Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

_**i'M**_

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN** **COMMUNITIES**

```
                             COM(94) 438 final

                             Brussels, 19.10.1994

```

iji*i COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

```
        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

```

##### **m ACHIEVING COORDINATION THROUGH COOPERATION**

_**m**_

**Communication from the Commission**

**RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT**

**ACHIEVING COORDINATION THROUGH** **COOPERATION**

**1.** **INTRODUCTION**

**Articles** **130 I and 130 H of the Treaty, establishing** **the.European** **Community,** **provide for**

**two complementary basic instruments for research and technological development: the**

_**Framework Programme**_ **setting out all the Community's RTD activities and** _**coordination of**_

_**national and European RTD policies.**_ **While the encouraging experience built up over the last**

**ten years has firmly established the concept of the Framework Programmes, the second**

**instrument has remained largely a dead letter despite the recent initiatives by the Danish, Italian**

**and Dutch presidencies. This situation should change now, however, since one of the six**

**policy priorities recently adopted by the European Council in Corfu called on the Council to**

**seek more systematic coordination of Community and national research policies and on the**

**Commission to take any appropriate initiative to promote such coordination. This concern is**

**also shared by the European Parliament, which adopted a resolution on the subject in May**

**1994.** **More recently, at the instigation of the German presidency, coordination of RTD**

**policies was the main issue discussed at the informal Council meeting on research in Schwerin,**

**where the ministers reached a consensus** **that** **talks on this subject must continue.**

_**Q^**_

In response to today's challenges and to the weaknesses of the Community highlighted in the

White Paper (the underinvestment in RTD in the Union, compared with the USA and Japan,

the fragmentation of the Member States' RTD policies, the imbalance between competitiveness

inside and outside the Union and the Union's shortcomings in transferring and applying

research results, compared with its leading rivals), the time has come to implement the Treaty

on European Union in its entirety, i.e. to add a new dimension to the Community's RTD

activities by taking coordination measures to make the national and Community policies more

consistent and, thereby, make all the still overfragmented efforts more efficient.

**In this connection, a distinction must be drawn between two concepts:**

_**-cooperation,**_ **which is now accepted by everyone as the usual mechanism for Community**

**action, with the obvious advantages of voluntary pooling of efforts** **and skills** **on a case-by-**

case **basis;**

_-coordination,_ **a** mechanism **which promises major advantages for increasing the efficiency**

**of all RTD activities but which also imposes greater constraints and, hence, is harder to**

**accept.**

**For this reason, the Commission proposes a** **progressive,** **approach to** **achieve** **better**

**coordination by intensifying cooperation at the various stages of drafting and**

**implementing RTD policy.**

**2.** **CURRENT SITUATION**

The efforts made directly under the Framework Programme account for approximately 4 % of

public spending on RTD in the Union (cf. Annex Al). The total resources mobilized ("lever

effect") via the Framework Programme are equivalent to roughly 6% of public RTD resources,

as approximately half of the national share of the funding is contributed by the private sector.

The Member States allocate another 7% or so of their public RTD funding to joint public

European ventures such as the ESA, CERN, EUREKA, etc. (cf. Annex 2 for a table and fact

sheets on the various endeavours).

**Consequently, approximately 13% of public RTD resources are allocated to European**

**cooperation, while the rest are decided** **and** **managed autonomously by the Member States**

(cf. Annex A3 for fact sheets on the Member States). However, the trend to freeze or cut

public RTD budgets in most Member States since the early '90s has created a need to improve

the efficiency of the action taken by the public authorities in Europe in response to the

increasingly important challenges facing them all (industrial competitiveness, employment,

environment policies, participation in large-scale projects, etc.). Closer cooperation and

coordination leading to more consistent use of all these resources should mitigate the adverse

effects of this fragmentation and, at the same time, ensure that the action has a greater impact

and is more effective.

**3.** **PROPOSED APPROACH**

First, it must be recognized that coordination of national policies cannot be laid down by law.

It can only come about through common assent and must become a habit, a state of mind

driven by an awareness of its obvious benefits.

This coordination must benefit not only the participants but.also the Community as, a

**whole.** Any financial contribution from the Community to activities in this area must depend

directly on the benefits accruing to the Community as a whole.

The approach taken must be multifaceted and flexible, but also practical. Different types

of activity will be undertaken at different levels:

on determination of RTD policies, with the objective of providing ministers in the

Union with a forum for discussion with systematic preparatory work to supply the

information which they all need;

on implementation of research activities, including not only those covered by the

Framework Programme for implementing Articles 130 K and 130 L but also the

activities under the national programmes in order to make all the efforts more

consistent;

**on international cooperation,** where a stronger presence on the part of the European

Union is both desirable and attainable, without impinging on the Member States'

prerogatives.

Completion of the trans-European communications networks will make a major contribution to

attaining such coordination by improving contacts between laboratories, the authorities and all

involved in RTD in Europe.

**3.1.** **DETERMINATION OF RTD POLICIES**

One thing is clear: Member States decide Community policy together but determine their own

national policies. Of course, there is some interaction between the decisions taken at these two

levels: although the general guidelines for the Framework Programmes are directed towards

action by the Community, they are based on what is known about the national priorities and

have **a** definite impact on national perceptions and analyses of the situation. This impact in turn

depends on tradition and the level of research attained in the. individual Member States.

However, a pro-active approach must be taken to achieve more than the limited benefits yielded

by this interaction. The following measures in particular could be envisaged:

(a) **In order to provide a basis of sound, comparable information on national RTD**

**policies,** it will be necessary to extend the collection of harmonised statistical data

and the comparison of national policies to the EEA countries and a transversal approach

must be adopted allowing comparative case studies on specific themes (for example,

indirect support for research, the mobility and situation of researchers, large-scale

facilities, the development of European database networks, etc.) or on issues of general

interest (for example, aid code for research, Community partnerships, etc.).

**(b)** **In order to provide a common basis for analysis and forecasting and to formulate**

**scenarios for** **consideration** **by decision-makers at Member State and Community**

**level,** from 1995 onwards the Union will deploy its observation, forecasting, analysis

and discussion capacity in the "evaluation of scientific and technological policy options"

section of the "targeted socio-economic research" programme. The European

^Technology Assessment Network **(ETAN)** will participate in this work and, will

facilitate cooperation between the specialist organizations and units in the Member States

and the expertise of JRC's European Science and Technology Observatory in Seville,

EUROSTAT and other Commisison Services. The **European Report on S&T**

**indicators** could gradually become a reference work fuelling the debate.

(c) **In order to encourage exchanges of information** **and** **analyses across the Union, to**

**start concertation** **and to** **promote interregional cooperation on common problems,**

meetings could be held between the national research bodies and between European

scientific cooperation organizations and bodies, together with transfrontier regional

conferences. These meetings or conferences could focus on the transversal topics

mentioned in paragraph (a) in particular.

(d) **In order to support closer political cooperation and** **coordination,** the information

and scenarios established in this way could first be examined by **the heads of the**

**departments responsible for formulating national research policy** (a reformed

CREST Committee). These meetings could be followed by **regular meetings at**

**ministerial level** (such as the meeting at Schwerin in July 1994), at which ministers

could compare approaches and evolve more consistent general guidelines and policies.

. The discussions at each meeting should focus on a limited number of problems facing

ministers and, of course, take account of the problems and choices within other more

specialized cooperation bodies, such as the ES A, CERN, EMBL, etc.

(e) **In order to fulfil its obligation to act as an initiator, the Commission** will play an

active part in these meetings and, in particular, propose draft **Council Resolutions** **.**

**3.2.** **IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES**

The mere fact of acting at Community level implies, in practice, a degree of convergence

between national and Community RTD activities. This is seen, in particular, during the

establishment and implementation of the various specific programmes. The question is how to

go beyond such _"de_ _facto"_ coordination.

_3.2.1 Activities under the Community's specific programmes_

**(a)** **The committees for each programme** already ensure a degree of coord ination between

Community and national programmes. However, they should carry out **more**

**systematic** **exchanges** **of information on the relevant national activities** with a **view**

**to closer identification of the areas where greater cooperation and coordination**

could be beneficial. This should of course be applied to the four actions of the

Framework Programme including those concerning the dissemination and exploitation

of results, innovation in SMEs and technology transfer as covered by the 3rd action.

(b) In its proposal for the fourth Framework Programme, the Commission recommended

that **the project selection procedure should give particular priority to action likely**

**to enhance cooperation or coordination** between the Member States. Although

certainly important, this is not enough to respond to some of industry's needs . The

generic approach taken in the Community programmes means that these activities

sometimes cut across several different specific programmes and necessitate **vertical**

**coordination between programmes.** Beyond conventional solutions such as more

consistent work programmes, simultaneous publication of the corresponding calls for

proposals and joint evaluation of the subsequent replies, **fresh flexibility must be**

**introduced to soften the rigid barriers between programmes** . (For examples see

Annexes 1 for aeronautics, 2 for automobile and 3 for maritime RTD activities.

Industry in these sectors are cooperating at the European level to establish common

research programmes). The role played by the **committees on the relevant**

**programmes** and the **internal coordination** which each Member States must ensure

between its representatives on each of these committees will determine the success of

any inter-programme activities.

(c) At the programme implementation stage, in order to define a **consistent** **framework for**

**action** in a specific area, talks with industry including SMEs must be stepped up by

**meetings on selected topics,** with particular emphasis on **contacts between "users"**

**and "producers",** but also with the relevant research centres and universities.

**(d)** **Efforts must be made to improve operational cooperation with other European**

**RTD organizations or agencies.** Annexes 4, 5, 6 and 7 give examples of the

measures which could be envisaged with the European Space Agency, Eureka, EMBL

and the CERN.

_3.2.2_ _One_ _path to_ _explore:_ _application_ _**of**_ _Articles_ _130_ _K_ _and 130_ _V_

**In the context of** **the** **implementation of theFrameworkProgrammes, Articles 130 K and**

**130 L of the Treaty provide** **tools to** **ensure** **closer** **cooperation of benefit** **to** **the Community**

**as a whole.** However, neither **complementary** programmes involving the participation of

certain Member States nor **Community participation** in programmes undertaken by several

Member States have yet been put into practice (outside the Euratom Treaty), in spite of the fact

that these possibilities, foreseen in the Fourth Framework Programme, could provide a way

for the Community to respond to new initiatives or to participate in existing programmes

involving only a few Member States.

In particular, these provisions offer **advantages** such as gathering together technologies

emerging from the various RTD programmes around an objective of interest to the entire

Community, achieving a sufficient critical mass by combining national and Community funds

and, hence, making all RTD efforts in the European Union more efficient.

There are **many** difficulties in using these tools, but these can be overcome if they are studied

seriously in the spirit of the conclusions reached in Corfu. Particular consideration should be

given to:

the definition of the benefits which the activities planned can bring to the Community,

which is one precondition for Community funding;

the benefits of submission of packages of activities in order to meet the needs of all the

Member States;

the practicalities of the diffusion of know-how and non-participating Member States

access;

the determination of the amount of funding to be allocated to these activities.

preference to annex 8)

The decisive **criteria** for determining the benefit of such schemes to the Community could be

based on: **European public interest** where the cooperation would allow a fuller contribution

to implementing the common policies on, for example, the environment, networks or health;

**joint public-sector/private-sector interest** where the cooperation would help to attain the

objectives of the public sector in Europe and to make industry more competitive (for example,

air traffic safety or clean technologies); and **the benefits for European industry** in terms of

those activities needed to keep them competitive (for example, components for electric cars,

aircraft engines, etc.). Particular attention must be paid to training and to dissemination and

application of the results by every Member State.

Since each of the activities planned will probably concern only a limited number of Member

States, **a balanced package of proposals** must be submitted to ensure the broadest possible

participation by all the Member States. The accent should be placed on sufficiently broad

objectives such as "key" components rather than on over-general, costly sectoral objectives (for

example, "lightweight batteries" rather than "the clean car").

But it must also be possible to fund these activities. Today specific programmes swallow up

all the financial resources available for the Fourth Framework Programme. This implies that

Articles 130 K and 130 L can be implemented only from within the specific programmes and,

consequently, makes it complicated and difficult to support initiatives cutting across several

programmes. Alongside the conventional first activity in the Framework Programme

consideration could also be given to **specifying and reserving from the start, when adopting**

**the framework programme, a set amount for the establishment and funding of the**

**complementary programmes and** **Community** **participation.**

If there is the political will to explore **this new approach,** then this thinking should first lead

to a limited number of **pilot** actions, based on the experience acquired through the inter

programme cooperation **within** the Fourth Framework Programme, and using the provision

made for additional funding when the programme comes up for review in 1996. This should

subsequently lead to the **introduction of a new approach in the Fifth Framework**

**Programme.**

_3.2.3 Activities_ _under_ _the_ _national programmes_

Given the degree of integration in Europe, particularly with the completion of the internal

market, **Member States should encourage research** **teams** **from other Member States to**

**participate in their own programmes in order to promote the establishment of**

**partnerships and RTD networks in the European Union.** This will be possible only on a

genuinely reciprocal basis progressing gradually, for example, from areas of interest to the

entire Community.

**3.3.** **INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION**

**The Union must speak with a single voice on international bodies and in order to**

**participate in worldwide programmes.** This is the only way that the Union will be able to

exert an influence over its partners in these organizations that is commensurate with its size.

Suffice to say that from 1995 onwards the Union will probably represent 16 of the 25 members

of the OECD! Consequently, arrangements should be made for **systematic Community**

**concertation before all meetings of such international bodies.** Large-scale projects, the

worldwide programmes on génome sequencing or on climate change and standardization are

all practical examples. In any event, the experience gained with the ITER in the field of

controlled thermonuclear fusion demonstrates that this approach is both possible and

advantageous. 

It would be useful in bilateral negotiations between the european Union and third parties,

especially is instances where the Member States endorse (or ratify) RTD and international

political cooperation agreements, to maintain a regular exchange of information between the

Commission and Member States. This exchange could cover the areas concerned, the

practicalities of implementation and the prospects of common actions with other Member States

(for exemple see paragraph 3.2.3.).

Particular attention must be paid to the areas of intellectual property rights which were the

subject of an agreement between the Council and the Commission on 26 June 1993.

**4.** **THE** **ROLE OF CREST AND** **OF** **THE EUROPEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY**

**ASSEMBLY IN THIS CONTEXT**

The approach proposed will not be feasible without the voluntary participation and full

collaboration of the national RTD policymakers. In practice, the tasks mentioned above

correspond closely to the remit assigned to CREST by the 1974 Resolution. **Steps must be**

**taken to ensure that CREST effectively completes its original mandate and spends its time**

**on working at the appropriate level on this essential task of achieving coordination**

**through cooperation and ensures the follow-up.** To this end, CREST **should** redirect its

work and give this task priority over the activities on the specific programmes which are of

more direct concern to the members of the committees responsible for the topics covered by

each programme.

**When preparing its proposals the Commission will carefully study the contributions** **and**

**opinions which it receives from the European Science and** **Technology** **Assembly, in**

**accordance with its mandate.** In particular, the Commission attaches genuine importance, to

the work of this assembly of eminent personalities, which brings together a pool of knowledge

and experience unique in Europe, from various fields and organizations playing an active part

in RTD.

**5. CONCLUSIONS**

In order to implement Article 130 H, a progressive, practical approach is needed. To this end,

**coordination of RTD policies must be discussed** **continuously,** possibly leading in the first

instance to the steady adoption of Council resolutions. In the light of the foregoing, **the**

**Commission proposes that the Council debate the general lines of action proposed in this**

**communication in order to proceed with putting into practice Article 130 H.**

**10**

ANNEXES I TO 8

Annex 1: Coordination of RTD activities on aeronautics in the Community RTD

programmes

Annex 2: Coordination of automobile RTD activities in the Community programmes

Annex 3: Coordination of maritime RTD activities in the Community programmes

Annex 4: Coordination of Community and Member State RTD activities in the space
sector

Annex 5: Coordination between EUREKA and the Community RTD programmes

Annex 6: Relationship between the EC and the EMBL

Annex 7: CERN and the European Community

Annex 8: Supplementary programmes and Community participation.

11

**Explanatory note concerning Annexes 1 to 7**

**In these annexes are 7 examples of collaborations in the area of RTD involving industry,**
**organisations and frameworks of international cooperation.**

**- In the case of annexes 1, 2 and 3, it** **is** **a question of collaborations established between**
**Commisison Services and representatons of industry at** **the** **European level in order to :**
**define efficient mechanisms for the optimal use of the possibilities offered by the horizontal**
**specific programmes; and offer solutions, based on a coordinated plan of actions, to vertical**
**problems.**

**- The mixed groups have a** **transitory** **character being limited to the definition phase of work**
**programmes. Responsibility for implementation does reside solely with the Commission to**
**the exclusion of any form of programme co-management; this does not rule out, however,**
**keeping industry regularly informed in order to ensure that improvement can be made to the**
**implementation of the work prepared.**

**-**
**Annexes 4 to 7 comprise explanatory notes from the Commission Services on the forms of**
**on-going or planned collaboration with organisations and international cooperation**
**programmes in the area of RTD as mentioned explicitely in the Framework Programme.**

**12**

**ANNEX 1**

**Coordination of** **RTD** **activities on aeronautics**
**in*** **the Community RTD programmes**

For the purposes of this document, this field includes research into the air transport system,
air traffic management and aeronautical technologies.

1. Current situation

1.1 The main specific programmes including RTD activities in the field of aeronautics are:

Industrial and materials technologies: Area 3 - Technologies for means of
transport

Telematics applications of common interest - Air transport

Transport        - Air traffic management and air transport safety

Energy - Clean and efficient energy technologies - Hydrocarbon combustion and
new fuels for transport

Environment       - RTD activities in the field of environment and climate       Atmosphere physics and chemistry

The information technologies programme and Areas 1 and 2 of the industrial
technologies and materials technologies programme could also apply.

1.2 The RTD activities on one aspect of aeronautical technology - air traffic management are already coordinated effectively. In particular, preparation of EC ARDA (the
European Coherent Approach for RTD in Air Traffic Management) entailed coordination
between three programmes involving three different Directorates-General. Appropriate
measures will be taken to continue this coordination.

1.3 The industry and the research community, particularly aeronautical research
establishments, have played a major role in helping the Commission to develop the
Community's aeronautical research activities. In addition to the personal involvement
of many individuals this contribution has been given more consistent form by the
informal recommendations made by the Aeronautical Research and Technology
Committee (ARTCO), by the long-term technology plan and by the proposals concerning
the ECARDA approach for air traffic management, the AEROSAFE [2] study which

AEROSAFE: Action plan for European pre-normative research on air transport
safety.

13

identifies the priorities for the RTD on safety and APARTE [3] which examines the
priorities for the environmental RTD activities in the field of aeronautics.

1.4 A broad range of players from industry and the world of research are involved in
preparing the Community's future aeronautics RTD programmes and in the RTD
activities already in progress. They include aircraftmakers, enginemakers and suppliers
of a wide range of electronics, communications, passenger environment and landing gear
equipment alongside airlines, aviation authorities and research establishments. Although
the industry includes a number of big companies, these make wide use of subcontractors,
including large numbers of small firms.

1.5 In this connection, the seven aeronautical research centres in Europe recently concluded «
an association agreement to improve coordination of their own activities and bring them
closer into line with the trend in the industry towards a more European structure.

2. Aeronautics RTD must be coordinated

2.1 Various Community policies underline the importance of the air transport system. The
"Industrial technologies - technologies for transport means" section of the Framework
Programme states that "Special emphasis will continue to be given to aeronautics
research both to ensure continuity with the activities undertaken in the Third Framework
programme and to reflect further the essential advanced technology requirements of this
industry and its capability for proving feasibility of advanced generic technologies which
can then be spun off to other transport or industrial sectors".

2.2 This special emphasis on aeronautics reflects, _inter_ _alia,_ the predominant role which this
industry plays in technology, the particularly long lead times between the start of RTD
activities and the introduction of the resultant new technologies, the broad cooperation
between makers on a wide range of projects, the public authorities' responsibility for the
regulations on safety, on the environmental impact and on the operating infrastructure,
the extremely strong competition from the USA with the backing of the US Government,
the extensive national programmes and the fact that the GATT agreements treat
aeronautics as a special case.

2.3 In the European context, these considerations cannot be divorced from the need to reduce
congestion of airports and air space, which calls first for a harmonized and,
subsequently, for a unified air traffic management system.

2.4 This combination of topics is ample reason to establish a framework for appropriate
coordination of the RTD activities on aeronautics.

APARTE: Aircraft pollution abatement by research and technology for the
environment.

14

**3.** **Objectives of a mechanism for coordination of RTD activities on aeronautics**

**3.1** **The principal objectives of this coordination are:**

**to ensure that the RTD priorities on aeronautics in the Community's specific**
**programmes match the needs of the industry and of the competent authorities**
**and generate synergies with the activities of the Member States;**

**to ensure overall coordination of the activities on topics such as traffic**
**management,** **aeronautical** **technologies and the air transport system;**

**to provide an interface with the specific programmes corresponding to the RTD**
**priorities for aeronautics so that they can be taken into account when preparing**
**the work programmes;**

**to facilitate spin-offs in other industries in areas where the aviation industry is**
**at the leading edge of technology;**

**• -** **to provide a smooth interface and a means of communicating with all involved**
**in RTD;**

**to monitor and report to the Member States** **and** **decision-makers on progress**
**with the RTD activities on aeronautics;**

**to facilitate coordination between the Member States and between the Member**
**States and the Community, including the relevant** **national** **and international**
**activities** **such** **as EUREKA and bilateral arrangements.**

**In addition, this coordination would help to create a favourable environment for a**
**competitive, socially acceptable transport system.**

**4.** **Coordination mechanism**

**Coordination will be achieved by means of:**

**4.1** **Formulation of** **an** **action plan laying the foundation on which the aeronautics activities**
**in the various specific programmes could be based. This should be prepared by the**
**Commission and fine tuned in collaboration with all involved, including the relevant**
**industries.** **It would indicate the activities to be coordinated, such as the work on**
**aeronautical technologies, air traffic management (to follow up** **EC ARDA)** **and the air**
**transport system to reflect the need for a competitive, socially** **acceptable transport**
**system.**

**4.2** **Harmonization and synchronization, as far as possible, of preparation of** **the** **work plans,**
**of publication of calls for proposals and of submission of additional information,**
**evaluations, progress reports on research contracts and of dissemination and application**
**of the results.**

**15**

**4.3** **Establishment of an interdepartmental task force to promote coordination by organizing**
**establishment and management of** **this** **action plan and gathering the opinions of industry**
**and research centres with the mandate to submit regular reports on the results obtained.**

**4.4** **An extra response by the Member States so that they can coordinate their research**
**programmes with each other's and with the Commission's programmes, taking account**
**of the subsidiarity principle.**

**4.5** **After some time (for example, two years) the effectiveness of this coordination will be**
**evaluated, based on the results obtained.**

**16**

ANNEX2

**Coordination of automobile** **RTD activities** **in the Community RTD** programmes

**1.** Problem

1.1 Increasingly, the horizontal, generic nature of research has highlighted the need to start
a constant, informal dialogue with branches of industry in order to take account of their
requirements when defining the specific programmes and to coordinate the research
activities funded by these programmes.

1.2 In this context, the Fourth Framework Programme stresses the importance of an
"operational" approach in order to establish an effective interface between crossdiscipline research programmes and the needs of industrial users. To this end, it stresses
the need for the Commission to coordinate the activities in the various horizontal
research programmes. This applies in particular to the transport sector, especially the
automobile industry.

2. Need for coordination of RTD activities in the automobile industry

2.1 The principal specific programmes containing RTD activities on the automobile industry

are:

Industrial technologies and materials technologies, particularly Area 3
(technologies for transport means)

Transport, particularly the activities on "urban transport" and "road transport"

Telematics applications of common interest

Information technologies, particularly the activities on "technologies for IT
components and subsystems"

Non-nuclear energy, particularly the action on "improved conversion and use of
energy".

The environment programme could also apply.

2.2 Measures have already been taken to coordinate activities in the automobile sector during
the preparations for the Council Resolution of 16 May 1994 on the automobile industry.

2.3 This Resolution emphasizes that public policy in the field of R&TD must be optimized
through effective coordination of Union, national and EUREKA programmes and
projects. It also mentions the need for better coordination between individual research
programmes in such a way as to cover themes relevant to improved competitiveness, to
facilitate access to the programmes, to improve the dissemination of research results and
to facilitate industry planning in this sphere.

17

**2.4** **The automobile industry defined its priority research needs in its EUCAR action plan.**
**However, a broad spectrum of industries and technologies are also involved in** **research**
**activities in the automobile sector.** **They include suppliers of components, basic**
**materials, electronics, communications and optical equipment plus more traditional**
**sectors such** **as** **the building and civil engineering industries for infrastructure or the**
**textiles industry for the interior upholstery of** **vehicles.** **Small and medium-sized**
**businesses are heavily involved in all these sectors.**

**3.** **Objectives of coordination**

**3.1** **The objectives of the inter-programme coordination are:**

**to make the various specific programmes more complementary and ensure**
**coordination with the other RTD activities or initiatives in this field, particularly**
**within the EUREKA framework;**

**to help potential participants to submit proposals under the most appropriate**
**programmes;** **and**

**to avoid any possible overlap.**

**3.2** **The coordination activities planned must not clash with the normal activities of the**
**departments** **responsible for the programmes or with the rules and specific characteristics**
**of each programme.**

**4.** **Coordination**

**4.1** **Simple, effective coordination arrangements are proposed in order (1) to respond to the**
**problems at the interface between industry and the Commission departments and (2) to**
**ensure** **consistent** **management of all research activities in sectors related to the**
**automobile industry.**

**4.2** **To avoid creating new structures, a temporary joint working party of Commission**
**officials and representatives of the relevant industries will be set** **up.** **All industrial and**
**public users (representatives of manufacturers, suppliers and operators) and the officials**
**managing the relevant specific programmes will participate. The joint coordinating**
**group will work for only a limited period and** **will** **be convened and consulted only**
**during the drafting and revision stages of the specific programmes and** **work**

**programmes.**

**4.3** **This working party will be instructed:**

**to** **ensure** **easier access to** **the** **R&D** **programmes** **for the sectors of industry**
**concerned, by defining consistent, complementary specific work programmes;**

**to ensure greater concentration on strategic issues and avoid any fragmentation**
**and duplication of effort;**

**18**

    - to give guidelines to proposers to ensure conformity with the research
objectives, the eligibility criteria and coordination with other specific
programmes and European initiatives;

to allow the introduction of more flexible management arrangements better
suited to the participants' needs;

to organize joint workshops, conferences or other meetings, with the
participation of the consortia selected within the EUREKA framework.

4.4 To this end, the working party will contribute to:

(i) ensuring that the research priorities specified in the strategy formulated by the
automobile industry in the EUCAR action plan can be taken into account by the
relevant specific programmes and work programmes in order to guarantee that
they are complementary and avoid all duplication of effort;

(ii) identifying, where appropriate, targeted research topics for which an integrated
approach could be taken. These comprise topics involving various research
activities contained in different specific programmes which call for integrated
management in order to ensure that they make an impact on society, the
environment and the market.

4.5 Identification of an extremely precise objective, as mentioned in paragraph 4.4(ii),
covering targeted research activities on issues covered by several specific programmes
could lead, once the various committees concerned have given their opinion, to
integrated management of calls for proposals, of the selection procedure and of
monitoring of the projects selected.

19

**ANNEX 3**

**Coordination of maritime RTD activities in the Community RTD programmes**

**1.** **Scope and nature of the problem**

**Maritime Industries cover a very wide range of sea-related activities either** **connected to** **the**
**transport chain or the exploitation of the oceans.**

**Maritime Industries consist of a very broad range** **of** **enterprises including large as well as**
**SME's and they utilise a multitude of technologies and adapt R&D results from** **many**
**disciplines.**

**Taking into the account this peculiar situation, the Maritime Industries Forum created on the**
**initiative of the Commission** **(Com(91)** **335 final, 20 September 1991)** **set -up** **different Panels**
**led by industry- representatives and aimed at providing Commission Services particularly those**
**responsible for R&D with adequate inputs for the preparation of the Specific Programmes** **and**
**the working programmes.**

**In this context the importance of** **an** **effective mechanism of coordination of research activities**
**was highlighted on several occasions and considered as one of the most important**
**recommendations.**

**2.** **The need for coordination of R&D activities in the Maritime Industries.**

**Main specific programmes relevant to R& D in Maritime** **Industries:**

**• Industrial technologies and material technologies, particularly Area 3,B (technologies for**
**surface transport** **means)**

**• Transport, particularly the activities on "integrated transport chains" and "waterborne**
**transport"**

**• Telematics applications of common interest**

**• Information technologies**

**• Marine resources in the "marine science and technology" Programme**

**• Fishing and aquaculture under the Programme on "agriculture and fisheries"**

**• Offshore hydrocarbons and renewable energies under the Programme on "Technologies** **for**
**cleaner and more efficient energy production and use".**

**20**

**Industry presented their priority areas in different documents discussed in the Panels for**

**• Short sea shipping**

**• Marine Resources**

**• E.D.I**

**and in a specific workshop on R&D for Waterborne Transport.**

**3.** **Objectives of Coordination**

**• to promote synergies between different programmes and avoid overlapping**

**• to give a clear guidance to economic operators** **when** **making** **proposals**

**4.** **Coordination Mechanism**

**A pragmatic and non-bureaucratic approach should be** **at** **the basis of a coordination**
**mechanism that would ensure an adequate consultation of** **industry** **and an effective**
**consistency between R&D programmes relevant to maritime industries.**
**This consultation by Commission services would be carried out based on experience gained**
**through** **MIF** **(Maritime Industries Forum) panels.**

**21**

**ANNEX 4**

**Coordination of** **Community** **and Member State**
**RTD** **activities in the space sector**

**1.** The Commission's partners in the space industry

Some Member States have set up special agencies whose main purpose is to implement the
national space programmes. This is the case in France, which was the first country in Europe
to develop its own space programme and which set up the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales
(CNES). Germany, too, has set up an Agency (DARA) to plan and implement the German
space programme. In Italy the AS I coordinates and implements all the national and
international space programmes. Britain was somewhat slower in setting up the British
National Space Centre (BNSC), while the other European countries channel most of their space
activities through the European Space Agency, with the exception of Belgium, the Netherlands
and Sweden, all of which have sizeable national programmes. All these programmes are
concerned primarily with the development of the space segment.

