Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 56/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

_APPENDIX_

(fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure)

During the discussions in the Plenary the following motion for amendment was defeated:

After point 3.3, Chapter I (C), insert a new paragraph making the same point as 3.2.2.

_Reasons_

This is a problem in railway transport as well as road transport.

_Voting_

For: 21. Against: 36. Abstentions: 25.

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Framework Programme of
Community activities in the field on research and technological development (1990 to 1994) (*)

(90/C 56/11)

On 16 August 1989 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 130q (2) of the Treaty
establishing the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee
for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for the
preparatory work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 3 november 1989. (Rapporteur: Mr
de Normann.)

At its 271st plenary session (meeting of 15 november 1989), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted unanimously the following opinion.

1. Summary and general considerations

1.1. The Committee recommends that the Council

adopts the Commission proposal for a Framework
Programme of Community activities in the field of
research and technological development (1990 to 1994)
(COM(89) 397 final) for a sum of ECU 7 700 million
deemed necessary over the five-year period, subject to
a further interinstitutional agreement covering the years
1993 to 1994.

1.2. The Committee has taken into account the supporting papers tabled by the Commission both in
advance of and subsequent to the issue of the third
Framework Programme proposal.

1.3. The Committee supports the concept of a rolling
programme of R&TD which will enable work to be
concentrated in essential and effective areas, will enable
the reduction of removal of non-essential or ineffective

work and the introduction of new work as it becomes

necessary.

(') OJ No C 243, 23. 9. 1989, p. 4.

1.4. It urges that the rolling programme approach
should be adopted also for future framework programmes in order to provide essential continuity of
work, and to reduce the time required to agree and
implement the individual programmes.

1.5. The Committee considers that the existing system of finite framework programmes results in artificial
breaks for financial reasons and in uncertainty about
the funds available for the continuation of worthwhile

projects.

1.6. It believes that there will be an opportunity to
introduce certain strategic adjustments and new concept
into the rolling framework programme at an earlier
stage and appreciates that the introduction of an overlap in the year 1990 to 1992 enables the funding to be
increased from the beginning of that period.

1.7. It emphasizes that the successful implementation
of a rolling programme must involve a strong managerial discipline which will necessitate stopping programmes as well as starting them.

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/35

1.8. The Committee regards the global sum of ECU
7 700 million proposed for 1900 to 1994 as a ceiling
figure. It notes Article 1 (3) of the proposal which
states that the budgetary authority shall determine the
available funds for each year. It notes that the amounts
deemed necessary for the implementation of each specific programme shall be the subject of two Council
decisions covering the periods 1990 to 1992 and 1993
to 1994 respectively.

1.9. The Committee feels nevertheless that the proposal to commit a Community budget of ECU 10 825
million in total, together with further funds supplied
by contractors for shared cost and concerted action
programmes is submitted in an atmosphere of technological isolation from the overall policies for the Community.

1.9.1. The Committee would like to see the R&TD

policy and the strategy to achieve it made an integral
part of Community policies including the improvement
of the quality of life, the achievement of cohesion and
the principle of subsidiarity.

1.9.2. The Committee believes that the Council

should ask the Commission to set up a small strategic
body to be appointed by Council to overlook the R&
TD policy and strategy in the light of overall Community policies and strategy over a 10 to 15 year horizon. This strategic body should be chaired by an eminent figure independent of the Commission.

1.10. The Committee emphasizes the need for full
and effective mid-term reviews called for by the second
and the proposed third Framework Programmes. It
believes these must form a basis for the activities

described in Annex II of the proposal.

1.11. The Committee also draws the attention of the

Council to a number of requirements for which it will
be looking when individual programme proposals are
referred to it under Article 130q (2) of the Single European Act.

1.11.1. Some of these requirements will need action
by the Commission in advance, notably a policy for
third countries, an assessment of the optimum relationship with Eureka, a reconsideration of the treatment of
intellectual property, a formal mechanism for utilization of results and a new approach to technical communication at a general level.

2. Mid-term reviews

2.1. Article 4 of the Council Decision of 28 September 1981 (*) calls for a mid-term review of the second

(!) OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 1.

Framework Programme on the basis of which the Commission shall make proposals for revision.

This review gave rise to three main documents:

— the first report on the State of Science and Technology in Europe (COM(88) 647 final of 29
November 1988),

— the report of the Framework Programme Review
Board (forwarded to the Commission in June 1989),

— a communication from the Commission entitled _A_

_framework_ _for Community_ _R&TD_ _actions in the_
_90s_ (SEQ89) 675 final of 13 June 1989),

in the light of which the Commission felt that strategic
adjustments were necessary, which would require more
than a simple revision of the current Framework Programme which would be limited to the two years 1990
and 1991.

2.2. The Committee agrees with the Review Board
that the Commission has achieved real progress in the
attainment of the 1987 to 1991 Framework Programme
declared objectives and that management and administration have responded well.

2.3. The Commission has replied to the report of the
Review Board and has incorporated a proportion of its
recommendations into its current proposal.

2.4. Nevertheless the Committee considers that the

Council should ask the Commission to provide a full
and in-depth mid-term evaluation to include an analysis
of value for money spent, programme by programme,
an estimate of likely achievements from promising programmes and a post-mortem on programmes stopped
for lack of promise.

2.5. The Committee would like to see the resulting
information used by the Commission to produce a
simple account of their R&TD activities which would
be comprehensible to citizens of the Community (see
section 19).

2.6. The Committee emphasizes the value of the midterm evaluation and the discipline demanded to prepare
for it and emphasizes the value of Article 5 of the
current proposal which calls for a review in 1992.

