Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

#### ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES DE LA COMMISSION

##### COLLECTION RELIEE DES DOCUMENTS "COM"

### COM (88)291

##### Vol. 1988/0100

_**Disclaimer**_

Conformement au reglement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1 er fevrier 1983 concernant
l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communaute economique europeenne et de
la Communaute europeenne de l'energie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifie en dernier
lieu par le reglement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25.3.2015, p. 1), ce
dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas echeant, les documents classifies presents dans ce dossier
ont ete declassifies conformement a !'article 5 dudit reglement ou sont consideres declassifies
conformement aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la decision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les regles de securite aux fins de la protection des
informations classifiees de l'Union europeenne.

In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning
the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the
European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1 ), as last amended by Council
Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1 ), this file is open to the
public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity
with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with
Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.

In Obereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar
1983 Ober die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europaischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
der Europaischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1 ), zuletzt geandert durch die
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. Marz 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1 ), ist dieser Akt
der Offentlichkeit zuganglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
Obereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
2015/444 vom 13. Marz 2015 Ober die Sicherheitsvorschriften fur den Schutz von EUVerschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.

**COMMISSION** **OF THE** **EUROPEAN** **COMMUNITIES**

COM (88) 291 final

Brussels, 24 June 1988

REINFORCING COOPERATION BETWEEN EUREKA AND THE

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

(Communication from the Commission)

\
. \

I
###### i

_i_

REINFORCING COOPERATION BETWEEN EUREKA AND THE EUROPEAN COMUNITY

1. Technological cooperation is a powerful factor in European integration.

The success of our programmes such as ESPRIT, BRITE and RACE, the progress
within the Eureka framework and in the European Space Agency, each
demonstrates that the pooling of resources, efforts and talents as well as
the sharing of risks, offers Europe a unique chance of making up lost
ground and establishing..a-leading role in most of the new high technology
sectors.

With that end in **view** the Single European Act provides for different types
of European cooperation   - the Framework Programme itself, coordination of
national policies, joint ventures and agencies, supplementary programmes
and participations.

THE ORIGINS OF EUREKA

2. EUREKA was launched in 1985 as a new framework for fostering transnational
cooperation in Europe on high technology R&O.

Its essential features were a concentration on R&O closer to the
market-place than Community programmes;· wider geographical coverage than
the Community Call the EFTA countries and Turkey are members in addition to
the Twelve); and a different institutional framework in which the
initiative for projects came essentially from enterprises and research
institutes.

Governments concentrated on helping to provide the right policy framework
in which such projects could flourish, without seeking to define priorities
for research aimed at improving Europe's competitive position.

THE COMMISSION'S ROLE

3. From the outset the Commission has regarded Eureka as complementary to the
Community programmes in R&O.

But with the aim of speeding up the improvement in Europe's competitive
position  - notably in the context of competition between Europe, Japan and
the USA  - the Commission believes that this complementarity should
henceforth be strengthened.

It sees this as an important means of encouraging research close to the
market and of associating non-Community European countries in Europe's
cooperative efforts.

. '

4. In its Communication to the Council of November 1986 [1 ] the Commission
outlined the first set of measures which it proposed to take in order to
encourage synergy between Community programmes and Eureka projects, both on
a case-by-case basis (though its involvement in specific projects) and in
the wider context of the Community's responsibilities for fostering an
economic and business environment favourable ~o the success of~~~transnational R&O ventures in Europe.

_S._ The annex sets out what has been achieved so ' .  -, ., _··-<·_ "?f far,..,~~!T;·~~:~,::•~·c·\ on the basis }tE·:!-~S-·JJofU~~:=·74 of the ... ~
approach adopted in COMC86) 664 final. It demonstrates that the Commission
'.J.1 c.' is already . involved directly in a number of important Eureka projects.· ... 
t", _v_ ":·.·~. ';,;~.,,;. i':.:·:,,·t•: _,,;;;'.:'':•L'.?Yl_ '!:,}~::::~::~ ~i,~\,~~•/~O?.~//i',;,~_:/,;''~;::·

THE **STRENGTHENING** **OF** **COOPERATION** **BETWEEN** **EUREKA** **ANO** THE **COMMUNITY** **THAT** **IS** ~-**REQUIRED** **.....** **-,**,·=.i  - •,.,.•·  - ~-  - . .<·ic,.,,,.c..

