19.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/51
already done so be invited (subject to their budgetary constraints) to recruit job-seekers for
projects under these programmes, provided this does not jeopardize existing jobs (e.g. selec-
tive collection of waste for recycling, lay-out, restoration and maintenance of green areas,
parks, play-areas, nature and landscape conservation areas, restoration of the natural course
of streams and rivers, recurvation, systematic large-scale surveys of air, water and soil pol-
lution, care of the needy, conservation of monuments, and so on).'
Reasons
Concrete goals for improving the environment and the quality of life should be laid down in
order to provide guidance for both the private sector and the national authorities.
Voting
For: 3, against: 36, abstentions: 7.
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council on structures and
procedures for the common policy in the field of science and technology containing draft
Council Decisions dealing with
I. Structures and procedures for the common policy in the field of science and
technology
II. Structures and procedures for the management and coordination of Community
research development and demonstration activities
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION
On 7 April 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the
European Economic Community.
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983.
The full text of the opinion is as follows:
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, Having regard to the request made by the Council
of the European Communities on 7 April 1983 for
an opinion on the draft Council Decisions dealing
on the one hand with structures and procedures for
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro- the common policy in the field of science and tech-
pean Economic Community, and in particular nology, and on the other with structures and proce-
Article 198 thereof, dures for the management and coordination of
No C 341/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12.83
Community research, development and demonstra-
tion activities (•),
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau
on 26 April 1983, instructing the Section for Energy
and Nuclear Questions to draw up an opinion on
the matter,
Having regard to the opinion adopted by that Sec-
tion at its 82nd meeting on 9 September 1983,
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap-
porteur, Mr de Normann,
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting of 29
September 1983 (210th plenary session of 28 and 29
September 1983),
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION
unanimously:
1. The Committee in the main endorses the Com-
mission's proposals, and in particular supports:
— the establishment of a Higher Policy Committee
for Science and Technology,
— the establishment of management and consulta-
tive committees (CGC's),
— the dissolution of the Scientific and Technical
Research Committee (Crest), the Committees by
Sector and the Horizontal Committees listed in
Annex 3 of the draft Council Decision.
The Committee recognizes that no structural and
procedural mechanism can be perfect. In the final
analysis, success depends on the skill of the Com-
mission to select and manage and on the political
will of the Council to support it.
Whilst in the main endorsing the proposals, the
Committee would however make some general
remarks, indicate the criteria it applied in arriving at
its opinion, and then make some specific observa-
tions on the proposals. These specific observations
concern certain ambiguities and omissions which
the Committee believes must be rectified.
2. General comments
2.1. The Committee welcomes the review by the
Commission of the existing mechanisms for decid-
(') OJ No C 113, 27. 4. 1983.
ing on Community scientific and technical activities
in general (through the framework programme) and
on individual sectoral research action programmes.
2.2. The Committee believes this is the right time
to consider such changes in view of the new
research and development strategy for the 1980 and
in view of the new approach to Community research
and development embodied in the proposed frame-
work programme (1984 to 1987).
2.3. The Committee accepts that the existing
mechanisms work, are understood by those who par-
ticipate in them, and have resulted in an effective
network of contacts between the Commission and
Member States and between Member States them-
selves at the scientific level.
2.4. The outweighing disadvantages of the existing
mechanisms stem from a rigid complex committee
organization at Commission level, followed by a
further committee mechanism at Coreper level.
Overall the initiation of research activity from con-
cept to approval takes far longer than it should.
3. Criteria for judging the proposed changes to
structures and procedures
The Commission has proposed major changes
which require the deepest possible consideration
before implementation. The Committee believes
that the proposed changes should be judged against
certain criteria:
3.1. that the Community budget for research and
development is spent efficiently on well prepared
proposals: that Community research and develop-
ment is competently managed, reviewed periodi-
cally and actions recognized as ineffecitve stopped,
3.2. that work is assessed and evaluated on com-
pletion and that the results of the evaluation are
used in the definition of further programmes, and
the reassessment of current actions,
3.3. that procedures provide adequate and timely
opportunity for national governments, industry,
employees and other interest groups to express their
views on the setting of research and development
objectives, the formulation of the framework pro-
gramme and the major research action programmes.
