OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION CONCERNING THE FRAMEWORK OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT ( 1987 TO 1991 )

29.12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/45
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) concerning the framework of
Community activities in the field of research and technological development (1987 to 1991)
(86/C 333/12)
On 12 August 1986, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community, on the abovementioned proposal.
The section for energy, nuclear questions and research which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject adopted its opinion on 7 November 1986 in the light
of the Report by Mr Roseingrave.
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 27 November 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion:
The Committee firmly believes that notwithstanding the observations set out below and
which merit due attention being paid to them, the draft framework programme for 1987-
1991 represents an important step along the path to a veritable scientific and technological
Community.
If the programme is adopted as now presented by the Commission, it will be an expression
of the political will which the Member States have repeatedly expressed and that most
recently in the Single Act of December 1985, which dedicated a whole chapter to the
construction of the technological Community.
The Committee is convinced that the second framework programme should contribute to
the strengthening of the scientific and technological foundations of European industry in the
smaller countries as well as in the larger; it should help promote the international competitive-
ness of the Community, and so improve the living standards of its citizens and strengthen
the Community's cohesion.
The Committee believes, however, that the level of financial commitment proposed by the
Commission for the period 1987-1991 must be seen as the absolute minimum to meet the
political needs so solemnly expressed.
The Committee strongly urges the Council therefore not to let short-term financial consider-
ations jeopardize action which is so crucial to the Community's future.
1. The major objectives and strategy of Community
research and technological development
1.1. The strengthening of the scientific and techno-
logical basis of European industry and the development
of its international competitiveness are major objectives
of a research and technological development strategy,
but in turn they constitute only one element in the
development of a Europe which will be a better place
for its citizens. This requires, as an essential, increased
employment opportunities and an improved quality of
life for the citizens of the Community.
1.2. The Committee draws attention to its statement
on the aims of Community R&D in paragraphs 2.4.1
to 2.4.6 of its opinion on priorities for Community
research (*).
(*) OJN0CI60,1 . 7.1985.
1.3. A broader concept of technological R&D is
needed than is to be found in the Commission's pro-
posals, both to achieve goals of the European Com-
munity and because improved competitiveness and
innovation depend on more than just the work of
researchers. These goals will be achieved only if more
attention is paid to such diverse elements as cultural
and human factors in the commercialization of results,
the legal instruments, market research and the inclusion
of workers and their sectoral interest in the planning
and implementation of R&TD and exploitation of its
results.
The Commission proposes, and the Committee
endorses the need to have R&TD serve social develop-
ment—the social dialogue to occupy a special place in
a programme for R&TD. The Commission, however,
No C 333/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
fails to translate this commitment into practical pro-
posals in the eight activities of the programme.
1.4. The social dimension of the European Com-
munity, the social impact of technological change, and
the social potential of the new technologies should
be given far greater weight in the new framework
programme of Community activities in the field of
-research and technological development. These social
factors should be an essential component of the pro-
gramme and should be borne in mind in determining
priority activities. The proposal does not emphasize
sufficiently the link between R&D and the social dimen-
sions of technological change and consumer affairs.
1.5. The European Community's economic and
social cohesion, a second major objective of the new
framework programme, will not be achieved unless
there is specific and emphatic provision for achieving
it. The limited attention to this in the proposal could
lead to disparities increasing rather than decreasing.
The basic approach governing the implementation of
these measures ought to be that to achieve European
unity, the economically weaker Member States must
develop their technological research in such a way
that their capacity approaches more nearly that of the
stronger Member States. This should have been clearly
spelt out in the Commission's guidelines for the second
framework programme.
1.6. An R&TD programme that makes competitive-
ness its sole objective is not sustainable in the short
or medium term. Competitiveness, whilst obviously
contributing to the economic well-being of the Euro-
pean Community through success on world markets,
cannot be justified if it is at the expense of Europe's
other primary concern—employment.
The proposed second framework programme whilst
making competitiveness the prime objective should
qualify this by saying that through the application of
the new technologies, it is hoped to satisfy new needs at
marketable prices. This would help create employment.
The main thrust of the first framework programme was
to achieve competitiveness by keeping costs down and
the emphasis was on process innovation as opposed to
product innovation.
1.7. In relation to EUREKA the Committee draws
attention to the lengthy discussion in its information
report of the section for energy, nuclear questions and
research on 'New Technologies: European Community
R&D' (CES 851/85) and to the conclusions reached
therein:
The ETC and EUREKA proposals must be reconcilied.