1, !i~· l'.,·,:.:•l'· -:;~1.~-'                                                                                                                                       - r _ti_                                                                                                                                       - ; l·\}
6. But the time is now ripe to go fu~th~r:_~/~;:: -~··,:,(~r:~-~:•sJ,;(\~ ('<;:-•~·:1c·• .. d r,,)

        -,"b t ..,•~,l·,,•._•_,,;,•;. . ' .:1.:-:.f':,)'i·,"·1/j. _~.-.:J•;,,:I'_ .....,, ~- ..,~         - 1!';•4(\~-(,'if'l.f rn~_-,,_- .. ~ h."'.•, .,_ .. '.~:i,·:~f·.~7)0 ~,.;~q!.,r·1 .. ~!n
Since the launch of Eureka and the Commission's first policy position in
November 1986, several factors have altered the environment in which the
Commission's guidelines **were** established:

Ca) Eureka projects often cover fields in which the Community is already
playing an important role. -. . . -:-;.,, ..,. _nr_ . . r.--,,.M··",f<;;·t1.0- j ' _,.,:~:.:.~J_ .. . ;"t./, "',.,:,.;;• . .,..,t . :·.-. ..., . s

       - :-··1;11·. >-. -· t l: r··:,1;.•,'l- _·-,;:~_ i:»r.•:~---.,-,·•~ l~t•';, ~-.l:,,~';;\,,') ')··•~;~:);· ~f ",•: ;:•t;.~'i·".i•'.t,):l
On the one hand, Eureka projects have been more heavily concentrated in the
pre-competitive field that was foreseen fo 1985.   - r::~-ild~,:; :· .' t 1 _.1_ _:;•,:;,•_ ". d ;_

~~ .. :_r                   - :.-~~ f~•.-.__•1;._;f.J,.,~,,:,.,~,., ....,. -t~.                   - '- ._.~.:~·•••;'"(·'"~·•, v·~'"rnU':."1.r/,i:f) t~.e-(i! !;,Z")S.Jq .... :.~Jt···;;,m
This is particularly clear.in the case of the large infrastructure projects
CEUROTRAC and EUROfllAR in the field of the environment, COSINE in that of i
information networks) which require public participation and a governmental_
framework.·, t,r. :' ; -..;;; . 1-:,;, -   - ••   - -•··

This has also led to a larger call on public finance as well as sever• [10] ~
difficulties in attracting private finance   - .,,·?. :,,, 1~ 2 -;:-•~·r 1,·F~ ;·t:,vz n;.;i-,:,; nr
~~.';~ t.i·~rrf1.r.l ")({•" [t] f;:;. _;_>::-_ l~i"t,~··,~ _:,_ ... r,.~: .. _....._ _--::•"~~-.::;,:.~;:::if_ _"];".7._ j;.~~;:fJi- rl;"1·~~=-~:'~~~~·-~·-,.~ [01 ]
On the other hand; some of the larger Eureka projects or groups of projects._
   - such as PROMETHEUS (transport), EUROLASER, FAMOR (robotics)   - are   - V
directed at research areas where it is particularly important to define the   - 1,_
respective roles of the different actors if the risk of overlap is to be
avoided •

. -, t v . "• >·. '.-.                 -, . ' .;.,,;_ !'- { :;-t·i,J ~YJG E ~~n ;;;i.rl m. ?' :: c; '.. ;r'.~;t:? :;~;-\ ~ ;:;} \\:~:: ~'•.l:i;:~:;1                 - f.
Cb) The Community has adopted the Framework Programme.    .• ., _;:.;;,_ _t·_ _._ .... '.'·t··: ...... \-,,,_:_.·•" ~·> 1J; [1 ] ;:· :;:lJ fJ:1/i·v Ju~\.,
The Council has already adopted specific programmes of which the estimated

   - cost is equivalent to about 45% of the amount deemed necessary for the :~,,1.

application of the Framework Programme; and other proposals covering more
than a further 30% are already before the Council. These programmes aim
principally to encourage cooperation in the pre-competitive or basic [3] ~• _[1]_ _'_

research fields. [1 ] The future orientation of certain Eureka project, notably
those in their definition phases, is less clearly def;ned. -:;,' [1] ''; _':"'_ __,, [1] '••_,,...,.

1
COM(86) 664 Final, 20 Nov. 1986.

-, ~

. 

The strengthening of ties between Eureka and the Community would help to
establish a strategic vision linking pre-competitive actions with those
close to the market.

Cc) Europe needs to ensure rapid progress in sectors of crucial importance
for the future, such as m1cro-electron1cs, aeronaut1cs,
supraconduct1vity, biotechnology and the environment. In some of these
areas Eureka projects are in preparation. One example of strategic
importance in the field of micro-electronics is JESSI.

Cd) EFTA countries are now more closely associated with the Community's R&0
efforts as a result of bilateral agreements giving them access of
various kinds to Community programmes, alongside their long-standing
cooper,ation with the Community through the COST mechanism.

The Commission considers that closer international cooperation in R&D,
already mentioned in Article 130 N of the Treaty, is an important
element in external policy.

7. All these factors point to the conclusion that it would now be right to
clarify the Community's objectives vis-a-vis Eureka and to reinforce the
instruments applied in pursuit of them.

