Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 337/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88

However, the Committee thinks that the subject of
summertime should not be linked to possible changes
in the standard time in some Member States (viz. the
United Kingdom and Ireland), especially as consultations in these countries have not yet been concluded.
In addition, in view of the complexity of the problem
and the differences within and between Member States

it is not likely that the study launched by the Commission into the effects of summertime will produce
clear results which will be equally applicable in all
Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988.

On the other hand, if summertime were to end on
the same day throughout the Community, transport
operators, travellers and other branches of the economy
would be spared the considerable—and in some cases
costly—difficulties caused by the different dates on
which the clocks are changed.

The Committee therefore urges that not only the beginning but also the ending of summertime be standardized
as soon as possible.

_The_ _Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Alberto MASPRONE

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific programme for the
dissemination and utilization of results from scientific and technological research, 1988-1992

(88/C 337/06)

On 16 June 1988, the Council of the European Communities decided to ask the Economic
and Social Committee, under Article 130 Q of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community, for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal.

The section for energy, nuclear questions and research, which was responsible for the
preparatory work on this matter, adopted its Opinion on 7 October 1988. Mr Proenca was

rapporteur.

At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted unanimously the following Opinion.

1. Introduction

1.1. The present Commission communication and
proposal for a decision are part of action line 8.4 of the
framework programme for Community research and
technological development (RTD), 1987-1991.

The proposed programme includes two sub-programmes, which correspond to two of the three areas
of research covered by this action line:

— the dissemination and utilization of results from

Community RTD, and

— communications networks.

The third area covers the development of computerized
translation systems and concerns the continuation of
the EUROTRA programme adopted at the end of 1982.

1.2. As well as providing information on Community
RTD programmes and projects, the first sub-programme aims to see that findings are used effectively
so that the scientific and technological foundations of
European industry are strengthened: this would be done
through:

— the dissemination of information on RTD,

— the identification, characterization and screening of
results,

31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/13

— the legal protection of results,

— the dissemination of results, and

— the exploitation of results.

1.3. The second sub-programme seeks to improve
the efficiency of R & D activities throughout Europe
by promoting a common computer communications
infrastructure; this would be done through:

— helping the functioning of the RARE association,

— participating in the EUREKA COSINE project, and

— work on requirements for confidentiality and the
integrity of Community RTD information.

2. General comments

2.1. We are glad that the present programme is to
be implemented, in accordance with our Opinion on
the framework programme ( [1] ), in which we said:

'Slow and ineffective translation of results of RTD

into commercial products is a serious deficiency
in EC industrial competitiveness. The Community
must endeavour to reduce the period of time it takes
to promote the utilization of the results of research.'

2.2. We approve the programme's aims, but more
clarity is needed on some questions, especially on the
way the programme is to be put into effect.

2.3. The programme will have to make a direct and
effective contribution towards;

— multiplying the economic and social effects of the
framework programme and other EEC action on
RTD,

— supporting an RTD strategy coordinated at Community level,

— strengthening internal cohesion, particularly
through support for less-developed EEC regions,
and

— strengthening the technological base of smaller EEC
firms.

Although the Commission refers to these aims in its
introductory statements, it must go further and set
concrete targets.

(') OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986.

2.4. We hope the Commission will operate the programme in such a way that it has a real impact
throughout the EEC's geographical area and the various
economic and social groups which might be interested.

2.5. The framework Programme's main task is to
support pre-competitive research in certain areas of
advanced technology where international competition
is at its fiercest.

If the results of research are to be commercially exploited more rapidly, there must be close links between
this programme and the other programmes affecting the
development of the Community's technological base.

2.6. EEC-funded research represents 2 to 3 % of the
total research carried out in the Member States because

it is felt that this programme should create conditions
for an EEC-coordinated effort in the future to use RTD

findings, especially through close cooperation with
national agencies for utilizing research findings and
with other agents who are active in this area at local,
regional or national level.

2.7. At present, Community RTD programmes are
not very well publicized; industry, especially smaller
firms, the scientific community and the general public
are largely unaware of the opportunities they offer and
of how one can take part in them.

The experiences of some Member States (Denmark and
Ireland) which took specific action to publicize such
programmes and support participation in them are
indicative of the possibilities there are for wider involve
ment.

The dissemination of programmes is so important that
it must be carried out in close liaison with the Member

States and with economic and social interests, especially
regional groupings and institutions.

2.8. Various ESC Opinions have expressed the concern that the action to be taken in the field of RTD

should directly benefit and strengthen smaller firms in
the EEC.

Such positions have been expressed in the information
report on the importance of research and technological
development to small and medium-sized firms, in which
specific recommendations were made for promoting
technology in smaller EEC firms.

