52002AE0693

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

- the "Proposals for Council Decisions concerning the specific programmes implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities concerning the specific programmes implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community for research and training activities", and

(COM(2001) 279 final - 2001/0122 (CNS) - 2001/0123 (CNS) - 2001/0124 (CNS) - 2001/0125 (CNS) - 2001/0126 (CNS))

- the "Amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme 2002-2006 for research, technology development and demonstration aimed at integrating and strengthening the European research area"

(COM(2001) 594 final - 2001/0122 (CNS))

(2002/C 221/21)

On 6 July 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

On 8 November 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned amended proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 May. The rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 391st plenary session (meeting of 30 May 2002), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1. Recommendations in brief

1.1. The European Economic and Social Committee, having regard to:

1.1.1. the need to incorporate the specific programmes into the strategic objective of the Lisbon process as reaffirmed by the European Council in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March 2002, above all in terms of competitiveness and the sustainable development of a knowledge-based European economy;

1.1.2. the need to set an increase of about 50 % as a medium-term goal for the period beyond the VIth framework programme, while calling on Member States and industry to do likewise, as formally underlined in Barcelona with regard to both financial and human resources;

1.1.3. the need to respond to the challenges indicated therein by fully integrating research and innovation efforts by means of: the concentration of objectives, a balanced set of traditional and innovative instruments, continuity of action, simplification, flexibility, transparency and autonomy, but above all by expanding the common technological base and proving an open and attractive partner on the international stage;

1.1.4. the catalyst role which the specific programmes can play in integrating the various European components (public and private, academic and business, large and small) and in integrating national and regional, Community and European efforts, with a view to scientific/technological/innovative development and informed choices for the future 2006-2010 VIIth framework programme;

1.1.5. the vital need to accompany the development of the programmes and individual lines of action with a well-organised and defined system of management and advisory bodies at various levels, to provide dialogue interfaces and platforms, and direction and supervision, and thus build a consistent and balanced framework of governance for the integrated research and innovation area.

1.2. Recommends that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission:

1.2.1. develop a plan of attack for a strong and coherent common research and innovation policy, encompassing the VIth framework programme and an integrated research-education strategy, modernising the rules for public involvement in supporting interactive technological innovation processes, promoting the release onto the market of research results, of public research in particular, promoting stronger and more organic interactions between the business world and scientific community and academia, broader and more flexible forms of public-private partnership, and a firm and transparent European system of innovation services;

1.2.2. improve the structure of the specific programmes to make them as clear and transparent as possible and better able to bring together all the elements, regardless of their type and size, for the balanced broadening of the common scientific and technological base in a concentrated number of thematic priorities;

1.2.3. split the specific programme on "Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area" into two:

- a specific programme with medium-long term priorities with seven dedicated budget lines and short-medium term horizontal activities organised around three dedicated budget lines;

- a specific programme on coordinating and developing the European Research Area coherently, to include: supporting the coordination of national/European activities with pre-defined cooperation protocols; supporting coherent policy development; creating a permanent cycle of Distributed Strategic Intelligence not least to foster a clear, informed and transparent approach in the VIIth framework programme;

1.2.4. broaden international cooperation fields, plans and procedures by extending the areas covered to include Latin America and Asia, the ACP countries and South Africa, and provide for cooperation opportunities suited to smaller bodies, in the mould of Craft international;

1.2.5. build into the specific programme on "Structuring the European Research Area" a budget line dedicated not only to research/innovation interfaces, but also to regional RTD initiatives;

1.2.6. give full application to the European Charter for Small Enterprises, and in particular to the Committee's proposals in the area of research and innovation by means of appropriate instruments, technology mediators and an information and advice policy involving economic and professional intermediaries such as industrial associations and chambers of commerce and craft associations directly and more actively;

1.2.7. provide SMEs with opportunities to take part both in specific horizontal activities designed for them and the budget line on "Research/innovation interfaces and regional research and innovation initiatives" of the specific programme on "Structuring the European Research Area", and within each line of the thematic priorities (minimum of 15 %) with their own independent proposals and collective and cooperative research instruments;