The memorandum from the Presidency of the Council which was circulated to
Member States in April 1988 sets out the arguments.

8. Against that background the Commission considers that the Community should
contribute more to the success of Eureka by measures in five fields:

  - practical steps to improve the links and to reduce the possible overlap
with Community programmes;

  - financial participation in Eureka projects or project phases that are
upstream of development for the market;

  - recourse to the possibilities offered by Articles 130 Land 130 M

(supplementary programmes and participation);

  - measures to attract private capital to Eureka projects or project phases
that are close to the market;

  - measures to improve the economic and business environment.

<a> reinforcing the links and reducing the overlaps: establishing solid
complementarity between Eureka and Community programmes in order to
ensure continuity

9. The Commission intends to ensure greater complementarity and continuity
by:

   - redoubling its existing efforts to ensure that potential Eureka·
participants are fully **aware** of the opportunities offered by Community
R&D programmes (through ad hoe workshops, active involvement in Eureka's
own information efforts etc);

   - working.directly with the national officials concerned to identify at the   
earliest possible stages possible links with the Community programmes and
ways in which the most effective synergy can be developed;

   - ensuring, through its participation in the steering committees of the
larger Eureka projects that work programmes and procedures can be
developed that·minimise the overlap with Community programmes.,

10.All these actions will only be effective as long as the Commission receives
timely and adequate information on projects. Without this it will not be
.in a position to make its contribution under the most satisfactory
conditions.

(b) Helping to finance pre-competitive Eureka projects

There are several posibilities for the Commission.

~1.The Commission envisages direct participation by the Joint Research Centre
in consortia presenting Eureka proposals, in those areas where it has the
requisite skills and expertise.

In line with its new focus on research that is more oriented towards the
needs of industry, the JRC intends **already** to carry out four research
projects in support of the Eureka environmental project EUROTRAC.
Negotiations are also at an advanced stage for participation in a Eureka
project on industrial safety. The Centre will be looking for all further
opportunities to participate in these fields, as well as in the field of
non-nuclear energy •
.

12.The Community's research programmes in specific fields are open to
submissions for financial support from participants in Eureka projects in
the areas concerned.

Funding, normally on a shared cost basis, will be available for projects of
a pre-competitive, pre-normative or non-competitive nature that are
successful through the normal transparent selection procedures applying to
the programmes concerned.

y

, .. :.,

,•:

- _,A·:_

-,;

Within the existing restricted financial ceiling, however, the Commission
is unable to participate financially in more then 15-20X of the proposals
made to it. Moreover, the percentage is falling, with the Commission
having to reject an increasing number of good proposals.

13.The scope for financing Eureka projects in this way is therefore not large.
The real solution is to increase the budget available for the Community
programmes.

The extra efforts in R&0 that will be required will be specified in the
revision of the Framework Programme, in line moreover with the decision of
the European Council of 11 and 12 February 1988 taken in the framework of
the financial outlook for the period 1988-1992 (Chapter F, Page 28).

This revisjon will be the right occasion for considering the replies to
the challenges cited in paragraph 6c above. The Commission is ready to
present a first outline of its ideas on this subject to the Council in the
autumn.

Cc),recourse to the possibilities offered by Articles 130 Land 130 M

(supplementary programmes and participations).

14.Supplementary programmes and participations were foreseen in the Single
European Act as a means of enlarging the array of types of Community
intervention, and of ensuring the necessary flexibility according to the
actions envisaged.

The advantages for the Community are essentially:

   - the scope for carrying out actions which do not necessarily interest all
Member States but which nevertherless are in line with the main
objectives of Community action;

  - the possibility of launching such actions going beyond those that could
be financed form the Community's own resources and of mobilizing national
financial resources beyond those foreseen in the Framework Programme.

These forms of cooperation are particularly interesting in the context of
'the Commission's efforts to encourage better coordination of national
policies. They could also be used to support national actions in Eureka
projects, notably in strategic areas such as micro-electronics, in
particular the JESSI project.

15.Recourse to complementary programmes for Eureka projects that are of
interest for the Community and which require a special commitment by
certain Member States, does not inevitably mean financial support.

The Community's contribution could take the form of project management or
technical assistance.

Clearly the Commission could also intervene directly by means of the budget
of the Framework Programme, provided that the projects concerned were
linked to the objectives of the Framework Programme.

**!Piiit'1Pfffi§?lfWST1Pl57W~PmTrrr:** ~~**s**~~

16.In its first outline of the rev1s1on of the Framework Programme the
Commission intends also to examine in detail the possible modes of
intervention, in particular the possibilities offered by Articles
130 Land 130 M. It will also examine the various loan possibilities.

Cd) Mobilizing private finance

17.The Commission has transmitted to the Council and to the Parliament a
Communication outlining a series of measures to facilitate the financing of
_ transnational technological cooperation in Europe.