Gne must be complementary to the other. The first
indications are that there is a risk of overlap between
them. Lack of adequate coordination in the organiza-
tion of European R&D could lead to the unfortunate
result of EUREKA causing serious imbalances.
The Committee emphasizes the potential of small and
sectoral research institutes to innovate and create new
products and processes.
Whilst recognizing that the Community is already re-
presented by the Commission on the coordinating body
of EUREKA, a more complete coordination between
ETC and EUREKA is ensured by Commission partici-
pation in the functioning of the EUREKA Secretariat.
The Commission should have full responsibility for
coordinating all TRD actions at the European level.
1.8. To achieve its objectives the Community strat-
egy be to:
— make full use of the added value offered by a Com-
munity-wide coordinated Research and Technologi-
cal Development R&TD strategy;
—- advance rapidly towards the completion of the inter-
nal market;
— accelerate the innovation process that follows pre-
competitive research.
1.9. The Committee endorses the advantages the
Commission attributes to the added-value offered by
the Community dimension such as: cost-sharing,
spreading of scientific risks, attainment of critical size as
regards financial or human resources, greater efficiency,
ability to initiate further measures.
1.10. The Community R&TD budget is modest
compared to the aggregate R&TD budget of the Mem-
ber States (about 3% of the general budget of the
Communities and 2,5% of total national public spend-
ing on R&D). This highlights four functions for a
Community strategy in this field:
— coordination of national R&D efforts;
— stimulation of joint R&D;
— dissemination of the results of R&D;
— promotion of innovation.
1.11. Two obstacles to innovation which are clear
for all to see, and which should be removed immedi-
ately, are the absence of an easily obtainable Com-
munity patent and the paucity of Community stan-
dards. Other obstacles are more intractable, notably
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/47
the reluctance of Member States to give up what they
regard as national interests.
1.12. It is very important to note that critical size
in equipment and human resources no longer implies
geographical location on a single site—the new infor-
mation and communication technologies make possible
a concentration of effort in a centre of excellence com-
posed of researches and innovators operating in differ-
ent geographical locations.
1.13. The Committee endorses the new orientation
of the competition rules as they apply to R&D. The
competition rules were drawn up at a time when the
European economy was relatively closed. This is no
longer so. Today Community firms are competing in
the European domestic market with the US and
Japanese giants. The competition rules have therefore
been changed so as not to impede the development of
Community giant companies able to compete with the
US and Japanese giants. What point is there in collabor-
ating on R&TD if the formation of manufacturing and
marketing associations is prevented?
1.14. Slow and ineffective translation of results of
R&TD into commercial products is a serious deficiency
in EC industrial competitiveness. The Community must
endeavour to reduce the period of time it takes to
promote the utilization of the results of research. SMEs
in particular should have the possibility of proposing
demonstration projects which do not fall into developed
Community programmes.
2. R & TD Activities
The Committee would endorse the 'criteria' which have
served as a guide in the choice of the eight activities
selected by the Commission for inclusion in the frame-
work programme, despite its concern however, about
the contents of the activities themselves; they do not
adequately reflect these criteria.
2.1. Quality of life
2.1.1. The objectives proposed for Community
research under this heading are important and worth-
while. They are extremely limited however, and ignore
on the one hand some basic problems of life in the
Community and, on the other, neglect opportunities
for R & TD to focus on new products and markets
and thereby satisfy social needs. This is so in the fields
of health and the environment, as well as in other fields
of the quality of life activity.
The approach adopted is seriously lacking since it
omits, for example, such important areas as the increas-
ing problems of dependent persons in Europe like the
long-term unemployed or the isolated elderly, the
necessity to halt the deterioration of the quality of life
in our inner cities, the emerging patterns of usage of
non-working time due to technological development
and the possibility of improving the quality of life
through enabling people to help themselves by means
of cooperation and participation in the development of
their own neighbourhoods and local communities.
By narrowing the scope of the quality of life activity,
to the two fields of health and the environment, the
Commission's proposal is thereby narrowing the poten-
tial of applying the results of R & TD to areas which
could result in the production of new products and
thereby create employment opportunities to satisfy new
needs. Such a restriction in the scope of the quality of
life activity is quite unacceptable since it will not call
forth programmes for this essential activity of the
framework programme.
