OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DECISION REVISING A RESEARCH PROGRAMME TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( 1984-1987 )

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
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/55
for 1987. These were placed in the new context and
took account on a longer-term basis of the attendant
implications for both the next JRC multi-annual pro-
gramme, currently in preparation, and the 1987 to 1991
framework programme for technological research and
development. Constant reference is made to both in
the proposed 1987 revision—regarded as a 'transition
phase'—as regards basic guidelines, policies, aims and
priorities.
1.4. This opinion is to be regarded as an initial
Committee stance, to be followed in due course by a
supplementary opinion once the Commission's pro-
gramme proposals for the subsequent period are
known.
1.5. For all these and other reasons the opinion will
concentrate solely on the main facets of the programme
and a number of points connected with the JRC's
organization. For more specific matters and scientific
or technical details, reference should be made to the
report.
1.6. Lastly, the opinion deals with only some of the
problems arising out of the Chernobyl disaster, namely
those of greatest relevance to the JRC's research activi-
ties, since, more generally, the Committee has set up a
subcommittee which is currently undertaking a more
careful and detailed analysis of the lessons to be drawn
and measures to be taken after Chernobyl—a matter
which not only concerns the safety of people and the
environment, and the basic approach to the concept
and management of nuclear energy and energy policies
but extends to other vital aspects of the present and
future of our societies and the human race as a whole.
2. General comments
2.1. The Committee approves of the Commission's
approach, which makes it possible, under specific con-
ditions, to revise and finance the 1987 work programme
and paves the way for eventual adjustment to new
requirements. However, it would point out that:
— the build-up of events militates for clearcut guide-
lines and appropriate forceful policies from 1987
onwards as opposed to mere cosmetic remodelling
of programme activities or formal adjustments to
meet financial dictates;
— urgent steps are needed—and the requisite con-
ditions and prerequisites already exist—to draw up
and finalize without delay the basic principles and
goals of the next JRC multi-annual programme.
2.2. The Committee intends, from the very start, to
state its standpoint on three key preliminary points
that determine and underpin the general and specific
comments set out below:
(a) the method of assessing the JRC's work and
achievements with a view to consolidating the Cen-
tre and developing its role as laid down in the
Treaties;
(b) the need not to underestimate in any way nuclear
safety or related measures in the light of new
requirements and previous Committee contri-
butions and proposals;
(c) general appraisal of the content and guidelines
of the revised JRC programme for 1987, viz. the
stronger and weaker features of the transition
phase.
2.2.1. Role and prospects of the JRC
On the JRC's role the Committee takes note of the
positive general assessment made by the Commission
and other responsible bodies (cf. Annexes I and II to
Commission document COM(86) 145 final) on the
work and contribution of the JRC in Ispra, Karlsruhe,
Geel and Petten. The Committee points out that the
JRC has become 'a competent and neutral reference
point recognized by industrial firms' and a useful
research instrument which is entrusted with 'a central
role in Community research strategy, based on activities
arising from matters of public responsibility, extending
across the borders of the Community's Member States'.
Moreover, the Committee agrees with the statement
that 'the time hascome to reexamine the JRC without
preconceived ideas'. From a functional and operational
viewpoint, it thinks it necessary to act in two main
ways; first and foremost to consolidate the JRC's activi-
ties in fields where it excels, in line with the criteria
listed below; secondly to identify the weak points of its
activities and its operating defects, and correct them as
soon as possible, associating interested sectors with
the assessment of the work aimed at improving the
competitiveness of industry. This is all the more true
since, in the current situation, such defects can neither
be passed over in silence, understated, nor used to
justify savings which could be made elsewhere—let
alone the weakening of the JRC—or an excessive
reduction in direct advanced research carried out jointly
by the countries of the European Community.
At the same time there must be a guarantee that every
ECU spent provides the best possible results for the
Commission, and that the expenditure is of Com-
munity-wide scope and interest. To this end, the Com-
No C 333/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
mission should find a better way of assessing the effec-
tiveness of the measures which it decides to finance.
Thus some of the criteria for development of direct
research activity by the Commission and the JRC could
be the following:
— where such activities cannot be carried out better
or more effectively by individual Member States;
— where the Member States cannot achieve a particu-
lar useful objective of Community interest;
— where the Commission has to act as an independent
reference authority;
— where the JRC can act as a stimulus and a coordi-
nator, within the field of shared-cost research.
2.2.2. T h e ESC urges the need for nuc l ea r safety
There is a need to overcome or avoid any belittling of
the JRC's role in the field of nuclear safety. In the
current situation the JRC's role should be rapidly
strengthened, in keeping with the spirit and the letter
of the Treaties, and particularly of Chapter 3 of the
Euratom Treaty.
In this connection, the Commission's and the Council's
attention is drawn to the fact that, in accordance with
that Treaty, the Committee has repeatedly warned the
highest Community authorities and the Member States
— notably in 1977 and after the Harrisburg accident
in 1979 — against nuclear risks, referring especially to
safety measures at power stations and to protection of
their staff and the population at large.
Thus, in an opinion of 29 May 1975 on the technologi-
cal problems of nuclear safety, the Committee had
requested that the Commission create 'the conditions
necessary for the issuing of directives and regulations
in this field, in order that it may thereby lay down
minimum standards for all nuclear plants in the Com-
munity'.
Two years later (April 1977), in a study of nuclear
safety, the Committee stressed that in the nuclear field
safety 'must be the overriding criterion when technical
and economic decisions are taken'. This concerns wor-
kers and the public, and 'implies that decisions will also
have to take account of environmental damage and
long-term hazards'.
At the time the Committee proposed the drawing-up
of a fully-fledged nuclear safety code which would 'lay
down minimum safety requirements for nuclear plants
and for the protection of occupationally-exposed wor-
kers and the general public against radiation'.
2.2.3. Pos i t ive and nega t ive aspec t s of the 1987
J R C p r o g r a m m e
The revised JRC programme for 1987, as a bridging
device between two multiannual programmes, rep-
resents an initial step towards adapting the JRC's activi-
ties to the new situation. Since, however, it is a partial
compromise between differing needs, it is incomplete,
and alongside changes which are far from negligi-
ble—e.g. reorientation of the JRC's nuclear safety
activities, radiation monitoring, and adaptation of JRC
structures to new needs—it also has weak points and
inadequacies, which should be corrected as soon as
possible—not only in the 1988 to 1991 programme but
also in the programme for 1987.
As will be specifed for the various sectors, the weak
points are the reduction of work on non-nuclear energy
sources, the lack of commitments to invest in substan-
tial scientific installations, the lack of clarity in the
industrial support work on materials and structures,
the savings to be made through restricting and freezing
new recruitment, the inadequate information on the
nature and scope of restructuring, etc. In other words
the revised 1987 programme can be regarded as a useful
bridge at this stage between the two multiannual pro-
grammes, but still too narrow and not substantial
enough to prepare the way for the long-awaited full-
scale revival of research carried out for the Community
by the JRC.
The Committee takes the view that many of the points
and orientations of the revised 1987 programme, are in
their present form more consistent, practical and suited
to present needs than the earlier indicative communi-
cation on the JRC (COM(86) 145 final) and the recent
proposal for a framework programme of Community
activities in the field of technological research and
development (1987 to 1991) (COM(86) 430 final).
3. JRC activities and initiatives after Chernobyl
The Commission realises that its instruments in the
R & D field cannot be solely or mainly market-orien-
tated, but should increasingly serve as a vigorous stimu-
lus to the integration and enlargement of technological
development for civil purposes.
In the light of these assumptions, the Committee feels
that the proposals outlined by the Commission seem too
timid and indecisive, and inappropriate to the concerns
expressed and present needs. There does not appear to
be enough direct research carried out for the EEC by
common efforts in the JRC.
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/57
3.1. Safety, environment, norms and standards
3.1.1. The intention of the Commission document
on future developments for the JRC was the transfer
to JRC activities of the industrial promotion project
—already posited as the basis of Community action in
the framework programme. The revised programme
proposed for 1987 seeks to implement this intention, so
far implemented only through some adjustments to the
current programmes (solar energy, industrial hazards)
and in the planned activity in the field of advanced
materials and reliability of structures.
3.1.2. Hence there is the problem of avoiding a con-
flict — as if they were incompatible—between this new
work and the JRC's activity as an independent public
service on safety and environment. This conflict is
unacceptable, especially since Chernobyl. It is necessary
to define exactly the activities which should have pri-
ority or be strengthened, and to provide them with the
necessary funds.
3.1.3. While the Commission rightly stresses the pre-
normative aspects of JRC research and those aiming at
the formation of an enlarged European market, one
should also stress the fundamental point that the JRC
is a suitable instrument for research which facilitates
subsequent industrial development, but is essentially
precompetitive. This use of the JRC is all the more
appropriate since the Commission's industrial pro-
motion policy seeks to avoid widening the gap between
European countries and between strong and weak
industries, and to pursue the aim enshrined in the
Treaties of ensuring economic balance.
However, the JRC will have to go on taking an interest
in the post-competitive stage of industrial development,
which aims to mitigate the environmental impact of
technology and protect the quality of life.
3.2. Nuclear safety
3.2.1. The serious accident which took place on
26 April 1986 at Chernobyl created a 'state of urgency'
with regard to nuclear safety. The Committee Chair-
man stated at the 237th plenary session, on 21 May
1986, that the safety of the population must henceforth
be the overriding aim of political leaders' thought and
action. He added that everything possible should be
done to prevent a similar disaster occuring in the Com-
munity, and to deal in a prompt and coordinated way
with external disasters which may effect the Com-
munity.
"While studies, debates and in-depth comparisons—both
technical/scientific and socio-political—continue in
Europe and throughout the world on the consequences
of the Chernobyl disaster and the lessons to be drawn
from it, some of the commitments which arise for
research, and the JRC in particular, are to:
— define and apply, at the Community and inter-
national levels, information, control and inter-
vention measures designed to prevent nuclear acci-
dents or to deal with them as efficiently and reliably
as possible;
— develop research in the field of nuclear and techno-
logical 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.
Particularly important in this context are the study
and comparative analyses—already in progress—of the
surveys and experience in various countries, before and
after the Chernobyl accident, with regard to:
(a) initiatives and measures to maximize the safety of
currently operating nuclear power stations, concen-
trating on the intrinsic safety of the process itself
rather than on preventive or after-the-event defens-
ive external protection;
(b) possible measures for the temporary or definitive
closure of older or less safe power stations;
(c) possible suspension or scaling-down of the building
of new power stations where they are regarded as
insufficiently safe, or can be replaced by other
sources of energy;
(d) the correction of energy choices and policies.
At present research must take account of the fact that
between extreme, mutually exclusive opposing view-
points—for and against the peaceful use of nuclear
energy—more differential and realistic positions are
emerging, which bear in mind the various needs and
possibilities and envisage measures and choices such as:
improving the safety of nuclear plant for the population
and the environment; a growing commitment to energy
saving and more use of alternative energy sources; more
controlled and limited use of nuclear energy; proposals
for gradual phasing out of nuclear energy; reducing
risks, and scaling down nuclear production for military
purposes.
3.2.2. There is also now a need—as the summit
of industrialized countries held in Tokyo has already
proposed—to draw up in the short term an inter-
national convention whereby the signatory States would
undertake to make a report, exchange information and
No C 333/58 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
coordinate action in the event of an alarm or of an
accident. This should be done through closer cooper-
ation with the IAEA.
3.2.3. In the EEC, the Euratom Treaty does not give
the Community jurisdiction over safety regulations for
nuclear installations, and experience has shown that
the Member States intend to keep such matters entirely
under national control.
But, foreseeing the enormous scale of the efforts which
States must make to ensure nuclear safety, and the
international component of accident effects, the Treaty
lays down that there should be a complete exchange of
information and harmonization of standards on per-
missible radiation levels and safety systems. To this end,
the Commission has equipped itself with a considerable
complex of skills and instruments in the form of the
JRC.
3.2.4. After Chernobyl all the conditions are there
for the Commission—exploiting and reorganizing the
potential already available at the JRC—rapidly to
resume its efforts to promote the development of studies
and their harmonization both on safety of nuclear
installations (design, construction, operating and main-
tenance) and on prevention, forecasting and mitigation
of the effects of accidents.
3.2.5. The accidents which have occurred to date
have confirmed the incompleteness of risk analysis both
with regard to the very complex accident sequences and
with regard to the importance of the human factor and
transnational effects.
An improvement by the Commission in the methods of
risk analysis would enable States to move more rapidly
in accepting and respecting more effective standards.
3.2.6. It is essential to reactivate efforts to obtain
data on the consequences of accidents, to foresee the
effects of radiation on the human organism and to study
the distribution and concentration of radionuclides in
the environment after an accident.
3.2.7. It is also appropriate for the Commission to
propose the setting up in the JRC, as envisaged by the
Euratom Treaty (Chapter III, Article 39), of a health
and safety documentation and study section. The tasks
of such a section are already adequately specified in
Articles 30 to 38 of the Treaty, and most of the necess-
ary skills are already to be found in the JRC.
3.2.8. The Committee welcomes the information on
the new radiation monitoring and assessment pro-
gramme (REM) provided in the revised programme for
1987 (COM(86) 416 final). However, it would like to
know more about the details of the projects and thinks
it desirable for them to be coordinated with other
international initiatives, both for 1987 and for sub-
sequent years.
It is moreover, a cause for concern that the fission
programme is being revised in such a way as to broaden
it to cover data collection and management rather than
purely technical and scientific activities.
As regards the reorganization of the fast reactor safety
programme, the Committee feels that the Commission's
general policy on the development of these reactors
must be clarified before any research project is laun-
ched.
3.3. Renewable energy sources and energy savings
The question of energy savings and renewable energy
sources forms part of medium to long-term consider-
ations on the control of energy demand. Indeed, all
currently available energy sources give rise to problems
of social acceptability, linked to environmental pol-
lution in the short to long term, operational safety and
security of supply.
The Commission has recently identified as a realistic
strategic objective for the end of the century a 25%
reduction in energy consumption in European countries
as a result of the development of techniques to improve
efficiency in the use of energy.
After the Chernobyl disaster there is ample justification
for a 'great scientific mobilization' to intensify research
not only on safety and environmental protection tech-
nology, but also on energy savings and renewable
energy sources. In the current situation, it is impossible
to endorse the partial abandonment of activities in this
field—activities which should instead be revived and
integrated with the industrial promotion phase.
3.4. Nuclear-fusion technology and safety
The Community is involved in a large-scale research
and development programme, which is being carried
on in various national laboratories, with coordination
and encouragement from the Commission.
In the field of nuclear fusion and plasma physics the
EEC has promoted a number of experiments in various
countries. Of these the most important is the JET
project, which is being carried on by a European staff
at Culham in the United Kingdom.
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/59
The JRC provides a significant contribution in the field
of technology, on which it has been working for more
than 10 years, particularly on:
— cooperation with the NET group in Garching, in
the design of the NET machine,
— experimental studies of new materials,
— studies of safety and fusion.
Of particular importance is the Council of Ministers'
decision in July 1985 to install at Ispra a tritium-
handling laboratory for research on the safety and
environmental impact of that isotope. This laboratory
is planned to be operative by 1990.
The development of fusion will require a series of
nuclear experiments—both for the study of plasma
physics and on the behaviour of the irradiated materials.
Through the skills it has developed and through its
characteristics, the JRC has suitable Community sites
for some of these nuclear experiments, and particularly
for devices such as IGNITOR and the intense neutron
source. Finally, it would be useful to assess whether, as
many experts maintain, a concentration of efforts in
this field could lead to a considerable shortening of the
time thought to be required for developing these energy
sources.
4. Conclusions
4.1. Planning choices
The Committee regards the following as the fields
of activity on which Community expenditure is fully
justified:
— health and safety,
— environmental protection and improvement of the
quantity of life,
— activities envisaged by the Treaty,
— creation and maintenance of a single internal market
(especially technological research, development and
demonstration (TRDD) with a view to drawing up
norms),
— improving the competitiveness of industry, in some
cases including its sources of supply and the use of
energy.
On the basis of these assessments the Committee feels
that the Community now needs a strong and active
JRC, which would be an exemplary centre on an inter-
national scale. The JRC must therefore be revitalized
and reorganized as soon as possible as an instrument
of direct research in the service of the Community and
the Member States.
On the strength of the results achieved, the skills of the
staff and the experience acquired, the JRC is capable
of achieving this aim in 1987 and subsequent years.
This is all the more true since—as the members of the
study group observed in the places visited—the main
obstacles to its activity arise above all from the follow-
ing factors: uncertainty .and delay in Community decis-
iom-making; the fact that the JRC is not given enough
independence and responsibility; frequent, sometimes
contradictory changes in the aims assigned to it; excess-
ive bureaucratic checks on scientific and administrative
management; rigid, inadequate or inappropriate assess-
ment and use of staff; inadequate funds and resources.
The Committee takes the view that the Commission
proposals only partially meet the requirements express-
ed above for proper use of the JRC as a common
instrument of direct research. In particular, it agrees
with the shift of emphasis to nuclear fission safety and
the beginning of a new programme for monitoring and
assessment of radiation in accordance with point 3 of
the opinion.
A negative aspect, however, is the idea of reducing
activity in the field of non-nuclear energy and the
lack of any planning for subsequent investments in
significant scientific/technical establishments, such as
those for nuclear fusion mentioned above.
This is certainly not justified by the fact that 1987 is a
transitional year; indeed, this makes it all the more
suitable for sketching out future developments.
Finally, the industrial support activity is left vague; it
is mainly linked with the 'materials and structures'
programmes, the nature of which is not sufficiently
clarified.
4.2, Role of direct research
There should be a review of the tendency to quantitative
restriction of JRC activities, which conflicts with the
policy of entrusting it with additional tasks while main-
taining or increasing the earlier traditional tasks.
To this end, the Committee proposes that direct
research should be made less peripheral to Community
activities as a whole. Under the guidelines envisaged in
the Commission document, direct research would be
reduced from 30% to 15% of the total from 1987
onwards.
The tendency to restrict the JRC is also confirmed
in the part devoted to staff management. There the
Commission announces its intention of reserving a
number of posts for staff who will return to other jobs
after a period of work at the JRC, and, in order to save
ECU 3 million in two years, it plans to reduce the
number of new staff whom it had been intended to take
No C 333/60 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
on to reach the staffing level already assigned to the
JRC by the Council of Ministers (and never achieved).
This planning is not contradicted by the document on
the revised 1987 programme. The Committee does not
regard it as acceptable—in the present situation, and
since the Community is committed to a full-scale revival
of European research—to make savings by a freeze on
recruitment.
On the other hand, all measures to encourage the
mobility of staff and their interaction with national
bodies and firms are to be promoted, while respecting
the staff's aspirations. In view of the Community's
enlargement from six to twelve Member States, it is
advisable to associate the newer Members closely with
the JRC and give them priority should a new research
establishment prove to be necessary.
More generally, the Committee hopes that the Com-
mission will develop a policy of scientific cooperation
with other regions of the world, through the JRC and
in other ways.
4.3. Coordination of JRC activities
One of the main aims at this stage is to improve the
integration of the JRC's activities with Member States'
and industry's research efforts.
But this certainly cannot be achieved if there is no
clear definition of the conditions and procedures for
cooperation, the staff working on Community research
is reduced and there is no guarantee of the rights
and supranational status—i.e. specific classification and
recognition—of the researcher, of working conditions
which encourage creativity, and of geographical/occu-
pational mobility, with corresponding rights and duties,
including the possibility of reincorporation in the
organizations from which the staff originated.
Failure to create such conditions would weaken com-
mon efforts and impair the level, quality and effective-
ness of supranational technical/scientific coordination
and cooperation.
Effective strengthening and adequate restructuring of
the JRC can be achieved by concentrating on more
rational use of the staff already there, correcting the
operating faults, increasing staff in the sectors which
need it, and guaranteeing the rights of the researcher.
An increase in the mobility of research staff is one of
the aims to be pursued in order to improve the JRC's
efficiency. But we should not forget or underestimate
the fact that in social terms one of the basic causes of
immobility is the inadequate social security arising from
the lack of a real market. At this stage the proposal for
a European Research Community should be clarified
and quantified as a basic point of reference for the
mobility of scientific staff, and for improving research
conditions and working conditions.
4.4. Structure of the JRC
Although the structure of its own organizations is an
internal matter for the Commission, the Committee
would suggest a restructuring designed to encourage
the initiative of researchers and to stimulate responsi-
bility and interest in carrying out the scientific work
involved, through the formation of suitable, flexible
working units.
To this end, the Committee recommends to the Com-
mission and the Council a federated, more flexible
structure which could consist essentially of the fol-
lowing:
— Joint Research Centre and its management,
— well-defined research institutes for the main fields
of activity, avoiding any form of isolation and fav-
ouring mutual collaboration,
— joint installations or establishments located if poss-
ible in a number of Member States, especially those
which acceded recently,
— flexible working units for the main subjects, includ-
ing functional research for carrying out significant
projects,
— a specialized service to develop contact, training,
exchange of data and experience with national
research centres, national and European economic
and social groups, public opinion and bodies which
give expression to it, by creating a data-bank access-
ible to all. These activities should aim to get the
best out of an efficient JRC.
To achieve these various aims the JRC should be struc-
tured in functional units which have a well-defined
identity, functions and objectives, and which are finan-
cially transparent.
Each unit should deal with a particular aspect of TRDD
financed by the Community—health and safety,
environmental protection, Treaty activities, activities in
support of the internal market, and perhaps others such
as promotion of industrial competitiveness. Each of
these units should be managed by a competent and
responsible person.
The Commission document on the 1987 programme,
while confirming the intention to restructure the JRC
and especially the Ispra establishment, does not give
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/61
enough information to enable one to assess whether
it contributes to achieving the aforementioned aims.
Positive aspects are the proposed new balance between
management of projects and that of scientific depart-
ments, and the proposal to improve cooperation among
the establishments.
4.5. Detailed suggestions
Still with a view to the greater efficiency, rationality
and timeliness of the JRC's and Commission's activities
in this field, the Committee wishes to make a few
detailed suggestions and recommendations. These can
be summarized as follows:
Restructuring
Rapid decision-making on institutional and operational
aspects of effective restructuring of the JRC, not as a
centre with two functions—nuclear and non-nuclear—
which are difficult to reconcile, but as the Community's
single, independent, Joint Research Centre composed
of a number of complementary sectors, albeit with
differing characteristics and capable of being adapted
to the needs of the moment.
Monitoring
Awareness that the monitoring procedures set up by
the Commission often cause waste of resources and
frustation among the staff. If would be desirable to
replace them with the delegation of responsibility to the
heads of research units, while providing for subsequent
checks.
Research expenditure and budget
Search for an acceptable and practicable alternative
to the proposal to make savings at the expense of
recruitment. To that end it would be desirable to disag-
gregate the JRC budget when new, including structural,
guidelines are presented to the Council of Ministers. As
with other Community activities, permanent personnel
management, expenditure could be differentiated from
specific appropriations or research activities and re-
allocated to the Commission's general operating
budget, but not regarded as direct research expenditure.
In addition, the JRC should be encouraged to take on
Done at Brussels, 27 November 1986.
staff seconded from national bodies in order to ensure
close interaction between the JRC and such bodies.
Utilization of research
Better utilization and dissemination of the results of
research work and related activities, assistance given
to the various Commission departments and national
research centres, cooperation with, and support given to
the Member States and their industries, while improving
planning with regard to public relations, which at pre-
sent takes up too much management time. These tasks
should be carried out by improving the structure of the
relevant departments.
Staff and social problems
Creation of a continuous and effective relationship
between the JRC and the Economic and Social Commit-
tee, its specialized sections, the two sides of industry
and other social groups within the Community, both
on programmes and subjects of topical interest and on
problems related to structure.
The proposed decision
The Committee points out that the text of the proposed
Council Decision on the 1987 programme cites, above
all, general and administrative reasons similar to those
given for earlier programmes, without making enough
mention of the most recent Community policies or the
urgent needs arising from highly important factors and
innovations such as: the new approach and aims of
the technological Community; EUREKA; shared-cost
research; the need to implement Article 3 of the Eura-
tom Treaty and to improve nuclear safety; the sections
of the Single European Act relating to research; the
effects of, and lessons to be drawn from, the Chernobyl
disaster and other nuclear accidents, etc.
The Committee does not seek to take the place of the
responsible bodies in formulating the Decision, and it
realises, for example, that it is difficult to cite the Single
European Act when it has not yet been ratified by all
the Member States. It therefore confines itself to raising
this question, in the certainty that the Commission will
find a way to update the text of the proposed Decision
and strengthen the statement of reasons which
accompanies it.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT


Full & Egal Universal Law Academy