18.Several possibilities _are_ envisaged:

       - the promotion of the investment fund EUROTECH CAPITAL, which would take
shares in high-risk long-term, high-technology projects, could be a key
element for the private sector.

The Commission envisages an initial financial contribution from the
Community.

risk insurance for advanced technology projects, developed in close
collaboration with Eureka.

This would be a mechanism to be put in place by the private insurance
sector. But the Commission is ready to make a financial contribution to the
launching of a pilot project which would allow the promoters of advanced
technology projects to benefit      - over 5 years      - from reduced insurance
premia related to protection against certain risks.

The financing of the pilot project **will** be accompanied by an information
campaign by the Commission directed at all the interested parties
(promoters, financiers, insurers, agents) and a programme of cooperation
between the Commission services and the insurance companies to help risk
evaluation.

as already indicated in its Communication, the Commission also intends to
contribute to better information on the financing needs of high
technology projects.

(e) Improving the economic and business environment

19.Further progress towards completion of the Community's Internal Market
Programme **will** help to improve the environment in which Eureka and other
advanced technology projects can thrive. Moreover, the Commission insists
on the need to improve the legal, fiscal and regulatory framework covering
transnational cooperation between companies.

Measures of particular importance in this context involve the prevention of
new technical obstacles to trade; and the opening-up of national public
procurement to general advertising, competitive tendering and
non-discriminatory selection from tenders received.

The same is true of the Commission's constructive approach in the
application to high-technology projects of the Community's state aid
rules; and a number of measures intended to develop a more rational system
of intellectual and industrial property rights throughout the Community.

The Commission will also continue to work closely with the EFTA countries
in the discussions concerning joint measures on technical standards,
intellectual and industrial property rights, state aids and public
procurement which are already under **way.**

These will be helpful in the context of Eureka projects involving
participants from the Community and EFTA countries.

CONCLUSIONS

2O.The actions outlined above are important new initiatives in promoting
synergy between the Community and Eureka, in reducing the risks of overlap,
and in developing continuity between pre-competitive actions and those
close to the market. They bear witness to the importance of the Community
role.

The further success of the Eureka venture will not however depend solely on
the role which the Community can play. It would be unreasonable to suppose
that the Community budget could shoulder the financial burdens for projects
that require major public financial support, given the limited resources
available under the Framework Programme.

But the Commission is confident that the measures proposed will make a
major contribution to the pursuit of the goal of improving European
competitiveness which the Community shares with Eureka.

The Council is therefore invited to endorse the actions proposed in this
Communication.

~~_q_~~

**ANNEX**

**EUREKA** **AND** **COMMUNITY** **RESEARCH** **AND** **DEVELOPMENT:**

**PROGRESS** **TO** **DATE**

**1.** **Introduction**

1.1 The Communication itself outlines the new actions proposed'
by the Commission to reinforce cooperation over the coming
years. This more detailed annex reviews cooperation to
date, in the light of the guidelines set out in the
Commission's earlier Communication COM( 86) 664 final of 20
November 1986. It

recalls the essential features of the earlier
Communication (paras 2.1      - 2.3 >;
**0** outlines how EUREKA has evolved in the meantime
(paras 3.1       - 3.8); and
summarises the actions taken by the Commission as a
f9llow-up to COM(86)664 (paras 4.1      - 4.7).

1. 2 Appendix I provides summary information on some of the
larger EUREKA projects.
Appendix II summarises the involvement of the Commission
in specific EUREKA projects.
Appendix III and IV show the evolution of EUREKA projects
since 1985.

**2.** **The** **Current** **Guidelines**

2.1 The Commission's earlier Communication drew attention to the
similarities between EUREKA and the Community's own
programmes as regards their main areas of research and their
ultimate objectives (to help Europe master and develop
advanced technologies essential to its future
competitiveness). It also highlighted the main differences
as regards:

**geographical** **coverage.** EUREKA embraces all the EFTA
countries and Turkey, as well as all the Member States
of the European Community and the Commission
(However, special arrangements have subsequently been
negotiated with 5 EfTA countries which provide for

.,.

2

specific forms of cooperation with the Community
programmes) .

the institutional framework. Community R&D programmes
from part of a strategic whole ( the Framework
Programme) prepared with advice from experts from
industry and research institutions and agreed by the
Council of Ministers. Financial support from the
Community budget is available under specific Community
procedures, mostly on a shared-cost basis, with
projects from all the Community countries competing for
funding.

