art technology. The high oil
price also raises the question as to when coal-based fuel genera-
tion technologies will be able to offer an economically competi-
tive alternative.

5.6.4
For further details, the Committee's would refer to its
earlier and current opinions on energy research and the energy
issue (37).

5.6.1
The Committee is thus pleased that the development
of renewable energy sources has been given such clear
emphasis. They play a crucial role in the whole energy/environ-
ment equation (global warming). Here the Committee would
refer to its numerous opinions (33) which cover the whole range
of needs for research into renewables, from geothermal energy,
biomass, solar and wind energy to storage technology. Support
from FP7 will give renewable energy sources a substantial addi-
tional boost, complementing various support measures for
commercial launches (e.g. legislation on the sale of electricity
to the grid), which are intended to promote the development
of commercially viable products. The Committee would also
recommend that more detailed studies be conducted into the
energy balance of renewable systems as doubts have recently
been raised about, for instance, the positive energy efficiency of
certain biofuels (34).

5.6.2
However, the Committee would emphasise that the
conventional fossil fuels, coal, crude oil and natural gas (35),
will remain the backbone of European and global energy
In view of this, any
supplies for several decades to come.
research and development activities which contribute to more
efficient extraction, transportation and use of such fuels, and
thus directly or indirectly to reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions, are of great economic and environmental significance.
Admittedly, the energy sub-programme refers to cutting CO2
(including CO2 separation and storage) and energy efficiency,
but it is still important to ensure that the relevant measures are
adequately funded. In addition, interconnections with the mate-
rials and transport sub-programmes offer potential synergies.
The Committee also welcomes the related coal and steel
research programme (36).

5.6.3
The Committee therefore recommends that research
and development measures give due emphasis not only to
renewables but also to energy production technologies using
fossil fuels. This is all the more important in view of the fact

(33) E.g. OJ C 241 of 7.10.2002; JO C 221 of 8.9.2005 and JO C 286

of 17.11.2005.

(34) David Pimentel and Ted. W. Patzek, Natural Resources Research

Vol. 14, No 1, 2005.
(35) JO C 120 of 20.5.2005.
(36) OJ C 294 of 25.11.2005.

Ultimately, one of

effective means of
5.7
combating climate change and other undesirable environmental
impacts is to improve energy production technologies (38).

the most

The link between the themes of

5.7.1
the two sub-
programmes should therefore be used to enhance both. While
research in the environment sub-programme (including climate
change) is designed largely to provide the diagnosis, the main
purpose of
the energy sub-programme is to provide the
therapy.

Even within

5.7.2
sub-programme,
however, the key links and synergies between analysis/diagnosis
(e.g. seabed geology) and potential therapies (e.g. seabed protec-
tion) should be identified and turned to good account.

environment

the

5.8
The socio-economic sciences and the humanities
sub-programme, expanded, as recommended in point 4.15.5,
to incorporate the science in society programme, should also
be seen as a cross-cutting theme. The Committee also reiterates
its previous recommendation that there should be a closer link
between natural sciences and the humanities (including social
sciences), not only between individuals working in these two
areas, but between their methods and criteria too (39). Social
scientists and researchers in the humanities should also be
involved in examining the key issues connected with security
research.

5.8.1
In this connection, the Committee also welcomes the
emphasis placed on economic analyses to develop best prac-
tices for the single market and the Lisbon strategy in the face
of global competition and other effects of globalisation. The
Committee would also stress the urgent need for analyses of
and political discussion (see also the Joint Research Centre
programme, point 5.10.1) about the causes of unemployment,

(37) OJ C 241 of 7.10.2002, JO C 133 of 6.6.2003, JO C 108 of
30.4.2004, JO C 110 of 30.4.2004, JO C 302 of 7.12.2004, JO C
286 of 17.11.2005, JO C 120 of 20.5.2005.

(38) See

also: Deutsche

Physikalische Gesellschaft,

Sept. 2005

‘Klimaschutz und Energieversorgung in Deutschland 1990-2020’.
(39) This very complex issue was to some extent examined in OJ C

221, 7.8.2001, points 3.9 and section 6.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/19

the strengths and weaknesses of various economic systems and
the causes, implications and possible turning points of demo-
graphic trends. Last but not least, the Committee would under-
link
score the need to look in greater depth at the causal
between research, innovation and prosperity.

5.8.2
It is not only the legal sciences that are involved
here, but ultimately also the scientific foundations of all EU
policies, be they social,
legislative, economic (monetary and
financial, fiscal, innovation-based, etc.) or security-related. Parti-
cularly important, however, are the political, economic and
legal issues raised by the further internal development of the
EU,
integration and
governance.

including the single market, cohesion,

5.8.3
The Committee would also emphasise the particularly
topical issue of the political and cultural identity of the EU
and its borders. It is important here to explore the common
features of European culture, not only in terms of art, science,
architecture, technology and fashion, but also in relation to the
history of ideas, the law, value systems, and the way countries
are run. The modern idea of the state was born in Europe (and
first realised in the USA). This, however, also implies more in-
depth consideration of the concept of culture,
its facets and
obscurities, its hierarchies of values and the misunderstandings
to which it may give rise.

and research and in which they can bring their opinions to
bear.

5.8.6.1
The Committee feels that measures which enable
direct contacts or even hands-on involvement are especially
important: good technology museums, special
laboratories,
work shadowing, etc. However, renewed emphasis in higher
educational
science
teaching is what is needed most of all. The particular aim is
also to promote interest in and understanding of science and
technology. Adequate knowledge is the sine qua non of sound
judgement.

curricula on effective

and dynamic

5.8.6.2
training the mind and instilling a clear world view.

Scientific knowledge is also an essential part of

it

However,

is equally important

for researchers
5.8.6.3
themselves to contribute their views and become more closely
involved
processes
and
concerning this programme.

decision-making

discussions

in

5.9
One particularly important sub-programme relates to
health, a very broad issue that the Committee has already
addressed on a number of occasions. This sub-programme
covers all R&D work in the fields of diagnostics, therapeutics
and the relief and prevention of disease.

5.8.4
Given the diverse range of important issues involved,
the budget earmarked for the socio-economic sciences and the
humanities sub-programme may, despite the proposed input
from the science in society budget, be low. To decide, conclu-
sively, whether that is the case, consideration must also be
given to areas of the other sub-programmes – such as energy –
that include aspects of the humanities.

Priority should thereby first of all be given to the treat-
5.9.1
ment or prevention of diseases which have – or would have if
spread in an uncontrolled epidemic – a particularly high
mortality and morbidity rate among children, adults and
older people.

Last but not least, the Committee would emphasise all
5.8.5
ethical
the interplay of knowledge,
issues, which reflect
research and application, and the balance between risks and
opportunities. One key issue, also with regard to the Lisbon
strategy, relates to the connections and conflicts between ideo-
logical/dogmatic positions, the willingness to take risks, and
progress.

5.8.6
This brings us back to the question of science in
society, a topic on which the Committee has already drawn up
a very substantial opinion (40). In line with the position adopted
in this earlier opinion, the Committee also endorses the range
of
themes proposed by the Commission, which reflect a
concern to bring scientific research and knowledge closer to
the public, to enhance mutual understanding and to encourage
young people in particular to consider a scientific career. A
forum is needed to engage citizens and consumers with science

5.9.2
The steady increase in average life expectancy is the
result not only of successful medical progress but also of the
ever-better, ever-healthier food supply. A corollary of
that,
however,
is also the increased incidence of lifestyle-related
illnesses (caused, for instance, by obesity (41) or smoking) and
of job- and age-related illnesses and ailments. The impor-
tance of this latter issue has been highlighted many times
above (42). It is an issue that not only touches on medical and
human aspects, but, in terms of fitness for work and care costs,
also has an economic dimension. The same is also true for the
entire issue of how the health system is organised and financed,
and the application of medical advances. Research into disabil-
ities is a similar case in point. Research of this kind seeks to
raise the quality of life of people with disabilities and possibly
to get them into work.

5.9.3
However, disability issues and health issues are not
one and the same; disabilities should therefore be recognised
across all relevant sectors of the programme.

(40) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001.

(41) JO C 24 of 31.1.2006.
(42) See footnotes to point 5.2.2.

C 65/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

The Committee would also highlight

5.9.4
the interna-
tional dimension of health. This involves working together
with countries strongly committed to successful research, and
also covers health-related development aid. This makes coop-
eration with the World Heath Organisation (WHO) particularly
important.

5.10.3
The Committee is pleased to note that JRC activities
are integrated into the international scientific community.
However, it also considers such integration to be particularly
in the field of socio-economic sciences and the
important
humanities mentioned in point 5.8.

5.9.5
The global dispersal of new pathogens is another
international issue in which cooperation with the WHO is also
very important.

international

an
5.9.6 Moreover,
opportunity to conduct in-depth clinical studies not only of the
population at large, but also in relation to specific age groups:
children, adults and older people.

cooperation provides

5.9.7
The substantial health-related R&D work that has been
including in the private sector (the pharmaceuticals
done,
industry and appliance manufacturers) is a good example of the
application of Article 169 in partnerships between the
private sector and research funded by the public sector
(including the Member States).

5.10

Joint Research Centre (non-nuclear actions)

6. The seventh Euratom framework programme (Euratom

FP7)

6.1
Controlled fusion. The Committee reiterates the view
expressed in its recent opinion (43) on fusion energy that, in the
long term, the peaceful use of fusion energy has the potential
in resolving energy supply
to play a very important part
problems in a sustainable, environmentally sound and competi-
tive way. Like nuclear fission, fusion does not generate any
greenhouse gases, but it also has other important advantages.