1.2.8. develop the specific "JRC-EC" and "JRC-Euratom" programmes as the hub of a pan-European research network, a European network of scientific technical reference systems, acting as an integrator of knowledge and researchers at international level and a bridge between research and civil society and policy makers, complementing permanent staff with 15-20 % international fellowship holders;

1.2.9. bolster the specific programme on "Nuclear Energy", for safe, clean and risk-free energy, supporting fusion and the ITER project, shoring up and broadening activities on radioactive waste and nuclear safety in the enlarged Union, in particular by developing new safer technologies that generate less waste;

1.2.10. offer - but not predetermine - a toolbox of instruments to all the potential players, so as to energise participation and not straitjacket it: "new" and "old" instruments should be set off against each other to promote the best and most user-friendly tools that respond best to the needs of the final users;

1.2.11. ensure that the basic Community decisions within the institutional decision-making process, lay down transparent characteristics, criteria and procedures for the new integrated projects, networks of excellence and collective research projects: in particular, the selection and evaluation criteria must form part of a predefined set of elements from which the most relevant can be chosen for the work programmes, information packages and individual calls for proposals;

1.2.12. provide for Nano Integrated Projects with fewer participants, a shorter duration and dedicated calls for applications, in order to ensure that at least 15 % of the thematic priority resources go to smaller bodies in the Community and the applicant countries, while also including "Tuition Projects" among the implementation instruments for the specific programmes, as a means of supporting above all the smaller partners in research and innovation initiatives, and accelerating their progress on the stairway of excellence;

1.2.13. ensure that the system for governing the specific programmes of the VIth framework programme is able to support, steer and control this large-scale integration process by means of a systematic and intercommunicative advisory-management framework embracing: programme committees and their organisation into theme-based and specific subcommittees; the relaunch of a new Crest; the European advisory groups (EAGs) for each specific programme and budget line and relations with the scientific committees for the integrated projects and networks of excellence, on the one hand, and with the new EURAB on the other.

2. Introduction

2.1. On 10 December 2001, the Research Council came to a political agreement on the two framework programmes and a common position was adopted on 28 January 2002. On 30 January 2002, the Commission then adopted amended proposals for decisions on the specific programmes, with a five-programme structure to implement its proposals under the two 2002-2006 framework programmes.

2.2. On 10 January 2002, the Commission presented amended proposals on the rules for participation, on which the Committee issued an opinion on 21 February 2002.

2.3. With regard to the VIth EC framework programme, the Commission is proposing to organise the specific implementing programmes as follows:

- grouping together all thematic areas under a specific programme on "Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area", along with all coordination and coherent development of research and innovation actions, for a total of EUR 12855 million;

- grouping together all horizontal, structural and support activities under a specific programme on "Structuring the European Research Area", earmarking resources of EUR 2655 million;

- establishing, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a specific programme for the "JRC - Joint Research Centre", with budget appropriations of EUR 760 million.

2.4. With regard to the VIth Euratom framework programme, the Commission proposes two specific programmes:

- a single specific programme for nuclear fission and fusion, and safety and disposal of nuclear waste, known as "Nuclear Energy", for a total of EUR 940 million;

- a specific programme for JRC activities carried out on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, with Community funding of EUR 290 million.

3. General comments

3.1. The Committee is firmly convinced that the implementation of the VIth framework programme, through the full development of its constituent specific programmes, should be fully incorporated into the strategic objective set by the Lisbon European Council and reiterated at the Stockholm and Gothenburg summits, namely that of making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, in terms of sustainability, with more and better jobs and greater economic and social cohesion throughout the Union, over the next decade.

3.2. The Committee regrets the slowness of the response to that objective and especially the fact that various components essential to the strategy have been put on hold, such as the adoption of the Community patent and of a transparent and competitive European patenting system(1), the effective launch of the Galileo joint undertaking(2) and faster progress on the ITER decision. The Committee also believes that to optimise the economic and social impact of Community research and innovation activities, a more pro-active approach must be taken to technological challenges and the Community must boost its capacity to harness all existing and potential forces, broadening the European scientific and technological base of human, academic, industrial and financial resources.

