Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 244/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2003

_Reason_

The 90-day time limit for administrative decisions on applications for entry or for renewals is certainly
excessive and creates uncertainty for both the applicant and the institutions involved. By way of example,
the 90-day time limit is generally longer than academic holidays. Thus, cases may arise where a student
applying for a renewal of his residence permit may, for purely administrative reasons, be forced to leave
the territory of the Member State concerned during his studies.

Brussels, 9 April 2003.

_The President_

_of the Committee of the Regions_

Albert BORE

**Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:**

—
**the ‘Communication from the Commission: More research for Europe Towards 3 % of GDP’,**
**and**

—
**the ‘Communication from the Commission: The European Research Area: providing new**
**momentum — strengthening — reorienting — opening up new perspectives’**

(2003/C 244/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission Communications on More Research for Europe: towards 3 %
of GDP (COM(2002) 499 final) and on the European Research Area: providing new momentum —
strengthening — reorienting — opening up new perspectives (COM(2002) 565 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 12 September and 17 October 2002 to
consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community;

having regard to the decision of its president of 26 June and 5 October 2002 to instruct the Commission
for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its Opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council concerning the multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for
research, technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the
creation of the European Research Area (COM(2001) 94 final) (CdR 283/2001 fin) ( [1] );

having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the regional
dimension of the European Research Area (COM(2001) 549 final) (CdR 442/2001 fin)( [2] );

having regard to the ongoing implementation of the sixth of the framework programmes for research,
which have become an integral part of regional and supraregional research support;

having regard to the progress already made towards the European Research Area;

( [1] ) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 111.
( [2] ) OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 1.

10.10.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/11

having regard to the need to further boost the European Research Area, the response required to the call
of the March 2002 Barcelona European Council, and the action needed to prevent any hampering of
Europe’s innovative potential, enabling Europe to grow into the most competitive knowledge-based
economy in the world by 2010;

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 328/2002 rev. 2) adopted on 18 February 2003 by the
Commission for Culture and Education (rapporteur: Ms Helma Kuhn-Theis, Chair, Committee for
European Affairs, Saarland Landtag (D-EPP)),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 49th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 April 2003
(meeting of 10 April).

**VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COM-**
**MITTEE OF THE REGIONS**

The Committee of the Regions

1. endorses the Commission’s view that the establishment
of the European Research Area has led to the development of
a reference framework for thinking on and discussion of
research policy issues in Europe;

2. also feels that, basically, the resources provided for
research are too low and that there are too few incentives to
undertake research and put its findings to profitable use,
particularly in the private sector. Special efforts should be
made to foster the involvement of universities and research
establishments as well as SMEs in the Sixth Framework
Research Programme. SMEs make up the large proportion of
industrial fabric and employ almost two-thirds of European
workers but they are also in the greatest need of support in
gaining access to innovation. The Committee also agrees in
principle on the need for increased coordination of activities
not only among EU Member States and associated countries,
but also between public and private-sector R&D. The open
method of coordination should be examined as a possibility
for the R&D sector. The aim in this connection should be the
widest possible involvement of European and national political
bodies representing authorities which have competencies in
this field. For research cooperation, the Committee recommends a voluntary, bottom-up approach;

3. points out that coordination must not result in any
one-sided focus on particular research areas. The European
Research Area should provide for different and flexible support
instruments for fundamental and industry-based research, and
should, at an early stage, seek to establish ‘added value chains’
between them (vertical integration). Fundamental research in
particular requires open support structures that reflect the
bottom-up approach. Fundamental research especially relies
on public funding as it usually cannot be financed by
commercial enterprises. Fundamental research is necessary,
however, to maintain the basis for innovation. In order to

resolve the multifaceted and complex difficulties encountered
in R&D, European-level research should increasingly adopt
a multidisciplinary approach (horizontal integration). The
integrated projects under the sixth framework programme for
research clearly reflect the principle of vertical and horizontal
integration;

4. backs the idea of creating an ‘internal market’ in research
and also, in principle, supports moves to restructure European
research with a view to improving the coordination of national
researchactivities. To reiterate a point made in earlieropinions,
Member States reject research that is centralised and ‘planned’
at European level;

5. shares the Commission’s view that the progress made
depends directly on the degree of mobilisation of the Member
States on the various topics and in particular their level of
involvement in activities relating to them. It is essential
therefore to secure even greater — and also topic-led —
regional involvement in any further measures. A good research
environment should also be secured for local and regional
authorities;

6. agrees that the European Research Area initiative cannot
be completed under the sixth framework programme alone,
and that it also has to create its own momentum drawing on
separate initiatives. This requires the involvement of the
Member State regions and local authorities, when measures in
combination with the Structural Funds are required.

**Benchmarking of research policies**

7. welcomes the Commission’s initial findings from the
benchmarking exercise that: (i) the EU research effort has to be
strengthened if the Lisbon objectives are to be met; (ii) it is
vital to secure the active involvement of the stakeholder
regions; and (iii) it is sometimes difficult to draw useful
conclusions from the indicators.

