Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

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

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

3.5. The Committee would also like the Commission to

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

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

3.7. The Committee would stress that the Commission

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

3.8. The Committee wishes to draw attention to the

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

Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986.

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

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

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

for translations. But the nature of translation work could

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

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

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Gerd MUHR

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

(86/C 207/07)

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

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

18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/15

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

On 21 May 1986, during its 237th plenary session, the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion unanimously.

1. Introductory Remarks

1.1. The Committee has based its opinion upon the
information report which its Section for Energy and
Nuclear Questions drew up in 1985 on the EC shared-cost
research, development and demonstration programmes.

That information report was discussed in the Committee's
plenary session on 31 October 1985, and the Committee
voted to forward it to the Institutions together with the
Record of Proceedings.

1.2. The report provided the Commission with an
independent view on the latter's system of Community
shared-cost research. Members of the Section involved had

visited a number of contractors to solicit their views on the

subject.

1.3. The Section believed then, and the Committee
endorses the view that it is important not only that the
Commission should take account of contractors' views —

and it is apparent that they have done that — but also that
improvements the Commission makes to the shared-cost
system are fed back to contractors and to the scientific
community in general. If this happens the considerable
effort and money expended by the Economic and Social
Committee on the original report and, later, on this
opinion, will have been justified.

1.4. In this opinion the Committee reiterates the main
conclusions reached by the Section in its recent report on
Community shared-cost research.

It comments on the progress made by the Commission in
the area of shared-cost research since the report was first
undertaken.

Finally, the Committee makes further recommendations
for the future.

2. Community shared-cost research

2.1. _General comments_

The Committee agrees with those contractors interviewed
who considered that shared-cost research programmes
gave the best value for effort and money of the various
major methods used by the Commission to promote
research and development.

It welcomes the fact that contractors who have participated
in shared-cost contracts are generally keen to continue. It
notes however that some organizations do not participate
in Commission-initiated shared-cost programmes, for fear

of bureaucracy, financial stringency or simply from lack of
knowledge concerning the possibility of participation.

The Commission services, in collaboration with Member
States, are continually evolving the techniques employed to
obtain the optimum value for money from the use of
European Community funds. The Committee considers
that the Commission should be urged to continue this
process in the light of the experience gained in the
programmes such as Biotechnology, Esprit, BRITE, and
RACE.

2.2. _Criteria for selection of shared-cost_ _programmes_

The Section in its report has identified eight main criteria
for the Commission to apply when selecting shared-cost
research programmes, to produce optimum value for effort
and money:

— programmes with industrial objectives should be
limited to areas defined by the Commission as 'precompetitive',

— this does not apply where the results of a given research
project are designed to contribute to health, welfare and
safety,

— the results of the research must be of potential use to
more than one Member State,

— the benefits arising from each research programme
should, if successful, be greater than the sum of the
benefits Member States could have achieved individu
ally with their own research organizations,

— research projects that attract Community funds must be
clearly ones that are best planned and carried out at
Community level and hence provide 'additionally',

— the size of each individual project should exceed the
'critical mass' i.e. the minimum needed for the project
results to provide the promise of subsequent application. This criterion should not be sacrificed for

reasons of _juste retour_ or budget restriction,

— shared-cost research should entail the sharing of risk
between the Commission and the contractor. The

Commission's share of project cost and accompanying
risk must not be less than 50 %,

— the research programmes must entail participation by
more than one Member State, thus promoting 'transfrontier cross-fertilization',

No C 207/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86

the research programmes must entail participation by
more than one of the various layers of research
operations (e.g. academic, research institution, industrial) thus promoting 'trans-layer cross-fertilization'.

2.3. _Commission_ _procedures_

The Committee agrees with those contractors interviewed
who considered that Commission procedures for contract
management and reporting were generally good and that
Commission staff contributed considerably to making the
procedures work.

The Committee recommends that improvements can
however be made, such as:

— ensuring greater uniformity in drawing up and implementing the procedures for shared-cost research,
development and demonstration programmes,

— designating a central group within the Commission
responsible for ensuring a common approach to sharedcost work administration,

— extending procedural modifications that were introduced with the Esprit programme,

— retaining a percentage of reserve funding to meet
unforeseen developments in the course of individual

programmes,

— reducing the relatively high cost of tender submission,
by carrying out a preliminary vetting of initial bids,

— reducing to a minimum of the time taken between bid
submission and work authorization,

— modifying financial conditions for advance payments
and reimbursements, including reimbursement of
overheads,

— introducing changes in contract terms,

— modifying the system of auditing contractors' research
work.

2.4. _Coordination with industry_

The Committee recognizes contractors' concern that in
many areas of research, their rewards from technology
arising from successful research and development are
entirely dependent upon the success of subsequent
technical and commercial actions by 'industry' in the
widest sense, management and employees alike.

The Committee recommends that the Commission does all
in its power to ensure that those involved with research on
the one hand and those responsible for commercial and
technical decisions in industry on the other, think and work
together from the start.

To this end the Commission should examine its procedures
for the involvement of industry at all stages from the
research plan, through the initial programme definition,
the pre-contract information, the contract award, the
contract management advice, to the post-contract utilization plan.

The Commission should lead the way with clearly defined
liaison procedures between its DG XII (research and
development), DG XIII (innovation), and DG III (industrial
affairs).

The Commission itself should endeavour to involve

industrial representation in its activities and not rely solely
on representation chosen by Member State Governments.

2.5. _Pre-contract activity by the_ _Commission_

The Committee urges the Commission to improve the
organization and timing of its pre-contract information to
potential contractors.

It should take positive steps to attract the interest of a wide
spectrum of contractors, since the choice of the most
appropriate and efficient contractors is vital to the success
of shared-cost work.

The Committee endorses suggestions made by contractors
that the Commission should :

— establish a complete list of research resources in the
Community,

— positively promote shared-cost proposals to potential

contractors,

— keep up-to-date its brochure on shared-cost research
work and the mechanism by which it operates,

— provide for potential contractors an early warning
mechanism in the form of Commission D.G. newsletters

and other publications,

— provide a number of liaison officers and publicize their
availability,

— encourage contractors and potential contractors to
submit their ideas for improving the system.

2.6. _Communication_ _and Promotion_

The Committee feels that the general awareness of the
shared-cost work of the Commission, the means by which
it operates and the ways to learn of up-coming opportunities, is not as great as it might be.

The Commission should tackle the problem of public
relations.

The Committee notes that during contract work, communication with contractors is usually good. The organization of symposia and exchanges of experience are generally
well worth the cost involved.

18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the

The Committee regrets that the promotion by the
Commission of the successful results of shared-cost work

has not led to a general awareness of the value of such
work.

It has to be asked whether the Commission might not
establish a 'centre of excellence' as a clearing house for
information. This would seem to have been recognized in
so far as in the biotechnology field the proposal has been
made to set up a concertation unit. In the field of
technology generally, there is a need for a central
organization to act as a catalyst in the interchange of ideas
and of people. This could even include a data bank. Whilst
the Committee would urge the Commission to undertake a
study of the essential function which would need to be met
by such a centre, the Committee asks whether this cannot
be provided by an outstanding faculty in an existing
university or a renowned research institute.

2.7. _Confidentiality_

In so far as some contractors were worried about the

confidentiality of their work and results, the Committee
urges the Commission to publish a note on how the
Commission understands confidentiality. This would be of
help to contractors, especially smaller contractors.

The Committee feels that the Commission should consider

the advantages and disadvantages publishing extensive
information concerning likely avenues for future research
in that it provides an indication of strategic thinking to
competitors.

2.8. _Subsequent utilization of results_

The Committee supports the view expressed by some
contractors when interviewed in 1985 that there has been a

tendency by the Commission to regard the research
contract as an end in itself rather than the first step on the
road to successful industrial use.

The Committee urges that the Commission ensure that
every R, D _&t_ D programme has a utilization plan to
provide for the subsequent use of successful results. This
should be an integral part of the overall programme
submitted to the Council for adoption.

At the time the information report was first drawn up
contractors understood that the utilization plan could not
be cost-shared in the industrial sector lest it fall into the

competitive area. The contractors felt that there were
certain elements in the utilization plan which the
Commission should consider for cost-sharing, such as the
protection of the intellectual property arising from the
investment of Community funds. The Committee supports
this view.

uropean Communities No C 207/17

2.9. _Small and medium-sized_ _entreprises_

The Committee supports those contractors who saw the
position of small and medium-sized enterprises as demanding more study by the Commission. (See paragraph 4.3.).

2.10. _Mobility of staff_

The Committee welcomes the plan to stimulate European
technical and scientific cooperation and interchange (1985
to 1988) adopted by the Council on 12 March 1985'('). The
Committee nevertheless feels that the encouragement of the
mobility of research staff throughout the European
Community demands further action by the Commission. It
feels movement from one research centre to another is

beneficial both to the research centre and to the research

worker, resulting in cross-fertilization of ideas, and in
closer understanding and collaboration.

It is pleased to note the evolution of shared-cost research
programme organization aimed at encouraging mobility.

2.11. _Social consequences and involvement of workers_

The Committee recognized that one objective of Community research policy must be to find an effective way of
involving workers and their organizations in decisions
concerning Community shared-cost research in so far as
they are likely to affect the direction and dimension of the
Community's technological effort. It urges that the
Commission be asked to tackle this task.

3. Progress by the Commission since the Section's initial
report was undertaken

The Committee notes that since the information report was
first undertaken, the Commission has made considerable
progress in evolving a more coherent policy and strategy for
the development of a technological Europe.

In particular a number of worries about policy and strategy
expressed in the information report have been tackled.
There are signs of dynamic evolution and a lively spirit in
Commission thinking matched by some response from the
Council.

There is, too, growing awareness, spurred on by nonCommunity activities such as Eureka and SDI, that the
Commission cannot concern itself only with pre-competitive research. The Committee urges that the Commission
find ways to work with Member States to bring the results
of its research into the market place. It must identify the

(!) OJ No I. 83, 25.3. 1985.

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

major opportunities which are appropriate to Community
action and concentrate on them, leaving lesser projects to
Member States.

3.1. _Implementation_ _of existing_ _programmes_

The Committee realizes that the Commission has been fully
stretched in working on its existing programmes and those
recently approved by the Council, including BR1TE, nonnuclear energy, radiation protection and stimulation.

In February 1984 the Council adopted the European
Programme for Research and Development in Information
Technologies (Esprit) 84/130/EEC. The first two calls for
tender in 1984 and 1985 received a very good response from
industry and science, and the projects selected will require
for their completion almost all the funding estimated for
the first five years of the programme.

The Commission set up an independent high-level body,
the Esprit Review Board, to assess the progress of the
Programme by a series of face-to-face interviews (131) and
a mailed questionnaire to 477 participants from whom 238
replies have been received (COM 19.11.85) .

The Committee welcomes the main conclusions of this

assessment which reported that Esprit has been successfully
established and is on course to meet its original objectives.
Certain procedural changes were recommended. Esprit and
national programmes were regarded as being complementary and no major conflicts were identified. It would
support the recommendations of the Review Board that
pre-competitive R & D in this area, subject to consolidation and restructuring, should continue, and that
demonstration projects should be added to the programme.

The 1986 work programme for Esprit was proposed in a
draft Council Decision (COM 12.11.85). Five major sectors
as in the previous work plan were proposed and a
distinction was drawn between Type A projects which
were individually described in the work plan with shortand long-term objectives and Type B projects which were
described as covering general research topics.

The Committee supports the Review Board in pointing out
that even the short-term objectives might have to be
changed in the course of the yearly revisions, in the light of
the progress within Europe and elsewhere in the world. The
Section has pointed out this need to provide for a change of
course during the life of a project in its own information
report.

The Committee would support the Commission in
considering that the Review Board's evaluation was
sufficiently encouraging for the Commission to expect to

recommend strengthening and enlargement of the work for
the second five years' tranche of the 10-year plan (Esprit 2).

The Committee was also pleased to note that in the
programme for the basic research in industrial technologies
(BRITE) the Commission selected 95 projects involving 432
bodies and that 60 % of these are industrial, 21 % are
research institutes and 19 % are universities. 24 % of the

industrial organizations come within the Commission
definition of SMEs.

In March 1985 the Council adopted a plan to stimulate
European scientific and technical cooperation and interchange (1985 to 1988) 85/197/EEC.

The Committee supports the 'Stimulation' Plan to spend 60
million ECU with a staff of 12 on research grants and
contracts to encourage the twinning of laboratories and
operation contracts. The range of activities will seek to
establish a network of scientific and technical cooperation
and exchange in all fields of science and technology. These
measures are aimed to aid the mobility of researchers,
communication among scientists and the development of
cooperation.

The plan will be reviewed during its second year (1986).
The Economic and Social Committee asks to receive this

review.

3.2. _Improvement,_ _simplification_ _and coordination_ _of_
_procedures_

The Committee regards shared-cost research as an
accepted and a basic tool of Community-level research. It
has already yielded worthwhile results in an efficient and
economic way. Considerable experience gained in its
operation so far has led the Commission to introduce a
continuing series of improvements, simplification and
coordination of procedures, some of which were suggested
by contractors interviewed for the information report.

The Committee is pleased to note that since its Section
drew up the initial report in 1985 contract mechanisms
have been improved, and some 1 000 contracts will be
agreed in 1986.

3.3. _Role of public sector and institutions_

The Committee supports the Commission in the realization
that research and development in the industrial and
technological fields, mainly carried out by the industrial
sector with public involvement, plays an important part in
fulfilling the objectives of the Framework Programme.
However it points out that there are other areas of research
and development activities such as nuclear fusion,
environmental health and safety, radiation protection
which can only in the main be carried out by the public

18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/19

sector in university laboratories and research institutes.
These also play a vital role in the well-being of the citizens.

3.4. _Utilization and protection of results_

The Committee would underline that the Luxembourg
Conference supported and encouraged actions to utilize the
results of research and to bring it to the market place.

A new Annex 2 to the standard contract now places
obligations on contractors to utilize the results of their
contract work.

3.5. _Protection of results_

The Committee notes with regret that not all Member
States have been able to sign the Luxembourg Convention
relating to the European patent for the common market.

3.6. _Towards a technological Europe_

In the past year the Commission has been active in
stimulating discussion on appropriate ways to bring about
a technological Europe.

It submitted two communications to the Milan Summit in

June.

The first, 'Strengthening of technical cooperation in
Europe', defined the challenge and outlined the response in
terms of the Community and national efforts and their
interaction. It went on to propose actions involving the
launching of projects and various forms of cooperation and
their mechanisms.

The second, 'Towards a European technology community', expanded on the first and suggested methods of
cooperation and financing arrangements.

It drew attention to the efficacy of shared-cost programmes
in pre-competitive research citing the ESC information
report.

It also emphasized the value of concerted action programmes which could include non-EC countries.

Finally it suggested that additional programmes financed
solely by Member States wishing to take part ('variable
geometry') should no longer be limited solely to the nuclear
field.

It supported the view of the ESC information report that
the management tool used for the JET programme could
serve as a model for other projects for the joint
development and exploitation of major scientific facilities.

The Council in Milan endorsed this paper and asked for it
to be put into effect. The Commission published proposals
for implementation in 'Towards a European technologicy
community' (COM 30.09.1985). It suggested that a new
overall scientific and technical programme for the
Community should be drawn up and put into effect
without delay.

It reinforced the view of the ESC that this should be

accompanied by measures defined in the Commission
White Paper on completion of the internal market and
promotion of cooperation between European industrial
firms.

It added that an overall strategy must be worked out to
serve as a guide to action towards achieving a European
scientific and technological community.

In January 1986 the Economic and Social Committee
adopted three information reports on 'New Technologies
European Community R & D,' 'Innovation in the
Community; the Corporate Environment' and on 'Social
Aspects' which generally endorsed the Commission
approach.

3.7. _Revision of the framework_ _programme_

In March 1985 the Economic and Social Committee

adopted an opinion on 'priorities for Community research
initiatives: the next revision of the framework programme
for Community scientific and technological activities',
(rapporteur: Mr T. Roseingrave).

The Committee considered that the scientific proposals for
Europe described in the framework programme provided
the basis for an essential European R, D & D strategy. It
gave some suggestions for revision.

In April 1985 the Commission published the working
document, 'The scientific and technical strategy of the
Community'. It described the status of implementation of
the framework programme and considered its revision.

The first framework programme for Community scientific
and technical activities covered the period 1984 to 1987. To
implement it the Council took decisions on a number of
shared-cost programmes including Esprit, some multiannual programmes such as Biotechnology, BRITE,
Stimulation and on funds for demonstration projects on

energy.

The Commission pointed out that these decisions showed
the value of Community R & D and the recognition of its
role in the implementation of new Community policies but
that they did not always match up to the scope of, nor

No C 207/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86

respect the balances between the scientific and technical
objectives approved by the Council with the adoption of
the framework programme.

The April 1985 working document went on to give ideas for
the revision of the framework programme and to identify
five major issues concerning the Community's scientific
and technological strategy for discussion with the Member
States.

The review was preceded by a comparison of national and
Community scientific policies in COPOL III in June 1985.

The basic guidelines for the new framework programme
1987 to 1991 have now been drawn up on the basis of the
memoranda 'Towards a technological Community' and
were expected to be debated by ministers in April 1986. The
next step is for a proposal to be drawn up.

In the light of the Luxembourg Council conclusions in
December 1985 the framework programme will embrace:

— setting scientific objectives,

— outlining fundamental plans of action,

— estimating the deemed necessary amount,

— distribution of the amount between the different

projects,

— procedure for financial participation of the Community
in the programme as a whole.

This new framework programme will be the vehicle by
which the Commission will promote its plan to strengthen
technological Europe. Under the amendments to the
Treaty, provisionally agreed at Luxembourg, the framework programme will be an integral part of the overall
approval for technological actions and their scale. It will
require unanimous approval by the Council whereas in
order to enhance flexibility the individual programmes will
be agreed by a qualified majority vote.

4. Recommendations for the future

4.1. _Continued development of shared-cost research_

The Committee believes that the Commission should

continue to conduct research by means of shared-cost

contracts.

It should sophisticate procedures to increase efficiency and
value for money, meeting the criteria given above and
ensuring that experience gained from one series is applied
to the next.

The Committee urges the Commission to continue its work
to coordinate, simplify and cheapen its shared-cost
research procedures. It is vital to make these programmes
attractive to all potential contractors. Some public relation

work is needed by the Commission to convince the
entrepreneur that there are positive advantages for him to
be involved.

The Committee urges the Commission to take positive
steps to secure the best possible research contractors, and
the appropriate mix in size and range of contractors.

In particular, procedures should be developed to involve
small and medium-sized enterprises in shared-cost research
both as prime contractors and, where appropriate, as
subcontractors.

4.2. _Centres of excellence_

The Committee draws attention to the memorandum

'Towards a European technology community' (COM(85)
350 final), in which the Commission supported the
suggestion made in the ESC information report, to identify
a network of centres of excellence recognized and
supported by the Community. These centres, based upon
areas of technology, would agree to cooperate in programmes with the Commission. They would facilitate technology transfer through links with both universities and
industry; promoting the flow of information in both
directions, developing the mobility of labour and framing
training policies.

The Committee asks that the Commission itself might
consider acting as a centre of excellence in certain areas
specifically as a data base and information exchange centre.

4.3. _Involvement of small and medium-sized_ _enterprises_
_(SMEs)_

The Committee would like to see the Commission

sophisticate its approach to the involvement of SMEs in
shared-cost research especially:

— awarding them a fair and appropriate proportion of
shared-cost programmes,

— transferring to them the results of research generated by
shared-cost research.

At the moment, with programmes such as Esprit and
BRUT where the Commission publicizes figures of 40 %
SME involvement, the Committee understands that this
percentage applies to numbers of contractors rather than to
funding. Furthermore the involvement of SMEs is dependent upon the skill of the Commission management
team in their interrelation with the advisory committees.

The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions is preparing
an information report on the importance of technology to
SMEs in which this problem will be described in detail.
Meanwhile the Committee would like the Commission to

consider:

— whether techniques such as the US small business
innovation research (SBIR) programmes could be
adapted for Community use,

18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/21

— whether the Commission could do more to encourage
subcontracting to SMEs in shared-cost programmes;

— whether further work on the utilization plan by the
Commission (DG XIII) could do more to promote the
interests of SMEs in the subsequent technological
development phase which if successful will end in the
market place of the Community.

4.4. _A greater role for innovation_

The Committee emphasizes that shared-cost research
programmes will only have been successful in terms of
value for money if they result in subsequent successful
innovation either in the form of new products and
processes which the market will buy or in beneficial
changes for health, welfare and the protection of the
environment.

The Committee believes that just as research strategy has
been the subject of intense study and activity, its
counterpart innovation should receive similar treatment;
otherwise there is a likehood that the Community will not
receive value for money from its research expenditure. In
particular, the Committee urges the Council to implement
the amendment to the EEC Treaty proposed by the
European Council in Luxembourg in December 1985
which explicitly defines the Community's role in the
dissemination and exploitation of the results of Community research development and technology demonstration (RDTD) activities.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986.

4.5. _Protection of intellectual_ _property_

The Committee asks in the Commission to help contractors
to solve their real and apparent difficulties in the protection
of the intellectual property created in shared-cost work.

4.6. _Actions to strengthen the industry-university_ _link_

The Committee believes that the Commission techniques to
devise shared-cost research projects which bring together
universities and other higher educational establishments
with research organizations in industry and elsewhere, are
of great value.

The Commission is urged to continue to work in this area.

4.7. _Public relations by the_ _Commission_

The Committee feels that the shared-cost programmes of
the Commission are still not yet sufficiently publicized. The
feeling among potential contractors persists that it is
difficult to find out about them, expensive to tender for
them, and bureaucratically complex to undertake them.
Furthermore there are doubts in the minds of potential
contractors about the ownership of the results. There is
need for the Commission to undertake promotional work
to correct these misconceptions.

The Committee noted with approval the exhibition of new
technology arranged by the European Parliament on the
occasion of its new technologies symposium held in
Strasbourg in October 1985 and felt that this might well be
repeated elsewhere.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Gerd MUHR

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the prevention of environmental pollution

by asbestos (')

_(86/C_ 207/08)

On 18 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
abovementioned proposal for a Directive.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 May 1986
in the light of the report by Mr Bleser.

(') OJ No C 349, 31. 12. 1985, p. 27.