3.3. The Committee welcomes the Council's common position, which "indicates a strong convergence of the position of Council with respect to both the European Parliament and the Commission"(3), leaving grounds to hope that the VIth framework programme and its specific implementing programmes will be adopted rapidly. This, together with the definitive adoption of the rules of participation(4), will enable the timely and appropriate development and implementation of Community RTDD activities, making a smooth transition from the Vth framework programme.

3.4. In the Committee's opinion, the structure, instruments and scientific and technological content of the VIth framework programme's specific programmes and the way they are implemented must therefore provide a clear response to that challenge:

- in terms of the internal integration of research efforts: structuring the lines of action, concentrating resources on a limited number of priority themes, establishing a balanced framework of old and new instruments, simplifying their internal management, and increasing the flexibility, independence and continuity of Community research and innovation;

- and also in terms of transparency and equal access, appropriate and predefined selection and evaluation criteria, open and simple access, a user-friendly approach for potential players of all sizes and types, a clear economic and social impact, more highly skilled jobs and new and more technologically innovative companies, integration and more dialogue between the scientific world and society and between academia and business, a more present and globally visible international dimension that can attract scientific and technological cooperation and intelligence in a broader spectrum of subjects and geographical areas, on the basis of mutual interest and coherence with the relevant Community policies.

3.5. The Committee believes that the implementation of the VIth framework programme should fully reflect the central importance of the Lisbon strategy. Practically speaking, the challenge is how to make a positive shift towards the establishment of a European research and innovation area that can unite an increasing number of companies, research centres and universities of all sizes on the road to excellence and the knowledge-based society, while also making Europe a magnet for excellence and intelligence from the rest of the world.

3.6. In this respect, for the Community action to succeed, the Committee would stress the need to ensure that the approach taken by the implementing programmes of the VIth framework programme reflects these aspects sufficiently to generate the necessary accumulation of new research and innovation players within the EU and also to attract more new players and expertise from outside the EU. Meanwhile care must be taken to ensure that the need for integration and a critical mass, flexibility, independence and streamlined internal management are not bought at the cost of the basic principles of transparent and equal access, firm and unambiguous eligibility, selection and evaluation criteria, clear points of reference and a user-friendly approach, and visibility in the economic and social impact of research and innovation efforts.

3.7. As it reiterated in its opinions on the European research area, on the evaluation of the impact of RTD (from the Vth framework programme towards the VIth framework programme), and on the proposals for a VIth framework programme, the Committee would stress the ongoing need to focus on:

- securing continuity and minimising the risks associated with the introduction of new untested structures and instruments;

- applying both the current instruments and new ones provided for in the VIth framework programme in parallel as tools for the players in each call for proposals to choose from;

- avoiding closed circles or unfair or unequal access to resulting calls, and making predefined selection and evaluation criteria transparent;

- bolstering the new instruments with accompanying measures (tuition outside the Commission), training and feasibility/exploratory studies/projects, training external tutors to accompany individual projects using the new instruments;

- avoiding an overall increase in bureaucracy and reducing the cost and management burden of projects, regardless of who is supporting them;

- preserving both basic research, as the source of new concepts and resulting technologies, and applied research and innovation to foster a fully inter-active process, with efficient and responsible financial management;

- establishing a European research area that is open to cooperating with the associated countries and the other relevant third countries, with joint research projects based on mutual interest, covering a broader spectrum of areas, including: Latin America and Asia; the ACP countries and South Africa; cooperation with the industrialised countries, the USA, Japan, Canada and Australia in particular, must be encouraged on the basis of reciprocal openness and mutual interests;

- enlarging and enriching the participation of SMEs in the VIth Framework Programme beyond the present level of 20-22 %, in the spirit of the European Charter for Small Enterprises(5), with a special emphasis on small and micro-enterprises involved in traditional activities and intermediate technologies, by means of an active awareness-raising policy offering advice on how they can make the most of their potential capacity both as players in the priority thematic areas and in short-term incremental research applying a bottom-up approach;

- encouraging all sources of innovation, including traditional ones, by allocating a large portion of the resources reserved for SMEs in the thematic priorities, by means of flexible participation instruments;

- gearing mobility initiatives towards increasing academia-business interactions and developing the European Research Area, with the full involvement of the applicant countries and greater international cooperation;

- ensuring greater research/innovation interaction with measures centred on the establishment and streamlining of networks, economic and technological intelligence activities, and new regional RTD initiatives, giving a regional dimension to the new instruments;

- boosting the JRC's strategic inter-institutional role of helping decision-makers in the interests of public safety, providing a neutral scientific and technological frame of reference for policies and for the Community institutions including the Committee itself;

- creating strategic intelligence networks to monitor and control quality and excellence, and develop new perspectives for the transparent and effective preparation of the VIIth framework programme;

- strengthening the Euratom programme, to promote safer nuclear energy, including the aspects of production and transport and the storage of nuclear waste, and to enhance the development of the fusion option.

3.8. The Committee is of the view that despite the efforts made up to now to hammer out an action strategy for a strong and coherent common European research and innovation policy to underpin a competitive knowledge-based society, further practical efforts are needed in this direction. These must include creating a genuinely integrated area with an integrated research-education strategy, modernising the rules on state aid in support of interactive innovation processes, encouraging the release onto the market of public research results, stepping up networking between industry and academia and public-private partnerships, and supporting the creation of a European system of innovation services.

3.9. In the Committee's view, this action strategy must not only encourage scientific and technological development, but also develop complementary measures to accompany the structural changes, in order to fully exploit the potential of new findings and new technologies. The aim should be to ensure that society as a whole can share in the resulting benefits and uncork the Union's considerable innovative potential in terms both of human resources and of financial and technological capital, removing structural, legal, fiscal, administrative and operational hurdles and establishing appropriate economic framework conditions.

3.10. At the same time, the Committee would once more stress the validity of its recommendation of "setting an increase of about 50 % as a medium-term political goal for the period beyond FP6, while appealing to Member States and industry to act likewise on their part"(6).

4. Implementation structure and content of the EC specific programmes

4.1. The Committee believes that the VIth EC framework programme must comply with criteria on maximum clarity and transparency, concentration and balance, internal and external consistency, controllability, visibility and accessibility. The programme must be fully integrated in the action strategy for an integrated research and innovation area, as set out in points 2.8 and 2.9, beginning as of now to build integration pathways as constituent parts of the next multi-annual plan.

4.2. In the Committee's view, the VIth framework programme should be structured as follows:

- a specific programme on two groups of priorities: one on priority medium/long-term theme-based research areas, the other on specific short/medium-term priorities, each priority with its own budget line;

- a specific structural programme, with three dedicated budget and management lines: one for research and innovation interfaces and regional research initiatives; one for researcher mobility, another for research infrastructure;

- a specific programme for coordination and coherent development of research actions between the various tiers of the European research area, science/society relations, the gender balance and distributed strategic intelligence;

- a specific programme for the EC JRC.

5. The first specific programme: integrating and strengthening the European Research Area

The first specific programme should, in the Committee's view, be set out as follows:

5.1. Priority medium/long-term research themes

5.1.1. A) for maintaining, improving and securing the foundations for our standard of living and resources:

5.1.1.1. A dedicated budget line for genomics and biotechnology for health, comprising two separate fields:

a) Advanced genomics and its applications for health (gene expression and proteomics, structural genomics, comparative genomics and population genetics, bioinformatics, multidisciplinary functional genomics approaches to basic biological processes, applications of knowledge and technologies in the field of genomics and biotechnology for health, technological platforms for the development of new diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic tools).

b) Combating major diseases (combating cardiovascular disease, diabetes and rare diseases, combating resistance to antibiotics and other drugs; studying the brain, combating diseases of the nervous system; studying human development and the ageing process; combating cancer; combating communicable diseases linked to poverty, in particular HIV and TB; combating malaria).

5.1.1.1.1. The Committee recommends placing a greater emphasis on bio safety and biomonitoring among the research priorities, as highlighted in the Committee opinion on the strategic vision of life sciences and biotechnology(7). Furthermore, it welcomes the Commission's statement for the minutes of the Research Council on 10 December 2001 on aspects of bioethics. Greater emphasis should also be placed on biomedical technologies and degenerative diseases. Furthermore, the themes of non-food allergies and rheumatic diseases should, in the Committee's view, be included under sub-section b).

