Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/13

Opinion on the amended proposal for a Council Decision amending, with regard to the

accession of Spain and Portugal, Decision 82/752/EEC on the adoption of a European
Economic Community research and development programme for a machine translation system

of advanced design (Eurotra)

_(96/C_ 207/06)

On 20 March 1986, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic
and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community, on the abovementioned amended proposal.

The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 April 1986 in the light of the report by
Mr Brassier.

At its 237th plenary session (meeting of 21 May 1986), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Preliminary remarks

1.1. In Decision No 82/752/EEC of 4 November

1982 ('), the Council adopted a research and development
programme for a machine translation system of advanced
design (Eurotra), with the object of obtaining simultaneous
high-quality translations rapidly and economically in all
the official languages of the European Community.

1.2. On 25 February 1981 ( [2] ), the Economic and Social
Committee approved this programme, saying in its opinion
that its success would be 'crucial to the reduction of

language barriers.' But the Committee drew attention to
the social and cultural repercussions that such a programme could have in the long term.

1.3. Decision No 82/752/EEC lays down the total length
of the programme as five and a half years, divided into two
stages of two years each followed by a third stage of 18
months. On the completion of the initial, preparatory stage
at the end of 1984, the Commission began to implement the
second stage on basic and applied linguistic research in
January 1985.

1.4. It is estimated that ECU 27 million will be needed to

carry out the programme, of which ECU 16 million will
come from the Community budget and ECU 11 million
from national contributions.

2. Content of the proposed decision

2.1. The aim of the present proposal is to include
Spanish and Portuguese in the Eurotra programme and
enable the two new Member States to take part in the
programme's implementation.

2.2. The Commission is proposing (i) that the programme be extended by 18 months — 12 months for the
first stage and six months for the second — and (ii) that the
total financing for the programme be raised by ECU 18

(!) OJ No L317, 13. 11. 1982, p. 19.
( [2] ) OJ No C 138, 9.6. 1981, p. 3.

million — of which ECU 11 million would come from the

Community budget and ECU 7 million from national
contributions.

2.3. The Committee approves the proposed extension of
the Eurotra programme by 18 months and the increase in its
funding. But it would like to make some comments.

3. General comments

3.1. Decision No 82/752/EEC adopting the Eurotra
programme explicitly requires that the proposed machine
translation system should be capable of handling all official
languages of the Community.

3.2. The Committee considers that, as well as the legal
obligation involved, extension of the programme would
fulfil a double need which was already a basis of the
Council Decision of 1982: that of preserving the richness
and variety of the European languages, which are the
expression of Europe's cultural diversity, while eliminating
the associated obstacles to communication and trade. In

particular, the success of the Eurotra programme will
enable all the Member States of the Community to benefit
from the development of telematics and communication
and information networks.

3.3. The Committee thus reaffirms its support for the
Eurotra programme, as expressed by the ESC opinion of 25
February 1981, and is pleased at the success of the
programme's first stage, the aims of which, according to
the opinions of the Scientific and Technical Research
Committee (CREST) and the Eurotra Advisory Committee
on Programme Management (ACPM), have been achieved
both from the scientific and organizational point of view.

3.4. The Committee feels that the extension of the

Eurotra programme is a tangible expression of the principle
of equal treatment for all the official languages of the
European Community. It is concerned at the high risk of
discrimination developing against Spanish and Portuguese
if a decision is not taken rapidly. The Committee notes that
such a situation could lead to the programme being

No C 207/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86

delayed, which might require an additional extension
beyond the 18 months initially proposed. The Committee
therefore asks the Council to take a decision rapidly on the
extension of the Eurotra programme.

3.5. The Committee would also like the Commission to

look into the possible repercussions of the present situation
on the programme, which it felt, if everything went
smoothly, could begin in autumn 1986. (The Commission
felt that at least six to nine months would be required to set
up the necessary machinery for implementing the programe
in Spain and Portugal).

3.6. The Committee supports the Commission's call for
increased funding, in view of the cost of the measures to be
carried out and the work involved.

3.7. The Committee would stress that the Commission

has an essential management and guidance role to play in
view of the decentralized nature of the Eurotra programme.
Successful implementation of the programme as a whole
depends on the resources available to the Commission for
carrying out its duties. The Commission's requests for
additional staff are justified by the inclusion of two extra
languages in the programme and the involvement of two
new Member States in its implementation.

3.8. The Committee wishes to draw attention to the

social repercussions of developing a machine translation
system. It would refer here to the information report on the
new technologies - Community research and development

Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986.

prepared by the Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions
(16 January 1985), which states that the concept of a
technology-oriented society would only be socially acceptable if specific assurances were given that attention
would be paid to the consequences of technological
development for workers and the population as a whole.
This means in particular that information, consultation
and negotiation procedures should be put into effect before
any machine translation system is introduced.

3.9. The Committee considers that the development of
machine translation should not lead to a fall in the number

of translators needed because each translation, whether
done by machine or not, will have to be revised afterwards,
and the use of machines should lead to increased demand

for translations. But the nature of translation work could

be permanently changed, as has already been pointed out in
the ESC opinion of 25 February 1981. The Committee
therefore regrets that there has still been no examination of
any measures to ensure the necessary adaptation of
translation work to the development of machine translation, and insists that such an examination be carried out
as soon as possible.

3.10. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the use
of machine translation should not, under any circumstances, lead to language teaching being discouraged or
hampered, because, if the peoples of the European
Community are to be brought closer together, it is essential
that language teaching be continued and developed.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Gerd MUHR

Opinion on the EC shared-cost research, development and demonstration programmes

(86/C 207/07)

On 19 December 1985 the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth
paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to prepare an own-initiative opinion on
the abovementioned programmes _(_ _[l]_ _)_

(') Shared-cost contract research is research in which the Commission shares the cost of the programme with
the contractor or contractors involved. Such research is also called 'indirect action' or 'cost-sharing'. In this
area the Commission uses three types of research contract: — shared-cost contracts: Commission share
maximum 5 0 % : — marginal cost contracts: restricted to universities and higher educational
establishments where the Commission share can rise to 100 % of the additional costs arising from the
research: — contract of association : examples are the Jet, Fusion and Radiological protection programmes.