C 244/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2003

**Mobility of researchers**

8. would reiterate that the proposed measures — some of
which are already in place — to make researchers more mobile
(should) meet with approval in the regions. The Commission
announces the provision of ‘adequate information and assistance at all levels’. This must also be understood to include
financial support (e.g. from return fellowships). The Committee
would expressly advocate that greater consideration be given
to incentive-based mobility schemes (return bonuses). In line
with European cohesion policy, the boost in knowledge and
technological expertise provided by returning researchers
will be a key factor in improving innovative capacity and
competitiveness. It is important to press ahead with the drive
to encourage mobility and to stem the braindrain to the USA
and other areas of the world. Continued backing should be
given to measures to further boost the proportion of women
involved in research and science.

**Networkingnational research programmes, strengthening**
**the public research base and boosting private investment**
**in research [towards 3 % of GDP]**

9. considers that, although for some countries, the 3 % of
GDP objective is very ambitious, the resources needed to
achieve it should be committed. The Commission calls for an
increase in R&D investment from 1,9 % of GDP to 3 % by
2010. Some Member States currently invest more than this
already (Finland 3,67 %, Sweden 3,78 %), but the EU-15
average is under 2 % (e.g. Greece 0,67 %; Spain 0,97 %). The
candidate country average is just 0,7 %. It is questionable
whether countries whose national incomes are less dependent
on R&D investments can meet such an objective, and whether
technological convergence is essential to achieving the Lisbon
objectives and whether the planned means (instruments,
incentives and frameworks) for meeting them are adequate and
proportional. Moreover, to facilitate industry-based research,
some candidate countries would first have to remedy structural
deficiencies. Clarification is needed even when the 3 %
requirement is not pitched too high for these countries and it
should therefore be reached in various stages;

10. firmly backs the call for more R&D investment, but
would also direct that call to the EU itself. The Committee of
the Regions already made that call in its Opinion (CdR 283/
2001 fin) on the proposal concerning the EU’s sixth framework
programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the creation
of the European Research Area. On the issue of programme
funding, the Committee opinion recalled that the Community
decided as far back as 1985 that 6 % of the overall budget
should be earmarked for the framework programme but that,
so far, this has not been achieved;

11. considers that the Commission’s call to increase the
private-sector share of R&D expenditure from 56 % of total
investment at the moment to 66,7 % is realistic. It should be
noted, however, that companies are only in a position to invest
in R&D where there are short-term prospects of durable
results. The Commission’s call poses a problem in relation to
fundamental research and development, where long lead times
are required for the development of competitive goods or
services (e.g. in biotechnology and especially in medical
research). In such cases, special commitment should be backed
up by an increase in effective EU support. Small and mediumsized companies, even when working together with the public
sector, are only prepared to provide extra resources for
research if concrete benefits are foreseeable with a reasonable
timescale and if the support guidelines permit simplified
exploitation of research results. To provide incentives for
private investors, it is important to reconsider the classifications used in R&D, especially as regards the definition of
‘precompetitive development’;

12. notes that, under the European support framework
(which forms the basis of state aid, preferential loans etc.),
support is permitted, only until demonstration models or pilot
installations are in place. The annex to this support framework
gives the underlying definition of research and development.
Under this definition, R&D finishes at the ‘precompetitive
development’ and prototype stage. The additional clause ‘...
provided that such projects cannot be converted or used
for industrial applications or commercial exploitation’ is
tantamount to a significant restriction of R&D investment.
SMEs in particular, with their limited staffing and financial
resources, are in no position to close the gap between a pilot
project and a marketable product on their own. Against that
backdrop, the increased moves set out in the Sixth Framework
Research Programme to promote demonstration activities,
support SMEs and utilise technologies are to be welcomed;

13. would like to give furtherconsideration to the statement
that the achievement of the Lisbon strategic objective is under
threat because of the EU’s growing lag in R&D expenditure
compared with the USA and Japan. According to the Commission, this lag is due to lower research spending by the EU
private sector. The business sector accounts for 72 % of R&D
expenditure in Japan, compared with 56 % in Europe and
67 % in the USA. The Commission itself concedes that Japan
has a different kind of enterprise culture, making it impossible
to compare the figures. It should be noted that, in spite of
widespread R&D activities and the shift to the business sector
over the past few years, the Japanese economy has not
substantially improved. High R&D expenditure, although
essential for promoting economic development is not, in any
event, a guarantee of such development. The US figures set out
in the communication must be seen in perspective. The
Commission should differentiate between the various facets of
R&D expenditure, and, in particular, should calculate the

10.10.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/13

quantity of resources devoted to defence research. An estimate
should be made of the potential impact of channelling these
resources directly to non-military research without diverting
them through the defence industry. Europe should not aim to
go down the same road. Rather, Europe should seek to take its
own, innovative path, and focus on ‘non-military research’;