3. The relevance of the Commission R&TD frame
work programme to the Community policies strategy and objectives

3.1. The Committee considers the third Framework
Programme proposal is technologically isolated. For

No C 56/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

instance, it fails to set the R&TD proposals in the
context of the various needs for the improvement of
the quality of life and to propose global projects aimed
at effective solutions which will require political will
of the Community to implement them.

_3.2._ The Committee believes that the Community
should now begin to plan to move towards the creation
of a single science and technology space. The present
mosaic of Member States acts against achieving an
optimum output from R&TD expenditure in comparison with USA and Japan. The lack of a single agreed
plan made in the full knowlegde of national and
regional policies acts against the Community interest
to a greater extent than discrepancies in funding.

_3.3._ The Committee considers that the current and

proposed Framework Programme rely to a large extent
on 'bottom-up' proposals. It would like to see in
addition a complementary 'top-down' approach which
begins with the definition of a Community R&TD
policy and strategy based on agreed criteria, identifying
the work that should be done at Community level
in the light of Member State existing and projected
progammes, fixing urgencies and priorities and finally
estimating the funding necessary.

3.4. Certain areas of R&TD which affect the quality
of life such as environmental problems in meteorology,
climatology and oceanic science are best tackled on a
global scale.

3.5. The proposal appears to lack a global project for
an effective mechanism for diffusion of the technology
which is already available as well as that which will be
generated _uy_ the current and proposed programmes.

_3.6._ In the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Article 2 states:

'The Community shall have as its task, by establishing
a common market and progressively approximating
the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development
of economic activities, a continuous and balanced
expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard jf living and closer relations
between the States belonging to it.'

3.7. The Committee considers that these five objectives all form part of a single overall objective, to
improve the quality of life of all citizens in the Community. Within this single overall objective, the Section

defines a whole series of secondary objectives, some of
which will be conflicting and which will need to be
balanced to meet the overall objective.

3.8. In its communication entitled _A framework_ _for_
_Community_ _R&TD actions in the 90s_ the Commission
identifies two objectives designated as the 'challenges
of 1992'.

3.9. The first objective is defined by Article 130f as
the Community aims to strengthen the scientific and
technological basis of European industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international
level.

3.10. In so far as the achievement of this objective
will secure employment, raise the standard of living
and strengthen the economic base of the Community,
it contributes actively to the material well-being and
hence quality of life of all citizens. The Committee
considers this to be an objective to achieve an active
improvement resulting from the creation of wealth.

3.11. The second objective is to improve the quality
of life by means of the achievement of a cleaner and
safer environment, better health-care education and
training, more efficient and safer production and transport systems, more wholesome food products.

3.12. These two objectives will conflict at certain
times in certain areas. The first objective will be carried
out in the private sector to a considerable extent. The
second objective in that it is an overall wealth consumer
will be largely carried out either in the public sector or
by the private sector within a national or regional
regulatory mechanism. Improvements in the quality of
life will inevitably involve the achievement of a balance
of objectives which will not always be compatible.

3.13. The Committee considers that the Commission

has not given an explicit commitment to the quality of
life as an overall objective permeating the thid framework programme proposal despite the emphasis given
to it in its communication entitled _A framework_ _for_
_Community_ _R&TD in the 90s_ and the frequent opinions
of the Economic and Social Committee.

3.14. It urges the Commission to propose a direct
active orientation of R&TD towards the enhancement
of the quality of life with the complementary objective
of creating new market products.

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/37

3.15. The Committee supports the views expressed
by the Framework Programme Review Board, whose
report states that 'the Framework Programme should
ideally be based on a series of well-defined long-term
strategic objectives that European research ought to
pursue. This in turn implies an agreed overall European
strategy, with a set of socioeconomic, political, scientific and broader cultural objectives.'

3.16. The Committee suggests that each and every
proposal for expenditure on research and technological
development covered by the Framework Programme
should include a quality of life impact assessment. The
Commission would be required to use proper consultative procedures to complete the questions posed.

4. The need for social research

4.1. The Committee emphasizes that it is already
accepted that human social factors are critical in
research, innovation and coping with competitive challenges. It believes that it is clear too that policy decisions
at as variety of stages determine whether the state of
technology in use have a malign or benign impact on
the quality of life. Sililarly human interaction and policy
decisions to an extent derive from social and cultural

factors which are insufficiently understood and inadequately researched.

4.2. Economic well-being involves a high level of
competitiveness for Community industry, the satisfaction of new needs with new products and a minimum
social consequence in terms of unemployment, destruction of the environment and upset of the cohesion
between Member States.

4.3. The Committee believes that a revised Frame
work Programme should reflect a balanced view of all
these factors, notably technical feasibility, economic
desirability and social acceptability. The balance will
not be the same in each Member State. A Framework

Programme should take this into account and must
include social cohesion within the Community as an
important objective.

4.4. These requirements emphasize that the social
research aspects of the programme will need to be
strengthened.

4.5. The Committee considers that social research

will need to take its place alongside the areas of:

— science and engineering,

— medical and health research,

— agricultural research,

— environmental research,

— research on the working environment and the health
of workers,

as a research field and as a major factor in promoting
the effectiveness of all research.

4.6. Social research is not a last stage examination
of scientific advance. It must be invloed at an early
stage when priorities for programmes are being evolved.

5. The key principles of subsidiarity and cohesion

5.1. The Committee believes that a Community policy and the strategy to achieve it rest upon certain key
principles which include subsidiarity and cohesion.

5.2. The Committee supports the principle of
cohesion to Community policy and strategy.

5.3. Member States have differing technological
requirements, differing technological resources available to meet them and differing levels of science and
technology. The technological imbalance between one
Member State and another is growing.

