Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/41

Here the Committee notes that the Commission is currently
planning specific action (though the details are not yet
known).

Pineapples, flower plants and cut flowers are other
products requiring assistance, including arrangements for
fast transport to markets all over Europe.

3.6. In view of the importance of fisheries in all the most
remote regions, this sector must not be overlooked. Here
schemes should be tailored to the specific conditions.

3.7. Transport is a crucial problem for these regions.
Prompt action is needed to upgrade transport structures
and infrastructure to meet the requirements of economic
development and to improve links with the rest of Europe
and domestic communications. Domestic transport is of
vital importance, especially for the archipelagos.

3.8. Special attention should be given to small, familyrun businesses, with particular emphasis on rural tourism
and the hotel and catering sector.

Production in these regions is primarily geared to domestic
consumption. Provision should be made for measures
securing supplies of the requisite resources and commodities at prices which enable the firms concerned to be
competitive.

Local crafts can play a major role in economic development, e.g. in tapping and boosting local potential.

3.9. Vocational training is a highly important activity
which needs to be stepped up significantly (especially in
connection with new technologies and language courses for
hotel staff).

It must be remembered that new technologies, besides
boosting development in these regions, can have profitable
spin-off effects for neighbouring developing countries.

In addition, a greater command of languages is a key factor
in cooperation with other countries and improving job
opportunities in all sectors.

3.10. All aspects of information and culture are also of
key importance. These regions are far away from the centre
of Europe and their popular traditions are a mix of
European influence combined with powerful local ingredients. All measures, even if ostensibly purely economic,
must therefore take account of a social and cultural

substratum that differs widely from the rest of the
Community.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Alberto MASPRONE

Opinion on the Research and Development Programme for Regions (STRIDE)

(90/C 182/14)

On 4 April 1990 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on the Research and
Development Programme for Regions (STRIDE).

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 May 1990. The
rapporteur was Mr Christie.

At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion unanimously.

No C 182/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90

1. Objectives of STRIDE 1.3.2. In Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions:

1.1. The main aim of STRIDE is to strengthen the
research, technological and innovatory (RTD) capacity of
the regions whose development is lagging behind (Objective 1) so that they are better placed to attract or retain
technologically advanced activities in the productive
sectors of the region and highly qualified personnel. Most
of the financial resources of STRIDE will be allocated to

Objective 1 regions. STRIDE can also assist regions
seriously affected by industrial decline (Objective 2) by
stimulating innovation in ways which encourage diversification of the local economy.

1.2. STRIDE is a Community initiative programme (like
STAR, VALOREN, etc.), financed under the European
Regional Development Fund's indicative allocation for
these programmes, i.e. the 15 % not subject to the advance
indicative allocation by country.

1.2.1. STRIDE complements other Community actions
in these regions through the Community Support Frameworks (CSF's). It also completes other Community actions
in the RTD field (the Community's RTD framework
programme), in the field of technology transfer (SPRINT
and BC-Net), of education and training (ERASMUS for
mobility of students in higher education; COMETT for
university-industry co-operation and EUROTECNET for
innovation in vocational training linked to new technologies).

1.2.2. STRIDE is designed to increase the contribution
that such Community policies in favour of research,
technology and innovation can make to achieving greater
economic and social cohesion within the European
Community.

1.3. STRIDE concentrates on three categories of

measure:

1.3.1. In Objective 1 regions:

STRIDE seeks to encourage a wider regional distribution of research capabilities by helping public
administrations to assess technology requirements, to
audit local capabilities and to invest in the development
of a long term capability in selected areas of RTD,

improve the participation of research centres and firms
in EC and other internationally funded research

programmes.

encourage cooperation between research centres and
firms so that research carried out in the regions is more
responsive to local needs, so that firms can meet a
greater part of their requirements for assistance relating
to the transfer and application of technology from local
facilities and so that firms are stimulated to innovate

and to employ highly qualified personnel.

2. Economic and Social Committee opinions on Community activities in the field of RTD

2.1. The most recent opinion issued by the Economic
and Social Committee on Community activities in the field
of RTD is that of 15 November 1989 (OJ No C _56_ of
7 March 1990) on the framework programme for Community activities in the field of RTD (1990-1994) which
reaffirms a number of comments made in previous
Committee opinions. The most relevant observations on
the role of RTD are restated in the present opinion as a
basis for assessing how far the STRIDE programme goes in
meeting the Committee's priorities.

2.2. An issue of particular concern to the Committee has
been a lack of emphasis on economic and social cohesion in
Commission RTD proposals. The Committee is concerned
that this could lead to a widening development gap within
the Community. These development disparities could only
be reduced by specific measures enabling economically
disadvantaged Member States to develop their research
capacity and narrow the gap with the level achieved by the
more prosperous Member States.

2.3. The Committee has also emphasized the direct and
effective contribution made to economic and social

cohesion by training measures and the dissemination of
research findings. There is a need to continue to devote
particular attention to training activities to enable the less
well-equipped Member States to participate fully in the
research activities of programmes.

2.4. The Committee has frequently stressed the importance of RTD for small and medium-sized undertakings
(SMEs) and the problems they face in terms of gaining
access to technology. There is a need to promote greater
SME participation in research programmes, so that a
priority for the Community is to facilitate access by SMEs
to the results of pre-competitive research in a form which
can be utilized by them. The VALUE programme should be
aimed primarily at SMEs.

23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/43

2.5. On numerous occasions the Committee has analyzed two factors which seriously handicap the competitiveness of EC industry:

— slowness and inefficiency with which the results of RTD
programmes are exploited commercially,

— the inability to identify effectively the market or to
develop new products or services sufficiently or rapidly
enough to satisfy demand.

2.6. The Committee has identified two further obstacles

to innovation:

— the absence of an easily obtainable Community patent
and the paucity of Community standards,

— a failure of financial institutions to give greater
emphasis to providing investment funds to develop
RTD entrepreneurial innovation.

2.7. There is a need for full and effective mid-term

reviews for the second and proposed third framework
programmes to include an analysis of value for money
spent, an estimate of likely achievements from promising
programmes and a _post-mortem_ on programmes stopped
for lack of promise.

2.8. The Commission should encourage new centres of
skill to assist in training and regional collaboration.

2.9. All programmes should be subject to evaluation
which should be tailored to specific programmes: a simple
and effective set of evaluation principles needs to be
produced by the Commission.

2.10. The Committee asks that the Commission back

the framework programme proposals with a fresh look at
the effects of intellectual property provisions on the
effectiveness of RTD.

3. STRIDE

3.1. In light of the previous opinions of the Committee
as summarized in paragraph 2 above, the Section wishes to
give general approval to the proposal contained in the
STRIDE programme.

3.2. In particular, in view of the Committee's frequently
expressed opinion that the Community's RTD policy
should be seen as an integral part of the process of
achieving economic and social cohesion, the objective of
STRIDE of enhancing the RTD capability of the lagging
regions is especially welcomed.

3.3. The Committee considers that the intention to limit

the number of projects supported to a relatively small
number in a small number of institutions is sensible,
otherwise there is a risk of dissipating the limited resources
and failing to create a medium term direction for regional
RTD.

3.4. The Committee welcomes the specific measures
identified in Category A of STRIDE designed to generate
better research capabilities in the Objective 1 regions.

3.5. The Committee also welcomes the proposals under
Category B designed to disseminate information among
research centres and encourage technology transfer. It has
further comments to make on the VALUE programme in
paragraph 5 below.

3.6. The Category C measures in STRIDE are designed
to promote linkages between research centres and industry.
The Committee welcomes these proposals and suggests
that specific encouragement be given to the development of
distance learning degrees by universities with particular
emphasis on the management of innovation; and also to
the development of teaching company programmes, again
designed where possible for the management of innovation.

3.7. The Committee notes that, in evaluating the quality
of programmes to support, the Commission will take into
account the presence of a coherent RTD strategy with a
clear statement of the aims for regional technology
development into which the aims of the operational
programmes under STRIDE have been integrated. In
making decisions as to which programmes to support, the
Committee hopes that the Commission will bear in mind
the Committee's previously expressed views on the
importance of involving all groups in society in the process
of identifying RTD priorities and of the effects on the
quality of life.

