Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 51995IE1164

**OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the coordination of research and technological development policies** 
  
*Official Journal C 018 , 22/01/1996 P. 0054*

  

Opinion on the coordination of research and technological development policies

(96/C 18/13)

On 23 February 1995 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the coordination of research and technological development policies.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 26 September 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 329th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 October 1995), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.

1. Recommendations of the Economic and Social Committee for the coordination of research and technological development (RTD) policies

The Committee

1.1. given the failure to use in practice the instruments for coordinating national and Community RTD policies provided for under Articles 130h, k, l and n of the Treaty on European Union;

1.2. whereas the Treaty on European Union explicitly requires the Commission and the Member States to implement their RTD policies within a coherent Community framework;

1.3. whereas Article 130b of the Treaty on European Union requires that the formulation and implementation of all Community policies, thus including Community policy on research and technological innovation, should take into account the objective of economic and social cohesion;

1.4. whereas the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment emphasizes the lack of coordination of RTD strategies in Europe, and the limited capacity for quickly converting scientific and technological achievements into industrial and commercial successes, and considers these amongst the most important weaknesses of the EU research system;

1.5. whereas it is vital fully to exploit the research-innovation-market process, in order to enhance the competitiveness of European industry and boost employment throughout the EU, with a view to economic and social cohesion;

1.6. whereas RTD policy objectives and implementation measures in most Member States and in the US and Japan are tending to converge;

1.7. whereas there are still shortcomings in the internal and external coordination of Community RTD policy, despite the Community's attempts to provide consistency through multiannual programming of Community research activities;

1.8. whereas 87% of public research funding in the EU is still decided and managed independently by the Member States, and only 13% is used in European cooperation frameworks;

1.9. whereas, in order to bring consistency, transparency and clarity to the European added value of Community RTD, all parties involved in research must participate in voluntary, suitably-equipped cooperation frameworks;

1.10. whereas the current intelligence revolution requires a joint effort from all sectors of the Community to constantly update technology-innovation processes and skills, with the full participation of the social partners at the various levels of social dialogue,

recommends:

1.11. creation of a network for the systematic exchange of relevant, intercomparable information on EU research and technological innovation activities which can be freely accessed by all the players in research and innovation, especially innovative SMEs which create new employment opportunities;

1.12. mapping out scenarios for joint consideration at regional, national and Community level, and for subsequent RTD strategies, and providing a transparent framework of opportunities for the various players involved in research;

1.13. an overhaul of the existing bodies for shaping and implementing Community research programmes, such as Crest and the Programme Committees, to ensure that they can meet the need to link national and Community policies;

1.14. rapid activation of European technology assessment and industrial assessment mechanisms, and encouragement for the establishment and/or strengthening of Member State assessment bodies;

1.15. creation of an advance information system between the Member States, comprising a network of open, readily accessible databases covering proposed national research and innovation initiatives and their back-up measures, in close cooperation with the European Cordis network; full implementation of the conclusions of the 'research' Council meeting of 9 June;

1.16. preparation of Tableaux de Bord, such as those currently used by the European Employment Observatory, which give a general overview of the measures adopted by each EU Member State, and provide a systematic comparison;

and would urge

1.17. a more flexible, interdisciplinary approach for the current Community Framework Programme, making for greater transparency and improved coordination with national research actions on a concentrated number of key priorities, in preparation for management- streamlining and drafting of the fifth Framework Programme;

1.18. development, in parallel and in close cooperation with the programmes, under the Framework Programme, of industrial association projects which further the main medium-long term strategic objectives decided at Community level; under these projects, research players and end-users would participate in bottom-up coordination right from the start;

1.19. definition of common criteria for the inclusion of industrial association projects in a 'package deal'. This should take account of the need to improve the competitiveness of European industry, of the need to promote economic and social cohesion, and of the need for concrete prospects of rapid economic benefits and employment spin-off;

1.20. establishment, for each individual project, of memoranda of understanding - signed by the Member States, the Commission and all other interested parties, both public and private - which will be subject to a political consensus to be reached in discussions between the Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament;

1.21. submit the 'package deal' of projects for formal approval by the Council (research and industry) and the European Parliament, using a simplified, accelerated procedure;

1.22. creation of inter-DG Task Forces for each project, to act as 'problem solvers' and generate synergies between financial, legal, tax, managerial and operative instruments at national and Community level;

1.23. establishment, both under the industrial association projects and outside them, of machinery to speed the translation of RTD achievements into industrial and commercial successes;

1.24. implementation of a coordinated Community policy framework to achieve convergence and consistency of instruments and actions which further the functional research-innovation-market process needed for industrial competitiveness, employment growth and economic and social cohesion.