5.4. R&TD can contribute significantly to the correction of this imbalance:

— by encouraging access in alle Member States to a
first class level of R&TD. There must be no second

class research. There must be quality criteria for
R&TD,

— by deliberate efforts to achieve a Researchers' Europe in which there is an optimal climate for human
and scientific potential development based on
mobility, laboratory linkage interchange and on
training,

— by encouraging technological transfer of results,

— by programmes designed to tackle the problems of
less favoured regions and areas of industrial decline.

5.5. The Committee also emphasizes the direct and
effective contribution made to economic and social

cohesion by the training activities provided for in some
specific research programmes. These activities play a
key role in enabling Member States less well-equipped
in terms of research infrastructures and scientific personnel to participate more fully in the research programmes and therefore make a significant contribution
to narrowing development gaps between Member
States.

No C 56/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

5.6. The Committe realizes that a number of centres

of excellence exist in Member States and there could

be a tendency to encourage them to take a major share
of work on an ever increasing basis. This would result
in the most competent researchers being increasingly
drawn to them and their facilities growing in proportion.

5.7. The Committee would encourage the Commission to try to redress the balance by the deliberate
creation of new centres of excellence spread throughout
all the Member States. This could involve a specific
programme to identify embryonic centres which would
be encouraged to grow.

5.8. The Committe suggests that the Council ask
the Commission to propose a programme with this
objective.

_5.9._ The principle of subsidiarity demands that the
Community Institutions should not arrogate to themselves functions which can be performed efficiently at
national, regional or local level.

5.10. The Committee regards this as a fundamental
principle which should apply throughout the Community and not least to R&TD activities. The Community therefore should leave to lower levels the operations which these can effectively perform, and which
otherwise would greatly distract it. The Community
will thus be able to carry out with greater freedom,
power and success the tasks appropriate to it alone
because it can effectively accomplish these, according
to its needs and those of the Member States.

5.11. The Committee believes it is necessary for the
Commission to define clearly what it means by the
principle of subsidiarity and to formulate a set of criteria against which programme proposals will be
assessed.

6. Financial considerations

6.1. The second Framework Programme for R&TD
has two vears (1990 and 1991) to run. It commits ECU
3 125 million for the period 1990 to 1992.

6.2. The Committee supports the Commission proposal that this programme should be completed in
accord with its commitments, subject to the usual programme assessment and evaluation.

6.3. The third Framework Programme for R&TD
proposes a further commitment of a ceiling of ECU
2 700 million for the same period subject to approval
of the programmes submitted.

6.4. The two Framework Programmes will commit
funds concurrently for the three years 1990 to 1992.

6.5. The Committee supports this increase from ECU
3 125 million to a ceiling of ECU 5 825 million on the
basis that the actual increases approved will be based
on sound programme proposals backed by effective
assessment and evaluations.

_6.6._ The Committee urges the Commission to fix
criteria for value for effort in terms of manpower and
finance and only to spend on programmes which satisfy
these criteria.

6.7. It believes that funds should be requested to
satisfy sound and necessary R&TD proposals rather
than that proposals should be formulated to meet the
funding available.

6.8. The Committee endorses the principle that actual expenditure should be related to the importance and
quality of the detailed proposals for activities which
will be submitted to Council for final decision at the

level of specific programmes covering the periods 1990
to 1992 and 1993 to 1994 (Article 2.3 of the Commission
proposal).

6.9. The Committee notes that this ceiling of ECU
5 825 million commitment for 1990 to 1992 is in accord

with the interinstitutional agreement for that period (').

6.10. The third Framework Programme proposes a
commitment of ECU 2 400 million for 1993 and ECU

2 600 million for 1994 subject to Council decisions for
each specific programme.

6.11. The Committee notes these figures which show
an increase over the preceeding years and regards them
as indicative and subject to a further interinstitutional
agreement.

6.12. The proposed ECU 7 700 million refers to
Community financial means. However a considerable
proportion of the programmes will be shared cost with
a Commission commitment of less than 100% or con
certed action in which the Commission commitment is

marginal.

6.13. The Committee suggests that the Commission
estimates the total amount which will be committed

under the Framework Programme proposal, year by
year from 1990 to 1994 and expresses it as:

— a percentage of total Community budget,

(') Under the interinstitutional agreement of 29 June 1988 financial perspectives were set for the years 1990 to 1992 (OJ No
L 185, 15. 7. 1988). An increase of ECU 2 400 million for R&
TD activities was agreed, to which the Commission has
applied an inflation rate of 3,5% making the total sum to
ECU 2 700 million.

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/39

— a percentage estimated of the total R&TD funding
of the Member States.

6.14. The Committee believes that it would be ben
eficial to secure an indicative R&TD ceiling expenditure by the Commission for the years ahead to 2000
and hopes that the next interinstitutional agreement
will provide it.

7. The proposed activities

7.1. The second Framework Programme is
implemented through 37 specific programmes with their
corresponding budget allocations. These constitute a
financial straight jacket on flexibility and the ability of
the Commission to respond to the results of programme
assessment by increasing or reducing recources or even
stopping unpromising programmes.

7.2. The third programme reduces the number of
specific programmes to six very wide areas of activities
subdivided into 29 subgroups.

7.3. The Committe assumes that each of the six

activities will form the basis of an individual proposal
to Council for the Years 1990 to 1992 and again for
1993 to 1994.

7.4. The Committee foresees difficulties in the over
lap years of 1990 to 1992 between the rigid second
Framework Programme and the more widely defined
third programme.