3.8. The Committee recognizes that rigorous scientific
evaluation of STRIDE proposals is necessary but hopes
that the wider social implications will also be borne fully in
mind.

4. Framework programme 1990-1994

4.1. The Committee welcomes the comment of the

Report of the Framework Programme Review Board 19871991 that:

'The issue of cohesion across Europe and the need to
reduce existing gaps in science and technology is of
paramount importance in a Framework Programme.

No C 182/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90

The Programme must respond in a balanced way to the
requirements and needs of all Member States, and not
just the more advanced of them'.

(Report of the Framework Programme Review Board,
Brussels, June 1989, page 7).

4.2. The Committee has already given its Opinion on
the 1990-1994 framework programme and the main points
have been summarized in paragraph 2 above. A total of
ECU 5.7 billion has now been agreed for the period 19901994 to which should be added a further ECU 3.1 billion

from the current framework programme for 1990 and
1991.

4.3. The 1990-1994 framework programme has been
regrouped under three main headings (enabling technologies, management of natural resources, management
of intellectual resources) to cover six main activities
(information and communications technologies; industrial
and materials technologies; environment; life sciences and
technologies; energy, human capital and mobility). This
will be put into practice by means of 15 specific research
programmes. The new framework programme incorporates a number of changes in the Community's research
priorities and there have been significant increases in the
resources available for research in the fields of the

environment, biotechnology and the mobility of researchers.

4.4. The Committee recognizes that the new framework
programme is intended to reinforce the synergy between
programmes and expresses the hope that conscious efforts
will be made to integrate research centres in the Objective 1
and 2 regions into the priority areas of Community
research.

5. VALUE and SPRING programmes

5.1. The Committee has previously recognized the
importance of the VALUE programme in making a direct
and effective contribution towards strengthening internal
cohesion through support for the less-developed regions.

5.2. The Council decision of 20 June 1989 (OJ No L 200
of 13 July 1989, p. 23) adopted the VALUE programme on
the grounds that it will contribute, _inter alia,_ to enhancing
the Community's economic and social cohesion and its
harmonious development. The special needs of SMEs will
be taken into account under VALUE as regards technological information and assistance for exploitation.

5.3. The Committee welcomes the introduction of
VALUE ad sees STRIDE as having a particularly important
role to play in support of VALUE in disseminating
technological information between research institutions,
SMEs, etc. in Objective 1 and 2 regions.

5.4. The Committee also recognizes the important role
to be played by SPRINT II, particularly in the areas of
promoting industrial design and researching into the
comparative costs of protecting intellectual property rights.
The Committee welcomes the priorities of SPRINT II and
expresses the hope that STRIDE, VALUE and SPRINT II
will generate important synergies.

6. Protection of innovation

6.1. Notwithstanding its general support for STRIDE,
the Committee is aware that EC regional policy has signally
failed to reduce regional disparities within the Community.
While the Committee has welcomed the recent doubling of
the structural funds, and the new arrangements which
accompany them, the effectiveness of the reforms is
untested. The Committee is concerned that, although it
regards STRIDE as a valuable additional Community
programme, it may not be a sufficient condition to enable
Objective 1 and 2 regions to overcome their technological
disadvantages.

6.2. An important aspect of the process of technological
development not covered by STRIDE is the issue of
intellectual property rights. This issue was raised by the
Committee in its opinion on the 1990-1994 framework
programme. The Committee returns to this issue on the
grounds that if regional disparities are to be reduced, the
desirability and feasibility of introducing differential
intellectual property rights should be explored.