In particular, industry on which the Community
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/53
relies for the implementation in the market place,
needs to be consulted,
3.4. that adequate provision exists for Member
States to make their input to proposals at the prepar-
ation stage before the proposals are formalized by
the Commission. This is to ensure that national pro-
grammes of research and national expenditure
levels have been taken into account,
3.5. that Member States be kept informed in broad
terms of the progress of the major research action
programmes,
3.6. that the new procedures do not diminish the
efficiency of the existing scientific network built up
within the Community,
3.7. that procedures are such that Member States
are clear about the authority and required compet-
ence of their representatives on the Committees,
3.8. that the new procedures are transparent,
understandable and as free as possible from overlap
and ambiguity: that each committee has clearly
defined mandates, powers and responsibilities and
that wherever possible grey areas are avoided,
3.9. that the Commission adopt a policy of flexi-
bility with a mechanism established to ensure that
ptocedures that do not work after a period of trial
will be modified.
4. Specific comments
In the light of these criteria the Committee would
make the following specific comments:
4.1. Links to national research Policy
The Committee recognizes that the framework pro-
gramme sets the guidelines for a large and increas-
ing financial commitment to the Community. It
urges the Commission to make every effort to:
— ensure that Member States have early warning
of likely changes to financial commitments,
— establish closer links between the Community
policy and measures taken at national level, so
that structures and procedures governing
research in the field of science and technology
can be mutually adapted as necessary.
4.2. Definition of authorities
The Committee urges that a clear definition of the
respective authorities of the Commission, the CGC's
and the HCST be drawn up. It believes there should
be a financial level up to which expenditure deci-
sions can be made independently by the Commis-
sion within the framework programme and the oper-
ational yearly budgets.
4.3. Re. the proposed Council Decision dealing with
structures and procedures for decison-making
(establishing the higher policy committee for
science and technology)
The Committee considers that certain aspects of the
HCST require further consideration and clarifica-
tion.
4.3.1. The HCST should be so constituted that
Coreper will be prepared to accept its opinion with-
out recourse to the existing Coreper research group.
It could then be accepted as a replacement for the
existing two committees, Crest and the Coreper
sub-committee.
4.3.2. At first sight, the rotation of the chairman-
ship of the HCST in line with the Presidency of the
Council would not seem to be in the best interests of
the necessary continuity required by research and
development. Having considered alternatives the
Committee considers that for the time being the
proposals regarding the chairing of the HCST is
realistic.
4.3.3. The HCST should be provided with clearly
defined powers and responsibilities to enable it to
give Coreper a comprehensive opinion on (i) the sci-
ence- and technology-policy and financial aspects
of the proposals regarding the framework and
research action programme; and (ii) on the specific
content. Article 2 should spell out its mandate, and
its powers and responsibilities with greater clarity.
4.3.4. Without this clarity Member States will find
difficulty in nominating representatives of the
required calibre and in making necessary modifica-
tions to their domestic mechanisms (Article 3).
4.3.5. Some link is needed between the HCST, the
Commission and the CGC's. The Commission
should give further thought to some formal link as
an alternative to allowing informal links to develop
as the new structures mature.
No C 341/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83
4.3.6. HCST should have a more clearly defined
role in reviewing progress within the framework pro-
gramme.
4.3.7. The relationship between the HCST and the
JRC advisory body for both direct and cost-shared
progranimes should be clarified.
4.3.8. To assist in the achievement of the objective
of improving industrial competitiveness, considera-
tion should be given to adding to the membership of
HCST a non-governmental member from each
Member State: certainly for framework considera-
tions and perhaps, too, an other occasions.
4.3.9. As far as Article 5 is concerned:
— guideline rules of procedure should be estab-
lished to cover the treatment of proposals on
which unanimity cannot be achieved;
— consideration should be given to strengthening
the power of HCST for strategic assessment and
evaluation if necessary by an independent team,
— HCST should be given specific authority for
controlling the information flow which it
requires to discharge its responsibilities for both
evaluation and assessment.