1.25. in order to ensure coordination with similar EU initiatives, establish systematic procedures for preliminary consultation on multilateral and bilateral RTD agreements between Member States, third countries and international organizations;

1.26. establish, along the lines of the EU-CERN agreement, systematic, coordinated links with all other European bodies, particularly Eureka and COST;

1.27. promote inter-company cooperation and the free movement, exchange and trade of technology - especially between SMEs - in order to provide: better access to world markets; an active policy on standards, quality and intellectual property; new financial engineering measures and low-cost mechanisms for speeding up the research-innovation-market process;

1.28. ensure greater consistency, visibility and transparency of all aspects of EU external relations involving research and innovation policy, particularly for the neighbouring areas of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

FIGURE

Technology assessment

STOA

SCENARIO

Tableau de bord

Information networks

Industrial assessment /

EU COUNCIL - EP

/

Resolution on definition

of macrostrategies

/

ACTORS

of RTD-Innovation-Market

/

BIG PROJECTS OF INDUSTRIAL AGGREGATION

Fiches d'impact on:

- competitiveness and employment

- policies consistency

- economic and social cohesion /

NEW CREST

/

Preselection on

predefined basic criteria

/

Temporary circulation

aggregation network

/

Constitution of task force for each project to activate EU and national facilities and to promote dialogues with and within RTD actors

FINAL PROJECTS

/ / /

Memoranda of understanding

/

COMMISSION

/

ESC

Proposal of package deal of industrial

aggregation projects

EP COUNCIL

/ RESEARCH AND INDUSTRY

DECISION WITH ACCELERATED PROCEDURES

/

TASK FORCE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL

on good implementation of facilities and projects

/

Periodic reports on industrial and commercial success and satisfaction of user and citizen needs

2. Introduction

2.1. The Treaty on European Union (Article 130f) provides for the full integration of Research and Development policy with all other Community policies, with the fundamental aim of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry in order to make it more competitive internationally. Equally, Article 130g of the Treaty refers explicitly to the need to coordinate national and Community RTD policies.

2.2. Article 130h of the Treaty recognizes the Commission's right to take any initiative to promote coordination between national and Community RTD policies. In addition to the Commission's still largely unspecified scope for action, the same Article enshrines the Community's and Member States' explicit duty to coordinate 'their research and technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Community policy are fully consistent'.

2.3. Since the early 1980s, the Framework Programme has been the Community's multiyear strategic planning instrument for structured coordination of RTD actions which Member States decide to carry out jointly.

2.4. In implementing the Framework Programme, the Community may refer to Articles 130k, 130l and 130n of the Treaty. So far, as the Court of Auditors has pointed out (), the Commission 'has not launched any initiative outside the existing Community programmes nor in connection with the implementation of Articles 130k (supplementary programmes) and 130n (joint undertakings) of the Treaty on European Union'. The report condemns the lack of efficient coordination.

2.5. Finally, in order to ensure the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry, the fourth indent of Article 130(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that Member State and Community action must be aimed at 'fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development'.

2.6. Coordination of Community research activities has so far been restricted to the 'de facto' coordination provided for under the Framework Programme. The latter's role in ensuring consistent EU research action has been hindered by the rather rigid boundaries between the specific programmes and by red tape. Consequently, the framing and management of RTD programmes have often been left to restricted groups: 'the programmes are designed within a circle which remains closed. The elaboration of proposals is very unreceptive to outside influences'.

2.7. Moreover, 'another element with negative effects is the compartmentalization of administrations and ministries which is noticeable in the Member States' () and the associated lack of any systematic, rapid exchanges between the authorities responsible for research and industry. This has negative effects on the transparency, visibility and efficiency of the research action and makes it difficult to identify the research and technological innovation needs of European consumers and industry.

2.8. Thus there is still a risk of financing projects 'through pure inertia', and of the 'tendency of the programmes to self-perpetuation' (). An earlier Committee Opinion considered it 'essential that the bureaucracy inevitably associated with the wide-ranging responsibilities for coordination [be] kept under the strictest control, if innovation and initiative are not to be affected adversely' (). Despite the Commission's efforts to group together and coordinate partially overlapping specific research programmes, there has often been a tendency to dispersion and to the inclusion of marginal sectors.

2.9. This is the position as regards administrative practice where legislative and institutional mechanisms are concerned, 'mention should be made of the complex and lengthy procedure followed' - only partly alleviated by the interinstitutional agreement - and 'the fact that it overlaps with the annual budget procedure, giving rise to a perennial source of potential interinstitutional conflict' ().

2.10. Rather than assessing Community research by reference to the dissemination of findings and their impact on European innovation, Community research evaluation reports tend to concentrate on the internal workings of the individual specific programmes, and not on commercial and industrial achievements in terms of global competition.

2.11. COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) seems to be the only valid support vehicle for concerted European cooperation actions, but the Commission has not yet given it priority status ().

2.12. There is still considerable scope for improving coordination with other Community policies, particularly regarding global strategy. This strategy should give top priority to the research-innovation-market process, in order to speed up the economic and employment spin-off from common research and innovation throughout the Community.

2.13. The White Paper identifies, inter alia, two major weaknesses which could well jeopardize the efforts - in terms of human and financial resources - made by the European taxpayer to make economic growth and job creation more stable and competitive: the lack of coordination at various levels of RTD activities, programmes and strategies in Europe; and the comparatively limited capacity to convert scientific and technological achievements into industrial and commercial successes in a short space of time.

2.14. The speed and scale of the changes facing Europe, global competitiveness, high unemployment and the pace of technological innovation make it essential to pursue a coordinated RTD policy. Given this background, it is both anachronistic and risky for Europe to continue to implement unrelated policies to deal with RTD, which is an indivisible process.

2.15. The Commission, in its Communication on 'Research and Technological Development: Achieving coordination through cooperation' (); the European Parliament in its 15 June 1995 resolution on the above Communication; the individual Member States in the latest definition of their RTD policies; our partners across the Atlantic and the Pacific, and the 'Research' Council at the meetings of 10 March and 9 June 1995, all stressed their intention to concentrate their thoughts and actions on improving coordination in order to speed up the research-innovation-market process.

3. General comments

3.1. Technology has become the key to success, but, as experience has shown in the USA and Japan, it is the coordinated drive to translate technology into growth and employment which must permeate the entire economic and social system. It is necessary to bring about a real'intelligence revolution' which will ensure continuing innovation and an ongoing upgrading of the quality of the labour force, especially its younger members.

3.2. Set against this backdrop, industrial and technological cooperation offers a whole range of opportunities:

- to sharpen the competitive edge, by pooling efforts and creating synergies, in order to attain a critical mass which will allow innovative technological results to be achieved rapidly;

- to find the right balance between competitiveness and cooperation in order to achieve positive results for the economy and employment;

- to step up and consolidate European strategies and the modus operandi: in other words 'to think European' and 'act European';

- to develop the necessary interaction between individual policies, in order to create a clear, consistent, informed and attractive European system, in which it will be possible to coordinate a Community cooperation framework which is open to the global market.

3.3. Both the EU/US/Japan triad and the individual EU Member States see coordination as a key instrument for achieving these objectives, and for ensuring that policies, instruments and practices interact in a synergic and consistent manner.

3.3.1. Coordination has, however, taken different forms, according to the differing cultural and historical backgrounds, socio-economic structures, and institutional and administrative systems.

3.4. Seen in this light, there are three basic options in dealing with RTD policy coordination, the ESC feels that the third option is the only feasible one, given the current state of play in the EU.

3.4.1. The first, most obvious option for the EU would be to organize itself along the lines of its main competitors, whilst maintaining its own special characteristics.

3.4.1.1. This would involve developing a well-funded centralized coordination policy, adapting the institutional machinery, and speaking with one voice in external relations.

3.4.1.2. This option would be inappropriate, given the existing objective and cultural diversity of Europe, the pluralist nature of its society, and the subsidiarity-based approach to EU integration: all this at a time when the EU still has a long way to go in achieving political union, institutional reforms and a thorough overhaul of its administrative system.

3.4.2. The second option is to update the 'de facto' coordination instruments provided for under EU research programmes, and, using a flexible, broad approach, to improve the machinery for framing RTD policy and the implementation of research, and achieve a more united Member State stance on RTD in international arenas.

3.4.2.1. In this regard, the Committee feels that the urgent need to improve competitiveness and the employment situation means that it is not enough to make improvements - albeit timely and necessary - to existing machinery.

3.4.2.2. The Committee feels that, in the face of competition between well-equipped, complex continental systems, it is insufficient merely to improve Community RTD policy machinery. It is also necessary to address the general context in which that policy operates.

3.4.3. Thirdly, the Committee believes that, at the moment, the best, most feasible way fully to achieve the objectives of industrial competitiveness, enhanced economic and social cohesion, improved quality of life and a revival of the jobs market, is to ensure systemic coherence between Community research and technological innovation policy, national RTD policies and all other Community policies and instruments.

3.4.3.1. A coherent framework is essential if all those who are working for development - industry and human resources, public administrations, universities and research centres, end-users and consumers - are to appreciate more readily the added value provided by RTD coordination at European level and act accordingly in strategic-operative terms.

4. Proposals

4.1. Given the decision to ensure systemic integration of Community research and technological innovation policy, the Committee would suggest five parallel actions:

- use coordination as an instrument to meet the needs of the current Community RTD framework;

- develop a flexible, interdisciplinary approach in view of the fifth Framework Programme;

- boost international cooperation;

- exploration of new, innovative coordination methods right from the planning stage;

- boosting the coordination framework of all other Community policies in order to create an attractive and supportive atmosphere for researchers and innovators.

4.2. Coordination for RTD policy

4.2.1. A key area of intervention will be the systematic exchange of relevant and comparable information on EU research and technological innovation activities, in order to ensure prompt availability of an efficient, clear and transparent yardstick for joint decisions at corporate, regional, national and Community level.

4.2.2. As far as the scenarios are concerned, the Committee would emphasize the need for rapid activation of the European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN), following in the footsteps of the OTA () of the American Congress and the NISTEP () in Japan. The ETAN network should link up with the Industrial Assessment Mechanism (IAM), which the Committee hopes will be operative shortly (), and help to create and/or strengthen, on an even basis, Member State assessment bodies.

4.2.2.1. It is the Committee's belief that ETAN and IAM should not only be used by national and European administrations and MPs, but also by industry and the various social and economic players in the EU.

4.2.2.2. Simultaneously, under the umbrella of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) activities, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville must be equipped and made operative rapidly. Its 'European Science and Technology Observatory' - in its capacity as an instrument for analysing technological trends in relation to Community social and economic requirements - should help to provide European policy makers and industrialists with all the information they need to work out strategies for scientific development and technological innovation.

4.2.2.3. The Committee believes that the European Science and Technology Assembly (Esta) and the European Science and Technology Forum must play a concrete, positive role in defining and implementing consistent European research strategies. Another important instrument is the European Report on Scientific and Technical Indicators: this, however, should be incorporated as soon as possible in European innovation indicators, and be published every two years.

4.2.2.4. The Committee feels that national and regional studies and assessments, based on harmonized statistics (), should be published prior to the Community reports, of which they should form an integral part.

4.2.3. The Committee believes that these scenarios must underpin the future formulation of a real Community RTD policy strategy. This should be presented as a suggested framework, rather than an obligation for the players in technology and innovation development.

4.2.3.1. This strategy should be decided jointly by the research and industry Councils, together with the European Parliament. They should be assisted by Crest, whose new membership includes Directors-General from the Research Ministeries; membership could also be extended to the Ministeries of Industry, if necessary. Crest should revert to its original task of coordinating national and Community policies (both sectoral and general) and defining projects of Community interest.

4.2.3.2. In future, and in parallel with the deepening of the EU, the representation of the various levels of the Member States, and of the Commission on Crest, could be better balanced, and its duties should be extended to take in training and innovation policy.

4.2.3.3. The Committee feels that Irdac (Advisory Committee on Industrial R& D) should also be involved in Crest's work so that, from the outset, industry can play an active part in defining strategies. In addition, Irdac's membership should include user representatives as well as economic and social representatives.

4.2.3.4. Crest's work should be as transparent as possible, and its reports and opinions should be sent systematically to the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee as well as to the Council and the Commission.

4.2.3.5. It is also important to ensure permanent interaction between Crest and the Programme Committees. In this respect, the Committee is concerned by the further proliferation of consultative committees mooted by the research Council on 9 June 1995. These are likely to get the coordination machinery wound up in red tape, and could overlap with the sub-committees which Crest is entitled to set up.

4.2.4. In addition to systematic framing and information on scenarios, the Committee recommends that a system of advance information be set up between the Member States, through a network of open, readily accessible databases. This information would regard proposed national research and innovation initiatives and their back-up measures, and make national RTD incentive programmes and systems more transparent.

4.2.4.1. The Committee believes that this advance exchange of information should lead to the preparation of Tableaux de bord, such as those currently used by the European Employment Observatory. These would give a general overview and provide a systematic comparison of the measures adopted by each Member State and by the EU.

4.2.4.2. The liberalization of public procurement in the RTD sector [Directives 92/50 () and 93/38 ()] must be accompanied by transparent, synchronized procedures and timing, in order to simplify joint activation of national and Community programmes.

4.3. A flexible, interdisciplinary approach to the fifth Framework Programme

4.3.1. Although gradual improvements have been made to the Community multi-annual programme, it is still not coherently structured.

4.3.1.1. As the Committee has pointed out, overall funding for the fourth RTD Framework Programme is inadequate 'in so far as the Commission saw its proposal as part of efforts to revive economic growth and employment in the Community'. Thus, the funds allocated for specific programmes 'must, as a priority, focus on those areas of research which will make a direct contribution to reviving growth and employment in Europe, on the basis of a more selective approach' ().

4.3.2. The Committee believes that the fact that Community resources are limited makes streamlined management of funds all the more urgent. Looking ahead to the fifth Framework Programme, the aim should be a flexible, interdisciplinary approach linking up the various specific programmes; these should be targeted on research activities which will have a positive impact on the economy and employment throughout the Community. Rather than getting bogged down in bureaucracy, this should make for procedures which are simpler, more transparent and accessible.

4.3.2.1. This would require close internal coordination between the various Commission Directorate-Generals, and, at the same time, a more vigilant, high-profile role for the Programme Committees/Advisory Committees. This would enable them to trigger synergies between specific Community programmes, and between them and the relevant national programmes, and give greater visibility, clarity, transparency and flexibility to the added value of Community research and innovation policy.

4.3.2.2. These synergies could be activated by publishing the references to relevant national programmes and the means of gaining access to them in the Information Packages of each specific Community programme.

4.3.3. The Committee believes that the annual report on the implementation and dissemination of research and development activities, provided for under Article 130p of the Treaty establishing the European Community, is important to the transparency of research policy. The Committee hopes the Commission will present its first report as early as this year and would expect to be provided with a copy.

4.3.4. With regard to this approach, the Committee emphasizes the need to develop actions to:

- create a single European market for innovation, i.e. eliminate the present segmentation;

- promote a coordinated European environment in respect of national tax incentives for intangible investment and innovation, especially for SMEs;

- stimulate further intertwining of research and industry, via new systematic machinery and a favourable legal framework;

- implement concrete plans for speeding up the transition from innovation to the market, in order to reduce lead times, costs and risks. This could be done by exploiting the opportunities afforded by the information society.

4.3.5. The Committee therefore feels it appropriate for the Commission to set up temporary, inter-DG task forces as a valid means of scrutinizing the current situation and to ensure consistent management of research actions in certain priority areas in accordance with the needs of industry and the market.

4.3.6. The Committee is also concerned about the method and the woolly presentation used in the initial selection of projects of common interest which were announced recently: education and multi-media programmes, vaccines and viral diseases, the car of the future, the new generation aircraft, the train of the future, and inter-modal transport. Although not stated openly, the last four may be intended as part of a master plan for environmentally-friendly, integrated transport.

4.3.7. The Committee recognizes that these options are consistent with the principles of transparency and clarity. It cannot, however, disguise its disquiet at the method used, if the existing internal coordination frameworks are simply to be replaced by enforced research priorities which win the support of industry and end-users because of the potential funding which could be made available.

4.3.8. Although machinery to facilitate and streamline Commission services is necessary in order to ensure the feasibility of large industrial projects, the Committee would point out the inherent weaknesses of a top-down approach, which is liable to be unrealistic and to underestimate the rapidly changing nature of worldwide technological challenges.

4.3.9. There is a risk of perpetuating the inherent shortcomings of current Community RTD policy if research scenarios are to be shaped by small, bureaucratic groups, rather than in a framework which is conducive to coordination, and where public administrations, companies, users, research centres and universities are able to grasp the opportunities provided by Community added value in actions which they themselves have identified.

4.4. Boosting international cooperation

4.4.1. As far as international cooperation is concerned, the Committee believes that it is vital that the Union should ensure its actions are coordinated with those of the Member States, both in international forums and when taking part in programmes of worldwide interest.

4.4.2. The Committee believes that Member States could particularly benefit from more consistent scientific cooperation with the other triad partners, and from coordinated participation in big science international research programmes in areas such as the environment, the human genome and climatology.The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and IMS (Intelligent Manufacturing Systems) programmes have proved valuable in this field.

4.4.3. In particular, the Committee advocates systematic, institutionalized consultation prior to any international meeting, and a continuous exchange of information on the bilateral R& D cooperation agreements of the Member States with third countries and international organizations, in order to coordinate them with similar EU initiatives.

4.4.4. In the area of cooperation with other European initiatives, the Committee would emphasize the importance of more systematic, integrated coordination, particularly with Eureka and the COST programme. The particularly flexible nature of these initiatives, based on voluntary coordination and a bottom-up approach, sets an example for scientific cooperation and European technological innovation. Furthermore, since they are essentially funded by national programmes, they could link up with Community RTD policy in the case of joint implementation.

4.4.5. The Committee feels that the EU should promote international measures for free movement, exchange and trade of technologies, and encourage corporate cooperation, especially among SMEs. These measures should in particular be designed to improve access to world markets and harmonize the rules and regulations governing standards and intellectual property.

4.5. Industrial association projects: Innovative types of coordination, from the planning stage on

'It is in change that things find their meaning' (Heraclitus).

4.5.1. Apart from measures to improve the present Community framework for RTD policy, the Committee would suggest the simultaneous development of an innovative coordination method.

4.5.2. The coordination hub should be moved upstream:

- on the one hand, the EU must, with a view to ensuring coordination, provide the framework to assist the use of all Community and national financial, legal and technical instruments, and exploit the possibilities afforded by all relevant policies;

- on the other hand the players involved in research must be able, on the basis of available technological scenarios and strategies shaped at Community level, to establish their RTD action priorities and participate in coordinated, integrated projects at European level.

The method

4.5.3. The new method would involve:

- setting up, in parallel with the specific programmes and under the Framework Programme, a range of industrial association projects. These would benefit from the improvements made to the current Community cooperation framework;

- within the framework of the major, medium/long-term strategic objectives decided at Community level, these projects would provide a vehicle for voluntary coordination from the outset, by the players involved in the research-innovation-market process;

- achieving geopolitical balance, in terms of economic and social cohesion acceptable to all Member States, within the package of projects adopted;

- setting up new Commission inter-DG task forces for each individual project, to act as 'problem solvers' for the project, and provide synergies between the financial, legal, fiscal, management and operative instruments at Community and national level;

- achieving the fastest possible spin-offs for industrial competitiveness and employment, by setting up machinery, both within and outside the projects, for the swift translation of results into industrial and commercial successes.

Selection criteria

4.5.4. The criteria for the individual projects must be clearly defined and published in advance. They could be as follows:

- consistency with the key strategic options of Community research and innovation policy;

- involvement of operators from several Member States;

- boosting the Community's industrial competitiveness and innovation capacity of Community industry, and that of society as a whole, and promoting intangible investment in research and training;

- strengthening economic and social cohesion by means of balanced geographic participation;

- a scale which is commensurate with the objective, ensuring that the various factors involved in research, development, demonstration, innovation and the market are present;

- balanced participation for companies (including SMEs), research centres, universities, and customers;

- machinery to speed up the translation of research findings into widely available technological and market innovations;

- concrete prospects of short and medium-term economic benefits and employment spin-off;

- prior assessment of scientific and technological risks and of the impact on market competition;

- provisional availability of enough national and Community funding to establish a critical mass.

Adoption procedure

4.5.5. The industrial association projects should first be submitted to the new Crest which is chaired by the Commission. This should make a preliminary selection of those projects whose form and content best match the above requirements, and help to rectify any shortcomings. Selected projects would then be publicized via European information networks in order to ensure the greatest possible association of interested parties.

4.5.6. Any projects selected in this way would be forwarded to the Commission, which would set up an ad hoc Community assistance group, temporary inter-DG Task Forces to provide assistance. The aim would be to back up and coordinate the project by bringing together all internal resources available in the framework programme and from other sources, and possibly to invoke Articles 130k (supplementary programmes), 130l (programmes undertaken by several Member States), and 130n (joint undertakings) of the Treaty on European Union.

4.5.6.1. The Commission would thus act as a catalyst for national public resources, for contributions from other international and private organizations, and for the deployment - in consultation with the proposers - of the financial, fiscal and training measures best calculated to maximize the viability, transparency and clarity of the project and of its European added value.

4.5.6.2. The Commission should pay particular attention to possible link-ups with financial support from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF). If any non-EU regions are involved, attention should be paid to possible link-ups with cooperation instruments (e.g. Phare, Tacis, MED, ECIP).

4.5.6.3. The Commission should also ensure that resources are concentrated effectively, and avoid an over-abundance of projects, which might recreate the risks of dispersion which mar the Framework Programme.

4.5.7. The memoranda of understanding should formalize funding for each project granted by the Commission, by the Member States and by any other Community financial instruments which might be called into play, together with financial, fiscal and training back-up measures. These should be prepared by the Commission and signed by the Member States, the Commission and any other public and private bodies concerned at various levels.

4.5.8. The package of industrial association projects accompanied by the memoranda of understanding for each project is to be adopted by the Commission following a dialogue, according to pre-established procedures and timescales, involving representatives of the Commission, the European Parliament and the Member States. The aim would be to ensure geographic balance both between sectoral, development and general technology projects, and projects for the dissemination and transfer of results, and to reach a political consensus in principle.

4.5.9. Once the projects have been organized, the task forces set up and the above measures implemented, the Commission should present a formal proposal to the Council and the European Parliament. This proposal would set out the various projects proposed - accompanied by the memoranda of understanding - and would provide fact sheets specifying their impact on the environment, economic and social cohesion, employment, training and mobility of human resources, and on the implementation of the financial instruments for the Framework and other programmes.

4.5.10. The adoption of formal packages of industrial association projects would be the responsibility of the (research and industry) Council and the European Parliament, after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee. An accelerated decision-taking procedure would be used.

4.5.11. The procedure should ensure that decision-taking and administration arrangements should be rapid and flexible, in line with the requirements of industry and the sheer pace of change in global competition.

Assistance and regulation

4.5.12. The Commission would monitor and support assistance and regulation of the executive administration of the project, ensure the coordinated use of all appropriate Community and national mechanisms and see that the project is carried out correctly.

4.5.13. The Commission should submit annual reports to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. As well as detailing the progress towards the current internal objectives of the projects, the reports should also - and above all - chart the potential spin-offs for the economy, employment and competitive innovation, and the actual contribution of all the Community and national instruments used, their effectiveness and any necessary improvements.

4.5.14. At the end of each project, a final report would be presented to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. Apart from assessing the extent to which technological and innovative objectives have been achieved, the reports should highlight the industrial and commercial spin-off in the short and medium-term for competitiveness and employment. They should ensure that the European public is immediately aware of the real Community added value provided by the project.

4.6. A coordinated Community policy framework for effective research and innovation

4.6.1. The Community has a range of up-and-running policies and instruments which can strengthen the research-innovation-market process and thus help to achieve the objectives of industrial competitiveness, economic and social cohesion and job creation. The Committee believes that this potential must be systematically harnessed in order to provide the attractive and supportive framework which is essential for RTD actions targeted on these objectives.

4.6.2. The Committee would here emphasize that industrial policy is vital in linking up research to the market. Above all, it is essential to group together at Community level those aspects of the research-innovation-market process which are already combined at national level.

4.6.2.1. The industrial assessment networks for the single market must be developed simultaneously and in close connection with the ETAN network. Legislative instruments for industrial and technological cooperation - in addition to those provided for under the EEIG - will also be needed. The introduction of the Statute for European Companies should be speeded up, and machinery established to eliminate tax and other obstacles to this cooperation. At the same time, new ways must be found to facilitate the establishment of consortia of European companies. A Community innovation and quality promotion policy is also urgently required.

4.6.2.2. The Committee would emphasize the need to strengthen European standardization policy, which should be coordinated with RTD policy in synergy with the pre-normative aspects of the various Community programmes. A substantial contribution to RTD policy could come from the establishment of a global policy for the protection of intellectual and industrial property, applied to patents, trademarks, design and models, and with particular regard to the protection of the new multimedia technologies. A further contribution could come from regulation of the ethical aspects of research and its use in technology, in keeping with European Parliament resolutions and the Council of Europe Convention on bioethics.

4.6.2.3. To this end, the Committee feels that there should be close coordination between developments in the information society and the RTD strategic and operational framework.

4.6.2.4. Industrial policy could also provide a valuable contribution by streamlining procedures and improving the transparency of national and Community regulations, and by generally updating public intervention (e.g. the IDA telematics network, and the multiyear programme for electronic exchanges between industry and administration).

4.6.2.5. The Advisory Committee on Competitiveness should interact with Crest and Irdac to provide a clear framework for action.

Finally, means must be found to facilitate industrial cooperation and data and partner searches, in close cooperation with RTD policy actions and bearing in mind the enterprise-policy measures already in force.

4.6.3. Special attention should be paid to coordination between RTD policy and SME policy, since, as emphasized at the European Council in Cannes of 26/27 June 1995, the greater flexibility, creativity and dynamism of small firms make a crucial contribution to innovation and job creation.

4.6.3.1. In this regard, the Committee would emphasize the importance of the White Paper's statement that 'small businesses working in high-technology sectors (...) or in manufacturing industry, represent a significant potential source of growth. In the USA, a very large proportion of emerging technologies was first developed by small firms which are better equipped to anticipate the needs of the market and to react rapidly.' ()

4.6.3.2. The Committee would emphasize the key role to be played by innovators and those responsible for transferring the results of SME research, especially highly specialized micro-enterprises.

4.6.3.3. The Community must provide more transparency, information and assistance at grass-roots level if SMEs are to realize their full potential. In this respect, access to technology assessment and industrial assessment networks, and to simple, specially designed Community databases on projects and prospective partners are equally important. These could draw on the experience of the Value and Sprint relay centres.

4.6.3.4. Synergies must be established between Community RTD projects involving SMEs, Community structural fund initiatives (especially the SME, Adapt and Employment initiatives) and other Community financial instruments for SMEs (EIB and EIF) ().

4.6.3.5. Streamlined administration, together with an improvement in the legal and tax environment and in credit access instruments, are vital to the encouragement of SME research, innovation and quality policy. As the Committee has emphasized on several occasions, the Community should explore the scope for new financial mechanisms, particularly for business start-ups and speeding the transition from innovation to market. In this respect, it might be useful to consider mechanisms for accelerating and reducing the costs of the critical transition from prototype to end-product, and to launch a specific project for the creation of a European network of digital prototyping centres.

European network of digital prototyping centres: the creation of a European network of existing digital prototyping centres, to help companies, especially SMEs, keep costs down and reduce lead times from research findings to the directly marketable technological devices. Several software packages such as Meikos, CS Tools, Parsitec, Telmat, Perihelion's Helios and Idiris can simulate mathematical models of the products and subject them to several tests which would be both lengthy and costly if carried out on actual prototypes. Simulation with parallel and super-computers is not only useful for the working features of the future product; it can also be used for production technology.

4.6.3.6. The Euromanagement and Enterprise assistance actions should be boosted, as should links between universities, research centres and SMEs (). Even closer ties are needed with the Leonardo programme, in order to enhance apprenticeship and executive training. However, the Commission services must synchronize and simplify procedures so that RTD initiatives and these other instruments can be deployed jointly and generate synergistic benefits.

4.6.4. Article 130b of the Treaty on European Union states that formulation and implementation of all Community policies shall take into account the objectives of economic and social cohesion. Coordination of Community research and innovation instruments with those for regional development is thus a top priority (). The inclusion of this principle in the fourth Framework Programme is in keeping with several Committee recommendations (). The Committee believes that the promotion of intangible investment in new technologies, quality, vocational training and work organization should receive more Structural Fund support, in close synergy with research and innovation policy.

4.6.4.1. To this end the Committee would suggest that innovative procedures and methods should be found for the coordinated, synchronized, joint use of regional and RTD policy instruments.

4.6.4.2. Furthermore, it is important to promote local development initiatives under regional policy - the Committee is currently drafting an Own-initiative Opinion on the subject - in keeping with the EU trend towards the regionalization of RTD activities. Community action to create a European network of learning communities could be helpful here.

European network of learning communities: the creation of a European Network linking areal innovative systems and enabling circulation and synergies between innovation processes in the private and public sectors. The network would be based on specific communities with a finely-meshed uniform and small scale business fabric, a scientific framework and widespread technological culture, and a vanguard business which can catalyze innovate and financial resources.

The processes supplied and guided by these communities would allow the creation of a highly self-contained system (learning Community), which would be able to identify its training and information requirements, and meet them using both internal and external resources.

Information on the experience of learning communities already operating in the EU would be fed into the European network in order to boost their potential and promote their interrelation.

4.6.5. Together with research, support for training policy is an indispensable intangible investment if we are to have a competitive European system, and keep the skills of its workforce in step with technological advances, thus avoiding the risk of social exclusion. The intelligence revolution involves all of society in a complex process in which research must go hand in hand with innovation and market requirements, in an interactive, non-linear system involving not only industry, but education systems and human resources, in a 'learning society', as emphasized in the first report by the Advisory Committee on Competitiveness ().

4.6.5.1. As one of our most perceptive observers of economic history has pointed out, 'what Man desperately needs is a form of education which will enable him to make wise use of the know-how he has mastered. A savage trained to use advanced technology does not become civilized: at best, he will become an efficient savage. Technology and scientific know-how will only really enrich society if they are informed by knowledge and awareness'.

4.6.5.2. Worker participation - through training - in the innovation process is therefore vital, as further-training programmes help to boost corporate competitiveness, and allow workers to keep up with new technologies and with changing production processes.

4.6.5.3. The Community instruments provided by the Leonardo and Socrates programmes and the new Community vocational training initiatives must complement each other in order to ensure, together with the structural funds, that actions are coordinated with Community RTD policy priorities.

4.6.6. Greater consistency should also be sought between RTD policy and competition policy. The Committee has repeatedly emphasized the need to align competition policy with the Union's new objectives (). Competition policy must be more than a mere constrictive regulatory instrument: it should help to improve competitiveness, employment and cohesion through a targeted policy on authorizations of inter-company agreements and on public funding which encourages in particular the development of SMEs, RTD actions and the creation of new jobs.

4.6.6.1. In the area of research and technological innovation in particular, a balance must be sought between the two objectives of preventing the emergence of dominant positions at world level, and promoting alliances of technological interest.

4.6.6.2. State aid rules have not been harmonized with the GATT provisions, which allow 75% public funding of research, and thus avoid penalizing European industry in the global market place.

4.6.6.3. The Committee notes that the Commission's XXIVth Report on Competition (1994) provides for a suitably amended regulatory framework.

4.6.6.4. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that the inherent conflict between intellectual property rights and competition law does not end up stifling the technological innovation process. The Committee recently suggested that the regulations implementing Article 85(3) of the Treaty should provide for block exemptions, in order to promote the dissemination of technical know-how and the manufacture of new, improved products in the EU ().

4.6.7. Another particularly relevant aspect is the need to ensure a consistent framework for international RTD cooperation, external economic relations policy and development cooperation. The Committee believes that this coordination is particularly important for those areas which are closest to the EU in geographic terms - Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

4.6.7.1. As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the Commission must develop close internal coordination of Phare and Tacis schemes and the RTD cooperation actions provided for under the Framework Programme which is open to them. This would ensure coherent, unequivocal action in a geographical area whose speedy transition to a market economy should be encouraged, with a view to future enlargement.

4.6.7.2. At the same time, consistency should be ensured with the Med 1995-1999 EU assistance programme for the Mediterranean basin. Here too, policy should be coordinated with RTD policy. EU Mediterranean policy must become multi-faceted, and cover various interconnected sectors, with the final objective of creating a Euro-Mediterranean Area. Hence the importance of a consistent EU strategy, which could benefit from the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean RTD Cooperation.

4.6.7.3. In order to ensure greater consistency, visibility and transparency in all aspects of EU external relations (), and particularly for these two geographical areas of strategic importance for the EU, the Committee feels that, in keeping with moves to decentralize Community management and control, the feasibility of creating 'Euroterritories' should be considered. These would depend directly on Community Institutions, with the consent of the Member State concerned and of the Council of the European Union.

4.6.7.4. These Euroterritories could house decentralized European agencies handling relations and cooperation instruments with these areas, initiatives for the joint development of intangible investment in research and technological innovation and training, and coordinating extension of the European information society networks to these areas.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 327, 24. 11. 1994, pp. 185 foll.

() Communication from the Commission on Research after Maastricht: an Assessment, a Strategy, SEC(92) 682, 9. 4. 1992, point 78, p. 26.

() OJ No C 201, 26. 7. 1993, p. 36.

() OJ No C 327, 24. 11. 1994, pp. 185 foll.

() COM(94) 438 of 19. 10. 1994.

() Office of Technology Assessment.

() National Institute of Science and Technology Policy.

() Cf. Communication from the Commission on the Action Programme for an industrial competitiveness policy for the European Union, COM(95) 87 of 22. 3. 1995.

() OJ No C 332, 16. 12. 1992, p. 77.

() OJ No L 209, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1.

() OJ No L 199, 9. 8. 1993, p. 84.

() OJ No C 393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 117.

() White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, chapter 4, point 4.3(a)(i), 2nd paragraph.

() OJ No C 295, 22. 10. 1994, p. 31.

() OJ No C 102, 24. 4. 1995, p. 25.

() OJ No C 98, 21. 4. 1992, p. 50.

() OJ No C 201, 26. 7. 1993, p. 36.

() First report to the President of the Commission and the Heads of State and Government - Part IV, June 1995, pp. 18 foll. Advisory Committee on Competitiveness.

() OJ No C 397, 31. 12. 1994, p. 59;

OJ No C 295, 22. 10. 1994, p. 38.

() OJ No C 102, 24. 4. 1995, p. 1.

() Cf. European Commission Report on the operation of the Treaty on European Union, SEC(95) 731, 10. 5. 1995, in preparation for the 1996 IGC.

[Top](#document1)