6.1.1
The Committee congratulates the Commission and
other stakeholders on the success of negotiations, recom-
mended by the Committee, as a result of which the major inter-
national ITER project has been brought to Europe. ITER (44)
represents a decisive step towards a future demonstration
reactor, DEMO. However, this also entails a contractual obliga-
tion to finance ITER and the preparatory and accompanying
programmes
the preparatory
programmes for DEMO.

as well

requires,

this

as

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) provides scientific
5.10.1
and technical support for EU policymaking in areas such as
sustainable development; climate change; food; energy; trans-
port; chemicals; alternative methods to animal testing; research
policy; information technologies; reference methods and mate-
rials; biotechnology risks, hazards and socio-economic impacts;
as well as in the field of econometric modelling and analysis
techniques. A further task is to develop scientific and technolo-
gical reference data in various fields of environmental and
food monitoring. This also provides valuable input into the
framing of Community legislation.

in mind,

6.1.2 With this
the Committee calls on the
Member States to make a substantial contribution of their own
to the European fusion programme and provide appropriate
backing for the laboratories associated with the programme.
The Committee acknowledges that the fusion programme has
reached a stage at which implementation requires a substantial
and increased investment, which it
feels is necessary and
warranted in view of the potential of this energy source and
the seriousness of the energy problem.

5.10.2
The Committee also feels that the Community has an
additional task in helping coordinate national metrological and
standardisation institutions while, at the same time, taking part
in their programmes. With the single market and European
integration as a whole in mind, consideration should be given
to establishing a European Bureau of Standards, with the
involvement of the appropriate national institutions, relevant
industries and the JRC. The diversity that has existed to date
would provide an opportunity to adopt ‘parallel’ practices, to
compare different approaches, and to forge ahead with new
developments within a dependably resourced, properly coordi-
nated environment.

For further details, the Committee would refer to its
6.1.3
recent opinion on this issue (45)
in which it highlights the
DEMO preparatory work (development of materials and
blankets,
the idea behind the system, etc.) and studies on
improved confinement concepts.

(43) OJ C 302, 7.12.2004.
(44) ITER will produce 500 MW of fusion power. It is the step between
today's studies of plasma physics like JET and tomorrow's electri-
city-producing fusion power plant DEMO. It is an international
the European Union and Switzerland,
project
Japan, Korea, Russia and the USA. It is to be constructed at Cadar-
ache, France.
(45) See footnote 44.

involving China,

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/21

6.2
Nuclear fission and radiation protection. Nuclear
energy is the most important source of carbon-free base-load
electricity presently available. However, there are still concerns
about operating risks and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel.
The Committee would refer
to its opinions on nuclear
energy (46) (nuclear fission) and on the nuclear package (47). In
the latter opinion, it expressed its support for ‘the Commission's
intention to vigorously promote research relating to safety of nuclear
installations and disposal of radioactive waste in the future and to
coordinate such research across the Community’. It endorses the
measures proposed by the Commission, which are consistent
with this intention.

Reactor systems. This involves research to underpin
6.2.1
the continued safe operation of existing reactor
systems
(including fuel cycle facilities), and to assess the potential and
safety aspects of future reactor systems.

The Committee sets great store by actions in the
6.2.1.1
latter area, which should lead to the development of innova-
tive reactor systems. The history of technology shows that
the greatest potential
in new-generation
for progress
systems and innovation building on existing systems and
In view of the importance of nuclear power for
concepts.
energy policy, measures should be taken to unlock existing
potential
in terms of enhanced safety, reduced radioactive
(especially long-life) waste, making resources go further, and
tapping additional resources.

lies

6.2.2
Radiation protection. The objective here is to conso-
lidate the scientific basis for protection of the general public
from ionising radiation arising from radioactivity or other
research and industry (including the
sources in medicine,
production of nuclear energy). One particularly important issue
that could be investigated is the effects of very low doses of
radiation, a subject that is difficult to access statistically and
which still arouses controversy as a result.

Brussels, 14 December 2005

6.2.3
There have also been particularly important develop-
ments in the technical monitoring and supervision of all non-
proliferation measures for nuclear weapons material and
technology.

6.3
For the development of the nuclear fusion power station
and the safe operation and ongoing development of nuclear
fission reactors, it is a matter of some urgency to educate a
new generation of highly skilled experts and train them
using appropriate test
facilities. That can only succeed if
nuclear technology in Europe is again given higher priority,
thereby stimulating the interest of the upcoming generation of
scientists. Here too, it is essential, as in the past, to forge close
links between research and training.

6.3.1
recent opinions on this subject (48).

For further details, the Committee would refer to its

6.4 Joint Research Centre – Euratom Programme

6.4.1
the Joint
The Committee is pleased to note that
Research Centre supports policymaking in the nuclear field,
including the implementation and monitoring of existing poli-
cies and responding to new demands.

6.4.2
The Committee feels that it is right to focus ‘nuclear’
JRC activities on the key issues of waste management,
nuclear safety and security, as these are the specific subjects
of public concern that need reliable solutions. The Committee
trusts that activities in this field will also be networked and
coordinated with those of the Member States.

6.4.3
The Committee also feels it is an important task to
(further) develop procedures to secure even more effective
monitoring of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons mate-
rial and technologies (see also point 4.10.2).

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(46) OJ C 110, 30.4.2004.
(47) OJ C 133, 6.6.2003.

(48) See previous footnotes.