4.4. Re. the proposed Council Decision dealing with
structures and procedures for the management
and coordination of research and development
activities (establishing the Management and
Consultative Committees (CGC's)
The Committee considers that certain aspects of the
CGC's require further consideration and clarifica-
tion.
4.4.1. The CGC's powers and responsibilities
should be spelled out with greater clarity in the draft
Council Decision.
4.4.2. Article 2 appears to lay overdue emphasis on
the advisory duties of the CGC's at the request of
the Commission and not enough on a clearly-
defined responsibility of a continuous nature. The
purpose of the CGC's is stated to be to give a
borough and sound view to the Commission which
tvill form part of the Commission dossier to HCST
and the Council. CGC's cannot discharge this duty
if their work is intermittent at the option of the
Commission.
4.4.3. The Commission should give further consid-
eration to the structure of special CGC's for FAST
and other horizontal programmes.
4.4.4. The proposed restricted number of the
CGC's although less than that of the existing
advisory committees, would require Member State
representatives to consider a very wide range of
scientific activity. This would militate against
in-depth examination of Commission proposals
which existing Advisory Committees on Programme
Management (APCM) provide. This in turn would
tend to reduce the influence which Member States
have in the initiation and implementation of
research and development programmes. The list of
CGCs as given in the communication from the
Commission and set out in the Annex should be
modified to provide more adequately for research
related to living and working conditions.
The Committee urges that the Commission be asked
to consider allowing Member States to vary at least
one of the three representatives they send to CGC's
in accordance with the agenda for any particular
meeting. It would also urge that provision be made
for the representatives to be accompanied by
experts, who would not be permitted to take part in
deliberations but who could provide information
during the Sessions. This would ensure both contin-
uity and in-depth advice.
4.4.5. The Committee believes that the Commis-
sion should also reconsider the composition of the
Committees (Article 3).
— it might be preferable for Member States to
nominate their representatives for approval by
the Commission (see 4.4.4 above, second para-
graph),
— to ensure that industry has an adequate voice at
this level, not all the representatives should be
Member State Government employees. One per
Member State should come from industry. This
would help to emphasize a main purpose of
research and development in the Community
that scientific and technical strategy should be
firmly geared to practical innovation,
— it is also necessary to ensure that employees
have an adequate representation at this level
since their conditions of work and indeed of life
are affected both directly and indirectly. The
Committee urges that a mechanism to achieve
satisfactory consultation be included in the new
procedures.
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/55
4.4.6. The Commission should be asked to spell
out more clearly the procedures to be adopted
within the CGC's. If this is not done, the procedures
adopted by one CGC will rapidly diverge from
another.
The CGC's views have to be attached to the Com-
mission submission to HCST so they require some
uniformity of operational ground rules if only to
help HCST and the Council assess the strength of
their advice.
4.4.7. Although the evaluation procedure of
research and development programmes is separate
from procedures governing the CGCs, the Com-
mittee suggests to the Commission that it organize
the flow of information in such a way that the
CGC's can make use of it in their advice on new
research action programmes.
4.4.8. The Committee supports the Commission
proposal for liaison between the CGC's and other
advisory committees such as CODEST and CORDI.
Done at Brussels, 29 September 1983.
4.5. Evaluation of results
The Committee believes that an effective procedure
for the evaluation of research and development
results is essential. It understands that this evalua-
tion will be organized by the Commission using
independent experts and involving Parliament and
the Court of Auditors. It is aware of the draft Coun-
cil resolution on promoting the utilization of the
results of Community-sponsored research and
development (COM(83) 18 final and COM(83)
526 final).
It urges the Commission to ensure that procedures
for assessment of work in progress and evaluation
of work completed as a basis for further action pro-
grammes should be precise, effective and rapid.
Specifically the results of the assessment and eval-
uation should be presented in a standard format as
part of any proposals to renew existing programmes
or initiate new related programmes. This infor-
mation is required at the earliest point in the decision-
taking process, i.e. by the CGC's.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Francois CEYRAC
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy