Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/15

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision to adopt a first multiannual programme
(1988-1993) for biotechnology-based agro-industrial research and technological development,

ECLAIR! [1] )

(88/C 134/07)

On 15 January 1988 the Council asked the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 130 Q of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, for an Opinion
on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which had been instructed to
prepare the Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 4 March 1988. The
rapporteur was Mr De Tavernier.

At its 254th plenary session (meeting of 23 March) the Committee adopted the following
Opinion unanimously.

The Committee approves the Commission's proposal
in principle. It would, however, stress that beneficial
effects can only be expected to accrue from the ECLAIR
programme if account is taken of the reservations set
out below and of the proposals which are put forward
with a view to making the programme more specific,
more innovative and a more effective stimulus.

1. The linkage between the ECLAIR programme and
other related programmes:

1.1. The ECLAIR programme put forward by the
Commission comes under Action No 4 'Exploitation
and Optimum Use of Biological Resources' of the
Framework Programme 1987-1991 for Community
Activities in Research and Technological Development,
R&TD ( [2] ). This Action consists of three parts:

'4.1. Biotechnology;

4.2. Agro-industrial technologies;

4.3. Competitiveness of agriculture and management of agricultural resources.'

1.2. Although the ECLAIR programme is part of
Action 4.2 it has close links with the other programmes
coming under Action 4. Furthermore, this programme
constitutes only the first part of Action 4.2 since it is
to be complemented by a programme dealing with foodindustry technology.

1.3. The Committee adopted an Opinion on the
revision of the multi-annual programme in the field of
biotechnology on 27 January 1988. The Commission
has not yet drawn up proposals with regard to the
second part of Action 4.2 and Action 4.3. These programmes are not outlined in either the biotechnology
programme or the present proposal, which clearly
makes it difficult to make any assessment of the contents of the ECLAIR programme. For the same reasons
it is impossible to place the programme in the wider

context.

(') OJNoC63, 5. 3. 1988, p. 7.
( [2] ) OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 5.

1.4. The present agro-industrial action programme
also interfaces with the Community 1984-1988 programmes on agricultural research, adopted by a
decision of the Council on 12 December 1983 and

amended by a decision of 19 March 1987. In November
1987 the Commission sent the European Parliament
and the Council a report on progress made with the
activities provided for under these programmes which
have now been under way for four years. In its report
the Commission stated, _inter alia,_ that it had up to that
point been impossible to make a proper evaluation of
the programmes. These programmes are nonetheless in
many respects closely related to or may even overlap
with several of the development projects put forward
in the ECLAIR programme. The Committee therefore
wonders to what extent the programme to be presented
under the action entitled 'Competitiveness of agriculture and management of agricultural resources' will
differ substantially and meaningfully from the rest.

1.5. The Committee points out that the agricultural
sector is explicitly mentioned in other chapters of the
outline programme and is directly covered by several
programmes coming under other research actions, e.g.
Action No 1 ('Quality of life'), Action No 6 ('Science
and technology for development') and Action No 8
('Improvement of European cooperation in the field
of science and technology'). In spite of the copious,
explanatory comments accompanying the ECLAIR programme, the linkage of form and content between the
present programme and those coming under other
actions concerning agriculture is not adequately
brought out, and is especially not demonstrated in a
clear and systematic way.

1.6. The Committee has the impression that with
regard to this whole subject the decision-making and
managing bodies do not have an overall view of all
the various programmes. Coordination between linked
programmes also appears to be inadequate. There is
therefore clearly a real danger of an explosive growth
in administration and expenses.

1.7. The Committee therefore wonders whether the

Commission should not place greater emphasis on coor

No C 134/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88

dination. There is also a need _to_ define the aims of the
proposed programme more clearly.

1.8. A welcome feature, however, is that the Commission itself considers it desirable that, in order to
ensure good coordination with the other related programmes, the Management and Coordination Advisory
Committee (CGC) for biotechnology-based agro-industrial research and technological development, which
will assist the Commission in defining and preparing
the development activities and management of the programme, will include representatives of the other CGC's
concerned, in particular the biotechnology CGC, and
of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research
(SCAR).

1.9. The Commission's intention to arrange in future
regular and systematic contacts with the consultation
bodies concerned in the field of biotechnology and
agricultural research is also undoubtedly a step in the
right direction.

2. Risk evaluation and environmental aspects of the
ECLAIR Programme

2.1. As in the case of linkage and coordination, the
approach in dealing with the risk and environmental
aspects of the programme is not sufficiently clear and
systematic. From this point of view, too, there is an
urgent need for better coordination of the various programmes that are in hand—fundamental biological
research, agro-industrial technology, food industry
research and development (R&D), actions to improve
the quality of life (health and environment). The recent
development of biotechnology and the new possibilities
it offers have given rise to great hopes but also to deep
fears. In order to prevent these fears from degenerating
into irrational panic or blind rejection of the new techniques, R&D initiatives in the whole area of biotechnology should take the health and environment factor into
account as an intrinsic aspect. Issues relating to safety
at work must also be taken into consideration in parallel
with the development of biotechnology.

2.2. The Committee notes that in these matters the
Commission is also beginning to appreciate the need
for greater coordination between the various departments and directorates-general concerned and for more
systematic risk evaluation and consideration of the
environmental factor.

2.3. In the future it would be desirable for the Commission to include in its proposals for particular
biotechnological projects an appendix dealing with risk
evaluation, the measures to be taken to protect public
health and the direct links with ecological considerations.

3. Overview, structure and content of the ECLAIR

programme

3.1. The Committee holds the view that if the
ECLAIR programme is to be regarded as 'sufficiently
useful and innovative', it has to meet certain criteria.

3.1.1. As has already been stressed, the programme's
content needs to be clearly delimited. The field covered
by the programme has to be defined sufficiently precisely _vis-a-vis_ the fields covered by related programmes, though there have to be links between them.
The Community is involved, in one way or another,
with a mass of biotechnology projects. There is therefore a need for a proper inventory of these projects,
over and above a list of the various research actions
under which they come. A systematic survey is required
which would perhaps take the form of a specific coordination programme.

3.1.2. One might also expect the proposed activities
to reflect to a certain degree the importance of the
individual sectors of Community agriculture. EEC gross
agricultural product breaks down as follows: arable
farming about 20%, market gardening 20%, stock
raising about 60%. In addition to the approximately
130 million ha used for agriculture, another _60_ million
ha is given over to forestry. Probably all these sectors
have equally important technical and economic potential and problems.

3.1.3. There are, of course, both 'traditional' and
'modern' aspects to agro-industrial R&D. Further selection to achieve higher quality fibres in flax, hemp, etc.,
better organic composition of oilseed rape, more lysine
in barley, and so on, is a fascinating and worthwhile
pursuit. In this respect a programme like the ECLAIR
programme should rather have as its first objective the
improvement of information, coordination and interaction between the developed and less-developed regions
of the Community.

3.1.4. Furthermore, there are more innovative lines
of research than those proposed by the Commission,
such as the search for biodegradable pesticides and
packaging materials, microbial applications to reduce
the use of nitrogenous and other chemical fertilizers,
better products to combat soil exhaustion, the use of
genetic manipulation for the preparation of vaccines,
energy from biomass, integrated forestry management,
etc. Coordination and/or activation of this kind of
research could give the ECLAIR programme and related
programmes a more innovative dimension.

3.1.5. Another important criterion is the extent to
which certain ecological problems are taken into
account. There is an ecological dimension to some of
the areas mentioned in the previous paragraph. Better

24. 5. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 134/17

processing of organic manure, particularly pig manure,
is an agricultural and ecological problem for which
appropriate solutions are being sought in several areas
of the Community. Achieving sufficient humus buildup so as to prevent soil exhaustion is a European as
well as an African problem.

3.1.6. Finally, there are the specific socio-economic
aspects, including economic viability, which is stressed
in point 3 of the Commission document (Programme
Overview). All other things being equal, the new processes need to be demonstrably more economically
efficient than the old ones aiming at the production of
new products to satisfy new and emerging needs so as
to achieve especially the objective of rural development.
Care also should always be taken to explore and understand the local socio-cultural climate in order to facilitate the introduction of biotechnology especially into
rural areas.

3.2. On the basis of the criteria enumerated in 3.1

the Committee has a number of serious reservations
as to the content of the programme proposed by the
Commission; it is concerned about:

3.2.1. The relative downgrading of coordinating
activities in favour of more direct project participation;

3.2.2. The uneven distribution, in the overall plan,
of research projects between arable farming, market
gardening, stock farming and forestry;

3.2.3. The programma's tendency—at least as
regards industrial aspects and agricultural production
for industrial uses—to stick too much to the beaten
track at the expense of more innovative approaches;

3.2.4. The insufficient weight given to ecological
issues in research projects; this applies to both the
choice of projects and the prevention, within any given
project, of any detrimental effects on the environment;

3.2.5. Insufficient evidence of the economic viability
of some of the projects, particularly the whole crop
harvesting procedure described in point 4.3 of ECLAIR.
If at a later stage a project proves to be not sufficiently
viable, it must be ensured that the economic miscalculation does not have a disastrous effect on the weakest
link in the agro-industrial chain, namely the raw
materials supplier, and possibly social side-effects.

4. Intellectual property in biotechnology

4.1. The Commission considers that 'significant progress' has been made on regimes for intellectual prop

erty in technology. The Committee has serious doubts
about this.

4.2. The agro-industrial area covered by ECLAIR
is covered by existing national patent laws and by
provisions on breeders' rights, and often by both
together. The Committee stresses that a lot of contractual problems may arise in the absence of properly
adapted Community legislation.

5. Participants in research projects

5.1. The Committee is pleased that industrial and
agricultural enterprises, co-operatives, research institutes or universities will be able to participate in
research projects, as this will favour co-operation
between such bodies.

5.2. The Committee also approves the special effort
to involve small and medium-sized enterprises in the

programme.

6. Financing of the ECLAIR programme

6.1. Some 80 million ECU from the Community has
been earmarked for implementing the programme. The
Committee points out that 105 million ECU have been
set aside for the whole of the 'Agro-industrial technologies' chapter of the Framework Programme, which
leaves only 25 million ECU for the food technology
programme supplementing ECLAIR.

6.2. But the Committee notes that direct participation by the food industry in ECLAIR has not been
ruled out.

7. Competitiveness and the impact on jobs

The Committee repeats its reservations in point 3.2.5.
It also wonders why the agro-industrial workers' organizations were not specifically consulted during the talks
with supposedly representative organizations.

8. Ethical aspects of modern biotechnology

8.1. Biotechnological R&D in specific areas such as
the agro-industrial field is often carried out as part of a
wider biotechnological study. The Committee therefore
feels it appropriate to point out in this narrower context
that the ethical aspects must be borne in mind in fundamental research and in many aspects of applied science.
It may be assumed that biotechnology is developing
along similar lines in both the Member States and the
rest of Western Europe.

No C 134/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 5. 88

8.2. The Committee urges the Commission—which
has in any case already taken the initiative—to press
for the necessary consultation of the Council of Europe
and of other bodies. In preparing and directing its own

Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988.

activities the Community should be extremely attentive
to the grave warnings repeatedly sounded by higher
moral authorities.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social Committee_

Alfons MARGOT

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on a specific common measure to
encourage the development of agriculture in certain regions of Spain _[})_

(88/C 134/08)

On 25 January 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 3 March 1988. The rapporteur was
Mr Quevedo Rojo.

At is 254th plenary session (meeting of 23 March 1988) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. The Committee agrees that agricultural development should be promoted in disadvantaged areas of
Spain, but would reiterate its criticisms, already voiced
when similar proposals were put forward for Italy and
France, of the method proposed by the Commission
(See Opinion of 14 March 1986) ( [2] ).

(!) OJ No C 25, 30. 1. 1988, p. 8.
( [2] ) OJ No C 118, 20. 5. 1986, p. 13.

Done at Brussels, 23 March 1988.

2. The Committee believes that the various representative organizations in the area should be involved in
all the various stages of implementation of the planned

measures.

3. The Committee considers that during the fourth
year of application of the programme the Commission
should not only inform the Council of the progress of
the common measures, as laid down in Article 6 (2),
but also the Economic and Social Committee.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social Committee_

Alfons MARGOT