6.3. A start to the development of new intellectual
property rights was made in a report 'Direct Protection of
Innovation', published for the Commission in 1987. This
report called for the establishment of an Innovation Office
to apply a new criterion of 'non-availability in the ordinary
course of trade within the European Community' to
incremental and other forms of innovation which firms in

the Objective 1 and 2 regions are capable of generating.
The report proposes that this new direct protection of
innovation should be introduced initially so as to be
available only to applicants located in an area which
qualifies for specific regional aid. The argument in favour
of differential intellectual property rights is that they would
stimulate innovation and new organic growth in the
peripheral areas of the Community. They would also be a
strong inducement to firms in the 'Golden Triangle' to
spread their production facilities for innovatory products
more widely.

6.4. The issue of intellectual property rights is one
which the Committee considers should be considered

23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/45

seriously as it is a means of addressing one of the main
obstacles to innovation which the Committee has already
identified, namely the absence of easily obtainable
Community patents and the paucity of Community
standards (paragraph 2.6 above).

7. Venture capital

7.1. The impetus to innovation in the peripheral regions
afforded by direct protection of innovation will be
enhanced by adequate provision of venture capital. In the
United States, Japan and the core regions of the Community, venture capital has transformed the process of
innovation. Venture capitalists provide the funds and assist
in the formation of new high technology business. They
cultivate networks of financial institutions, universities,
large corporations and entrepreneurial companies, thus
enabling them to reduce many of the risks associated with
new enterprise formation and overcome many of the
barriers that hold back innovation. Venture capitalists
forge important linkages among a variety of organizations
which are important to the innovation process and act as
'technological gatekeepers' accelerating the process of
technological change.

7.2. The Committee has already identified this issue as a
further obstacle to innovation (paragraph 2.6 above) where
it comments on the failure of financial institutions to give
greater emphasis to providing investment funds to develop
RTD entrepreneurial innovation. In its Report on the
Declining Industrial Areas (doc. CES 1347/89), the
Committee also drew attention to the problem that
centralization of capital markets has created by discouraging the supply of venture capital to SMEs in Objective 2
regions. The Committee recognizes that it is not part of the
Commission's role to underwrite the risk associated with

the commercial exploitation of new technology.

7.3. Nevertheless, the Committee reiterates its concern

over this issue and asks the Commission to consider

exploring ways in which the supply of venture capital in the
peripheral regions might be improved. In particular, the
role of the European Venture Capital Association in
promoting new technology in the peripheral regions should
be re-examined.

8. Monitoring procedures

8.1. Notice C(89) ..., which lays down guidelines for
STRIDE, indicates that during the implementation stages
of programmes, monitoring will take place to ensure that

the choice and progress of projects proceed in accordance
with the dispositions agreed between the Commission and
the Member State involved.

8.2. Again this is an issue which the Committee has
always considered important. The Committee has recommended that all programmes should be evaluated but that
evaluation should be tailored to specific programmes and
has asked the Commission to produce a simple and
effective set of evaluation principles (paragraph 2.9 above).
In particular, the Committee is anxious to ensure that the
optimum benefit of the framework programme for SMEs
should be secured.

8.3. The Committee is aware of problems which have
arisen in the evaluation of framework programmes and
these have been commented on in the Report of the
Framework Programme Review Board (Brussels, June
1989).

8.4. The Committee has recognized a need for full and
effective mid-term reviews of framework programmes
(paragraph 2.7 above). The Committee is particularly
concerned that this review process be applied to STRIDE.
The Committee agrees with the Commission on the need
for flexibility in the operation of STRIDE, that its
operation should vary between Member States and that it
should seek to fill gaps in the range of existing Community
instruments. In this sense, STRIDE may be regarded as a
'soft' programme and, as a consequence, it is correspondingly more difficult to specify precise targets for STRIDE.

8.5. The Committee welcomes the setting-up by the
Commission of an evaluation unit for the monitoring of
framework programmes. In addition, the Commission does
possess a substantial body of information on the prevailing
RTD capacity of the Objective 1 and 2 regions.

8.6. Given that in its Report on Declining Industrial
Areas (doc. CES 1347/89), the Committee has expressed
the hope that there will be careful monitoring of the
operation of the reformed structural funds in the Objective
2 regions, the Committee hopes that specific reference to
the operation of STRIDE will be incorporated as part of
this monitoring process.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Alberto MASPRONE