2.1.2. It will not be possible to meet the objective of
the new framework programme (to affirm and defend
the European model within which the social dialogue,
living and working conditions and concern for the
environment occupy a special place) unless the scope
of this line of action is extended, and the objective
borne in mind in all the other activities.
2.1.3. R & TD Programme oriented towards quality
of life should therefore be a source of new products
and so of extended markets for Community industry
within the Community and outside it. A broadening of
the scope of this line is thus justified for its likely
contribution to industrial development and thus
increased employment.
2.1.4. A research programme that will be overseen
by the Commission's DG V (Employment, Social
Affairs and Education) is to be welcomed. It should not
be seen however as a factor limiting the scope given to
this line of action in the new framework programme.
2.1.5. The part of this line of action devoted to the
environment should include research proposals con-
cerning the transnational problem of water pollution.
It should also give greater emphasis to the efficient
management of land and water so as to avoid ecological
'disasters' such as the present desertification which is
taking place in several areas of the Community. The
approach of R & TD in this area of the environment
should however be on a multi-dimensional basis
because it is now clear (and the Commission endorses
the view in its Directives in environment policy—
COM(86) 76 final—19 February 1986) that such prob-
lems can no longer be solved merely on a sectoral
No C 333/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
or national basis alone. Research and technological
development should therefore be aimed at endeavouring
to avoid transferring pollution between the various
environmental sectors (i.e. water, land, air) and con-
tributing to the deterioration of the quality of life in
different areas of the Community.
2.2. Towards an Information Society
2.2.1. Very little is said by the Commission in its
proposal regarding the activity concerned with infor-
mation technologies (IT). This is particularly remark-
able when the financial indication for the activity at
2 050 million ECU is the largest of all and constitutes
26.5 % of the total financing envisaged.
2.2,2. On the assumption that the activity includes
a continuation of the successful programmes, on which
the ESC has commented favourably, the Committee is
favourably disposed towards high expenditure in the
field of information technologies, but draws attention
to the ineffectiveness of undue concentration on hard-
ware in the effort 'to enable European industry to
recover its competitiveness on world markets by the
1990s'.
2.2.3. The Committee notes that the importance for
IT of the development of the cognitive sciences receives
scant reference in the Commission's proposal. This is
regrettable not only because of the fundamental import-
ance of the cognitive sciences in the whole field of
technological development, but also because of their
potential for generating new innovative services and
identifying new needs and demands to be satisfied by
the new technological tools.
2.2.4. The problem of competitivity may not only be
one of failing to bring the results of Community R &
TD to market, commercialization quickly enough, but
also of not effectively identifying the market or of not
having developed sufficiently or quickly enough to meet
a demand for new services.
2.2.5. The Committee draws attention to the rel-
evance of its comments on these matters in its infor-
mation report on 'Europe and the New Technologies'.
This Report emphasized the potential role, for example,
of the IRIS initiative for increased use of existing infor-
mation technologies to meet needs which could improve
the quality of life and 'meet new progressive and accept-
able values and social and individual needs'. The Com-
mittee believes that the proposal for a new Community
framework programme of technological research and
development should give greater attention to meeting
the programme's own declared objective that R & TD
should be placed at the service of social development;
this in regard to its potential to stimulate the generation
of new innovative services to meet new needs and
its contribution to redressing the present imbalance
between the production of new goods and services on
the one hand, and the acceleration of the processes of
production which too often results in the loss of jobs,
on the other.
2.2.6. The Committee reiterates what it said in that
same report in relation to information technologies:
'Attention must urgently be given to the economic
implications of the changing information market and to
the social consequences, particularly in labour intensive
industries. Human resources are crucial in the infor-
mation market and Community success in this will
stand or fall on the qualification level of young Euro-
peans.
Information technology and changes in the information
market have important implications for regional devel-
opment in the Community. There is a risk of accentuat-
ing regional imbalances. The currently available infor-
mation technology, however, can eliminate the disad-
vantages hitherto inherent in distance, provided policy
decisions to apply it are made at Community and
Member State levels. The Commission's action plan
for the less favoured regions in its work programme
deserves accelerated acceptance.'
2.3. The life blood of the large market
2.3.1. The Committee strongly supports the Com-
mission for persisting in its proposed programme with
research into the fields to which it gives the general
headings of telecommunications on the one hand, and
integration of telecommunications technologies with
information and broadcasting technologies into their
services of common interests on the other.
2.3.2. The Committee endorses the Commission's
statement that in dealing with advanced telecommuni-
cations, information and broadcasting, we are dealing
'not only with an essential parameter governing the
success of the large market' but 'also with one of the
essential issues in the international competitive arena'.
In the interests of achieving competitivity with the
major trading blocks, however, the Committee wishes
to reiterate the views expressed in its opinion on priorit-
ies for Community research (*) namely that it is essential
(!) OJ No C 160, 1. 7. 1985.
2 ^ . 1 2 . ^ COfficialjournal of the European communities ^ o C E ^ B ^
for theC^ommunity to bringtheresultsof R oe TL^
much more quickly to market commercialisation than
it is at present the case.Lhe political will to cooperate
andagenuine willingness to share the results ofRoelfo
across national boundaries are ^ital to the community's
Roe TLo effort
The availabilityof^cheaphighperformance telecom-
munications^ whichtheproposalemphasi^esasbeing
essential for the productivity and efficiency of the bulk
of theC^ommunity^sindustrialactivities, willdepend
upon the exercise of that political will and transnational
cooperation in the transfer ofRc^TLo.
2 . ^ . The committee shares the hope expressed by
the commission that integrated broadband services
offeringawide range of services^will be introduced in
the community during t h e l ^ ^ s ^ it points out, how-
ever, that unliketheU^theC^ommunity has totake
account of language barriers when introducing these
integrated broadband communication networks. It
wishes to re-emphasi^e itsprevious statements as set
out in its opinion onapreparatory action forRo^Po
inadvancedcommunicationstechnologiesforEurope
^RAC^E^^that effective action must be taken to offset
the negative effect of the language problem on t^he
qualitative and quantitative development of cross-fron-
tier exchanges of informationeThe community must
also give special emphasis to tackling the problems of
standardisation and interfaces in cross-frontier com-
munications exchanges if the community is to achieve
a standardised market in telecommunications equip
ment and services as set out in the C^ommission^spro-
posals.
2.4. A ^ ^ ^ o ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ o r ^ ^ o ^ ^
2.4.L It is vital for community competitiveness on
international markets and for gaining an increased
share of the market for new products, that the results
of itsRo^TTo conform to the highest product norms
and that the fruits of researchbe brought efficiently,
widely and quickly to the stage of commercial e^ploi
ration. In this regard the committee believes that the
problem lies not in deficiencies in the quality of C^ om
munityRceTTo nor in the defective standards of its
products r^ there is clear evidence to the contrary if one
looks at the European success inthe fields of science
and technology, i.e. E^RRlT,Ariane,BRlTE,RAC^E,
]EP, Airbus, etc.^, but rather in the unduedelay in
bringing the results o f R ^ e f t O to commercialisation
in the marketplace.
2.4.2. A major factor to be borne in mind here is the
current tendency within the community for technologi
cal research centres to turn out new tool after new tool.
This ^plosion of new tools^ tends however, not to be
matched by policies and actions aimed at effectively
and rapidly identifying appropriate market needs which
canbesatisfiedwiththehelp of these new tools and
new knowledge.This mismatch between the supply of
new technological tools on the one hand, and the
demand for new products and services they are capable
of satisfying on the other, is an important contributory
factor in determining the time-lag that exists in bringing
the results ofRo^TLo to the stage of commercialisation.
This constitutes a significant obstacle to the C^ om
munity competing successfully on world markets with
the U^ and japan.
Inthis regardthe committee believes that theC^om
mission should determine as soon as possible the mar
kets each programme is ultimately intended to satisfy.
Eor this some form of market survey is obviously called
for,usingaenarketsurvey^inthe sense understoodby
industrialcompanies. similar considerations apply to
researchprogrammesintohealth, welfare, safetyand
environmental protection.
The proposedprogrammeshouldbe linked, insofar
as this is possible,with the development of the internal
market, which means that the new framework pro
gramme a sawho lemus tbe directed at marketsthat
will e^ist as far ahead as the period 2000 to 2010,
bearing in mind thatthe path from laboratory to market
maybe lOto 20 years.
Lhe commission should bear in mind also that todays
markets are for products for which research started in
l^eo to 1^0. The lead time in the field ofhealth, safety
and environment protection may be ofashorter time
span.
2.4.^. The community Eramework for ^tate aids for
research and development ^^sets out the role ofRo^
Tfo in improving competitiveness and increasing inno
vative competition. Encouraging research and develop-
ment in the community isakey element in the strategy
of strengthening the technological base of European
industry and^developing its international competitive
nesse The committee endorses this framework for ^tate
aids for research and development. The synergetic
effects likely to result from joint efforts by the C^ommu-
nity, the member states and the various firms and
research centres involved can only be for the good.
^ O j ^ D ( m ^ , ^ . B . t ^ . ^ o j ^ D e ^ m n ^ . n ^ , ^
No C 333/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
2.4.4. As we move, however, along the spectrum
from fundamental research to industrial utilization and
commercialization of the results of R & TD in the
market place, we find Community competition policy
more restrictive as regards State aid. This sets out to
avoid distortion of competition in the production and
marketing of certain goods which are the objects of
trade between Member States. Restrictions on State
aid to R & TD as the latter edges up towards the
. commercialization of its results, does of course reduce
the risk of distortion of competition between Member
States. However, it leaves the Community as an econo-
mic entity gravely disadvantaged competitively in world
markets simply because—contrary to the United States
and Japan—the European Community is not yet a
unified and single trading block. Restriction on State
aid to R & TD contributes to maintaining a longer
than necessary lead-time up to the exploitation of the
results of R & TD as compared with lead times expe-
rienced in the United States and Japan. It is perhaps
ironic that whilst the Community's competition policy
is designed to improve the international competitiveness
of Community industry, rules to prevent distortion
of competition between Member States can have a
counter-effect.
2.4.5. Reference has already been made to the urgen-
cy of an easily obtainable Community patent and Com-
munity standards.
2.4.6. SMEs may require special assistance to enable
them to evaluate and exploit the results of Community
R & TD. This is because individual SMEs may not
themselves have the scientific staff to search out and
assess the potential of relevant R & TD results. Support
should be provided for a pilot action programme to
test the effectiveness of cooperative linkages between
SMEs and higher education institutions. Whilst these
need not necessarily be geographically contiguous to
the SMEs being supported this would be advantageous.
With such assistance SMEs could undoubtedly make
much better use of research results as some of them
have already demonstrated in the area of technology
transfer. Research should be carried out as to how to
make research results, already available on data bases,
more available to SME's.
2.4.7. It should be emphasized that large companies
and small and medium-sized companies complement
each other. Large companies mean market strength and
the capacity for the development of heavy technologies.
Small and medium-sized companies are associated with
flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly by meeting
gaps in the market. They should not be seen as being
different and thus treated differently simply on the basis
of differing turnover or numbers of employees. Any
specific measures adopted should take into account the
size of the project rather than that of the company.
2.4.8. Policies should be instigated which ensure that
the financial institutions are prepared to give greater
emphasis to providing investment funds to develop R &
TD entrepreneurial innovation. This will assist in the
development of new industries and help to create
employment.
2.4.9. The Committee endorses the special attention
given to science and technology of materials and raw
materials. This is in accordance with views expressed
in a number of ESC opinions.
2.5. Continuation and updating of activities in the
energy sector
2.5.1. The serious nuclear accident which took place
on 26 April 1986 at Chernobyl has created a 'state of
urgency' with regard to nuclear safety. There must be
a strengthening of the commitment to:
— define and apply, at Community and at internatio-
nal levels, information, control and intervention
measures designed to prevent nuclear accidents or
to deal with them as efficiently as possible;
— continue and develop research in the field of nuclear
and technological safety, and in general to draw up
joint safety standards for nuclear power stations;
— draw up joint standards on the permissible levels
of radioactivity to which the population may be
exposed.
To this end there is an urgent need for an analysis study
of the surveys carried out, and experience gained in
various countries, before and after the Chernobyl acci-
dent, with regard to:
— initiatives and measures aimed at improving the
safety of currently operating nuclear power stations;
— measures to close temporarily or permanently older
or less-safe power stations;
— suspension of the building of new power stations
where they are regarded as insufficiently safe, or
where they can be replaced by other sources of
energy;
— energy choices and policies.
2.5.2. With regard to the Commission's proposal
covering fossil fuels, new and renewable sources of
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/51
energy and the rational use of energy, the Committee
would comment as follows:
(a) the proposed appropriations for the second frame-
work programme constitute only some 40 % of the
appropriations for the first and current framework
programme;
(b) the sum is clearly inadequate given the importance
of the areas covered;
— fossil fuels will continue to constitute the basis of
our energy supplies for a long time to come and it
is thus necessary to develop new processes—and in
particular processes which are less damaging to the
environment—even if oil prices remain relatively
low in the short term;
— R & TD on new and renewable sources of energy
must be pursued on a continuous basis in order to
make maximum possible use of these resourses. In
the present proposal the financial indication for this
R & TD is reduced to 210 million ECU whereas
the figure initially proposed in the Commission's
guidelines was 300 million ECU. The Committee
considers this reduction to be very surprising, parti-
cularly as the guidelines were published more than
a month before the Chernobyl nuclear power station
disaster.
The Committee believes that the financial indicators
contained in the latest proposal only underline the
already unacceptable imbalance in allocations for
nuclear and non-nuclear energies respectively. The
Commission itself states that the reduction in oil prices
is bound to be of an ephemeral nature and should not
prompt the Community to relax its efforts but rather
to intensify them further in pursuit of non-nuclear
energy supplies. That point of view is not borne out by
the proposed appropriation (11 % of the total proposed
allocation for activities in the Energy Sector) for non-
nuclear R & TD.
The Chernobyl accident will undoubtedly give rise to
certain shifts of emphasis within the R & D programme
as regards both the relationship between nuclear and
non-nuclear R & D and the points of emphasis within
each of these sectors.
In connection with R & D in the nuclear sector, the
Committee would also refer to debate still in progress
concerning the Chernobyl accident.
2.6. Biotechnology: a new technological crossroads
2.6.1. It is appropriate that the European Communi-
ty's relatively strong position in basis research in bio-
technology should be reinforced.
2.6.2. The Committee endorses the Commission's
statement in this respect that 'in formulating the objecti-
ves assigned to biotechnology, the Community will not
fail to take account of the social, ethical and societal
implications of the furtherance of knowledge in this
area'.
2.6.3. In this respect the Committee reiterates what
was expressed in its opinion on 'Priorities for Commu-
nity Research' (l)
'A higher priority ought to be assigned to RD & D
in land use (e.g. the long-term effect of the intensive
application of agro-chemicals, and the problems asso-
ciated with the consequential exhaustion of the soil);
to RD & D in forestry (e.g. biomass from short-rotation
forestry), to RD & D in the field of veterinary science
(e.g. problems connected with disease transmitted by
imports and exports of breeding stock and feeding-
stuffs). Apart from the intrinsic value of such research,
it can have implications for the reform of the common
agricultural policy (CAP).'
2.6.4. R & TD in land use, forestry and veterinary
science has an intrinsic value in the development and
competitiveness of agriculture: it is also pertinent to the
development of new policies relevant to the reform of
the common agricultural policy.
2.6.5. It is very important to maintain R & TD work
being done in European research institutes orientated
towards developing countries. Community support for
this may be vital if support in the Member States is
declining.
2.6.6. Research oriented towards the needs of the
less favoured regions of the Community should have
particular value for developing countries and should be
planned with that in mind.
2.6.7. Increasing emphasis on improving or creating
the capacity for indigenous R & TD in developing
countries is strongly advocated by the Section.
2.6.8. Beyond referring in its passage on management
of agricultural resources to the fact that the proposed
R & TD activities will, among other themes, focus on
the effectiveness of human and financial resources, the
Commission would appear to attach scant importance
to the human factor essential for improving agricultural
production.
2.7. Exploitation of the seabed and use of marine
resources
2.7.1. The introduction into the framework pro-
gramme of the long-postponed Community action on
marine resources is welcomed.
(!) OJ No. C 160, 1. 7. 1985.
No C 333/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
2.7.2. This R & TD activity should be aimed at
preventing the degradation of marine resources by pol-
lutants from all sources (including chemicals, wastes,
oil spillage, emission and dumping of radioactive sub-
stances). The danger of degradation is particularly seve-
re in the Mediterranean Sea.
2.7.3. Community R & TD relating to inland water
resources should be greater than is proposed. This
programme should also feature the activity on quality
of life (environmental protection).
2.7.4. Water management could also be an important
element of R & TD under science and technology for
development and the two activities should be coordina-
ted. Desertification is a reality in southern Europe as
well as in developing countries.
2.8. A Europe for research workers
2.8.1. The proposals to promote a researchers' Euro-
pe are similar to proposals which the Economic and
Social Committee has already endorsed, and these are
to be welcomed. The Committee draws attention to the
legal problems which inhibit mobility and to the need
to facilitate mobility into industrial and commercial life
out of research, particularly after a period of years
spent in research. The proposals as such are however
satisfactory.
2.8.2. The Committee is surprised to discover that
measures such as forecasting and assessment in science
and technology (FAST), evaluation, statistical tools and
utilization of R & D results are inserted into the pro-
posed eighth activity concerning a Europe for research
workers.
These are vitally important independent elements of a
planned movement towards a European Science and
Technology Community and were much more appro-
priately placed in the Commission's guidelines, where
they were in a line of action designated 'General support
for scientific and technical development'.
The Economic and Social Committee strongly emphasi-
zed the importance of promoting the utilization of the
results of Community financed R & D (*) and com-
mented favourably on the FAST Programme (2).
The Committee also notes with regret and surprise that
whereas the guidelines envisaged expenditure between
660 and 865 million ECU for the activities now
embraced in the activity concerning a Europe for
research workers, the financial indication is 460 million
(!) OJ No C 23, 25. 1. 1985.
(2) OJNo, C211, 8. 8. 1983.
ECU. The Committee deplores the apparent downgrad-
ing of these activities.
2.8.3. Activities relating to innovation and utiliza-
tion of the results of Community research are of such
importance that greater emphasis should be placed on
them. Similarly, forecasting and assessment with a long
term perspective, is vital to forward planning and
should be increased.
3. Efficient management
3.1. The Committee regards efficient management
as crucial to the success of Community R & TD. The
assessment and review procedures outlined in the pro-
posal are highly desirable.
3.2. In order to facilitate effective communication
between the various parties involved careful attention
should be paid to the diffusion of appropriate infor-
mation about programmes and proposals.
3.3. The Committee notes with approval the atten-
tion to be given to SMEs.
Not only should the specific needs of SMEs be kept in
mind in all R & TD programmes, but there should also
be research into needs of SMEs, if they too are to share
fully in the exploitation of the results of Community
R & TD.
3.4. The Committee wholeheartedly agrees with the
Commission's assessment of the role of SMEs in its
guidelines:
'The Science and Technology Community must take
account of the fact that the advanced industrial econom-
ies are going through a period of intense technological
change, during which small and medium-sized busines-
ses are frequently best suited to the adoption innovatory
policies and the maintenance of a high degree of compe-
titiveness based on innovation. These businesses can
guarantee Europe's place in the new international div-
ision of labour and the competitive dissemination of its
technology. Consequently, the Community will seek to
create a suitable environment for the development of a
network of healthy, dynamic and innovatory small and
medium-sized European businesses. The Commission
will shortly send the Council a communication specifi-
cally concerned with this type of action'.
3.5. It is surprising that the role of the JRC, which
was also discussed in this document, is not a major
item in the framework programme proposal.
3.6. A very important point for the implementation
of the Science and Technology Community is to be
found in that part of the Commission's guidelines
entitled 'Accompanying Measures'.
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of thi
These measures were to include:
— favourable treatment of State aid to R & TD in the
application of competition rules;
— a balanced development of all the Member States
and regions of the Community, through the
implementation of specific activities of particular
interest to those States or regions whose scientific
and technical development calls for special efforts;
special provision for SMEs in:
(a) the use of the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) and Integrated Mediterranean
Programmes (IMPs) together with the creation
of new financial arrangements which could sup-
port infrastructure projects and at the same
time meet the needs of SMEs;
(b) the implementation of measures concerning
small and medium-sized undertakings with a
view to involving them in the progress of the
Community and allowing them to exploit the
Community's large-scale market potential to
the full;
— other proposals which have already been submitted
by the Commission and adopted by the Council,
such as the programme relating to the development
of certain less-favoured regions of the Community
for improved access to the advanced telecommuni-
cations service (STAR Programme). In the frame-
work of shared-cost R & D programmes the Com-
mission's services are studying ways and means of
systematically linking laboratories or firms in less-
favoured regions to R & TD institutions in those
Community countries which are most advanced in
science and technology, in fields in which this type
of association valuable facilitates cross-fertile coop-
eration;
— increased support for the training and retraining of
research workers.
These 'accompanying measures' have been reiterated in
some detail because the Section regards them as of very
great importance. They are indispensable elements of
a Community R & TD policy. Such measures that
ensure the effective participation of SMEs in research
programmes may well determine the success or other-
wise in adapting to rapidly changing technologies and
in maintaining competiveness in innovatory products.
European Communities No C 333/53
4. The budgeraty provisions
4.1. The Committee believes that the substantial
increase in the financial indications set out in the guide-
lines was justified in the light of the R &c TD required
to be carried out over the next five years. This was
especially so because of the new political and legal basis
for the Community's scientific and technical activities
conferred by the adoption of the European Single Act
in December 1985. Instead, the proposal for the second
framework programme (1987 to 1991) envisages a
reduction from nine billion ECU plus a reserve of
15% (1,3 billion ECU) to 7,735 billion ECU with the
additional proviso of leaving the way open for a revision
of the appropriations during the life-time of the pro-
gramme. This significant reduction can only be
described as disappointing and indicative of a less-than-
courageous attitude on the part of the Commission in
its submission to the Council.
4.2. The Commission is submitting, tactically, a pro-
gramme and consequential budgetary provisions which
it would seem to believe will be acceptable to the
Council.
The Committee believes that the correct approach
would be for the Commission to submit a costed R &
TD programme which it deems to be the minimum
necessary to ensure the most favourable economic and
social development of the European Community over
the next five years. The burden of taking the conse-
quences of cutting back on any part of the programme
would then be the Council's.
Submitting a diluted draft framework programme at
this stage is likely to result in an even smaller provision
being allocated to it by the Council; this on the grounds
that the Commission is now saying that 7,735 billion
ECU are needed, whereas only a few months ago it
fixed upon nine billion ECUs ( + 15% reserve) as the
necessary appropriation.
4.3. The Community's R & TD effort will be severe-
ly handicapped if spending is to be on an uncertain
annual allocation basis. A core budget for R & TD
should be set for the years covered by the new frame-
work programme; this could be altered in an annual
budget if absolutely necessary in the light of new cir-
cumstances. It is certainly undesirable that the R & TD
be reduced in any one year. The Committee argues
this point in its opinion on 'Priorities for Community
Research'. The Community's commitment to R & TD
as laid down in the Single European Act would also
militate against treating the Community R & TD budg-
et lightly.
4.4. That having been said, however, should less
financial resources than sought by the Commission be
No C 333/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
made available, there must not be an across-the-board
cut in allocations to activities. Some activities with
small allocations would probably not be viable if they
were thus cut.
Done at Brussels, 27 November 1986.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision revising a research programme to be
implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the EAEC and EEC (1984 to 1987)
(86/C 333/13)
On 12 August 1986 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community and Article 170 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic
Energy Community, on the abovementioned proposal.
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 November 1986 in the light
of the report by Mr Vercellino.
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 27 November 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion:
1. Introduction
1.1. After a full preparatory debate on future devel-
opments for the JRC (COM(86) of 14 March 1986),
the ESC was consulted on a practical proposal for a
Council Decision (COM(86) of 30 July 1986), which
modifies for 1987 the current multi-annual JRC pro-
gramme (1984 to 1987), pending the drafting of the new
multi-annual programme in a year's time.
The Commission points out that, in drawing up the
latter programme, it will take account of opinions
expressed for 1987 in the general context of Community
research by the European Parliament, the Economic and
Social Committee and the other consultative bodies.
1.2. One cannot but appreciate the timely method
adopted, which will make it possible to take immediate
steps, in revising the 1987 programme, to adapt the
JRC's activities, albeit partially, to:
the guidelines and aims of the Technological Com-
munity and the Single European Act which modifies
the Treaty in this field, and experimenting with
new forms of research in the EEC including shared-
cost research, the EUREKA projects and others;
2. defining the first important conclusions, correction,
choices and urgent measures made necessary by the
shock and the disturbing international scientific,
technical, environmental, social and political reper-
cussions of the Chernobyl disaster.
1.3. In drawing up its opinion on the 1987 pro-
gramme revision, the Committee first made a detailed
appraisal of the situation at the various JRC locations
and visited Ispra and Geel, where it discussed research
and organizational matters with the persons in charge
and staff. Drawing widely on all data and documents
available, it then drafted its comments and proposals


Full & Egal Universal Law Academy