7.5. The Committee recommends that the Council

ask the Commission to seek a compromise based not
so much on modifying the extent of each area of activity
but more on a more flexible funding approach. The
Committee has drawn attention to this need in past
opinions.

7.6. The Committee draws the attention of the

Council to the considerable problems of management
and of the organization of the advisory committees
which the Commission will experience in effecting a
smooth transition from the second to the third frame
work programme. It welcomes the suggestion that the
Commission will consider the use of outside management consultants.

7.7. It urges that the Commission use this opportunity to forge closer links with the Member States with
the objective of moving closer to a single science and
technology space.

7.8. The Committee also welcomes the opportunity
to introduce certain strategic adjustments and new concepts into the rolling Framework Programme at an

earlier stage and appreciates that the introduction of
an overlap in the year 1990 to 1991 enables the funding
to be increased from the beginning of that period.

7.9. The Framework Programme proposes six areas
of activity:

%

39

15,6

9

13

14,4

9

100

Information and communication

technologies
Industrial and materials technologies
Environment

Life science and technologies
Energy
Human capital and mobility

Total

ECU

millions

3 000

1 200

700

1000

1000

700

7 700

7.10. The Committe does not consider that sufficient

data has been provided in the Commission proposal
and its supplementary working paper to enable it to
comment in detail on the work proposed under each
activity, the funding deemed necessary for that work
or the balance of funding proposed for the six activities.
It reserves its opinion on the work content of each
activity until the Commission makes proposals made
under Article 2 (3) of the new framework programme
proposal.

7.11. The Committee considers however that the

Commission could offer some degree of clarification by
showing for each area of activity, subgroup by subgroup, and year by year; the sums committed under the
second Framework Programme together with the sums
deemed necessary under the third Framework Programme. It considers further more that it would be
helpful to add the further funds committed or expected
to be committed by shared-cost contractors.

7.12. The Committe believes that an evaluation of

funds expended to date in each activity group and
subgroup together with a forecast of the likely utilization of the results expected and their cost-benefit would
assist in an objective assessment of the proposal.

7.13. _Information_ _and Communication_ _technologies_

7.13.1. The Committee feels that the area to be
covered is all embracing and does it not have sufficient
information to judge whether the Commission is proposing to cover ground that has already been covered
elsewhere (USA, Japan), the so-called 'catch-up' R&
TD or whether the successful outcome of the proposals
would result in European leadership.

No C 56/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

7.13.2. However it is concerned that the other areas

of work under the third Framework Programme appear
almost to be the structuring of a whole new generation
of the industry. The Committee therefore would like
to see the utilization plan for this work together with
associated programmes outside the third Framework
Programme and making greater use of Eureka programmes such as Jessi.

7.13.3. The Committee emphasizes the need for the
organization of an effective and rapid standardization
procedure in this field and it urges that full use be
made of JRC resources and of the European standards
organizations.

7.14. _Industrial and material_ _technologies_

7.14.1. The Committee supports the objectives of the
proposed activity in Industrial and Material technologies to rejuvenate European manufacturing industry
and to increase its competitiveness. It queries nevertheless the balance between the activity on information
technologies and the other advanced technologies which
form now or will form in the future the basis of many
traditional manufacturing industries and of agriculture.
The Committee looks to a reevaluation of the BriteEuram( [1] ) Flair ( [2] ), and Bridge ( [3] ) programmes.

7.14.2. The Committee points out the importance of
new areas of material technology such as superconductivity and advanced materials which can arise rapidly
and especially at technology interfaces. It expects the
Commission to build a degree of flexibility into the
programmes in order to be in a position to respond
rapidly to indications thrown up by basic reseach.

7.14.3. The Committee cites the example of the 'clean car' in the Commission proposal by which it assumes
that the Commission is referring to the numerous technologies which need to be developed and integrated in
order that the automobile industry of the Community
should remain in a competitive position.

7.14.4. The Committee notes the approach to industrial competitiveness now undertaken in Japan whereby
a continuing series of micro-incremental advances lead
to a steady development of better quality products at
lower prices. The strategies of this nature should be
analysed and where promising utilized.

7.15. _Environment_

7.15.1. The Commission proposes the expenditure
of 9 % of resource on environmental work. At face,
this might appear to be less than adequate but the

(•) O J N o L 9 8, 11.4. 1989, p. 18.
( [2] ) OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 18.
( [3] ) OJ No C 70, 20. 3. 1989, p. 1.

Section notes that a proportion of the research work
under the 'Energy' heading will be concerned with
'clean' technologies as will some of the industrial and
material technologies.

7.15.2. The Committee emphasizes the need for the
Commission to attempt an overall strategy for the
Community to take account of all the existing work in
the Member States. This will only come about by
cooperation and coordination and will involve a reappraisal of the existing structure of advisory committees.

7.16. _Life sciences and_ _technologies_

7.16.1. In this acitivity the Committee draws attention to its comments on quality of life as an overall
objective. It urges the Commission to take specific note
of the needs of the handicapped, the sick and the elderly
as well as the requirements for basic biotechnology,
agricultural and agro-industrial reasearch, biomedical
and health research in both the industrial and public
domains.

7.16.2. The Committee also draws the attention of

the Commission to the need for a clear policy to balance
research into the pathogenesis of disease with health
research to improve the standards of health in the
Community and the economic consequences of actions
taken.

7.16.3. The Committee support the inclusion in the
proposal of work on the life sciences and technologies
for developing countries.

7.16.4. The Committee emphasizes the extreme
importance of information and communication in this
activity and urges that the units of the Commission
such as CUBE ( [4] ) are adequately funded to achieve their
objectives.

7.16.5. The Committee draws attention to the ethical

nature of some programme decisions in this activity
and refers to the opinion which it expressed on this
subject ( [5] )( [6] ).

7.17. _Energy_

7.17.1. The Committee notes the amplification of
the proposal for the activity on energy provided in the
working paper but it feels that a breakdown of work
into the categories of energy generation (subdivided into
fossil fuels, renewable sources of energy and nuclear
energy), novel processes (hydrogen and other liquid
fuels, fuel cells, photovoltaics) is necessary.

( [4] ) Concertation Unit for Biotechnology in Europe.
( [5] ) OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, p. 47.
( [6] ) OJ No C 159, 26. 6. 1989, p. 26.

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/41

7.17.2. The breakdown should also identify the work
committed and proposed on the various aspects of
safety and the work which is environment related (zero
emission power).

7.17.3. The Committee urges the Council to ensure
that the Commission work on safety is extended to
all types of nuclear power plants. It believes that the
Commission has a special duty to ensure international
awareness and understanding of methods used to assure
and verify the safety of numerous plants, and has a
special task to focus all aspects of technological advance
to bear on nuclear safety. To do this the Commission
must take a prominent position in all discussions at
European and international level.

7.17.4. The Committee does not question the organizational relationship between the DGs concerned with
research, development, demonstration and policy in the
energy field but it would like to see proposals laid out
in their entirety rather than put forward separately by
Directorates-General. In particular this would ensure
continuity between R&TD and the demonstration
phase.

7.17.5. The Committee believes that the Framework

Programme does not give sufficient emphasis to the
work directed towards energy problems of the less
developed nations.

7.17.6. The Committee would also like to be assured

of a close link to the Thermie programme (ECU 700
million) for 1990 to 1994 which the Committee supports. To this extent a more detailed breakdown of
Thermie into hydrocarbons, coal, renewable energy
and energy efficiency would help an overall review of
Commission proposals ( [1] ).

7.18. _Human capital and_ _mobility_

7.18.1. The Commission states there is a major
increase in both absolute and relative terms in the funds

allocated to the management of intellectual resources
(compared to the second Framework Programme), to
include a major programme of mobility and research
training of young researchers at post-doctoral level.

7.18.2. The Committee has emphasized the importance of the criterion of a single S&T space in the
Community on a number of occasions and in particular
in two information reports on _The importance_ _of R&_
_TD to SMES_ and _Training and employment_ _of research_
_workers in the European_ _Community._

7.18.3. The Committee feels that there is no cause for

complacency. The factors which give rise to movement
include the state of science in the Community and

elsewhere and their relative qualities of life for
researchers. The Commission forecasts a shortage of
young researchers due to appear in the 1990s.

7.18.4. The Committee will consider the individual

proposals when they are made but it recognizes some
problems which will need to be addressed when the
specific programme is submitted to Council for
approval.

— centres of excellence are currently concentrated
among the northern Member States and are at an
earlier stage of growth among many of the Mediterranean States. An immediate exercise would there
fore concentrate researchers at these northern insti
tutions to the detriment of some Member States,

— certain Member States and notably the UK may fare
badly from a potential drain of researchers to the
USA if researchers move in from Community Member States,

— there appears to be an element of over emphasis of
direct Community involvement and funding. If the
principle of subsidiarity is followed, the Community
needs to seek to influence and catalyse the scientific
community in the Member States, but to restrict
itself to the minimum central action.

7.18.5. The Committee believes that the action the

Commission does decide to carry out should be considered for organization on a concerted action basis or
at the most on a shared-cost basis.

8. Scientific services and the management of Commission resources

8.1. The Committee considers that a seventh activity
should be included in the new framework programme
under the heading 'Scientific services and the management of Commission resources'.

8.2. This would encompass the following essential
tasks:

— the formulation of a Community R&TD policy
strategy and plan in cooperation with the 12 Member States, maintaining and amending it continually
in the light of available information,

— the coordination of objectives in strategic areas
throughout the Community,

— the operation of forecasting and monitoring activity
at present carried out under Monitor ( [2] ) on a programme basis,

( [!] ) OJ No C 10, 22. 4. 1989. ( [2] ) OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 38.

No C 56/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

— the operation of a social unit and to coordinate the
preparation of social impact analysis and to be
responsible for promoting necessary work in the
social sciences (see paragraph above),

— an evaluation unit to operate on a continuous basis
the evaluation activities,

— the assessment and evaluation of the R&TD stra
tegies of other trading blocs and nations.

8.3. This overall activity should be created to stand
separately from the other six activities and its costs
should not be allocated to those activities although they
would fall within the global proposal. This seventh
activity would be horizontal and this would be the only
location in which the overall R&TD activity of the
Community and the 12 Member States would be considered as a single entity.

9. The principles which should underlie Commission
R&TD proposals

9.1. The Committee feels that the Commission

should identify and clearly state the principles which
are to be applied in selecting proposals for R&TD
work.

9.2. In the course of a number of its opinions on
R&TD proposals the Committee has identified the
following 15 principles:

9.3. Subsidiarity with regard not only to the distinction between Community and Member State working
level but also to the location of work between Member

States according to their particular strengths.

9.4. The Commission should perform the functions
of information, analysis, forecasting, catalysis and
stimulation and only as a last resort, expenditure on
programmes to achieve the objectives which are agreed
with Member States.

9.5. The Commission must promote cohesion to offset the effect of political division into Member States
with differing economic levels and hence with different
R&TD structures. To this effect the Commission

should encourage new centres of skill in Member States
which will assist in training and regional collaboration.

9.6. The Commission should find a way to integrate
a 'top-down' approach arising from the results of a
concerted Member State/Commission analysis and
strategy with a 'bottom-up' approach arising from the
work of the advisory committees. Proposals should be
formulated in full knowledge of the extent of Member
State activity.

9.7. The Commission must organize and implement
a consultation process with industry for workers and
consumers in addition to the scientific community.

9.8. The Commission must encourage the formation
of a three-dimensional S&T space in the Community
in which links are created between Member States

(and their regional activities) between R&TD levels
(industry, higher educational establishments, research
institutes) and between scientists.

9.9. The Commission must find a way to maintain
the flexibility of funding in response to programme
assessment while assuring reasonable security of their
contractors in shared-cost and concerted-action programmes. It is essential that successful programmes
can be reinforced and less-promising ones reduced or
terminated.

9.10. There must be selectivity and concentration in
order to arrive at a limited number of programmes
which are of adequate size, allocated to the most effective centres of skill in the Member States, have clearly
stated objectives which can be subsequently evaluated
for their achievement and which are cost-effective. Sel
ectivity must be based on priority and importance in
consultation with and after consideration of Member

States' R&TD programmes.

9.11. The Commission should use its funds as lever
age to enhance the effects of Member States' expendi
ture.

9.12. Work should be returned by the Commission
to national, regional or inter-regional ownerships as
soon as practicable and cost-effective.

9.13. All programmes should be subject to evaluation. This evaluation should be tailored to individual

programmes. Too much scientific resource should not
be tied up in peer group evaluation and that a simple
and effective set of evaluation principles needs to be
produced by the Commission.

9.14. No programme should be approved without a
utilization plan for successful results.

9.15. When appropriate programmes proposed
should be accompanied by a quality-of-life impact

assessment.

9.16. Programmes should be based on a new
approach to pre-competitiveness and the further devel

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/43

opment of successful results considered in the light of
Eureka projects and other options.

9.17. A satisfactory solution to problems raised by
intellectual property in the specific proposals should be
offered.

9.18. The Committee stresses the importance of consultation with the social partners, industry and workers
at every stage of the R&TD programmes.

10. The definition of precompetitive work

10.1. The Committee notes an apparent variation in
the interpretation of the 'precompetitive requirement'
between the activities described. It assumes that this

arises from a change in the application of the 50/50
principle on which shared-cost contracts are based; as
a result of this change, Commission funding is reduced
as the project approaches the competitive market place
(regressive funding). This 'regressive funding' principle
would apply only if the results of a project were used
commercially for profit.

10.1.1. The Committee urges the Council to demand
from the Commission a clear statement of this modified

approach to precompetitive conditions which takes into
account the need for the Community to remain competitive with other blocs such as the USA and the Pacific

rim nations.

10.2. The Committee emphasizes the important role
which the Eureka approach could provide and urges
the Commission to consider its potential of closer cooperation.

10.3. The Committee urges the Council to consider
in advance the areas to which R&TD is directed in

terms of financial support, taxation, external duties,
standards and regulations by the Community and its
Member States. Preparatory work will be needed to
ease the path to the market of innovative products and
technologies. If this work is not done at the right time
much of the benefit of successful R&TD may be wasted
or overtaken by competitors.

11. Utilization of R&TD results

11.1. The Committee considers that the Commission

has always given insufficient attention to the diffusion
of technology and that it is necessary to review and
strengthen its efforts.

11.2. The Committee endorses the preamble to the
proposal which states that dissemination and enhancement of the results of R&TD activities are essential

elements in the process of innovation, in particular for
SMEs and hence a global initiative should be undertaken which will apply to all activities _in_ the field _of_
R&TD.

11.3. The Committee notes Article 4 of the proposal
which states that the financing of activities related to
the utilization of the results of specific programmes
shall be brought about by bringing together sums allocated to these activities according to a percentage to be
determined for each specific programme.

11.4. The Committee does not consider that Article

4 provides for an adequate utilization mechanism. It
believes that the Commission should be asked to review

the requirements and to come forward with the 'global
initiative'.

11.5. No R&TD programme should be put into
effect without a coherent and credible utilization programme to take effect in the event of results which meet
the programme objectives.

11.6. Such a utilization programme should estimate
time and cost of each of the clearly defined steps which
would take the results into the market place or into
public use.

11.7. An estimate of the optimum approach to the
protection of the intellectual property including cost
and time scale should be provided.

11.8. Each R&TD programme should be
accompanied by a quality-of-life impact assessment. In
particular any ethical considerations should be clearly
delineated.

11.9. The programme should be accompanied by an
analysis of the importance of successful results to SMEs
and how the optimum benefit to SMEs would be
secured.

11.10. The Committee does not wish to comment on
the organization within the Commission best suited to
achieve these objectives. It wishes however to suggest
that utilization usually succeed best when there is a
continuous line from research to practical use. Wherever possible a handover from one DG to another or
from one programme to another or indeed from one
funding provision to another should be avoided.

No C 56/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

12. Eureka

12.1. The Committee endorses the support for and
involvement in the activities of Eureka by the Commission. These activities form part of the downstream
element of the Community's R&TD strategy. The
Commission proposes to reinforce its relationship with
Eureka as an instrument of minimum limitations for

downstream development in areas which are close to
the competitive border.

12.2. The Committee notes that Article 130m of

the Single European Act permits the Commission to
participate in the R&TD activities undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of these programmes. It
encourages the Commission to participate accordingly
in relevant Eureka projects such as the Jessi programme
on microelectronics and the high-definition television

programme.

12.3. The Committee suggests that the Commission
should issue a review of its relationship with Eureka
and the opportunities which it provides in utilization
proposals. It envisages a more frequent consideration of
Eureka in the utilization plan which should accompany
programme proposals.

13. International policy

13.1. The Committee identifies the need for a clear

statement on R&TD international policy and the future
role of third countries by the Commission. The existence of a policy is of importance to industry and affects
not only its competitiveness but its overseas investment
activity and the siting and strategy of its R&TD.

13.2. The Committee supports a policy in which
Community programmes are opened to EFTA States
when clear mutual advantage can be established in
anticipation of the European economic space of
18 nations arising from work on the harmonization of
standards by the European standards organizations.

13.3. The Commission should consider bilateral

cooperative agreements in R&TD with certain
countries in the eastern bloc with a view to involving
these countries when the time is ripe in COST projects.

13.4. The Committee supports the Commission in
its approach to the problems of the lesser developed
countries.

13.5. Consideration should be given to the position
of the Community major competitors, the USA and
Japan, in the R&TD strategy especially with regard to
the eligibility of their Community operations for funding and the utilization of intellectual property resulting
from Community funding.

13.6. The Committee supports the Commission
efforts to achieve transparency in its work but warns
that, at hte same time, some security of forward thinking and of evaluation of results needs to be considered.

14. The role of the Joint Research Centre (JRC)

14.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission

proposal to use the JRC to provide an impartial and
independent expert opinion for the benefit of all Community policies and to act as a technical conscience for
the Commission throughout its activities. It should
provide technical data which will be required by all the
relevant Directorates-General of the Commission as a

basis for their regulatory activities and in the derivation
of policy. This will assist the Commission and the
governments of Member States to balance the requirements for the protection of the health and safety of
citizens (and of animals) and the preservation of the
environment with the demands for deregulation and
minimum bureaucratic control.

14.2. The Committee notes that it is not the intention

of the Commission to propose a major programme of
exploratory (basic or fundamental) research for the JRC
under the new Framework Programme. This decision
accords with the principle of subsidiarity under which
such work is preferably done by the higher educational
centres of the Member States.

14.3. The Committee is aware of the proposal for
work by the JRC for private or public external third
parties put forward as an interim solution to current
problems. However the Commission believes that as
other responsibilities develop the proportion of work
in this area should be progressively reduced. The Committee does not regard such activity as right and proper
for a Commission laboratory once the necessary redistribution and reorganization of staffing has been
achieved.

14.4. The Committee believes that instead the JRC

should concentrate its work in a limited number of
areas which are best covered at Community level.

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/45

14.5. It should work on nuclear safety on a continuous basis to provide a clearing house and forum wherein
Member States which have retained their nuclear option
can meet those which have abandoned it and provide
information about nuclear protection, radioactive
waste and other matters affecting the health and safety
of all citizens.

14.6. It should provide similar forum and clearing
house for industrial safety covering major industrial
incidents such as run-away reactions, explosions, leaks
to atmosphere and so on. Such information will provide
Member States with an independent and scientific basis
for regulatory action based on scientific knowledge
which will be welcomed by industry and workers and
which will reassure citizens.

14.7. It should provide technical support in the form
of common testing and measuring methods and their
interpretation for the European Environmental Agency
and should be considered as the pivot of a Community
regional contribution to a world-wide programme of
global change.

14.8. It should act as a focal point in a series of
laboratory networks covering a whole range of prenormative activity, environmental protection, health,
nuclear and industrial safety, food purity, pyarmaceutical testing and the testing background to the essential
requirements of the new approach Directives. The
Committee supports the JRC initiative in this respect
in the area of structural mechanisms and believes this

should be extended to other areas of building research,
especially structural stability, fire testing, thermal and
acoustic insulation.

14.9. The Committee recommends that the JRC

should be allowed to initiate and participate in sharedcost and concerted-action programmes appropriate to
its experience and resources.

14.10. The Committee recommends that careful

attention be given to the allocation of the costs of the
JRC within the Framework Programme in recognition
of the horizontal dimension of its work and in order

to reduce any inhibitory effect on the allocation to it
of tasks which it is best equipped to perform.

15. The prenormative dimension

15.1. The Committee endorses the incorporation of
a prenormative dimension in the Community R&TD
activities in order to guarantee the scientific and technical basis necessary to establish adequate norms and

standards and hence to facilitate the completion of the
single market and provide a response to the Community's responsibilities in the fields of environment,
health and safety. In the Committee's view this will
help to meet the overall objective of the improvement
of the quality of life.

15.2. There is a need for a common set of regulations
for the Community, based on scientific knowledge. This
must be preferable to a series of individual Member
State regulations not always based on the latest scientific knowledge.

15.3. For industry it makes sense to have a single
Community set of requirements for the safety and testing of medical, health and food products, for the protection of consumers and the public. Industry will be able
to bring new products to the market place more surely,
more cheaply and more quickly. This becomes increasingly relevant as the cost of R&TD for new products
rises and the time required for testing eats into the
period of protection of the market provided by the
patent legislation.

15.4. A single set of Community requirements established by the Commission would be regarded as independent and unbiased.

15.5. The Commission R&TD effort also has a role

to play in the establishment of standards for the single
market. It is clear that there is no possibility that the
thousand of national standards will be harmonized into

European standards by 1993. Reliance will have to
continue for many years on the mutual recognition
of certification and testing procedures and methods
incorporating in sensitive areas the essential requirements for health and safety provided by the new
approach Directives.