The initiative for EUREKA projects, on the other hand,
comes from the industrial and other partners concerned.
Granting of EUREKA status is the exclusive
responsibility of the Governments of the countries
where the participants are situated,. once certain
common criteria have been met. The projects are
subsequently announced officially at regular meetings
of the EUREKA Ministerial Conference. But there is,
quite deliberately, no strategic framework, and no
central EUREKA budget for project finance.
Participants compete for public finance, where,
required, from their own national authorities.

the nature of the R&D **work.** The Community programmes
are concentrated essentially on R&D upstream of
industrial or commercial_,application for the marketplace. The aim behind EUREKA, on the other hand, was
to stimulate projects that would lead directly to the
development of products, processes and services with a
market potential. It was also accepted, however, that
EUREKA could embrace advanced technology projects aimed
at the creation of the technical prerequisites for a
modern infrastructure and at the solution of
transboundary problems.

2. 2 The Communication went on to outline ways in which the
complementary features of the two frameworks for cooperation
could be developed to mutual advantage through actions by
the Commission:

by establishing appropriate **case-by-case** cooperation
arrangements for individual projects linked to
Community programmes (notably, through technical
assistance; by facilitating information exchanges and
contacts between project participants; and by adjusting
the technical objectives or content of planned
Community programmes so as to take account of the wider
needs of specific EUREKA projects>;

by Commission support for the definition
harmonized implementation of common norms
standards **which** **would** facilitate the marketing
products resulting from EUREKA projects;

through progress in the establishment of
Community's Internal Market which would create
right economic and business environment;

3

and
and
of

the
the

_(,_

"

by the Commission's examination of possible ways
facilitating access to - private sector finance,. and
making available Commission expertise in the field
information networks 

of
by
of'

I

..

.;

j
;
;

- ;

by applying the Treaty of Rome's rules on state aids _i~_
a constructive manner to R&D projects, recognising the
need to encourage the growth of successful new products
and services as well as the need to avoid trade
distortion and unfair compe~ition in Europe.

2.3 The Communication also envisaged the possibility in certain
particularly suitable cases,-· of some financial participation
by the Community in those EUREKA projects Cor phases of .such
projects>, notably those of a pre-normative character*,
which were submitted through the normal procedures for
Community finance.

 - Pre-normative research provides the scientific and technical
basis for the preparation of standards and technical
specifications.

4

3. How EUREKA has evolved

.. (i) the project portfolio

3.1 There are now 214* announced EUREKA projects, with an
estimated cost of over 3. 8 milliard ECU**. Well over 800
organisations are involved in these projects, around twothirds of them industrial and with a good representation in
terms of SMEs (enterprises with less than 500 employees
account for 50% of the industrial partners).

3. 2 The projects are heavily concentrated in the fields of
information technology, robotics and biotechnology, although
the latest set of projects announced in Copenhagen show some
shift away from information technology (see appendices III
and IV).

3.3 Few projects have an expected duration of 2 years or less,
and every second project is expected to last more than 4
years. Many of the projects, notably the larger ones, are
still in definition phases, and it will be some time before
results are available.

3.4 Half of all projects are expected to cost less than 10 MECU,
and in contrast to earlier tendencies there appears to be an
increasing trend towards smaller, lower-cost projects.
There are, however, a number of projects in the fields of
communications, information technology, environment and
transport that are expected to cost upwards of 50 MECU.
Many of these are expected to take 5 - 6 years or more to
complete. A number of these projects are composed of a
series of sub-projects and have become known within EUREKA
as "umbrella projects". Appendix I lists some of these
larger projects, with their estimated total costs and
expected duration.

       - Including 54 projects (with an estimated cost for their
definition phases of 360 MECU> announced at the EUREKA
Ministerial Conference in Copenhagen on 16 June 1988.
** This figure may underestimate total costs over the life-time
of all the projects, since the data include only the costs
of the definition phases for some projects.

-CS

5

3.5 Only limited information is available to the Commission
about the financing of EUREKA projects. The latest
information suggests, however, that on average some 35% of
total funding is expected to be secured from public sector
sources. But ~n the case of certain projects, notably those
in the environmental field which are of a "non-competitive"
nature and which do not aim to produce commercial goods and
services, the share of public funding can be as high as
100%. Officials from the Member Countries of EUREKA, with
the support of the Commission, are actively examining how to
encourage the flow of private capital from the banking
system and venture capital companies. The results to date
appear to have been modest, largely because of the nature of
the EUREKA portfolio as it has developed. According to a
recent analysis by the European Bankers Round Table, only

13% of 190 projects analysed appear likely to qualify for
private financing in the forseeable future: 52% may
conceivably result in a commercially viable product; and 35%
by their nature could not qualify for private finance. Here
too, however, the situation may evolve as the EUREKA
portfolio changes over time towards smaller and more
product-oriented projects.

(ii> the framework of cooperation

3. 6 EUREKA aims as far as possible to create a "light" and
flexible mechanism for interqovernmental cooperation, with a
small Secretariat and a network of "National Project
Coordinators" facilitating the exchange of information on
projects and the identification at an early stage, of
supportive actions requiring some form of involvement by
Governments. Apart from their work on project development,
officials responsible for EUREKA in the member countries
have also been engaged, for example, in the examination of
issues such as how to encourage private sector project
financing; how to promote the interests of small and mediumsized enterprises in EUREKA; and norms and standards. The
arrangements, in which the Commission is participating
actively, are evolving in the light of experience and
developments in other international fora.

3.7 Particular efforts are under way at present to ensure
enhanced coordination between the participating Governments
so as to facilitate the emergence of new projects. One
important issue that has been identified within EUREKA is
the need to ensure that the existence of different national
systems and procedures for public financial support does not
inhibit EUREKA projects (at present a project may be delayed
until the public financing issues are resolved in all the

   - Member Countries concerned).

3.8 The new Austrian Presidency of EUREKA plans to focus

6

particular attention during the coming year .on measures to
help project development and monitoring; on improving the
general framework conditions for market-oriented
international technological cooperation ( including further
progress in the field of norms and standards>; and on better
coordination of the various EUREKA projects in the
transport field (including the links with the Community
DRIVE programme). In each of these areas close liason with
the Commission will be important.

**4.** **Actions** **by** **the** **Commission**

4 .1 Around half the announced EUREKA projects have links with
the Community's R&D programmes, either deriving from
Community projects, covering different stages of R&D on the
same subject, or having some degree of overlap. Some
involve the same industrial or other partners as Community
projects*. This degree of linkage is high. As foreshadowed
in COM(86)664 final, the Commission has therefore taken a
wide range of actions in relation to specific EUREKA
projects to reduce overlap and thus to contribute to the
best possible use of scarce European research resources. A
summary of Commission actions and involvement in some EUREKA
projects is at Appendix II. These actions are discussed
below, together with more general actions to improve the
environment for the success of EUREKA projects.

## 
4. 2 Actions to facilitate the emergence of EUREKA projects,
building on the experience of Community programmes. The
Commission has made specific efforts to make available to
potential and present EUREKA participants information about
the results of Community programmes and their planned future
development. For example, joint workshops have been
organised with partners from Community and EUREKA projects
on BRITE subjects (eg lasers>, on HDTV and on COSINE**· The
Commission has improved access to information on Community
projects through the IES and EUROABSTRACT data bases. It
has also taken steps to ensure that participants in good
projects that are submitted to Community programmes but
which cannot be adopted because they are too close to the
market-place, are made aware of the opportunities offered by
EUREKA.

 - Examples include EU005 - Membranes for micro-filtration
which derives from BRITE 1566; EU20 EUREKA advanced software
technology and EU43 EUREKA Software Factory, which derive in
part from and build on the results of an ESPRIT project
(PCTE>; EU109-PACA (absorption heat pumps>, which continues
work initiated under the Community's non-nuclear energy

programme.
** A summary description of the projects cited, together with
an explanation of the acronyms used, is given in Appendix II

7

**4.3** **Technica1** **contributions** to the definition phases of EUREKA
projects that are downstream of Community projects. An
example here is the adoption in the EUREKA Software Factory
project of software interface standards developed under the
ESPRIT programme.

4.4 Help in the definition and organisation of the 1arger EUREKA
projects whictt·are linked to CoDDDunity programmes, such as
EUROTRAC, EUROMAR, COSINE, HDTV, PROMETHEUS. The Commission
is represented on the Scientific Steering Committee and on
the International Executive Committee of EUROTRAC; it
attends meetings of the Board of EUROMAR; it is the leading
partner and provides the Secretariat for COSINE. It is
actively involved with the Steering Committee of PROMETHEUS
and with participants in other EUREKA projects in the
transport field, in the definition of priorities for
research and an appropriate interface with the Comuni ty' s
DRIVE programme.

In the case of HDTV the Commission is active on a number of
fronts to ensure the right environment for the success of
the project by

_.(_

_•[_

**0**

**0**

encouraging consistency in the ongoing work on
standardisation within Europe;

ensuring, in liaison with industry and the Member
States most directly concerned, the defence of E~ropean
interests **vis-A-vis** ~third countries and in the
international standards bodies;

providing a framework (the HDTV
together all the economic interests
<radio, TV, cinema companies etc).

Forum> bringing
in the project

**4** . 5 Direct or indirect f **inancia1** participation in some EUREKA
projects, viz:

COSINE. The Commission is currently meeting 20% (0.3
MECU> of the cost of the definition phase;

EUROTRAC. The Commission has accepted two sub-projects
(LACTOZ and HALIPP) for funding of 2 MECU over **4** years,
following the successful application made by the
project participants to the Community's environmental
programme. In addition the JRC intends to carry out 4
of its projects within the EUROTRAC framework, at an
estimated cost of some 7 MECU.

8

FORMENTOR <expert system for dealing with major plant
failures and security control). The question of direct
JRC participation is currently under negotiation with
the project participants.

EUROCARE. 8 R&D contracts under the Community's
programme on the effect of air pollution on historic
buildings are linked closely to EUROCARE and represent
a substantial indirect contribution.

PROMETHEUS. The work programme is being developed in
close liaison with the Community's DRIVE programme,
which is to have a budget of 60 MECU for its pilot
phase. The Community is making a substantial indirect
financial contribution to PROMETHEUS, by financing the
research on the infrastructure required for the
operation of the "intelligent car";

HDTV. Three RACE projects*, costing together 16 MECU
over 3 years, are an important complement to the work
on HDTV.

The Community is contributing to the achievement of the
objectives of EU16 (ES2) through the participation of
this EUREKA venture in ESPRIT activities. Important
ESPRIT activities notably in the field of CAD, IC
manufacturing equipments and automation are furthermore

directly· relevant to the current objectives of EU127
(JESSI). For this latter, moreover, consultations are
in hand with the companies and the countries concerned
to investigate ways of ensuring a fuller synergy of
effort through a direct participation of the Community
in the JESSI programme of work.

4.6 **"Supportive** **Measures•.** Aside from involvement in specific
EUREKA projects on a case-by-case basis, the Commission is
playing a key role in the field of so-called "supportive
measures"(cf para 2.2 above):

0 by developing mechanisms to encourage a flow of private
sector finance to high technology projects (including
notably EUROTECH CAPITAL). Recent·Commission work in
the field of risk insurance is an important complement
to initiatives already under discussion and led by
France within EUREKA. The Commission now proposes to
finance the launching of a pilot insurance scheme.

- HIVITS 1+2 - picture encoding and transmission
DVT    - digital video-images.

9

in the field of **norms** **and** **standards** the Commission has
offered its services to EUREKA participants in the
development and transmission of mandates on new
technical standards to the European technical standards
bodies (CEN and CENELEC). It systematically analyses
EUREKA projects in order to identify when action may be
required and has taken appropriate contacts with the
participants involved. Thus far there are a small
number of projects for which a specific need for
European standards has been identified (eg. EUROTRAC,
IHS, PROMETHEUS, ESF, HDTV and FAMOS) . In most of
these cases the Commission is in the process of
obtaining the detailed information required to
establish mandates. Only in relation to the IHS
< Integrated Home Systems> project has the Commission
already been able to forward the necessary mandate.
The Commission initiated a special workshop for EUREKA
participants on standardisation which was held by
CEN/CENELEC (the technical standards bodies)in Brussels
in March 1988.

in the field of competition policy the Commission has
demonstrated its constructive attitude towards state
aids for R&D projects i.n the application of the
corresponding Treaty provisions to specific cases
notified to it. In a number of cases it has granted
exemptions under Article 92.3c and in one case (HDTV)
an exemption under Article 92. 3b on the basis of the
projects common European interest.

4. 7 **Financial** **and** **material** **support.** The European Commission
provides 13.7% of the budget of the EUREKA Secretariat and
has seconded one of its own staff members to the
Secretariat. It also contributed to the Secretariat's
equipment in the early phases and set up the EUREKA project
data base, which is now managed by the Secretariat.

**J\PPJ.-:Nl>IX** **1.**

**LARGE**           - **SCALE** **EUREKA** **PROJECTS**

Illustrative Examples (not exhaustive) are:

EUREKA N° SUBJECT EXPECTED COST
(MECUs)

DURATION

72

36

108

96

84

48

60

**EUROTRAC:**
experiment on trans
port & transformation of
trace elements in the
troposphere

Automatic design & 94
production of custom
chips

EUROMAR: modern 164
technologies for
ecological exploration in
European seas

ESF: EUREKA Software 327
Factory

EUROPOLIS: Intelligent 128
control of urban & inter
urban traffic

HDTV: compatible high 180
definition TV

EPROM: multi-megbit 404
non-volatile memories

68

I f,. .·-

:;

EU 7

EU 16

EU 37

EU 43

EU 58

EU 95

EU 102

There are also two "umbrella" projects, which are composed of a
number of related sub-projects with separate EUREKA statusFAMOS (flexible automated assembly) and EUROLASER (application of
laser technology> - each of which could cost in total upwards of
200 MECUs over the next 5 years. The main stage of the EUREKA
project COSINE, currently in its definition phase, is also
expected to cost up to 200 MECU.

~~.~~ '(

**APPENDIX** II

COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN MAJOR EUREKA PROJECTS LINKED TO
COMMUNITY PROGRAMMES.

