Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2011) COM(2006) 42 final — 2006/0014 (CNS)
Date: 2006-07-05
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, dissemination of information, nuclear research, research body, research policy, research programme, type of business, university

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/41

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regu-
lation (Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and
universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy
Community and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2011)

COM(2006) 42 final — 2006/0014 (CNS)

(2006/C 309/09)

On 8 March 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 7 and 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, 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 31 May 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 428th plenary session, held on 5 and 6 July 2006 (meeting of 5 July), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 156 votes to three with four abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

and is enhanced by high environmental sustainability through
the ITER/DEMO project activities (4).

for

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposals on the
1.1
new rules
research
the participation of undertakings,
centres and universities in implementing the Seventh Frame-
work Programme (FP7) in the areas of research, development
and training in the nuclear sector and the dissemination of its
results for the period 2007-2011.

The proposals aim to simplify and streamline procedures
1.2
and methods with a view to the practical implementation of
the Lisbon strategy, as redefined by the European Councils in
2005 and March 2006, and in order to meet the needs of the
various research players and end users. However, final
judg-
ment on the success of these measures can only be made after
the implementation rules are finalised.

The Commission proposals up to and including Chapter
1.3
III are virtually identical to those relating to the 7th RTD
Framework Programme in the non-nuclear sector (1), even
though the numbering is different (2). The Committee therefore
refers to its opinion on the subject and reiterates and draws
attention to the comments contained therein (3) which are also
of relevance to the text of the proposal currently under review,
up to and including Chapter III.

1.4
In particular, the Committee believes that the European
nuclear fusion programme is a text-book example of genuine
integration of Community efforts and of
fully coordinated
action, in the framework of the European Fusion Development
Agreement (EFDA) and the Contracts of Association.

1.4.1
This programme plays a key role for the EU in the
area of fusion energy research, and leads to ongoing Com-
munity support in the form of financial and human resources

(1) COM(2005) 705 final.
(2) In fact, there are some exceptions: e.g. frontier research projects.
(3) e.g. the comments on the legal status of research institutes, access
intellectual property rights, reimbursement of
rights to findings,
costs, funding arrangements and simplification, types of grant and
the general principles underlying the European Charter
for
Researchers.

The Committee is convinced that nuclear energy (5),
1.5
the electrical
which generates approximately one third of
energy currently produced in the European Union (6), contri-
butes to the independence and security of energy supplies (7)
and to the sustainability of European economic development,
in line with the Kyoto Agreements; this, however, is on condi-
tion that better, more efficient and safe waste management
standards are applied and that competitive European research
and industries in the area of nuclear technology and services
can be developed.

The Committee considers that appropriate levels of
1.6
Community funding are scheduled for
training,
demonstration activities, coordination and support, networks of
excellence, and the financing of fusion energy research.

research,

1.6.1
The EESC stresses the need to promote research and
the application of clean and safe technologies, in accordance
with the needs and characteristics of individual Member States
and urges that respect be shown for the decision of those
Member States which do not consider that nuclear energy
provides the answer to the problem of how to meet their
future energy requirements and also take account of this stance
in their research programmes.

(4) See also point 3.11.
(5) See OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004, rapporteur: Mr Cambus.
(6) Energy produced in EU-25 in 2004: Nuclear energy 31,2 %; Natural
gas 24,3 %; Crude oil 17,1 %; Hard coal 13,1 %; Lignite 10,2 %;
Primary energy 4,1 %. Energy consumed in the same period: Crude
oil 39,2 %; Natural gas 25,4 %; Nuclear 14,8 %; Hard coal 13,7 %;
Lignite 4,9 %; Primary energy 2,0 % (Eurostat, Energy,
Issue No
5/2006).

(7) In 2004, gross imports — dependence on imported energy — in
EU-25, represented 53,8 %, of which crude oil and petroleum
products 33,2 %. Energy dependence of the four major EU Member
States: IT 87,7 %; DE 64,6 %; FR 54,3 %; UK 5,2 %. The only EU
Member State which is not energy dependent is DK, which has an
energy dependence rate of –53,5 %.
Issue no.
5/2006).

(Eurostat, Energy,

C 309/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

The EESC highlights the role of training activities and
1.7
programmes designed to develop careers
in research and
stresses that these actions are particularly important for the
private sector, civil society and the general public.

2.2.2
The aim should be to launch a process of better
governance with a view to identifying the best strategic
options, and to addressing public concerns about the use of
nuclear energy and its long-term impact.

that

The EESC believes

to enable participation in
1.8
to
EURATOM FP7 and its specific programmes,
provide a framework of rules that is simple, comprehensible,
clear-cut and transparent and that, above all, can provide
certainties to potential players, particularly those of a smaller
scale, on the principles and criteria that govern access to
contracts and project management, as well as their evaluation,
selection and formulation.

is vital

it

The Committee has already expressed its views (8) on the
2.3
Commission's proposals
administrative
procedures and reducing the effort these involve, in the context
the proposed decisions on the EC Seventh Framework
of
Programme
Framework
Programme, which were adopted on 6 April 2005.

EURATOM Seventh

simplifying (9)

and

the

for

The EESC regrets that this is not always reflected in
1.8.1
the proposal and believes that the efficacy of these rules should
be monitored by independent experts after a reasonable period
of time and that the assessment report should be submitted to
the Council and the Committee.

1.9
The Committee considers that in order to respect the
‘value for money’ principle vis-à-vis European taxpayers, the
promotion and dissemination of research results is essential. It
therefore points out that a fair balance must always be struck
between, on the one hand, the protection of Community inter-
ests and the concerns of the Member States, not least as regards
defence, and intellectual and industrial property rights, and on
the other, the equally significant risks that could arise in cases
of an inadequate dissemination of scientific and technical infor-
mation in the sector concerned.

The Commission has singled out

2.3.1
ten fundamental
measures as being ‘crucial factors for success’, which are to be
implemented with a view to simplifying the procedures for
accessing, participating in and managing the FP7. The EESC has
stated on the subject that ‘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’ (10).

The EESC has also stressed the importance of invol-
2.3.2
ving SMEs ‘even more closely in research, development and
innovation’ and has emphasised that ‘to win, SMEs set up speci-
fically to develop and market innovative high-tech products
above all need [adequate] start capital and venture capital’. In
order to achieve this, ‘procedures must be kept practicable and
in due proportion to the resources of SMEs’ (11).

Lastly, the Committee believes it is essential that the
1.9.1
IPR helpdesk be reinforced in order to offer timely and proac-
tive assistance to potential participants in grant agreements and
for indirect measures to support researcher training and devel-
opment, as well as for the preparation and signature of consor-
tium agreements.

2.3.3
simplifying regulation procedures:

The Commission set out

the following points on

— a narrower range of funding schemes which would ensure
continuity with the FP6 instruments and enable a wide flex-
ibility of use;

2. Reasons

— high-quality,

complete

communication
and
providing unambiguous and consistent interpretation of the
implementing objectives and provisions for both EC 7FP
and EURATOM 7FP;

timely

The EESC welcomes the fact that this matter has been
2.1
referred to it in good time, and is fully aware that it has exclu-
sive powers
regarding consultation on EURATOM Treaty
matters. The EESC attaches great importance to these powers,
in view of the extremely sensitive nature of nuclear energy
within society and the need for proper information and consul-
tation.

— streamlining the information requested of participants and
extending the two-step procedure, in addition to systemati-
cally using IT tools;

— protecting the EU's financial

interests without placing an
undue burden on participants by reducing a priori controls
to a minimum, on the basis of a single list of criteria;

2.2
Atomic energy raises serious public involvement issues,
on account of the major risks and waste processing problems
inherent in the sector.

— operational autonomy to consortia through the use of
contracts which allow for great flexibility and an extensive
use of lump-sum financing, on the basis of the actual costs
incurred and external, independent audits;

to
The EESC calls for a clear statement of
2.2.1
strengthen performance and safety/security evaluation models
in this area by means of permanent information, consultation
and training structures.

intent

(8) See OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006, rapporteur: Mr Wolf.
(9) COM(2005) 119 final — SEC(2005) 430/431 of 6 April 2005.
(10) See OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006, point 1.11 — rapporteur: Mr Wolf.
(11) See OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006, points 1.12 and 4.15.2 — rapporteur:

Mr Wolf.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/43

— tighter selection procedures by replacing the comitology

procedure with a simpler information procedure;

as well as the possibility of combining these contributions,
particularly for research infrastructure, with other types of
Community aid (Structural Funds, etc.).