14. agrees that the growing concentration of transnational
R&D expenditure in the USA, is a worrying trend and clear
evidence of a decline in Europe’s attractiveness as a business
location. One reason for this is poorer access to external
sources of finance, local infrastructures and diffusion of
knowledge. Companies base their decisions on location primarily on adequate access to workers and customers in their
core business sector. On this front, Europe has the opportunity
to promote attractive locations by actively developing clusters.
Companies also relocate because of Europe’s cost disadvantages in terms of the environmental and safety requirements.
These more stringent standards must be retained. The EU
should continue to push for environmental protection standards which are higher than those in the rest of the world.
Under no circumstances must European standards be lowered
in the quest for profitability;

15. welcomes the intention of continuing to use structural
funding to remove regional imbalances in infrastructure and
training. However, such moves must be distinguished from
measures to promote research, as their purpose is different.
Support for research must be — and continues to be —
contingent on scientific excellence. Additional structural support may be available, particularly in Objective regions,making
possible synergies between structural and research support.
The Committee has repeatedly made this point in earlier
opinions ( [1] ).

16. does not agree with the Commission that ‘the current
Community Framework for State Aid for Research and Development, which allows for supportive R&D intensities, should
be prolonged until 2005’. The current framework is not
an appropriate way to boost innovation in the knowledge
economy, particularly in relation to SMEs (cf. point 13);

17. endorses the point that governments need to ensure
that public R&D spending does not crowd out more productive
private-sector investment. Increased scope for SME participation in public procurement is also a very welcome move. In
practice, this might mean that large companies awarded major
contracts would be specifically required to involve SMEs in the

( [1] ) CdR 442/2001 fin on COM(2001) 549 final: The regional
dimension of the European Research Area.

projects as subcontractors. Another option would to establish
sector-based research networks involving a number of SMEs
along similar lines to the specific SME measures provided for
in the Sixth Framework Programme for research;

18. backs the call for more effective and focused use of
public funding to promote private R&D. This may in some
cases require a restructuring of public expenditure. The
Committee supports a shift of emphasis from traditional
to more innovative forms of support measure (e.g. the
establishment of networks of excellence);

19. considers that the statement ‘Policies should aim at
encouraging the networking of public and private research
regardless of location’ requires further clarification, since the
Commission’s aim of ‘encouraging further the development of
public-private R&D partnerships and clusters’ is contingent on
location;

20. sees a fundamental need for national R&D programmes
to be more open to transnational cooperation. This must be
done, however, within a defined framework, while ensuring
that both sides benefit;

21. is in favour of exploring the role that industrial
associations at national and European levels can play in
promoting access to information through the use of good
R&D management practices. Consideration could also be given
here to networks or technology-based associations, whose
impact on private R&D must not be underestimated;

22. welcomes the ongoing efforts to launch activities based
on Article 169, especially to combat global-scale infectious
diseases (malaria, HIV, tuberculosis), with the involvement of
non-EU countries, particularly those directly affected. Most
regions would certainly be in favour of exploring measures of
this kind in other key areas such as, for instance, nanotechnology or nanobiotechnology.

**Appropriate systems to protect intellectual property**
**rights**

23. welcomes the establishment of legal certainty in the
field of IP protection at European-level, and action to minimise
costs. The systematic development and use of common
European standards should also be promoted, particularly
through the use of a European patent. Difficulties, such as the
involvement of national authorities, linguistic differences and
different national provisions, must be resolved quickly through
multilateral cooperation.

C 244/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2003

**Establishing supportive financial markets and favourable**
**fiscal conditions for R&D** ( [1] )

24. welcomes the Commission’s statement that a mix of
different instruments is needed, as no single instrument is able
to provide the full range of incentives. The optimal mix of
instruments differsnot only across countriesbut across regions
as well, and extremely careful selection is required as a result
(bearing in mind the skill’s available in each region). In some
cases, this may mean changing the balance between the public

( [1] ) COM(2002) 499 final only.

Brussels, 10 April 2003.

and private R&D sectors. However there should, if possible, be
no increase in overall public spending;

25. would like, in conclusion, to acknowledge the Commission’s efforts to involve the regions more closely in its
policies. Success depends on the Member States and regions,
which have to ensure that the measures already taken have an
impact across the EU. This requires that they be involved in
the discussion process. Thus, cooperation with the regions
should also be encouraged in drawing up a list of priority
measures, in order to give a further impetus to the European
Research Area.

_The President_

_of the Committee of the Regions_

Albert BORE

**Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council**
**decision establishing a programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the**
**promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries’ (Erasmus**
**World) (2004-2008)**

(2003/C 244/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural
understanding through cooperation with third countries (Erasmus World) (2004-2008) (COM(2002) 401
final — 2002/0165 (COD));

having regard to the decision of the Council of 30 August 2002 to consult it on this subject, under the
first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its President of 26 June 2002 to instruct the Commission for Culture and
Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject;

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 327/2002 rev. 2) adopted on 18 February 2003 by its Commission
for Culture and Education (Rapporteur: Mr Roberto Pella, Mayor of Valdengo (I-EPP)),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 49th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 April 2003
(meeting of 10 April).