No C 337/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88

Particular attention should be given to making the
results of Community research and its commercial
exploitation available to small firms, in line with the
ESC Opinion on the framework programme mentioned
earlier ( [J] ), which states that:

'Research should be carried out as to how to make

research results, already available on data bases,
more available to SMEs (small and medium-sized
enterprises).

There should also be research into the needs of

SMEs, if they too are to share fully in the exploitation of the results of Community RTD.'

Large firms generally follow Community RTD programmes, so we think this programme should pay special attention to small firms.

2.9. We must avoid building Europe at two different
speeds; special support must be provided for setting up
a solid and competitive technological foundation in the
less-developed regions (LDR).

We understand this will be a specific aim of the STRIDE

programme.

Without prejudicing STRIDE initiatives, there will have
to be a study into the best ways of publicizing the aims
and opportunities resulting from EEC programmes in
the LDRs, so as to create greater awareness of the
programmes and help firms benefit from Community
RTD programmes.

2.10. The proposal financing of 38 million ECU
seems adequate, as it can be reviewed in the light of
the first two years' experience and of the proposals put
forward in the review.

3. Specific comments

3.1. _Article 1_

As 1 July 1988 has been and gone, the date set for the
entry into force of the programme should be reviewed.

3.2. _Article 2_ — _Sub-programme_ _I_

D i s s e m i n a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d

r e s u l t s

3.2.1. The way in which sub-programme I is defined
is too restrictive, and does not include action 1.1 provided for in Annex I. The sub-programme's title is
'Dissemination and utilization of the results of Com
munity RTD activites'. But it is not only the results
but also the programmes themselves which are to be
disseminated.

(*) OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986.

The title of sub-programme I should therefore be 'Dissemination of Community RTD projects and programmes and the results of Community RTD activities'.

We think it essential that this action be carried out, as it
would lead to the setting-up of an information network
through the participation of local agents, who would
screen the information to be disseminated.

3.2.2. We think a data base should be set up to
systematize information about programmes, their
implementation and their results; it should include the
safeguards necessary to comply with any requests from
firms or other participants that the information they
give be treated as confidential.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n, c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n a n d
s c r e e n i n g of r e s u l t s, a n d t h e l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n of r e s u l t s

3.2.3. We consider that the Commission' action as

regards actions 1.2 and 1.3 in Annex I must be
additional to the obligations incumbent on the contracting parties in connection with contractual research
financed by the Community.

3.2.4. The necessary precautions must be taken to
prevent work which has had interesting results from
being placed under an embargo by researchers or their
respective institutions, so that there is no immediate
commercial exploitation, or if there is, it is done outside
the Member States, thus harming EEC interests.

3.2.5. Moreover, it is essential to clarify and safeguard the scientific copyright of workers involved in
research programmes, and of their respective firms or
institutions.

Rules must be framed at Community level which defend
and motivate scientific workers, and thus beef up the
commercial exploitation of results.

E x p l o i t a t i o n of r e s u l t s

3.2.6. If results are to be exploited, and if the whole
programme is to be assessed fully and the most appropriate action taken, one must first be acquainted with
the regulation governing the programme's implementation.

This regulation will have to ensure clearly equality of
opportunity for all EEC economic agents, in particular
through:

— putting up exploitation rights for open competitive
bidding, and

— giving prior notice of the selection criteria to be
used for dealing with the various firms interested.

31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/15

3.2.7. Community funding, whatever its type, should
not generally be open-ended; it should be completely
repaid if commercial exploitation results by means of
a percentage of the sales of the product or process
which has been supported.

3.2.8. When supporting prototypes, pilot projects or
demonstration projects, it should not be compulsory
for there to be partners from at least two Member
States; this should be more of a criterion for selection.

3.2.9. When exploiting results, the Commission will
have to assess their impact on firms' competitiveness
and the respective economic and social consequences.

3.3. _Article 2_ — _Sub-programme_ _H_

In general, we endorse sub-programme II and feel it
can help towards the development of joint RTD programmes, but it must be made clear how much both
the Community and the various Member States are
to participate directly in the financing of the RARE
association and the EUREKA COSINE project.

Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988.

3.4. _Article 3_

We cannot take a position on the proposed figure of
20 temporary staff. We do wonder if the tasks involved
are not of a continuous nature.

As results have to be disseminated, especially in the
less-developed regions, one should study the possibility
of some staff being located in the Member States, or
working in close liaison with local programmes such
as integrated Mediterranean programmes (IMP).

3.5. _Article 7_

3.5.1. Article 7 provides for a re-examination of the
programme at the end of two years and the presentation
of a report and, if necessary, proposals to the Council
and the European Parliament; the Economic and Social
Committee is not mentioned.

It is requested once more that this lamentable omission
be put right and the Economic and Social Committee
included.

3.5.2. The same position is expressed as regards the
final report on the evaluation of the results achieved,
provided for in Article 7 (2).

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social Committee_

Alberto MASPRONE