— more effective use of R&D appropriations, via closer coordi-
nation with those allocated to the other policies under the
Lisbon strategy and by reducing the Community's adminis-
trative/management costs for R&D projects;

— wide use of flat-rate financing by means of streamlined

Community financial contributions;

— eliminating existing project cost reports which have proved
excessively complex, and clarifying the definition of eligible
costs;

— the definition of Community contribution rates by activity
type (research, development, demonstration, training, result
dissemination and use, knowledge transfer, etc.), corre-
sponding to individual activities, together with maximum
ceilings in accordance with the type of activity;
these
should apply to the consortium and not to individual parti-
cipants.

Furthermore,

the current proposal presents

2.4
several
changes with respect to the previous Regulation (12), in particu-
lar with regard to: the aim of the proposal; definitions; confi-
dentiality; the evaluation, selection and attribution of proposals;
the different forms of grants; refund of costs; the ceilings for
Community contributions; consortium risks; the dissemination,
use and rights of access; specific rules for the European Fusion
Development Agreement and the Agreement on Staff Mobility.

2.4.1 With regard to those sections which are common to
the present proposal and the counterpart proposal on the EC
Seventh Framework Programme (Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the
rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and
Framework
universities
under
Programme and for
research results
(2007-2013) (13), the Committee would refer to the opinion
which it is currently drawing up on the latter proposal (14).

the dissemination of

Seventh

actions

the

in

2.5
The Committee agrees with the limits set for nuclear
research funding and training. It particularly welcomes the fact
that contribution ceilings will rise from 50 % to 75 % for SMEs,
public bodies,
and
research organisations (15), and that coordination and support
actions, and actions in favour of training and career develop-
ment of researchers may reach a maximum of 100 % of the
total eligible costs.

education establishments, universities

2.5.1
Furthermore, the Committee suggests indicating, in a
table to be appended to the proposal, the various types of
activity and the relevant maximum contribution rate in place,

(12) Council Regulation No 2322/2002 (Euratom).
(13) COM(2005) 705 final of 23.12.2005.
(14) See CESE 557/2006 (INT/309) — rapporteur: Mr Wolf.
(15) See CESE 557/2006, point 4.6 (INT/309) — rapporteur: Mr Wolf.

3. General comments on the rules for participation in the

7th EURATOM framework programme

is

that

specific programmes

3.1
The EESC regards it as essential to ensure a framework
of rules for participation in the 7th EURATOM framework
simple,
programme and its
comprehensible, clear and transparent, and exists in all the
Community languages. This framework should in particular
provide potential participants, especially smaller bodies, with
certainty about the principles and criteria covering availability,
participation conditions, presentation and assessment of project
proposals, classification and contractual obligations, rates and
systems for distributing Community co-financing, protection of
industrial and intellectual property and exploitation and diffu-
sion of knowledge, without prejudice to specific provisions on
the thematic priority for fusion energy.

3.1.1
In particular, the Committee recommends that, with
the exception of any particular predefined criteria, the selection
and award criteria for the indirect actions covered by Article
14, are reincorporated. These general criteria are:

— scientific and technological excellence and the degree of

innovation;

— the ability to carry out the indirect action successfully and
resources and

to ensure the efficient management of
competences;

— relevance to the objectives of the specific programme and

the working programme;

— European added value,

a

critical mass of mobilised

resources and contributing to Community policies;

— the quality of the plan for using and disseminating the
for promoting innovation, and

knowledge, the potential
clear plans for the management of intellectual property;

— respect for ethical principles and gender equality.

the

The Committee has already given its view on the
3.2
general themes relating to the simplification and rationalisation
framework programmes
of
for Community nuclear
research,
in its opinions on the 7th EURATOM framework
programme and on these two specific programmes covering (a)
nuclear energy with special reference to fusion energy research
and (b) the nuclear research activities of the Joint Research
Centre. The Committee is also drawing up an opinion on the
proposal for participation rules relating to the 7th framework
programme of non-nuclear Community research (16).

As

the

regards

3.3
EURATOM
programme, the Committee attaches special importance to the
the formalities
need for a more radical
concerning the presentation of the files.

simplification of

governing

rules

the

(16) See footnote 14.

C 309/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

(firms, universities,

3.3.1
The Committee is pleased that the joint responsibility
previously provided for in EURATOM FP6, which could have
been a significant obstacle to the participation of small and
etc.), has been
medium-sized bodies
removed from the current proposal. Instead, the Commission
may retain approximately 1 % of the Community contribu-
tion (17), as a guarantee against the risk of lack of coverage in
consortia (Article 37). A considerable part of the research activ-
ities in the EURATOM sector can also be entrusted to small
and medium-sized bodies, for whom this rule could have been
a serious obstacle to participation.

invitations to tender, assessment, selection and contract follow-
up and auditing of the financed projects. This ceiling should
not exceed an overall cost equivalent to between 7 % and 10 %
of the overall Community resources of the 7th EURATOM
framework programme. The aim should be to devote the bulk
of
the resources to genuinely primary activities (research,
demonstration and training) and to the achievement of prac-
tical results which can be transferred to market applications,
which are the final objectives of a Community framework
programme of research.

3.4
The EESC has reservations about the large number of
possible derogations to the participation rules laid down in the
more than 50 articles proposed, as well as the considerable
possibilities of varying criteria and regulations being laid down
in the annual work programmes, the specific programmes and
the invitations to present proposals. These derogations concern
in particular: the number of participants and additional access
conditions (Article 11); the principles of evaluation, selection
and award (Article 14 (1)); the exceptions to the publication of
invitation to tender (Article 13); the evaluation criteria with the
possibility
criteria
(Article 14 (2));
the Community financial contribution to
networks of excellence (Article 34(1) and (3)).

additional

specific

laying

down

of

3.4.1 With regard to networks of excellence, the Committee
has serious reservations about making the contribution in the
form of a flat-rate sum, as it may never materialise and prove
to be completely out of touch with reality. This could hamper
the development of networks of excellence, which are necessary
to the achievement of the specific objectives set out in the
programme.

The Committee underlines that the necessary flexibility
3.5
of management and definition of
the needs in individual
projects should not be achieved at the cost of the clarity,
certainty and transparency of the participation requirements,
the predefined evaluation and selection criteria, and a firm
the proposed financing and co-financing
framework for
arrangements.

3.6
The Committee takes the view that when the grant
agreement allows the research consortium the possibility of
using invitations to tender to carry out certain work or extend
certain activities, the invitations to tender should be organised
according to the rules laid down by the Commission, to ensure
maximum transparency and accessibility of information.

3.7
The EESC underlines the importance of the provisions
on monitoring and control of the programmes and indirect
actions for research, demonstration, coordination and training
in the nuclear field; it also suggests establishing a ceiling for
expenditure on those functions and on the management of

(17) See CESE 557/2006, point 4.11.2 (INT/309) — rapporteur: Mr

Wolf.

In this context, the EESC recommends that,

in the
3.7.1
framework of
the compilation, archiving and
management of the monitoring results are stored in an inte-
grated database.

IDABC (18),

3.8
The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposals
as regards the forms of grants: reimbursement of eligible costs
in the form of a lump sum or flat-rate financing. However, it
suggests that the most suitable methodology should be clarified,
including with regard to simplification of eligible costs, and
that a prospectus of the various options be appended to the
regulation to make it more comprehensible to potential users.

3.9
The Committee recommends summarising the various
types of Community financial contribution described in Articles
32 and 34 in a table and annexing it to the proposal. This table
should include upper funding limits and any possibilities for
combining them (particularly for research infrastructure) with
aid from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the European
Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund, not
forgetting provisions made in the JEREMIE initiative (19) that
should facilitate the participation of smaller bodies in the 7th
EURATOM framework programme.

3.10
As for the proposed rules on dissemination, use and
access rights, notwithstanding the distinction between acquired
and previous knowledge and exceptions in the military and
security fields, the Committee believes it is essential that the
IPR helpdesk be expanded in order to offer timely and proac-
tive assistance to potential participants in grant agreements (see
Article 18(5) and (6), and Articles 19 and 21) and indirect
measures to support researcher training and development, and
for the preparation and signature of consortium agreements,
which lay down additional rules on the dissemination and use
of results and intellectual property rights (Article 23).

Lastly, with regard to the ‘Fusion energy research’
3.11
thematic area,
in the two opinions mentioned earlier the
Committee placed great emphasis on the importance of
controlled thermonuclear fusion research in the context of the
ITER project, the preparatory programme (DEMO), and studies
on confinement (20).

(18) See OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004 on IDABC (Interoperable Delivery of
European eGovernment Services to Public Administrations, Busi-
nesses and Citizens).

(19) See OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini.
(20) See OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006, rapporteur: Mr Wolf, points 6.1 et seq.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/45

The EESC takes note that

3.11.1
the annual base rate
proposed for the Community's financial contribution in the
above-mentioned thematic area should not exceed 20 % over
the duration of the 7th EURATOM framework programme.
The Committee considers this rate as the necessary lever for an
essential contribution by the Member States to a well coordi-
nated (see point 1.4) community programme providing the
indispensable basis, anchorage and input for the Joint Under-
taking ITER and to DEMO. While this rate may be appropriate
for a start, it is questionable whether it will be sufficient over
the whole duration of the programme as the incentive for a
satisfactory and necessary funding contribution on the part of
the Member States. The Committee therefore recommends that,
as a precautionary measure, this rate be raised to 25 %, which
would still be only half or one third (with respect to Article 32,
§1) of what would otherwise be contributed by the Com-
munity. Moreover, the Committee feels that these upper limits,
as a rule should also be applied.

3.11.2
Concerning the proposed maximum contribution
rate of 40 % for specific cooperative projects in the area of
Contracts of Association, with priority support for ITER/DEMO
initiatives and for initiatives in the context of the Agreement
on Staff Mobility, the Committee questions whether,
in the
long run, this rate may be sufficient for desired projects or
actions to initiate the required member states contribution. The
Committee refers to Article 52, point 2.

4. Specific comments

The Committee questions the removal from Subsection
4.1
1 (‘Calls for proposals’) of the provision relating to the possible
prior issue of calls for expressions of interest, to enable a
measure's objectives
accurately
pinpointed and assessed and to avoid the unnecessary adminis-
trative costs involved both in preparing proposals that cannot
be adopted and in submitting them to the Commission and
independent assessors for selection and evaluation.

justification to be

and

Calls for expressions of interest could be accompanied
4.2
by Proposers'
Information Days, designed to involve potential
scientific and industrial users more closely in defining Com-
munity nuclear research policy initiatives.

Brussels, 5 July 2006.

The EESC would stress the potential dangers of the
4.3
insufficient dissemination of scientific and technical
informa-
tion in the sector. While recognising that some reservations
should be expressed on this subject, there is no need to rule it
out entirely. In practice this might mean drawing up an extre-
mely precise technical protocol for content and dissemination
methods, taking into account
the requirements of security/
safety and reliability, while safeguarding a maximum of trans-
parency.

4.4
The EESC feels that it is very important to provide
greater information on the rules governing (i) checks that the
necessary conditions are met, and (ii) the legal status of partici-
pants, and to disseminate them more widely. Similarly, clear
and comprehensible rules on the simplified procedures in place
for the two-stage submission of proposals and criteria and
requirements for the two-step evaluation should be made avail-
able to all research players.

4.4.1
These rules should be made available not only to the
expert evaluators, but also to project proposers, in accordance
with unambiguous and uniform criteria.

The EESC would also stress the benefits of organising
4.5
training and information initiatives on the safety/reliability of
nuclear power, not only for researchers but also for representa-
tives of civil society and for the general public, while also
bolstering instruments and procedures for the development of
sound, watertight models for assessing the reliability and safety
of atomic energy.

4.6
On the assessment of research results, their dissemina-
tion and the protection of intellectual and industrial property
rights, a number of rules and safeguards are provided for by
the present proposal, the grant agreements, the consortium
agreements, Article 24 and the other provisions of
the
EURATOM treaty (21), the Contracts of Association, the Euro-
pean Fusion Development Agreement,
the European joint
undertaking for ITER and related international agreements, and,
lastly, multilateral agreements such as the Agreement on Staff
Mobility. Additionally, the EESC thinks that a revised ‘IPR-
EURATOM guide for proposers’ should be disseminated as
widely as possible, outlining obligations and benefits for poten-
tial participants in the research, demonstration, training and
development activities of
the 7th EURATOM framework
programme in a clear and transparent way.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(21) See footnote 16.