The European Space Agency (ESA) was set up to provide for and promote cooperation between
European countries on space RTD and applications, both for scientific purposes and to produce
space applications systems. To this end, the ËSA frames and implements a long-term European
space policy, recommends space objectives to its Member States and coordinates their policies
with regard to other national and international organizations and institutions. It devises and
implements activities and programmes, notably on the development of applications satellites.

2. Relations between the Commission and its partners in the space industry

2.1 With the Member States

The Commission has established more or less organized working relations with the space
agencies and relevant ministries in the Member States. It has signed an agreement with the
CNES on the production of an instrument (VEGETATION) to be loaded onto SPOT-4. One
function of this instrument, which is considered a pilot project, will be to provide information
for use in implementing the common agricultural policy. The ASI and the relevant agencies
from Belgium and Sweden (SNSB) are also involved in the project. With DARA the
Commission is studying another demonstration project to measure the chemical composition of
the atmosphere (AMAS). Other scientific and technical work is being carried out with close
collaboration between the JRC's Institute for Remote Sensing Applications (IRSA) and the
national bodies responsible for implementing the Member States' space policies, particularly
the CNES.

**22**

**2.2** **With the ESA**

**Relations with the Agency are of relatively long standing and are well structured. The two**
**institutions have reached many agreements on specific subjects since 1980 and contacts have**
**been stepped up. Meetings have taken place between the Director-General of the Agency and**
**members of the Commission to determine the content and methods of cooperation between the**
**two** **institutions.**

**There are currently six joint working parties on Earth observation, telecommunications,**
**industrial** **policy** _**i**_ **international relations,** **RTD and** **education/training. There** **are** **promising new**
**areas of cooperation such as satellite navigation, a theme providing the basis to a recently**
**adopted Commission communication** **(COM(94)248** **of 14 June 1994) for which the**
**implementation requires a re-inforced coordination with the** **ESA.** **and the promotion of remote**
**sensing in the developing countries. Coordination on the issue of commercial launch services**
**is a good example of the constructive relationship between the two institutions.**

**Following** **the** **meeting between the Director-General of the Agency and the Commission**
**member responsible for science, research and development and education, a draft** **agreement**
**was drawn up to step up, broaden** **and** **facilitate cooperation between the two institutions within**
**the limits of their respective competence with** **a** **view to contributing to the smooth development**
**of a European policy on space, with particular regard to the application of space** **technology.**
**This agreement has still to be finalized through the appropriate procedures.**

**2.3** **The** _**ad hoc**_ **space advisory group (SAG)**

**As indicated in communication COM(92)360 final, and in the light of** **the** **Council's conclusions**
**on the communication,** **the-** **Commission set up an** _**ad hoc**_ **space advisory group in 1993. The**
**group is made up of representatives of the Member States and advises the Commission on the**
**complementarity and** **synergy** **of its activities with those of the Member States and the ESA**
**with a view** **to** **making Europe's efforts to exploit space technology more effective.**

**3.** **The role of the Commission**

**The Commission's role with regard to space was set out in communication** **COM(92)** **360 final,**
**which the Council approved in** **April** **1993. The Council agreed on the need for enhanced**
**synergy and complementarity between the Community RTD programmes and the activities** **of**
**the European Space Agency (ESA) and, with due regard to the provisions of the Treaty,**
**between the activities of the Member States and those of international organizations. At the**
**same time, duplication of effort should be avoided and the operating rules and procedures of**
**the Community and the ESA should be fully observed.**

**The Commission's role within this framework is essentially that of promoter and user of space**
**technology, notably in the field of Earth observation, and its aim is to help optimize the use**
**of satellite data and to implement Community policies. The Commission also seeks to** **create**
**conditions which will encourage expansion of the markets for applications of space technology**
**and help Europe's space industry** **become** **more competitive.**

**23**

**4.** **Proposals**

**The following initiatives could be taken to ensure closer coordination of national and European**
**RTD policies in the space sector:**

**set up joint working parties between the Commission and the national space agencies,**
**such as already exists with the ESA** **(discussions** **are being held with** **the** **CNES to this**
**end);**

**use the SAG and the abovementioned working parties:**

**(a)** **to compare and examine the Member** **States'** **policies in this area in order to**
**identify, analyse and compare the objectives of the Member States so as to**
**produce common objectives (coordination of RTD policy-making);**

**(b)** **to define activities of common interest (coordination of programme**
**implementation);**

**(c)** **to seek a concerted or coordinated attitude among the Member States at**
**international level (coordination of international cooperation).**

**24**

**ANNEX 5**

**Coordination between EUREKA and**
**the Community RTD programmes**

**Introduction**

**The specific programmes implementing the Fourth Framework Programme provide for**
**participation in certain activities within the EUREKA framework (Article 5). However, the**
**measures taken to improve the links between Community** **research,** **technological development**
**and demonstration (RTD) activities and EUREKA should build on the respective strengths of**
**each. They** **should** **not be allowed adversely to affect the operation or to reduce the impact of**
**either. Similarly, other mechanisms for the stimulation of RTD in Europe may also need to**
**be involved.**

**One of the main reasons for** **improving** **synergy between EUREKA and Community**
**programmes is to** **encourage** **the take-up of the results of Community projects in a framework**
**closer to the market and, ultimately, to encourage the emergence of new European products**
**and services competitive on** **world** **markets. Similarly, EUREKA projects are encouraged to**
**participate in Community RTD programmes, which in general concentrate on generic,**
**precompetitive research of multisectoral application, and to submit** **proposals** **for work to**
**complement their own activities, in response to Community calls for proposals, where**
**appropriate.**

**As the specific programmes** **implementing** **the Fourth FrameworkProgramme are approved and**
**brought into operation, the Commission will examine in more detail how closer coordination**
**with EUREKA could improve information** **and** **assistance, project coordination, standardization**
**and associated activities.**

**In addition, from its discussions** **with"all** **concerned, including industry, the** **Commission** **is**
**identifying a coherent framework for specific activities. In conjunction with national** **policies**
**and the activities carried out** **under** **EUREKA, this might help identify areas of particular**
**interest to customers and providers of RTD and highlight their future priorities.**

**Information and assistance**

**There** **is already close cooperation on the dissemination of information and on organizing**
**information events, but this could be improved and extended. It includes the early exchange**
**of information about** **future** **activities, the joint organization of promotional events, "brokerage"**
**meetings and other** **activities** **to assist in the exchange of ideas, identification of partners,**
**preparation of proposals, etc. and measures to encourage the transfer and take-up of project**
**results.**

**The Commission is currently looking at the national systems for disseminating information on**
**Community RTD programmes and,** **in** **conjunction with Member States, will examine how these**
**might be improved. It would be useful if coordination allowed information and** **assistance**
**networks** **to** **deal effectively with enquiries about EUREKA and EC RTD, offering a sort of**
**"one-stop** **shop" for European R&D and demonstration activities.**

**EUREKA** **National Project Coordinators are automatically supplied with information about**
**Community activities and appropriate Commission representation at EUREKA promotional**
**events also helps improve awareness. The Commission represents the Community at all**
**EUREKA policy- and decision-making meetings and is involved in all relevant initiatives.**

**It is important to make greater use of the existing counselling and information networks**
**(CORDIS, VALUE, Relay Centres, OPETs etc.) and tools (e.g. expressions of interest on**
**ARCADE) at Community, EUREKA and Member State levels. The aim should be to make**
**systems more accessible to** **interested** **parties (researchers, industrialists and, in particular,**
**SMEs) and to ensure more transparent operation. However, the driving force must always be**
**from the demand side, with the mechanisms designed to be able to respond to real needs.**

**At the project proposal stage, both EUREKA and EC RTD programme management can**
**indicate to project consortia when the proposal is more suitable for the other mechanism.**
**An important stimulus for improving synergy between EUREKA and EC RTD is the potential**
**for EUREKA to help draw Commission-funded research results to the markets. This is one**
**of the major advantages of Commission participation in umbrella initiatives.** **Various**
**information exchange and dissemination activities are used, such as publications (for example,**
**the** **EUROCARE** **newsletter), conferences (for example, EUROLASER) etc. In particular,**
**special attention needs to be paid to giving an "early warning" of potentially exploitable results**
**or future prospects where EUREKA might help pull through results.**

**Particular attention needs to be given** **to** **dissemination of the results of Community-funded RTD**
**projects and their take-up and continuation under EUREKA.** **A** **list of the major, open-access**
**conferences likely to be of interest to EUREKA will be sent to the EUREKA Secretariat**
**regularly. (A list of conferences is already published in RTD Info.)**

**Coordination at the project level**

**Mechanisms to encourage cooperation such** **as** **(but not exclusively) thematic networks, targeted**
**research and concertation networks will be developed in close coordination with industry and**
**the research community, subject to normal criteria on the quality and relevance of the proposed**
**action. Such mechanisms should facilitate coordination with the relevant activities, including**
**EUREKA.**

**EUREKA "umbrella" initiatives promote the generation of new activities in their respective**
**areas and** **encourage the** **exchange of relevant information. Commission staff participate actively**
**and systematically in all EUREKA umbrella initiatives in areas in which the Community is**
**interested and active. Such initiatives represent an important mechanism for coordination**
**between EUREKA and EC programmes and, in particular, help in the rapid take-up of ideas**
**and the preparation of project proposals in a coherent framework.**

**A** **number** **of the measures taken to make the Community RTD activities more transparent will**
**help improve the interface with EUREKA. This includes programming calls for proposals,**
**fixed dates for calls with a minimum response time, regular information about** **activities,** **clear**
**information about procedures** **and** **criteria, etc.**

**Particular emphasis should be placed on improved and regular contacts between Commission**
**programme managers and EUREKA National Project Coordinators to ensure effective**

**26**

**coordination between activities. This should not lead to the creation of new administrative**
**structures, but should be designed to help further improve information exchange between those**
**directly involved in the two frameworks. The Commission intends to organize regular meetings**
**to inform EUREKA NPCs of opportunities and** **procedures.**

**Standardization and associated activities**

**One important area of interest to** **both** **EUREKA and EC RTD is the transfer of results to**
**support the preparation of standards and legislation. This is an area where Community and**
**EUREKA activities play a complementary role. Such activities need** **to** **be planned to bring in**
**all the relevant interests - customers, suppliers, legislators, standardization bodies, the research**
**community, etc. Cooperation mechanisms should play an important part in this area.**

**Continuing activities**

**The Community participates in EUREKA through its Joint Research Centre and through** **its**
**RTD programmes. In a number of cases, the JRC is a partner or leader in the action. It sees**
**all proposals that fall within its (large) sphere of interest and comments on the merits of**
**projects. It may seek to join** **particularly** **relevant "open" proposals. As the Commission's**
**research establishment, the JRC has an important role in the development of coordination**
**between EC RTD and EUREKA, and this was singled out for specific mention in the Hanover**
**declaration on EUREKA.**

**The other way in which the Commission is financially involved is through funding (or part-**
**funding) under shared-cost** **support** **programmes.** **In** **addition to the projects listed in the Annex,**
**the Commission will investigate opportunities for additional involvement.** **Obviously,** **such**
**participation must fit in with the normal project support criteria. However, participation in**
**EUREKA could be a plus point from the point of view of the project appraisal** **policy.**

**A coherent framework for action**

**EC activities** **in specific areas of technology are defined following discussions with all interested**
**parties to identify medium- and long-term** **needs.** **On the basis of the various inputs, the**
**framework for action is drawn** **up.** **This "strategic" approach, which looks at both the technical**
**and non-technical sides, can serve as a coherent framework for the identification of future**
**priorities, not only for planning Community actions, but also for other public authorities. It**
**will also help industry understand clearly the activities undertaken under the Community RTD**

**programmes.**

**Invitations to submit proposals are published on the basis of these priority areas of interest,**
**open to any suitable initiative from industry and the research community. EUREKA could take**
**this focusing of Community RTD into account when it identifies its activities, in particular in**
**joint promotional activities, workshops, brokerage events, etc. It is important to try to identify**
**synergies in this way, drawing on the specific features of the two mechanisms, while avoiding**
**introducing rigidities into the system.**

**27**

**FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION OF THE COMMUNITY IN EUREKA PROJECTS**

EUREKA PROJECTS

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN

EUREKA PROJECTS

**TOTAL**

**COST**

**to MEcus**

2 0

l O O

1 8

2 9

1

2

7 0 S

1

8

8 4 8

3800

7

1

S

< 1

< 1

6

2 0

< 1

1

< 1

. 12.6

< 1

**=**

4

3 0

1

S60S

Project

Number 

6 .

7

8

1 9

3 7

4 9 5

4 S

7 2

2 8 3

9 S

1 2 7

1 4 0

3 6 7

2 S 1

3 3 0

6 1 8

6 7 4

SOO

6 S 8

6 9 3

7 1 8

7 2 6

7 4 S

8 0 0 '

8 0 7

9 29

1061

2 7

A C R O N Y M

EUROLASER

EUROTRAC

COSINE (fin]

TORMENTOR

EUROMAR

EUROMAR - Visimar (fin)

PROMETHEUS

FAMOS

SYNTHETIC TV

HOTV

JESS1

EUROCARE

EUROCARE - Granitic Rock

RIG: Oil Drilling (fin)

EUROENVIRON

EUROENVIRON - Tracy

EUROENVIRON - Mobile

JUM80ÇOKE

CEFIR High Temp Fibres

MAINE

EUROAGRI

TOLEOO PV-1 (fin)

EUROVOLTAIC

EUROSURF

EUROGAAS (definition phase)

ASSET

EUROCAIRN (definition phase)

TOTAL

**R & O**

**C O M M U N I T Y**

**A C T I O N S**

**0RIT6-EURAM**

JRC

ENVIRONMENT _**&**_ **JRC**

**ESPRIT** **<c** **VALUE**

**J R C**

M A S T

JRC

1/3 **of** ORIVEt&K

8RITE-EURAM/ESPRIT

RACE _&._ ESPfiiT

VISION 12S0  - Aids to

operators and productors

ESPRIT

BRlTE-EURAM/ENV

STEP (ENV)

THERMIE

JRC

JRC

JRC

THERMIE

J R C

8RITE-EUR AM/ESPRIT

A I R

JOULE/THERMIE

JOULE

JRC- I À M

ESPRIT

ESPRlt

ESPRIT

OIRGCT P A R T I C I P A T I O N

Umbrella Small financial participation

           - [6 ]
. [ 2]

:•' 7.1

      - • . - . " a.o,      - _•.•-'*._ _• •_

,                - 3 . 2                -                -                - ;-•"'•.• ".

Umbrella SmaQ financial participation

Small participation ? . ' . ' ',

2 0

Umbrella. Small financial participation

.s

1 9 1

Umbrella

Small participation

1-9

Umbrella

O.l

0.9

0.2

O.l

Umbrella

Umbrella

4 . 1

Umbrella

Umbrella

2 (ccc)

I S (cec J

O.S

2G1.7 MEcuc

!

**(fin)** **Finished** **project**

**(cccj** **The CGC is the only financing body** **lor the definition** **phase**

**28**

ANNEX 6

Relationship between the EC and the EMBL

Current relationship

The relationship between the EC and the EMBL has always been built on a case by case
basis subject to the principle of open competition for Community support. The projects
to which the Commission has financially contributed have always been evaluated by
independent experts in order to ensure scientific and technical excellence as well as
relevance to the contents of the specific programmes. This approach has allowed this
centralized laboratory to share its expertise and technical resources with many other
laboratories in Europe in transnational consortia.

During the last few years, the EMBL has become an important point of reference for
European research in molecular and cellular biology as it has started providing a number
of important facilities with no equivalent in the Community, both because of their
intrinsic character as a service supporting any research in the field, and, in some cases,
because of their uniqueness resulting from the fact that only an international effort could
afford the financial and human resources needed to maintain them (DNA data library,
synchrotron radiation sources, etc).

On various occasions this new dimension to the EMBL's profile has allowed it, by
applying the Commission's rules with respect to international cooperation, to initiate the
establishment and development of research networks involving its concentrated facilities
and the complementary skills of other laboratories across Europe. This synergistic effect
can be seen as a factor for greater cohesion in European countries' activities on molecular
biology.

Convergence of the efforts under the EMBL's own scientific programme and of certain
activities under EC RTD programmes can be seen in some areas of molecular and
cellular biology but not all, notably the plant sciences or the neurosciences, which are
priorities in the specific programmes related to life sciences but have no equivalent at
EMBL level. Bearing this in mind, this can only be referred to as circumstantial
successful cooperation around themes of common interest rainer than as a deliberate
policy of convergence.

Future relationship

The EC and the EMBL recognize their long-standing tradition of interactions in areas of
mutual interest, with the EMBL recruiting international teams to contribute useful
scientific results and the EC financially supporting transnational efforts by established

laboratories, including the EMBL, to. assist the emergence of new technologies.

**"*** _*****_

29

Both organizations wish to consolidate that base so as to promote synergies towards
shared objectives, and mutually to benefit from each other's individual experience in
developing competent networks upon which coherent European research in molecular and
cellular biology may rest. Both parties see it as essential that any EC resources add value
to and gain value from the contributions made to EMBL by its Member States in
corresponding fields. They endeavour to optimize mutual understanding of their own
functions, S&T activities and operational rules applicable to the establishment of a strong
European science base in modern biology. They would in this regard seize any
opportunity compatible with their range of missions that would produce, from their
combined actions, a multiplier effect which would help to enforce the highest
international quality standards in collaborative research as well as to promote the
international competitiveness of the Community. Future arrangements should include a
mechanism for exchange of information and concertation regarding the fundamental and
enabling aspects of molecular and cellular biology, in so far as relevant to the objectives
of the Framework Programme of Community activities in the field of research,
technological development and demonstration and of the EMBL's own scientific

programme.

Cooperation between the Commission and EMBL in the research, technological
development and demonstration field may take, in particular, the following forms :

- regular exchange of views on research policies and planning at the EMBL and in the
Commission;

exchange of views on the prospects and on closer cooperation;

- regular updating on the international situation and on the understanding of respective
responsibilities regarding programme, operational and infrastructure issues;

- coordination of programmes and projects carried out by EMBL and the Commission;

- joint action by EMBL and the Commission.

The cooperation may be implemented in the following ways:

- joint meetings;

- participation by experts in seminars, symposia and workshops,

- regular contacts between programme or project planners and managers,

- participation in joint action, subject to specified competition and review procedures,

- availability of documents and communication of the results of work carried out in the
framework of this cooperation.
Commission observer status in certain EMBL meetings.

The EC and EMBL will have to recognize and accept that their participation in relevant
activities must comply with the rules and procedures of both organizations and the principles
governing their operations. The EC will wish to ensure that any resources flowing to EMBL
are subject to specified competition and review procedures and contribute to achieving the
scientific and other objectives identified in the Fourth Framework Programme; the EMBL will
wish to ensure that any activity is compatible with the Laboratory's scientific programme and
its underpinning principles of excellence, cooperation and inclusiveness.

**30**

**ANNEX 7**

**CERN and the European Community** **(EC)**

**Collaboration with** **CERN**

**Since the first Esprit programme was launched at the beginning of the** **1980s** **CERN has taken**
**an active part in a number of Community projects in fields where it has unique experience,**
**most** **notably networks of computers and supercomputers. More recently, and in particular**
**under the Third** **Framework** **Programme, CERN collaborated on the Human Capital and**
**Mobility programme and made use of its expertise in the field of superconductivity.**

**In** **addition, regular contacts have been established and maintained between CERN and the JRC,**
**and the Commission has observer status in the CERN Council.**

**In order to place the** **relations** **between the Commission and CERN on a sounder and more**
**structured footing and** **to** **flesh out the broader European cooperation described in Articles** **130**
**F** _**et seq.**_ **of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the two parties** **have** **reached on**
**10 October 1994 an administrative arrangement defining their relations, which cover areas**
**other than high-energy particle physics, CERN's main field of research.**

**Future relations between the CERN and the EC**

**In preparing the Fourth Framework Programme, the** **Commission** **allowed Europe's scientific**
**organizations,** **including** **CERN, to participate fully in the relevant specific programmes and**
**bring their expertise into play. In CERN's case the following areas were covered:**

**Non-nuclear activities**

***** **Information and communications technology**

**Industrial technology**
**Environment**
**Life sciences and technology**
**Non-nuclear energy**
**Research towards a European transport policy**
**Targeted socio-economic research**
**Training and mobility of researchers**

**Nuclear activities**

**Nuclear safety and control measures**
**Controlled thermonuclear fusion**
**Applications of accelerator technology**

**31**

ANNEX 8

**Supplementary** **programmes and Community participations**

1. Within the above context the rationale underpinning the Communication "Coordination
through Cooperation" is to create the conditions necessary for the implementation of
Articles 130 **K** and 130 L.

**The current situation**

2. These two articles are almost symmetrical since they both concern actions in which only
certain Member States participate and which are implemented either at multinational or
Community level:

130 K concerns **Supplementary Programmes,** i.e. programmes decided on by the
Community in which only certain Member States participate and for which the funding,
though not a legally binding requirement, may be partially provided by the Community.
Supplementary Programmes are therefore Community actions.

130 L concerns **Community Participations** in programmes undertaken (i.e. agreed,
financed and implemented) by certain Member States in which the Community may
make a financial contribution. Community Participations are therefore multinational
actions.

3. These actions, being RDT activities, must remain fully within the Framework
Programme and satisfy its objectives. **All funding must** be **provided by the**
**Framework Programme.**

4. The implementation of the Framework Programme must take place through the Specific
Programmes (Article 1301) and may also resort to Supplementary Programmes and
Community Participations. Articles 130K and 1301 provide for this possibility.

5. The Fourth Framework Programme explicitly includes provisions for the use of these
articles (Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decision on the Framework Programme).

**Difficulties.**

6. Whereas the proposal for the Framework Programme did not extend to the level of the
Specific Programmes, the Council and the Parliament have indicated the financial
breakdowns between these Programmes which total to the overall budget for the
Framework Programme. As a result, the realization of any Supplementary Programme
or Community Participation can only take place within Specific Programmes.

7. However, one of the advantages of possible actions in this context comprises in
particular the grouping of actions using technologies arising from different programmes
around objectives of Community interest. In consequence, these actions have to be
funded by these different programmes. It is necessary, therefore, in addition to the usual

problems associated with coordination, to find solutions to the legal and management
**problems** arising **from** the **particular** responsibilities of each Programme Committee.

8. In reality, however, there are two **main problems:**

    - The Member States involved must decide on a given theme and mobilize together their
own financial resources to which the Community may make an important but limited
contribution.

    - Even though each action must be subject to an individual decision, the presentation of
packages of actions would facilitate Member States' acceptance of Community
contributions to individual programmes in which, on a case-by-case basis, only some
States would directly benefit (Community interest).

**The proposed approach.**

**9.** **To overcome these difficulties a new political willingness for better cooperation**
**between Member States is needed. This is the objective of this Communication.**
**Hence, if** **a** **favorable climate is created it could be possible to launch pilot actions**
**using a part of the 700 MECU to be decided on in mid-1996.**

10. The establishment of this political willingness will also rest on the clarification of
certain specific aspects of these Supplementary Programmes and Community
Participations. It is proposed, therefore, that the **criteria** linked to the verifications
of **Community interest** as well as the **modus** **operandi** to be followed should be
examined. In particular, **the possibility of other Member States** having access-to
these actions as well as **the rules governing the dissemination of know-how,**
factors which determine the feasibility of such actions, must be studied.

11. The solutions envisaged is to reserve a specific budget-line in future decisions on
Framework Programmes for funding actions on the basis of Articles 130K and
130L. In order to ensure that the Fifth Framework Programme will be fully
operational as regards this point, it is recommended that pilot actions be launched.
The co-decision expected for mid-1996 regarding this 700 MECU offers this
possibility. The Commission could take that opportunity, to propose that a part of
this sum be reserved for these pilot actions, with the rest being allocated to existing

programmes.

12. As regards the themes, the accent should be placed on objectives with wide-ranging
coverage involving Community interest such as "key" components, rather than on
objectives such as the "clean car "which would be both too sectoral and too costly.
The services concerned (DG XII,XIII & III) have identified a number of concrete
examples which could constitute the first pilot projects in the following domains:

1. Lightweight batteries (for the clean car)
2. Applied aerodynamics (improvements to engine and wing efficiencies, noise reduction).
3. Advanced systems for establishing a new European potential with regard to observation,
surveillance and exploitation of the sea-bed.
4. Research on primates.

**13.** **A necessary condition leading to the implementation of these actions, and going beyond**
**the organization of preliminary contacts at high level in Member States via Research**
**Ministries, is the need for open and indepth discussions with all Member States. In**
**essence this is what the Communication is proposing.**

**ANNEX A**

**Al** **-** **Estimate of public funding of RTD in the Member States and the four EFTA-EEA**

**countries due to accede to the Union and funding through Community research**

**activities and the other European frameworks of S&T cooperation (1992)**

**-** **Breakdown of** **government** **R&D** **appropriations** **by country in the EEA** **( 1985,1991**

**and 1992)**

**-** **Comparison of public funding of RTD from 1985 to 1992: USA/Japan/Europe (of**

**12 and 16)**

**A2** **Fact sheets on cooperative European RTD endeavours**

**A3** **Fact sheets on national RTD policies in the Member States**

**If**

**ANNEX** **Al**

**Estimate** **of public funding of RTD in the Member States**

**and the four EFTA-EEA countries due to accede to** **the** **Union**

**and**

**funding through Community research activities and the other European frameworks of**

**S&T cooperation (1992)**

**The four future Member States 9%**

**Community research 4%**

**ther European frameworks**

**Member States 80%**

**(Total: around ECU 62 400 million)**

**36**

#### Distribution par pays des,/edits budgétaires publics de R-D dans l'EEE

1985, 1991 et 1992 aux prix et taux de change courants (EEE=100%)

**%**

2.5

1.5

**CO**

0.5

0

IS, FL et L exclus

**o** **^**
**D** **m**
**n-** **x**

—t.

**3** **3>**
**C** **—>**
_**a>**_
**CL** **-**

#### Distribution par pays des,/edits budgétaires publics de R-D dans l'EEE

1985, 1991 et 1992 aux prix et taux de change courants (EEE = 100%)

**%**

2.5

###### 1.5

**00**

0.5

0

###### • 1985 01991 011992 O 7Z

**3** **m**
_**r+**_ _**X**_

iS, FL et L exclus

**3** **3»**
**C** **—»**

_**ŒL**_ _**-**_

###### Crédits budgétaires publics O R-D dans I' EEE, UE, "SA et Japon de 1985 à 1992

                                                                   prix et taux de change courants

Milliard ECU

60

50

40

30

20

10,

0
1985

# **+**

1986

### **_m *_**

1991 1992

**o** **3:**
**O** _**-2'.**_
**D** **rn**
**r+** **X**

**C** **-»**
**(D**
_**CL**_

***** *****
# **+** **+** **+** **+**

1987 1988 1989 1990

Année

EEE +UE >KllSA  - Japon

"données non disponibles en 1985 pour les USA

données systématiquement sous-estimées pour le Japon
Sources: Eurostat pour I'UE et l'EEE. OCDE pour les USA et le Japon

**ANNEX** **A2**

**Fact sheets on cooperative European RTD endeavours**

Contents

1. Table showing participation of EU Member States and Austria, Finland, Norway and

Sweden.

2. Fact sheets. Member State participation is indicated in bold; participation by Austria,

Finland, Norway and Sweden is represented by italics.

**40**

**Participation of the European Member States and Austria, Finlandj Norway and Sweden in Cooperative European RTD Endeavours.**

DK

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X** **[7 ]**

**X**

**.**

ES'.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x [8 ]

D

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GR

X

x

X

X

X

X

B

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X** **[6 ]**

**X**

IRL

X

X

X

X

X

I

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

^Organisation

CERN

COST

EMBL

EMBO

ESA

ESF

ESO

     
ESRF

EUREKA

ILL

Total

Annual

budgets'

**590 MECU** **[2 ]**

**400 MECU** **[3 ]**

**49 MECU** **[3 ]**

**7.9 MECU** **[3 ]**

**2967 MECU** **[2 ]**

**9.3 MECU** **[3 ]**

**62 MECU"**

**68.8 MECU** **[4 ]**

**1500 MECU** **[5 ]**

**47 MECU** **[4 ]**

**5701 MECU**

LUX

X

X

A

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x [! ]

FIN

X

X

X

X

X

X [7 ]

X

NOR

X

X

X

X

X

X

X [7 ]

X

S WE

X

x

X

X

X

X

X

X [7 ]

X

'

NL

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X [6 ]

X

F

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

p

X

X

X

X

X [9 ]

X

UK

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

**1 Many** **of** **these figures are** **approximations-** **refer to information** **sheets** **attached.**

**2 1992 figure**

**3 1994 figure**

**4** **1993** **figure**

**5** **Likely** **lo be an over-estimation:** **13500** **MECU engaged during the last 9 years** **("85** **lo '94) since the programme was launched, comprising expenditure which will be incurred in subsequent** **ywrs** **and includes substantial** **private**

**(industrial) funding.**
**6** **Mclgium** **and The Netherlands participate in ESRF as a consortium: BENESYNC.**
**7 Denmark. Finland, Norway and Sweden participate in ESRF as a consortium: NORDSYNC.**

**8 Associated members**

**9 Cooperation agreement**

**ECU conversions fiçurcs used :** **1ECU=** **1.6SF;** **= 2.02DM;** **=** **6.85FF.**

**FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND** **ORGANISATIONS**

**NAME European Organisation for** **Nuclear Research** **(CERN)** **SITE Switzerland-France**

**EXPENDITURE 582 MECU** **(1994)** **PERSONNEL** **2991** **(1993)**

**ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM CERN was established by international convention in 1954 enjoys**
**intergovernmental status.**

**PARTICIPATING NATIONS (19) The current Member Nations are:** _**Austria,**_ **Belgium, Czech Republic,**
**Denmark,** _**Finland,**_ **France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands,** _**Norway,**_ **Poland, Portugal,**
**Slovak Republic, Spain,** _**Sweden,**_ **Switzerland, UK.**

**CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Individual** **contributions** **are related to GNP. New members begin their**
**contribution at a low level, which in time is brought into line with their GNP. The international treaty is**
**open-ended,** **and allows for withdrawal from CERN only after a two-year notice** **period.**

**GENERAL OBJECTIVES To promote** **high-energy** **particle physics; to probe the innermost constituents of**
**niatter** **in order to obtain a better understanding of how the world and the universe works. This** **is** **achieved by**
**the construction and operation of a series of particle accelerators/colliders and associated detectors.**

**MAJOR S&T THEMES** **High-energy** **particle physics, plus the necessary technological support for the**
**accelerators and instrumentation, along with supporting computer facilities.**

**TYPES OF COOPERATION There are several different types of installation maintained at CERN: Amongst**
**the** **flagship high-energy** **accelerators are the Proton-Synchrotron, the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS)**
**proton-antiprotoncoUider, and the Large Electron Positron collider (LEP). In addition to these installations there**
**is the isotope on-line separator (ISOLDE), the Low Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR),** **and"** **the Fixed Target SPS**
**Experimental areas. Experiments using these installations are equipped and carried out by (often very large)**
**teams of physicists from Member Nations and the rest of the world, assisted by permanent CERN research staff**
**in the spirit of fostering international collaboration. CERN hosts** **6-7000** **visitors per year, which averages out to**
**a full-time** **equivalent** **additional staff of approximately** **2500.** **The user community is very international in**
**character, and is far from limited to Europe. For example, in 1993 there were 400 to 500 physicists each form**
**the Russian Federation and America.**

**MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The CERN Council decides issues of major importance, and usually meets**
**twice a year. It is composed of two representatives per Member Nation who act on behalf of their governments,**
**and also has some non-Member Nation** **representatives** **present in an Observer status (Israel, the Russian**
**Federation, Turkey, CEC and UNESCO). Assisting the Council are three important committees: Committee of**
**Council, which identifies and discusses major issues or difficulties before Council sessions; Finance Committee,**
**with special responsibility for budgetary, contractual and other financial matters; and Scientific Policy**
**Committee, responsible for advising the Council on research programmes and options. Overall executive**
**authority** **lies with the Director-General. There are several Directors, with responsibility for Research,**
**Accelerators, Administration and Technical Support. Under them are several more Divisions, with associated**
**Divisional Heads. In addition to this structure are the Research Board, the Management Board and the Standing**
**Concertation Committee.**

**42**

**FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS**

**NAME** European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) SITE Heidelberg, Germany

**EXPENDITURE** 498 MECU (estimated, 1994) PERSONNEL 722 (1994)

**ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM** The EMBL was established by an intergovemmenUl agreement in 1973.
It thus has "international" status. There are also some EMBL outstations, situated at DESY in Hamburg, the
ILL/ESRF site in Grenoble, and in Cambridge (re-named the European Bioinformatics Institute).

**PARTICIPATING NATIONS** (15) The Member States are _Austria,_ Belgium, Denmark, _Finland,_ France,
**Germany, Greece, Italy,** Israel, The Netherlands, _Norway,_ Spain, _Sweden,_ Switzerland, **UK.**

**CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION** Member Nations contribute to EMBL in proportion to their GNP.

**GENERAL OBJECTIVES** To undertake research in molecular biology.

**MAJOR S&T THEMES** Molecular Biology. Research programmes include Biological Structures and
Biocomputing, Cell Biology, Differentiation, Gene Expression, Physical Instrumentation and Biochemical
Instrumentation.

**TYPES OF COOPERATION** The EMBL employs scientists from the Member Nations and the rest of the
world in order to carry out its programme of experiments on-site. Personnel are recruited according to merit,
and there is not a policy of ensuring geographical return to the Member Nations.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES There is an EMBL Council, that meets annually and is attended by
representatives of the member states, and is responsible for approving the budget, the scientific-programme and
appointing the Director-General. The Scientific Advisory Committee is responsible for preparing the scientific
programme. Internally, the facility is governed by the Director General. The DG has day-to-day responsibility
for management of the facility. There are also several divisions: some are based upon scientific programmes,
whilst others operate at a functional level (computing, administration etc.).

**A3**

**FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS**

**NAME European Space Agency (ESA)** **SITE Various**

**EXPENDITURE 2967 MECU (1992, Payment Appropriations)** **PERSONNEL 2064** **(1992)**

**ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM ESA was** **established** **by an international** **Convention** **in 1975, and**
**originated from the** **merging** **of 2 earlier organisations** **(ESRO,** **ELDO) established in 1964. Each site has**
**international status.**

**PARTICIPATING NATIONS (15) The** **full** **Members are:** _**Austria,**_ **Belgium,** **Denmark,** **France, Germany,**
**Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands,** _**Norway,**_ **Spain,** _**Sweden,**_ **Switzerland and the UK.** _**Finland**_ **is an Associate**
**Member (Full Member from 1995), whilst Canada has a Cooperation Arrangement.**

**CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION ESA manages two types of R&D programme: Mandatory and Optional.**
**The Mandatory programme contains basic and science activities (e.g. technology and satellites),** **and** **all**
**Members must contribute to these activities according to GNP. There are five Optional programmes and**
**Members decide which of tliese programmes they wish** **to** **join. Their contribution is then based upon GNP, plus**
**an amount that is dependant upon the optional programmes they have decided to participate in.**

**GENERAL OBJECTIVES "To provide for and promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes,** **cooperation**
**among European States in the fields of Space Research and Technology and Space Applications, for scientific**
**purposes and for operational space applications" (Article 2 of the ESA** **Convention).**

**MAJOR S&T THEMES Mandatory activities include Science and Technological research programmes,**
**encompassing basic** **multi-disciplinary** **research. The optional programmes are: Telecommunications,**
**Observation of the Earth and its Environment, Space Transportation Systems, Space Station and** **Platforms,**
**and Microgravity research.**

**TYPES OF COOPERATION There are several ESA sites throughout Europe. ESA Head office is located in**
**Paris,** **and is responsible for the bulk of administration. Other sites are the European Space Research and**
**Technology Centre (ESTEC) in The Netherlands, the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Germany,**
**the European Space Research Institute** **(ESRIN)** **in** **Italy,** **the** **European** **Astronauts** **Centre** **(EAQ** **in Germany**
**plus several other smaller offices and ground stations, including** **the.Launch** **Site in French Guinea. An industrial**
**procurement policy aims at ensuring that contracts are shared out to Member countries in proportion to their**
**national ESA contribtuion. Approximately 90% of the ESA budget is spent with industry.**

**MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The principal external governing body is the Council, to which each**
**Member nation sends a delegation, and which has responsibility for approving the programmes and budgets and**
**other major decisions. There are also Programme Boards, and several committees, including the Science**
**Programme Committee, the Administrative and Finance, an Industrial Policy Committee and the International**
**Relations Committee. ESA is managed by the Director General, assisted by the Inspector General, Cabinet, and**
**Associate Directors. Each Mandatory and Optional Programme also has a management board.**

**A4**

**FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS**

**NAME European Southern Observatory (ESO)** **SITE** **Garching,** **Germany (HQ) & Chile**

**EXPENDITURE 62 MECU (Estimated, 1993)** **PERSONNEL 300** **(approx,** **1994)**

**ORGANISATIONAL-MECHANISM** **The ESO was established by an intergovernmental treaty in 1962. The**
**HQ has international status.**

**PARTICIPATING NATIONS (9) Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands,** _**Sweden,**_
**Switzerland, plus a cooperation agreement with Portugal.**

**CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Members contribute an amount in proportion to their GNP.**

**GENERAL OBJECTIVES To construct and operate astronomic facilities.**

**MAJOR S&T THEMES Astronomy.**

**TYPES OF COOPERATION The** **Headquarters** **at Garching is the scientific centre of the organisation. It**
**houses the Office of the Director General, the Administration, the VLT Division and the Scientific Division, as**
**well as the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility** **(a** **joint ESO/ES A Group responsible for the use of**
**the Space Telescope in Europe). The observatory at La** **Silla** **in Chile is the site of a large number of telescopes,**
**and the requisite electronic, optical and mechanical workshops and a computer centre. There is also activity at**
**Mount Paraxial in Chile, where ESO is building the VLT (see later).**

**MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Externally, ESO is overseen by a Council, upon which representatives from**
**the Member States sit. There are several committees that assist the Council in its operation: Committee of**
**Council, Scientific and Technical Committee, Finance** **Committee,** **Observing. Programmes Committee and Users**
**Committee. Day-to-day management is left in the hands of the Director General, whose office is** **located** **in ESO**
**HQ,** **along with the Administration Division. The La Silla Observatory has ah integrated structure, and** **is**
**managed separately.**

**A5**

FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS

NAME EUREKA SITE Distributed Programme

EXPENDITURE over 14.5 billion ECU since 1985 PERSONNEL see below

ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM EUREKA is a pan-European distributed programme of collaborative
R&D involving firms, universities and research institutes, with a bottom up mechanism whereby consortia form
and can gain EUREKA status and funding for nearer market R&D in advanced technologies. It was launched in
1985 under a French initiative.

PARTICIPATING NATIONS (23) _Austria,_ Belgium, Denmark, EU, _Finland._ France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, _Norway,_ Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain,
_**Sweden,**_

Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.

CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION To be awarded EUREKA status projects must involve cooperation
between participants of more than one Eureka Country, use advanced technologies for civilian applications, and
be market-oriented. Once EUREKA status is awarded, participants must approach their national governments for
part-funding. Each Member Country has different funding rules. EUREKA status does not guarantee funding.
Projects may include participants from non-member countries.

GENERAL OBJECTIVES To increase European productivity and competitiveness through closer cooperation
between firms and research institutes in advanced technologies, developing products, processes and services with
a world market potential.

MAJOR S&T THEMES EUREKA is bottom up and very diverse, but the projects are classified into the
following technological areas: IT, communications, materials, medical and biotechnology, lasers, environment,,
transport, robotics and production automation and energy.

TYPES OF COOPERATION The projects are consortia-based, ranging from a few partners to large initiatives
such as the Joint European Sub-micron Silicon Initiative (JESSI). In some areas umbrella projects have been
formed to create networks in order to stimulate new projects, for example the EUROENVIRON projects.
Participants decide their own arrangements for managing the consortia and the intellectual property. Some of the
projects are aimed at standards.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Each country has a National Project Coordinator for administration of
applications. There is a small secretariat in Brussels which maintains a database of participants and produces
promotional material. An annual Ministerial Conference awards EUREKA status to new projects and guides the
overall direction, with the support of a High Level Group of senior representatives of the member countries.

**A6**

FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS

NAME Euro.Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) SITE Brussels (Sec)

EXPENDITURE 400 MECU (National res. funding, approx, 1994) PERSONNEL 28 **(Sec)**

ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM COST Cooperation was established in 1971 by a Ministerial Conference.
Its main body is the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO), composed of representatives of the 25 COST
countries, the Council of the EU and the CEC. It is responsible for the overall strategy of COST, and takes
decisions on every individual COST proposal. A CSO member of each country has the role of National
Coordinator, which involves managing the COST Actions in their own country. There is a Working Party on
Legal, Administrative and Financial questions, whose main task is to examine and give its opinion on questions
submitted by the CSO, and is mainly composed of COST Senior Officials. The COST Secretariat is composed
of two parts: The secretariat for the CSO and for Committees of a horizontal nature is provided by the General
Secretariat of the Council of the EU.The Secretariat for the Technical and Management Committees is provided
by the CEC.

PARTICIPATING NATIONS (25) _Austria,_ Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, _Finland,_ France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,. Ireland, **Italy,** Luxembourg, _Norway,_ Poland, Portugal, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, _Sweden,_ Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK.

CONDITIONS O F PARTICIPATION There are four basic principles underlying COST mechanisms: 1 All
COST member countries, as well as the CEC, can propose COST Actions. 2 Participation in these Actions is
voluntary. 3 The research to be coordinated is funded nationally. Coordination costs are funded both by the
participating countries and by the CEC. 4 The cooperation takes the form of "concerted actions", which is the
coordination of national research projects.

GENERAL OBJECTIVES To provide a framework for R&D co-operation, allowing for the coordination of.
national research on a European level. COST Actions consist of precompetitive or basic research or activities of
public utility.

MAJOR S&T T H E M E S Multiple. There are currently over 100 COST Actions in progress. COST Actions at
present exist in: informatics, telecommunications, transport, oceanography, materials, environment,
meteorology, agriculture and biotechnology, food technology, social sciences, medical research, civil
engineering, chemistry, forests and forestry products, fluid dynamics.

TYPES O F COOPERATION Any COST country can join any Action by signing a "Memorandum of
Understanding", which is the legal basis of the Action even though it in fact ressembles a "gentleman's
agreement" and an is expression of good faith rather than a formal and legally binding document. This MoU
governs the joint aims, the type of activity to be pursued, the terms of participation and compliance with both
sovereignty and if necessary, intellectual property rights. The signature of the MoU by at least 5 participating
countries enables the entry into force of the Action. Research is nationally funded, whilst Community funding
covers the coordination costs, and the CEC also reimburses the travel costs of the national delegates of the EC
countries acting as members of the COST Management Committees. Each national delegate has a role of
coordinator for that Action in his/her own country, and is in particular responsible for the distribution of

information.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Each Action is overseen by a Management Committee composed of experts
in the field, representing the countries participating in that Action. The Management Committee is responsible
for the detailed planning, execution and supervision of the work carried out during an Action, lasting 5 years on
average. Technical Coininittecs may also be set up by the CSO for a limited period (1-3 years) to provide expert
advice within (currently 8) given S&T domains.

**A7**

FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS

NAME European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) SITE Heidelberg, Germany (HQ)

EXPENDITURE 7.9 MECU (approx. 1994) PERSONNEL 3 (1994, administration)

ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The EMBO is a private organisation of individual scientist members,
registered in Geneva as an incorporated association under provisions of Article 60 and the following, of the
Swiss Civil Code. The European Molecular Biology Conference from which it receives its funding was
established by an intergovernmental agreement signed in 1969.

PARTICIPATING NATIONS (20) _Austria,_ Belgium, Denmark, _Finland,_ France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, _Norway,_ Portugal, Spain, _Sweden,_ Switzerland,
Turkey, U.K. The EMBO has over 700 ordinary members, and 31 associate members.

CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Contributions to EMBC are set every three years on a scale which sets
each countries percentage contribution.

GENERAL OBJECTIVES To promote molecular biology within the Member Nations. This is done through
the award, of short and long term fellowships, and the organisation of exchanges, courses and workshops.

MAJOR S&T THEMES Molecular Biology

TYPES OF COOPERATION The long-term fellowship programme consumes approximately two-thirds of the
annual budget. It is intended for advanced training through research, and facilitates this through the provision of
an annual stipend, an allowance for each dependent, and a travel grant, for fellowships lasting from one to two
years. Selection of long-term fellows is made twice-yearly, and in 1988 131 awards were made in response to
455 applications. There is also a short-term fellowship programme aimed at facilitating collaborative projects,
between laboratories in the different Member States of the EMBC. These are awardedfor I week - 3 months,
and provide a daily subsistence allowance and a travel grant. The programme of courses and workshops was
part of the original programme for EMBO, and now approximately 18 workshops per year are sponsored, along
with a similar number of practical courses and a few lecture courses.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The EMBC meets twice a year in Heidelberg, and is made up of delegates
representing the governments of Member States. It sets the three-year financial ceiling, votes the annual budgets
and approves every 3 years the scale of contributions which sets each country's percentage contribution. The
EMBO Council comprises ten elected and five coopted members and meets annually, usually in Heidelberg. It
decides policy matters and can amend the Organization's rules. It co-opts annually two Council members, and
also appoints personnel to senior executive positions within the Organisation. It scrutinizes the list of candidates
nominated by the membership for each annual membership election and decides the number to be elected, and
directly appoints to the membership no more than ten of the candidates who are from either EMBC countries or
scientific areas that are poorly represented in the membership. There are two important EMBO Executive
Committees that both meet bi-annually: The Course Committee and the Fund (Fellowship) Committee. The
EMBO Secretariat is constituted by the Secretary General and the Executive Secretary. The daily business, both
scientific and financial, is managed by the Executive Secretariat and two secretaries, with offices in the EMBL
at Heidelberg. The Executive Secretary is responsible for the papers and minutes of the Conference's meetings,
for proposing the annual budgets and for calling up financial contributions from the Member States.

**A8**

FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS

NAME European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) SITE Grenoble, France

EXPENDITURE 68.8 MECU (1993, Estimated) PERSONNEL 280 (approximate)

ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The ESRF has the status of a société civile under French law. It is

governed by an intergovernmental agreement between scientific organisations within the Member Nations. It is
only now beginning to enter its operational phase.

PARTICIPATING NATIONS (12) There are twelve nations who participate as eight members. The individual
contracting nations are France, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain and Switzerland. The remaining countries
participate as two consortia. The first, BENESYNC, represents Belgium and The Netherlands. The second,
_**NORDSYNC,**_ **represents** _**Denmark,**_ _**Finland, Norway and Sweden.**_

CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION When registered as a société civile 10,000 shares of 10FF each were
issued and distributed amongst the Members according to their contribution to operating costs. There is a
minimum contribution rate of 4%. Contribution rates were originally fixed for 20 years, with an 11 year budget
profile which was meant to take the project to the end of the construction phase. Contributions once operation
have been achieved are: France, 27.5%; Germany, 25.5%; Italy, 155&; UK, 14%; BENESYNC, 6%;
NORDSYNC, Switzerland and Spain, 4%. These figures do not correspond to contributions during the
construction phase.

GENERAL OBJECTIVES To construct and operate a state-of-the-art high energy (6GeV) synchrotron with 30
x-ray beamlines for multi-disciplinary experiments. As such,it is set up as a user-oriented service facility.

MAJOR S&T THEMES The ESRF is optimised to the continual production of hard X-rays that can be used
for a whole variety of purposes. Examples oÇ applicable fields are Chemistry, Physics, Material Science,
Biology and Medicine. There is also a theory group, and supporting instrumentation and computing divisions.

TYPES OF COOPERATION 30 public beam-lines have been envisaged, and these will all be available for
peer reviewed research by 1998. In addition, up to 20 bending magnet beamlines will be available to external
Collaborating Research Groups (CRG) made up of groups or consortia from the participating countries. A third
of thé beam-time on CRGs will be available for general ESRF users. The ESRF is planning for approximately
3000 visitors per year by 1996, with each visitor staying for three or four days.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The principal external organ of the ESRF is the Council, which approves
(amongst other important policy issues) arrangements for Iongterm use of ESRF by organisations from
non-participating countries, financial -rules, medium-term scientific programme, annual budgets etc. Each
Contracting Party appoints a delegation composed of up to three delegates. It meets at least twice a year, and is
supported by several other committees: Administrative and Finance Committee, Purchasing Committee, Audit
Committee, Science Advisory Committee and the Machine Advisory Committee. The internal structure consists
of a Board of Directors and related central services, and five Divisions. The former consists of the Director
General, who is the Chief Executive of the Facility, and is assisted by five Directors: the Project director, two
Research Directors and the Director of Administration. The five Divisions are Experiments, Machine, Technical
Services, Computing Services and Administration. In addition to this, there is a Works Committee and a
Committee on Health, Safety and Working Conditions.

**A9**

**FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS**

**NAME Institut Max von** **Laue-Paul** **Langevin (ILL)** **SITE** **Grenoble,** **France.**

**EXPENDITURE 47 MECU (1993)** **PERSONNEL 382** **(1993)**

**ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The** **ILL** **has the status of a société civile under French law. It was set**

**up by scientific organisations of the three Member Countries according to the forms of an intergovernmental**
**agreement.**

**PARTICIPATING NATIONS (6) The Member Nations are** **France,** **Germany and the UK. The ILL has**
**concluded special contracts of "scientific membership"** **with** _**Austria,**_ **Spain and Switzerland.**

**CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION The three Member Countries share the operational costs between**
**themselves, with the UK having re-negotiated a reduced commitment after 1.1.94. Scientific Members make a**
**limited** **contribution to operational costs and in return receive access to the facility. There are three working**
**languages - French, German and English.**

**GENERAL OBJECTIVES The ILL operates a 58MW High-Flux research reactor, used as a neutron source.**
**As such, it is set up as a service institute, providing beam-time to its users with many experimental facilities for**
**multidisciplinary applications.**

**MAJOR S&T THEMES Nuclear and fundamental physics; crystal and magnetic structures; structural**
**andmagnetic** **excitations; liquids, disorders and defects in materials; biology; chemistry. There are also groups**
**concerned** **with-** **instrumentation design and operation, and computing.**

**TYPES OF COOPERATION The ILL is operating 25 instruments. Research proposals are** **received from**
**scientists within organisations in the Member and Scientific Member Nations, and allocated according to**
**scientific merit, although the scientific administration tries to ensure that overall allocation of beam-time**
**matches contributions. Budget constraints have meant that the ILL has surplus instruments. These are to be**
**operated by Collaborating** **Research** **Groups from Member Countries,** **under** **a contract with ILL. The ILL hosts**
**up** **to 2000 visitors in a normal year, and the average experiment lasted for approximately five/six days.**

**MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES Externally, the ILL is overseen by a Steering Committee, upon which four**
**delegates from each of the Member Nations sit. This is responsible for all major decisions, including the**
**budget, personnel matters, the research programme and appointing the Director and other senior posts. There is**
**also** **a Scientific Council. This has** **18** **members when it sits in Plenary Session, and subcommittees with 66**
**members.** **Day-to-day** **responsibility for the facility lies with the Director, who is chosen from one of the**
**member nations. The internal management consists of: the Director's Services (PR, Safety etc), the Science**
**Division (Instrument groups, Scientific Colleges, library, Scientific Coordination), the Projects and Techniques**
**Division (Instrument Operation and Development), the Reactor Division and the Administration Division.**

**50**

FACT SHEET FOR EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES AND ORGANISATIONS

NAME European Science Foundation (ESF) SITE Strasbourg, France (HQ)

EXPENDITURE 9.3 MECU (1994) PERSONNEL 28 (approx, 1994)

ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISM The ESF was established in 1974, and is an Association of its 55
member research councils, academies and other institutions devoted to scientific research in 20 countries.

PARTICIPATING NATIONS (20) Member Organisations are drawn from: _Austria,_ Belgium, Denmark,
_Finland,_ France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, _Norway,_ Poland,
Portugal, Spain, _Sweden,_ Switzerland, Turkey, UK.

CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION Contributions are made both to the ESF's basic budgets, to which
Member Organisations contribute according to GNP, and to specific programmes and projects in which certain
Member Organisations may have a particular interest.

GENERAL OBJECTIVES To bring European scientists together to work on topics of common concern, to
co-ordinate the use of expensive facilities, and to discover and define new endeavours that will benefit from a
co-operative approach; To sponsor basic research in the sciences!

MAJOR S&T THEMES Many scientific programmes encompassing Earth and Marine Sciences, Physics,
Chemistry, Mathematics, Life Sciences, Humanities, Social Sciences.

TYPES OF COOPERATION ESF scientific work is organised in two modes: ESF Scientific Programmes, and
ESF Scientific Networks. The former almost always contain teams of scientists who carry out research, are
often long-term and are funded (except in the developmental phase) by participating Member Organisations.
Networks discuss, plan, innovate, analyze or co-ordinate research, but seldom carry out large amounts of
substantive research. They are usually short-term (three years), and are funded from the Network Account
within the ESF basic budget. The ESF also jointly holds a Programme of European Research Conferences.
These consist of a series of 1-week long scientific meetings on a general topic, spread over several years. The
Chairman of each meeting has full responsibility for its scientific programme.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES The Assembly is the main decision-making body, meets annually and all
Member Organisations are represented. The Executive Councilis composed of the President and Vice-Presidents,
along with at least one elected member from each country with Member Organisations, and from a range of
disciplines. It is responsible for the management of the ESF, and also prepares the work of the Assembly etc.
The Board ensures the continuity of ESF business between Executive Council meetings, and is made up of
certain personnel from that body, along with the Secretary General. Standing committees cover broad scientific
disciplines. Their members are nominated by Member Organisations, and other experts can be added. They
monitor ESF activities in their respective fields, set up working groups for specific problems, and prepare
proposals for research support. Standing Committees co-operate in supporting interdisciplinary studies and issues
of general interest. The Network Committee advises the Executive Council on Network matters, and makes
recommendations for Network launches. A Steering committee is responsible for overseeing the European
Research Conferences, whilst other committees are formed as necessary. The Office of the ESF is based in
Strasbourg, and is directed by the Secretary General, who is appointed by the Assembly and has a small
international staff for assistance.

**51**

**ANNEX A3**

**Fact sheets on national RTD policies in the Member States**

**52**

**BELGIUM**

**GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP): ECU 179** **995** **million** **(1993)** **(at current prices and** **exchange** **rates) (c)**

**GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 2 S6S million** **(1990)** **(c)**

**GERD/GDP:** **1.64%** **(1991) (c)**

**R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 1.61%** **{19901**

**PERCENTAGE OF** **GERD** **FINANCED BY THE** **STATE:** **28%** **(1990)**

**PERCENTAGE OF** **GERD FttJANCED** **BY INDUSTRY: 70.4% (1990)**

**TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 1 14S million** **(1993)**

**DEFENCE R&D AS A** **%** **OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 0.2% (1992) (c)**

**NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 4.4 (1990)**

**MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T AND STRUCTURE** **OF** **S&T POLICY**

**At federal level: Ministry of Science Policy** **and** **Scientific** **and** **Cultural Institutions. Coordination of science policy is the responsibility of the Prime**
**Minister's Federal Services for Science, Technology** **and** **Cultural Affairs (SSTC). which work closely with the main departments responsible for S&T**
**(education, economic** **affairs,** **agriculture, health, etc).**

**At regional and community level:**

**In the** **Flemish-speaking** **Community the Chairman of the Government (as Minister responsible for science policy) is responsible for all S&T**
**policy.**
**In the** **French-speaking Community** **the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research is responsible for** **most** **R&D activities.**
**In** **Wallonia** **the Ministry of Technological Development and Employment sees to the general coordination of the Executive's work on R&D.**
**In the Brussels Region responsibility for R&D is shared by the** **Minister-Chairman** **of the Executive and the Minister for the Economy.'**

**Federal coordination bodies: The Interdepartmental Conference on Science Policy** **(CIMPS)** **is the instrument for coordination between the authorities**
**concerned** **(State, Regions and Communities).**

**PRIORITIES**

**At federal level:** **-** **maintaining and stepping up the country's scientific potential**
**associating Belgian research more closely with the globalization of R&D**

**At regional and community level:**

**The Flemish Community is emphasizing increased public spending on R&D, better conditions for** **post-doctorate** **researchers, mobility of**
**researchers and the conversion of university research findings into technology for use in industry.**
**The French Community is placing particular emphasis on increased human resources and research potential.**

**In Wallonia the aim is to increase the technological know-how of regional businesses and to promote dialogue between businesses, public**
**authorities and universities.**

**TRENDS: Provisional estimates suggest that GERD** **has** **remained** **[1]** **at around** **1.69%** **of GDP since 1989, which is well below the** **EUR12** **average**
**(1.96%** **in 1991).**

**COMMENTS: Belgium's new federal structure (created by the** **1980,1988** **and** **1993** **reforms) gives the Communities the main responsibility for basic**
**and university research, while the Regions are mainly responsible for supporting industrial and technological research. The federal authorities are**
**still responsible for the national research establishments, space research, the nuclear field and Belgian participation in international research bodies.**

**Data sources: National sources; OECD** **MSTÎ (1994-1)** **May** **1994** **report and OECD data bases; Eurostat.**
**(c) Estimate.**

**21/9/1994**

**53**

**ptyNMAKK**

CROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (OnP) ; 117,486 Mio ECU (1993)

(at current prices and exchanges rates)
CROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE FOR Rftp (GF.RD) : 1,787 Mio !£CU ( 1991 )

GERD/GPP : 1.(19% (1991)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 39,7 % (1991)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED DY INDUSTRY : 51.4 % (1991)

GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 738 Mio ECU (1992)

DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT

**APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D :.** **0.6** **%** **(1992)**

NUMBER SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED ON R&D

**PER** **IQQQ** **LABOUR FORCE :** **4.1(1991)**

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRIES FOR S&T : The Ministry of Research and Technology and the Ministry of Industry.

**STRUCTURE of S&T POLICY :**

Each Ministry has responsibility for supporting research related to its function. Currently 17 ministries administrate the 738
Mio ECU R&D budget. Coordination takes place in the Interniinisterial Research and Technology Committee (DIFT) chaired
by the Ministry of Research and Technology. The Danish Council for Research Policy and the 6 Research Councils advise
the Parliament and the Government in research policy. The Danish Council for Research Policy is mainly responsible for
research across sectorial boundaries: The Councils are supplemented by the Industry and Trade Development Council under
the Minister of Industry. The overwhelming parts of the total R&D budget come from the Ministries of Education 37 %,
Research and Technology 22 _%,_ Agriculture 9 %, Industry 7 %, Cultural Affairs 6 %, and Health 4 % (1994 figures).
The establishment of the Ministry of Research and Technology in 1993 was an innovation for Denmark. As a consequence,
the responsibility of the National Laboratory RISO went from the Ministry of Energy tb this new ministry.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES :

In general, the balance between basic research and strategic research must be maintained. The political task is the stimulation
of research in areas where Denmark has already particular strength compared with other countries.

- Food technology (F0TEK) is an interministerial programme (1990-95) that concentrates on quality, optimal exploitation
of raw material and processing but it also is an element in the government job-creating measures.

- In Materials technology the MUP II will be initiated in 1994. With grants of about 40 Mio ECU, it should also contribute
to the job-creating policy.

- The Environment Research (40 Mio ECU for 1996-97) is established as a 7 ministries cooperation. The placing of the
European Environmental Agency in Denmark will put an additional impetus on the research in this field.
- The Energy Research (66 Mio ECU per year) should support the formulation of the future energy policy. Major elements
are power-saving technologies, integrated management of total household energy consumption and the Biomass Action Plan.

- Biotechnology is centred around the programmes BIOTEK I/II and covers the period 1988-95; within BIOTEK I the
technology assessment (3 Mio ECU) takes place.

- Research on Elderly and Technology for Disabled has its tradition in DK and has been given priority by several Research
Councils. In this field, research cooperation with the EC programmes on ncuroscicnce and TIDE is foreseen.

TRENDS : After ten years of steady growth, the Danish R&D efforts arc now stabilized at a level with those countries
normally compared with Denmark. Emphasis will be put on increased quality and productivity and intensified application of
research.

COMMENTS : International cooperation has gained importance and accounted in 1989 for about 9% of Government R&D
funds. During the period 1990-93 these R&D funds will increase by 15 % (mainly for E$A, CERN and EUREKA). Denmark
endeavours to have the EC programmes designed to complement and extend the national research. It received for many years
more than 3 % of the EC research. The same percentage of the 1990-94 Framework Programme would amount to 3 % or
4% of die country's total R&D efforts. Denmark's contribution to the EC budget is about 2 % .

20/09/1994

Source : OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994; Exchange rates arc from Eurostat. Manpower estimates from OECD
database.

**54**

FEDERAI, REPU»! JC Q* [r] GERMANY

CROSS noMi-snc PKODUClfGDi») : I 59<S 993 Mio ECU (1993)
(at current prices and exchange rales)
CROSS DOMl-SnC IvXrWDlTURE for R&D _(C.\-im\_ - 37 578 Mio ECU (1992)

GERD/GDP : 2.53% (1992)

"GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIAUONS FOR R&D AS %

OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET : **4.31** %( 1990)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : **37.4** % ( 1992)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY ttJDUSTRY : 5 9 3 % (1992) )

TOTAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 15 265 **Mio** ECU (1992)

DEFENCE R&D BIJDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : **10.5** % (1992)

NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED ON R&D

PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE: 6 (1990)

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T :

The Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT) and the corresponding Ministries in the Lander.

STRUCTURE of S&T POLICY :

The Federal and the Lander Governments attach importance to the freedom of research and the principles of "subsidiary
funding". The Lander have (16.1 % of 1992 total R&D) mainly the responsibility for R & D in the universities; the
Federal Government (22.1 _%_ of 1992 total) is responsible for non-university R & D . The funding of the supporting bodies
(DFG, MPG, FhG) and the national research centres is shared between the Federal and the Lander Governments. The '
Government believes that in a free-market economy the primary responsibility for R&D and innovation is that of industry
(59.5 % of the 1992 total R & D funding). The general tax reform of 1990 should create attractive conditions for the
industry. There are no tax incentives for R&D, at present.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES :

 - the reconstitution and completion of the research system in the New Bundeslander,

 - to assure the high level of basic research (20% of the total R&D expenditure),

 - promotion of strategic technologies in the precompetitive field (in particular information technologies, miniaturisation
of electronic and mechanical systems, biotechnology, research on advanced material, research for traffic, energy, and
concentration on interdisciplinary research).

 - improvement of the innovation capabilities of SMEs,

 - continuation of preventive research (in particular ecology, health and social problems, space and polar research),

 - strengthening of the international cooperation in RTD,

 - continuation of the public long-term programmes (fusion and space research).

TRENDS : The business sector's contribution to global R&D expenditure decreased from 70.1 % in 1987 to 65.6 % in
1990 and 59.5% in 1992, but is stilHiigh among the EC Member Slates.

COMMl-NTS : For international cooperation in R&D about 1500 Mio ECU arc spent abroad. German industry participates
in 191 of 599 EUREKA projects (as of February 1993). Current discussions turn around the question whether Germany is
an advantageous place for the industry and to what extent RTD policy can contribute to this situation. In this context a
strategic circle with 14 high level personalities has been set up. Its jwiticular task is the analysis of the efficiency .of RTD
and the application of the results (strengthening the interface Research-Industry). After the tax related measures (the R&D
Investment Allowance and the Special R&D depreciation) have been phased out at the end of 1989, a new debate has
started on the implementation of fiscal measures focusing in particular on SMEs.

20/09/1994

Data Sources : ^National Sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994

'REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROSTAT.

**55**

**GREECE**

**GROSS IX>MI5STIC PRODUCT** **fODPl:** **ECU 63 780 million (1993)**

**GROSS** **domestic** **EXPENDITURE on R&D** **fGERD):** **ECU 267 million** **(1991)**

**GERD/GDP: 0.46%** **(1991)**

**R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 0.57%** **(1992)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: 58% (1991)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 22% (1991)**

**TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU** **163** **million (1992) (provisional)**

**DEFENCE R&D AS A** **%** **OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 1.5% (1992) (provisional)**

**NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 1.5** **(1991)**

**MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE** **FOR** **S&T:** **General Secretariat for Research** **and** **Technology (GSRT),** **an** **autonomous body within** **the** **Ministry of Trade,**
**Industry, Energy and Technology. The Ministry of Education is responsible for universities.**

**STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: Each ministry is responsible for the research within its field.** **The** **Ministry of** **Trade,** **Industry, Energy and**
**Technology (GSRT) and the Ministry of Education provide** **31.1 %** **and 47.7% respectively of all state expenditure on R&D. The GSRT coordinates**
**R&D efforts between the different ministries, research institutes, businesses, universities and international organizations. '**

**NATIONAL** **PRIORITIES:** **These are based on the strategic elements of the RTD operational programme (EPET** _**U)**_ **of the CSF for Greece (1994-99)**
**and were consolidated** **by** **the new government formed after the elections of 10 October 1993. The aim is:**

**to make Greek industry more competitive through RTD projects in sectors of major economic interest, enhance the development of industrial**
**research, technology transfer and the innovation system;**
**to improve and supplement research infrastructures, especially for strategic technologies and along geographical axes (north and south);**
**to encourage technology training and S&T education;**
**to create mechanisms for the development of programmes and technology and studies in support of policy choices.**

**TRENDS: GERD expressed as a percentage of** **GDP** **has been improving constantly, rising from 0.21** **%** **in 1981 to** **0.46%.in** **1991. The goal is to**
**reach 1% by the year 2000.**

**COMMENTS: Greece has become much more involved in EEC programmes in recent years.**

**Data sources: National sources; OECD** **MSTI (1994-1)** **May 1994** **report** **and OECD data bases; Eurostat.**

**21/9/1994**

**56**

**SPAIN**

**GROSS** **1X)MEST1C** **PRODUCT** **(GDP):** **ECU 439 542 million** **(1993)**

**GROSS** **domestic** **EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 3 719 million** **(1993)**

**GERD/GDP: 0.85% (1993)**

**R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 2.38%** **(1990)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE** **STATE:** **4S.7%** **(1991)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 48.1% (1991)**

**TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 2 066 million** **(1993)**

**DEFENCE R&D AS A** **%** **OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 11.9% (1993)**

**NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 2.6 (1991)**

**MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T: The Interdepartmental Committee on Science and Technology** **(CICYT),** **made up of representatives of the**
**11** **ministries involved in research, is the official body responsible for planning, coordinating and monitoring national S&T policy.**

**STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: The S&T activities of the** **11** **ministries involved in** **research** **are coordinated by the Interdepartmental Committee**
**and are integrated into the national plan. Spain's autonomous regions have the option of adopting and implementing their own S&T policies. Efforts**
**have been made to coordinate these** **activities** **at national level.**

**NATIONAL PRIORITIES: The National R&D Plan (1988-91) included two types of** **programme:**

**national programmes (20 in all) with three priority areas: communication and production technologies (robotics, space research,**
**microelectronics, new materials), natural resources and Quality of life (biotechnology, pharmaceuticals sector, health, agriculture, forestry,**
**aquaculture, etc.) and** **socic-cultural** **studies (conservation of historical heritage,** **socio-cukural** **studies on Latin America,** **etc.);**

**horizontal and special programmes (training of research personnel,** **high-energy** **physics, Antarctica, etc.).**

**The second** **phase** **of** **the** **National R&D Plan (1992-95)** **has** **the same** **priorities,** **the** **main** **changes being in the concentration of programmes (15 instead**
**of 25) and the introduction of** **a** **new type of** **project** **(integrated projects) in support of R&D activities involving several fields of technology.**

**COMMUNITY SUPPORT** **FRAMEWORK:** **The R&D** **activities in the second Community support framework** **(1994-99)** **aim at strengthening S&T**
**infrastructure, technology transfer, training for researchers and R&D staff** **and** **support for technological innovation by companies. They will be**
**implemented by means of regional and multiregional operational programmes.**

**TRENDS: In Spain, GERD expressed as a percentage of** **GDP** **rose from 0.4% in 1981** **to.** **0.87%** **in 1991. In 1992 it fell to 0.86% and in 1993 to**
**0.85** **%.** **In** **absolute** **terms** **GERD rose by** **20%** **between 1988** **and** **1989. This increase fell off sharply in 1991, when the average annual** **rate** **of growth**
**was 5.3%, and in 1992, when it was** **-0.3%.**
**Nonetheless,** **the Spanish Government is determined to bring the national R&D effort up to a level comparable with that found in other advanced**
**European countries, and in a balanced manner.**

**Data sources: National sources; OECD** **MSTI** **(1994-1) May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat.**

**21/9/1994**

**57**

**FRANCE**

**GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP): ECU 1 076 534 million (1993) (at** **current prices** **and exchange rates)**

**GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D (GERD): ECU 23 790 million (1992) (c)**

**GERD/GDP: 2.36% (1992)**

**R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 5.99% (1990)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: 49.8% (1991) (c)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY:** **42.5%** **(1991)**

**TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 14 634 million (1993) (provisional)**

**DEFENCE R&D AS A** **%** **OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 36.3% (1993)**

**NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 5.2 (1991)**

**MINISTRY RESPONSABLE FOR** **S&T:** **The Ministry of Higher Education** **and** **Research (MESR), set** **up** **in April** **1993,** **is responsible for S&T policy**
**in France.**

**STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: In parallel or in cooperation with the MESR, oilier ministerial departments also** **play** **an important role in the**
**stimulation of scientific and technical activities; these include the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, the Ministry**
**of Foreign Trade, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Defence. Research is evaluated mainly by the National Council of Research**
**Evaluation (CNER). The Science** **and** **Technology Council (CSRT) is** **a** **body for broadbased consultations and dialogue on S&T policy. The Strategy**
**Committee to be set up in November** **1994** **will strengthen S&T strategy-making. The Science and Technology Observatory (OST), set up in 1990,**
**produces and disseminates indicators describing French S&T activity in its regional, national and international context.**

**NATIONAL PRIORITIES: The 1995 civil R&D budget has the following priorities:**

**medical and biological research;**
**civil aviation;**
**scientific employment and training through research.**
**Other priorities include research into**

**agriculture and food;**
**the environment;**
**urban planning;**

**transport;**
**meteorology.**
**Great importance is still attached to international S&T cooperation, especially with the East. France remains a major contributor to European**
**technological programmes and to the European Space Agency.**

**TRENDS: Over the last 12 years R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP has risen from** **2.01%** **(1981) to 2.36% (1992) with an average annual**
**growtli** **rate** **of** **4.3%** **between 1981 and 1991.** **However,** **1990 saw** **a** **stabilization after almost** **a** **decade of growth. The increase** **in** **the 1995 civil R&D**
**budget was 3.5%, which is significantly less than the increases of 1981-90.**

**COMMENTS:** **A policy report on the national consultations on the major objectives of French research launched in September 1993 was**
**submitted to Parliament in June** **1994.** **The main aim of these consultations was to determine the broad thrust of** **S&T** **policy**
**in the years ahead, consider the career patterns and mobility of researchers and teachers and determine the role and evolution**
**of research bodies.**

**Alongside this national consultation,** **the** **MESR launched** **a** **survey of technology prospects to assess the technical scenarios which**
**could constitute the basis of future technological developments.**

**Data sources: National sources; OECD** **MFSI** **(1994-1) May** **1994** **report and OECD data bases; Eurostat.**
**(c) Estimate.**

**27/9/1994**

**58**

**IRELAND**

GROSS lX)Miyne PRODUCT (Onn 37 733 Mio ECU( 1993)

GROSS DOMI-STIC I-XHJNDITURE FOR R&D (GERD) 413 Mio ECU (1992)

GERD/GDP 1.1% (1992)

GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D

AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT El 1DGFT 1.08 % (1990)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVFRNMENT 2 3 % (1992)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY 65 % (1992)

GOVERNMENT APPRÔPRATIONS BUDGET FOR R&D 170 Mio ECU (1993)

DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL C.OVERNMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 0 % (.1994)

NUMBER OF SCTENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED

ON R&D PER 100 LABOUR FORCE 4.1 % (1991)

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR s&T : The Office of Science and Technology within the Department of
Employment and Enterprise (DEE) is responsible for coordinating S&T issues across Government.

STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF s&T POLICY : The agency structure responsible for disbursing
funding for S&T to industry and academe has recently been reorganized as a result of the Culliton
report on industrial policy. FORBAERT replaces EOLAS as the principal funding agency although
some research (such as biomedical research) is still funded through the ministry concerned
FORBATJRT although much closer to industry than academe administers research grants (circa
£ 1.2 M for 1994) and funds applied research through the Programmes on Advanced Technology
(PATs, circa £ 11 M for 1994 of which approximate 75% comes from EU Structural Funds).

S&T policy is currently being reviewed by a recently inaugurated Science Technology and
Innovation Council which is due to report by the end of 1994. This Council, set up partly in
response to an outcry from the research community following a funding moritorium in 1993, will
consider inter alia research funding levels, the balance between basic and applied research, in
preparation for a S&T White Paper. The European Commission has been invited to comment on
this exercise and provide insight into areas such as the balance between basic and applied research
and the process of priority setting.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES : Will be revised in the light of the forthcoming White Paper but currently
include PATs on biotechnology, materials, optoelectronics, advanced manufacturing, and polymers.

TRENDS : The trends for 1993 were distinctly away from basic research towards applied research
and development although overall budgets for RDT were depressed. The current signs are for a
sliglit reversal of these trends. The meclianisms for coordinating S&T policy are also under review
and responsibility for the Office of Science and Technology might be transferred from the
(industry based) DEE to the Department of the Taoiseach (cabinet office)

21/09/1994

**Data** **Sources** **:** **National Sources; OECD** **MSTl (1994-1)** **May** **1994**
**REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES;** **EUROSTAT**

**59**

**nvvLY**

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDPV 814 065 IVSo ECU (1993)

GROSS DOMESMC EXPENDITURE FOR R&DfGERDV 11 402 Ivio ECU (1993)

GERD/GDP: 1.40% (1993)

GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D

AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNEMENT BUDGET : 139% (1993)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 48.3% (1993)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 46.6% (1993)

TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 6 422 Mio ECU (1993)

DEFENCE R&D AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 6.50% (1993)

NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS ENGAGED

ON R&D PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE : 3.1(1991)

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T: Ministry of Universities and Scientific and Technological Research
(MURST)

STRUCTURE OF S&T POLICY: MURST defines priorities, oversees the University system as a whole,
supervises the public research establishments and manages some of the instruments for directing and supporting
industrial research

NATIONAL PRIORITIES: Between 1990 and 1993 government R&D funding was shifted from technological
objectivies (from 33 to 28 per cent of total) to university research (from 30 to 38 per cent).

The main fields which have been financed in the last years (public and private sector) are:

- electronics

- transport (spacecraft)

- telecommunications

- chemistry

- physics

- environment

- biotechnology

- biomedicine

- bioinstruments

TRENDS: GERD in 1993 has not changed substantially. The R&D expenditure in the public sector has been
42.9%; it includes public research establishment, public administrations and universities. Financial support is
increasing for: _SME_ (enterprises with less than 200 employes and less than 20 billion liras of invested capital),
_consortia_ which pcrfonn various activities and to _Science_ _aid_ _Technological Paies,_ all over the Country. More
emphasis has been given to _qjplied_ _research._

COMMENT: It is particularly urgent to reduce the gap between Northern and Soutlicm Italy. Since nviny public funds have been
reduced or cut to Southern, the private sector, expecially of SME, must be puslrcd lo invest in R&D.

21/09/94

Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MSTI (1994-1) May 1994
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROST AT.

60

**LUXEMBOURG**

**GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT** **fGDPl:** **ECU** **6.910** **million (1990) (at** **current prices** **and exchange rates) (c)**

**GROSS domestic EXPENDITURE on R&D** **(CERD1:** **ECU 141 million** **(1990)** **(c) (I)**

**GERD/GDP: 2.04% (1990) (c) (1)**

**R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: Not available.**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE: Not** **available.**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY:** **94.6%** **(1990) (c)** **(I)**

**TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 7.3 million (1990)** **(c) (1)**

**DEFENCE R&D AS** **A %** **OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: Not available.**

**NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE:** **4.3** **(1990) (e) (1)**

**MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR S&T: Ministry** **of** **Education.**

**STRUCTURE** **OF S&T POLICY: Interdepartmental Committee on the coordination of scientific research and technological development.**

**NATIONAL PRIORITIES:**

**There arc two main objectives:**

**to create an environment favourable to innovative research initiatives by businesses;** **.**
**to encourage more particularly the innovative effort of small businesses by creating centres of competence in areas where Luxembourg is on**
**a par with other** **countries.**
**These objectives will be attained** _**inter alia**_ **by:**

**the creation** **of Public** **Research Centres (CRP), which will carry out R&D activities with partial state funding;**
**the introduction of** **a** **system of** **aid** **for R&D carried out in businesses;**
**the transfer of research results from the CRPs to businesses.**

**TRENDS: Overall R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP is above the EUR12 average, i.e. around 2.04% in 1990. Budget allocations for R&D,**
**though modest (ECU** **7.** **S million in 1990) in relation to GERD, are continuing to rise.**

**COMMENTS: Two businesses in the chemicals-related and steel sectors account for almost** **86%** **of R&D expenditure in Luxembourg. Outside these**
**two sectors, 6% of R&D expenditure is accounted for by the metal processing sector. Following the law of March 1987, three CRPs are already**
**operational. The Luxembourg authorities have now** **started** **gathering regular data on R&D activities in the Grand Duchy.**

**(e) Estimate.**
**(1) Source:' EC study on R&D potential in the Grand Duchy.**

**29/9/1994**

**Ô.1**

THE NETHERLANDS

CROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) : 262 740 Mio ECU (1993)
(at current prices and exchange rales)
GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE FOR R&D (GERD) : 4 475 Mio ECU (1991)

GERD/GDP : 1.92 % (1991) [1.96% (1992)(I)]

GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D

AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET : 2.7 % (1990)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT : 44.9 % (1991)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY : 51.2 % (1991)

TOTAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 2 173 Mio ECU (1994)

DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D : 3.4 % (1994)
NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED

ON R&D PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE : 3.8(1991)

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T : The Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Economic
Affairs.

STRUCTURE of S&T POLICY : Decision making is based on a broadly structured network of advisory bodies.
S & T Policy is prepared by the Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT), chaired by the Prime
Minister within which the Minister of Education and Science acts as coordinating minister for science policy
and the Minister of Economic Affairs as coordinating minister for technology. The public R&D funds are
administered by the Ministry of Education and Science (55 %), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (19 _%),_ and
the other Ministries (26 %). In the business sector the five multinationals funded roughly 80% of the research
(as of 1990).

NATIONAL PRIORITIES : Amongst the development of new knowledge, its dissemination through a network
of 18 regional innovation centres mainly to SMEs is still a top issue. Increasing importance is given to
vocational education, as the availability of well-trained staff is considered as crucial particularly in the
international context. The interaction between technology and the social environment has recently become a new
pillar in S/T policy.

The industrial oriented technology programmes to support medium-term economic growth concentrate on :
materials technology, biotechnology and information technology. Long-term strategic research will concentrate
on multidisciplinary research, environmental research and energy research and will be backed up with intensive
foresight studies and under the consideration of ongoing internationalisation in S/T.

TRENDS : The GERD as percentage of GDP strongly increased in the 1984-87 catch-up period but has slightly
been decreasing over the last few years. This could be explained by a stagnation of R&D in the public sector.
The business sector decreased its contribution to GERD from 55.9 % in 1990 to 51.2 % in 1991.

COMMENTS : The "Internationalisation of Education and Research" is a major issue in the Dutch S&T policy.
Major projects in the international context arc the EUREKA projects JESSl and COSINE.

20/09/1994

Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MST1 (1994-1) May 1994
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES, EUROST AT.
(I) Wctcnschapsbudgct 1993

62

**PORTUGAL**

**GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT** **(GDP):** **ECU** **66.956** **million** **(1993)**

**GROSS** **domestic** **EXPENDITURE on R&D** **(GERD):** **ECU 288 million (1990)**

**GERD/GDP:** **0.61%** **(1990)**

**R&D BUDGET/NATIONAL BUDGET: 1.15% (1990)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY THE STATE :** **61.8%** **(1990)**

**PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY: 27% (1990)**

**TOTAL GOVERNMENT R&D BUDGET: ECU 327 million (1993)**

**DEFENCE R&D AS A** **%** **OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS: 0.4% (1993)**

**NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS PER 1 000 LABOUR FORCE: 1.2 (1990)**

**STRUCTURE** **OF** **S&T** **POLICY:** **Since** **1986 and** **particularly since the establishment of the Science** **and** **Technology Council** **there liave** **been important**
**changes in Portugal's system of science and technology. The** **JNICT is** **the main body responsible for planning, policy and overall coordination, and**
**also has to prepare the R&D budget (see directory).**

**NATIONAL PRIORITIES: The sectoral guidelines for the medium term set out in the** **Multiannual** **Plan of Scientific Research and Technological**
**Development for the** **1990s** **are as follows:**

**stepping up national participation in international research in basic areas of science (including the exact sciences, biology and biomedicine);**
**developing Portugal's capacity to participate selectively in European programmes concerning the new information and telecommunications**
**technologies;**
**developing national R&D capacity** **in** **technologies (energy production, new materials, biotechnology, etc.) which can help modernize traditional**
**industrial sectors;**
**stepping up national research capacity in earth, marine and tropical sciences;**
**guiding the development of social and human sciences.**

**PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY RTD** **ACTTVrnES:** **Portugal's participation is modest; since 1987 Portugal has participated in 728 projects,**
**mainly in the** **following** **areas:**

**modernization of industrial sectors**

**human capital**
**non-nuclear energy**
**agro-industry and biotechnology**
**marine sciences.**

**COMMUNITY SUPPORT** **FRAMEWORK:** **The R&D** **activities proposed under the Community Support Framework** **(1994-99)** **tookaccount of national**
**strategic guidelines, aiming** **to** **enhance the infrastructure for research and technological development, to train researchers and to promote the**
**technological capacity of** **businesses.** **PRAXIS** **(ECU** **376 million from** **EC),** **devoted entirely** **to** **strengthening Portugal's science** **and** **technology system,**
**and** **PEDIPII** **to modernize Portuguese industry (ECU 220 million for RTD from EC) are the most important operational programmes in this sector.**

**TRENDS: R&D expenditure has risen consistently in recent years, the aim being that the figure should shortly reach** **1 %** **of** **GDP.** **The main players**
**in the** **S&T system have become the universities** **and the** **non-profit-making** **private** **associations, which have benefited greatly from** **the** **Structural Funds.**

**Data Sources: National sources; OECD** **MSTI (1994-1)** **May 1994 report and OECD data bases; Eurostat.**

**21/9/1994**

**63**

UNITE!) KINGDOM

GROSS mMiisnc PRODUCiVGDPi 773 000 Mio ECU (1993)

CROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE TOR R&l) (GERD) 17 800 Mio ECU (1992)

GERD/GDP : 2.12% (1992)

GOVERNMENT BUDGET An*ROPRlATIONS FOR R&D

AS A % OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET 3.01 % (1990)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT 35.4 % (1992)

PERCENTAGE OF GERD FINANCED BY INDUSTRY 49.7 % (1992)

TOTAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 6 803 Mio ECU (1993)

DEFENCE R&D BUDGET AS A % OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR R&D 45 % (1993)

NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ENGAGED

ON R&D PER 1000 LABOUR FORCE 4.5 (1991)

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY FOR S&T : The Office of Science and Technology (OST), under direct Cabinet
Minister control, coordinates S&T issues across Government and has responsibility for the six Research
Councils. Other key Government bodies are : the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Department
of Education (DFE), die Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
(MÀFF).

STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF S&T POLICY : Higher education institute (HEI) funding is channelled
primarily through the Research Councils. Separate funding related to HEI performance is provided by the
DFEs Higher Education Funding Councils. A new Research Council structure came into being on 1st April
1994 with stronger links to Central Government (via an OST based Director General) and with greater
emphasis on wealtli creation. Otlier Government Department Laboratories (e.g. those of DTI, MOD, MAFF,
...), and the scientific institutions of the Research Councils themselves, are currently being scrutini2»d with a
view to possible privatisation or "rationalisation". S&T support to industry, especially SMEs, through the
DTI now concentrates on technology transfer, consultancies, standards, awareness, best practice, and has
moved away from supporting the generation of technology.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES : Following the publication of the White Paper a Technology Foresiglit Programme was
launched to identify priority market/technology sectors of most relevance to (industrial) users and to assist
the formulation of Government S&T policy. 15 broad areas have been identified for further analysis :
agriculture natural resources and environment, chemicals, communications, construction, defence and
aerospace, energy, financial services, food and drink, health and life sciences, information technologies and
electronics, leisure and education, materials, manufacturing production and business processes, retail and
distribution, and transport.

TRENDS : Government R&D expenditure is forecast to fall progressively in real terms from 6 800 Mio ECU
(FY92/93) to 6 020 Mio ECU (FY95/96; 1993 prices and exchange rates). Both civil and defence budgets
R&D (current estimates for 93-94 : 3 620 Mio ECU and 2 980 Mio ECU respectively) are in decline. Witliin
the civil R&D budget, cuts in civil department expenditure and higher education infrastructure expenditure
will not be fully compensated for by a projected increase in Research Council spent for basic (though
economically relevant) science.

21/09/1994
Data Sources : National Sources; OECD MSTl (1994-1) May 1994
REPORT AND OECD DATA BASES; EUROST AT

**64**

ISSN 0254-1475

###### **COM (94) 438 final**

## **DOCUMENTS**

#### EN 15 Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-469-EN-C ISBN 92-77-81219-2

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

L-2985 Luxembourg