15.6. In the environmental field, the Commission
can take a major step towards a world approach to
environmental problems by coordination the Community approach. To make effective regulations to
protect the environment an advanced scientific base
involving R&TD is essential. Greater understanding of
natural phenomena of the land, the oceans and the
biosphere is vital. Member States should pool their
resources in a Community effort within the Framework
Programme.

15.7. Nuclear safety is antoher area in which work
should be done centrally within the Community.

15.8. In certain areas the coordination of work will
need to be extended beyond the Community and will
extend to cooperation with other blocs in Europe,

No C 56/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 3. 90

America and the pacific. This applies especially to
nuclear safety and environmental knowledge.

15.9. Standards are ineffective unless there is a

method of verification for their requirements. It is fundamental that whether there are harmonized European
standards or not, there must be mutually accepted
methods of testing resulting in certification.

15.10. The facilities of the Commission in collabor
ation with those of Member States can make a rapid
and effective contribution to this by undertaking a
review of Member State methods of test, establishing
reference samples and correlating the Member States
tests against the common reference.

16. Intellectual property

16.1. The Committee asks that the Commission back

the Framework Programme proposal with a fresh look
at the effects of intellectual property provisions on the
effectiveness of R&TD.

16.2. Two areas require urgent consideration:

16.2.1. In the utilization of the results of R&TD,
the requirement to grant only non-exclusive licences is
unrealistic and inhibitory.

16.2.2. The need for the harmonization of test

methods and acceptance criteria throughout the Community to reduce the time and cost required for the
market development of new products.

17. European cooperation activities

17.1. The Committee believes that the European
cooperation activities such as the European Space Agency and CERN have an important role to play in the
Community R&TD strategy.

17.2. The Commission should take an overall view

of the requirements of the Community in specific areas
covered by these organizations, and should plan an
overall strategy for the Community, taking into account
the activities of the individual Member States.

17.3. Article 130m of the Treaty provides for this and
the Committee considers that the Commission should

make full use of it.

18. Small and medium-sized enterprises

18.1. The Committee notes that other than in the

preamble to the proposal, the importance of the involvement in R&TD by SMEs and the dissemination of
information to them is not emphasized.

18.2. The Committee draws the attention of the

Commission to its information report on the importance of R&TD to SMEs and urges the Commission to
prepare a communication covering this field of interest
to inform those involved of the latest Commission

thinking and to stimulate discussion.

18.3. In particular the Committee draws to the attention of the Commission (as it has done in the past)
to the small business innovation research programme
(SBIR) of the USA as an approach to governmentfunded R&D in the belief that a close study of this US
initiative by the Commission could lead to a proposal
for a comparable network of such operations in the
Community.

18.4. The stratetic programme for innovation and
technology transfer (Sprint) ( [J] ) has been approved with
an expenditure of ECU 90 million over the period 1989
to 1993 (in comparison with an expenditure of
ECU 18,6 million for the previous four years). It lies
outside the Framework Programme. The programme
aims to help SMEs to gain faster access to new technologies from other Member States by means of grants for
joint ventures to help with international consultancy

costs.

18.5. The Committee believes that the Commission
should consider to what extent the Value ( [2] ) and Sprint
programmes overlap and whether they should have a
common administration within the Framework Pro
gramme.

19. Generation of awareness through communication

19.1. The Committee draws attention to the need

for the Commission to improve its communication techniques in order to achieve a level of awareness at all
levels which will be vital to the success of its R&TD

activities.

19.2. At the technical level the Committee endorses

the comments of the Framework Programme Review
Board that an information exchange service is needed

(!) OJ No L 112, 25. 5. 1989, p. 12.
( [2] ) OJ No L 200, 13. 7. 1989, p. 23.

7. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/47

to speed development and lower costs within the R&
TD Community.

19.3. At all levels a simple and more widespread
review of R&TD activities is needed to show where

funds have been expended and the results that have

Done at Brussels, 15 November 1989.

Opinion on:

been achieved. This will help to generate a perceived
view of Commission competence and urgency.

19.4. The Committee urges the Council ro ask the
Commission to come forward with an adequate and
cost-effective proposal which could be brought into
operation quickly.

_The_ _Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Alberto MASPRONE

— the proposal for a Council Decision on the attainment of progressive convergence of
economic performance during stage one of economic and monetary union and

— the recommendation for a Council Decision amending Decision 64/300/EEC on cooperation between the central banks of the Member States of the European Economic
Community _(_ _[l]_ _)_

(90/C 56/12)

On 22 October 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Economic, Financial and Monetary Questions, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 November 1989.
The rapporteur was Mr Meyer-Horn, the co-rapporteur Mr Drago.

At its 271st plenary session (meeting of 16 November 1989) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by a very large majority, with two abstentions.

I. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DECISION ON

THE ATTAINMENT OF PROGRESSIVE CON
VERGENCE OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

DURING STAGE ONE OF ECONOMIC AND

MONETARY UNION

1. General comments

1.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes
the proposal for a Council Decision on the attainment
of progressive convergence of economic performance
during stage one of economic and monetary union
(COM(89) 466 final of 13 October 1989).

(*) O J N o C 2 8 3, 9. 11. 1989, p. 6.

1.2. On various occasions the Committee has called

for a revision of the Council Decision of 18 February
1974 on the attainment of a high degree of convergence
of economic policies, because this Decision has hardly
been applied in practice ( [2] ).

1.3. A higher degree of convergence of economic
development and improved coordination of economic
policy would seem more necessary than ever in the
light of the completion of the internal market and the
commitment to begin the first stage of economic and
monetary union on 1 July 1990.

( [2] ) See in particular the Committee's opinion on the Commission's 1988/89 Annual Economic Report, OJ No C 23,
23. 1. 1989.