Subject Current Status

l.ENVIRONMENT Commission funding

2 sub-projects (2MECU)

- · EUROTRAC : through Community enEuropean experi- vironment programme.
ment on transport Commission represented
and transformation on Steering Committees.
of environmentally Coordinated work with
relevant trace related actions such as
constituents in the COST **611.**
troposphere over
Europe.

Possible future
development

JRC proposes to
carry out 4 projects
**within** EUROTRAC
.framework ( 7 MECU
over 4 years).

EC programme
expected to deal
with the more precompeti:ti ve stages . . - ..,. _.:_
of work.

EUROMAR: Commission is a member
development and of the EUROMAR Board,
application of with a view to enmodern technologies suring coordination
for the exploration with planned Community
of ecological r~- programme on marine

lations and cause science & technology.
and effect chains

in the seas of Europe.

EUROCARE:
European project
on Conservation &
Restoration.

Commission participates Further coordination
in EUROCARE Board of work with the
meetings. The Commission Community programme
Newsletter on Cultural on the environment
Heritage is used free of (effect of air
charge by EUROCARE for pollution on
diffusion of information.historic buildings
8 R&D contracts under and monuments).
the Community programme
on environmental protection
are closely linked to
EUROCARE.

.l

_i_
###### _I._

t ':.'

###,.

2.TRANSPORT

PROMETHEUS: DRIVE work programme
programme for a Euro- established as complepean Traffic System mentary to PROMETHEUS.
with highest effi- Commission takes part
ciency and unpreceden- in the PROMETHEUS
ted safety. Steering Committee.

Together with DEMETER:
digital electronic mapping
of Europe,
CARMINAT:driver information

system.

EUROPOLIS:intelligent control
system to aid urban & interurban traffic.

3.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

COSINE: cooperation on
open systems networking
in Europe.

EAST:.. EUREKA advanced
. software technology development of software
engineering facilities.
ESF: EUREKA Software
Factory.

JESSI: joint European
Submicron Silicon

4.COMMUNICATIONS

HDTV: compatible
high definition TV.

Commission is lead
project coordinator.
Assures·Secretariat,

provides 20% of funding of definition
phase (-0.3 MECU).

Commission closely
involved in the work
to date which relies
heavily on the result
of an ESPRIT project.

Commission actively involved in support of
this project through
promotion of consistent
work on standards in

Implementation
of the **DRIVE**
programme (60
MECU over 30
months).

Further
Commission involvement
possible via
the Framework
Programme.

(Commission
examining a
joint proposal
from ESF/EAST
consortia presented to
ESPRIT II).

Commission has par- Commission
ticipated in mee- examining scope
tings with the partners for improved

synergy.
concerned so as to ensure

synergy with ESPRIT projects
on micro-electronics.

Continuation of
existing initia
tives. Partici
pation in the
production of

side Europe; diplomatic
action vis-a-vis third
countries; contacts
with international stan
dards authorities.
Indirect financial con
tribution through 3
RACE projects **(16** **MECU**
over 3 years).

a high definition video clip
, ( **0** . 5 **MECU** - •
Possible finan
cial.participa
**tion** **in** **SYNTH.**
TV project.

5.FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING

FAMOS: Development
of automated flexible
assembly systems for
an automated factory
of·the future.

Representatives of Further coordi
Commission (BRITE & nation of work
ESPRIT) with BRITE &
have attended meetings ESPRIT.
of the steering committee
of FAMOS. FAMOS participants have taken part in
Commission workshops organised through BRITE.

I,

l'H0 . .11··1 :,: El IHEJCf\ 1"1tll"-IOM( F::; 1"1 Ct-h-"lt'.;tl IE
( C 1. ltRJL ES:

COM~ERENCE MlNl8lERIELLK

)

nPPEN])JCE JJJ

## ;-::~=::~89:l PBOJEfS/D()MAl NE

~;

S MAORID/87 1
P BO.J l::T S/f)Qr·u-.1 t-1 E

0 STOCl<HOLM/86

I:' HO,J      - .,.. DO Mt:-. 1 MES

PHO.JETS/ l),C,MA I NE'.
... ... :: ..

...,.:..

I
___ _j

,.

_It_

_()_

- '
,.·

I', I -'I - ·1-·
I
I

- .·,,.,

11!-i"

!
i

() i

I•:

'J' It•
< • .,

001·1,..._ I 1-iJi:8

,-.PPEl'IJH C:E I. U

[I l·IAMOt) F.: n .... - rn,.

PROJF..:T S/ CIOMA I N.t::

s

~ LONDON/Of:,

PROJETS/DOMAJ l'IF.:

s

[] ST OC KHO r..t"Vl:16

P AO,J. /])OMA I N F.;8

~ f1ADR I D . ..-'{;17

l'BOJET:S/DOMAIINE:

s

BJ J<OBENHAVN/El0
PRO,J E:T S,_.... DOMA I NE

s

_N_

_\,J_