5.1.1.2. A dedicated budget line for energy, transport, sustainable development and global changes:

a) Sustainable energy systems(8): 1 - short/long-term activities: clean energy, in particular renewable energy sources and their integration in the energy system, including storage, distribution and use; energy savings and energy efficiency, including the results obtained from the use of renewable raw materials; alternative motor fuels; 2 - medium/long-term activities: fuel cells, including their applications; new technologies for energy carriers, transport and storage, in particular hydrogen; new concepts and technological discoveries in the field of renewable energy resources.

b) Sustainable surface transport: 1 - environmentally friendly transport systems and means of transport: new technologies and new concepts for all modes of surface, rail, road and waterway transport; advanced design and production techniques; 2 - safer, more effective and more competitive transport: rebalancing and integration of the various modes of transport; road, rail and waterway safety and combating traffic congestion.

c) Climate change and ecosystems: impact and mechanisms of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollutants on climate, ozone depletion and carbon sinks such as oceans, forests and soil; water cycle, including soil-related aspects; biodiversity and ecosystems; strategies for the sustainable use of land, with emphasis on coastal zones, agricultural land and forests; operational forecasting and modelling, including global climate change observation systems; complementary research on the development of advanced methods for risk assessment and methods for appraising environmental quality, including relevant prenormative research on measurements and testing.

5.1.1.2.1. The Committee is very pleased to note that its comments(9) on the priority themes of "Energy" and "Transport" have been taken on board but would argue that conventional fuels should also be included as a theme, not least in view of the forthcoming absorption of the ECSC Treaty. It recommends amending the titles of those priorities as suggested above to "Energy and Transport, Sustainable Development and Global Changes". It would also stress once again that the "sustainability" aspect should be highlighted in the recitals as a feature of all the VIth framework programme specific programme themes.

5.1.1.3. A dedicated budget line for food quality and safety including:

- Epidemiology of food-related illnesses and allergies, including the impact of diet on the health of children; environmental health risks linked to the food chain; impact of food on health (new products, products resulting from organic farming, functional foods, products containing GMOs(10), and those arising from recent biotechnology developments); traceability processes all along the production chain; methods of analysis, detection and control; safer and environmentally-friendly production methods and healthier foodstuffs; impact of animal feed and medicine on human health; environmental health risks linked to the food chain (chemical, biological, physical).

5.1.1.3.1. The Committee welcomes the emphasis placed on food quality alongside the essential safety aspects, with a view to improving safety for both consumers and producers. However, it cannot ignore the fact that certain aspects of this priority theme overlap with the first priority theme and priority 2c, with the risk that potential participants may be confused. In any case, this theme should be linked to the relevant JRC activities and the horizontal activities supporting Community policies, especially regarding the common agriculture and fisheries policies. Furthermore, the Committee, as highlighted in its opinion on the strategic vision of life sciences and biotechnology(11), recommends launching new areas of research to address the questions that are still raised concerning GMOs and giving priority to strategies aimed at improving food quality. The Committee believes that projects must be planned to facilitate adjustments in the food industry to take account of new quality standards, new findings and new technologies.

5.1.1.4. A dedicated budget line for citizens, democracy and new forms of governance/ science and governance:

- Implications of European integration and enlargement for governance and the public; breakdown of areas of responsibility and new forms of governance; issues relating to conflict resolution and the restoration of peace and justice; new forms of citizenship and cultural identities.

5.1.1.4.1. The Committee sets great store by this line of humanities and social sciences research, but believes that it should also include the "Science and Society" actions currently included in the second specific programme entitled "Structuring the European Research Area" with which it is closely linked. This applies in particular to the "Science and governance" aspects, with which coordination would in any case be necessary. It is also important that there be a link with the activities of the JRC, especially in the area of techno-economic foresight. The theme "Knowledge-based European society and social cohesion" should definitely be included, along with "Science and the world of work and business".

5.1.2. B) For improving and promoting scientific knowledge and technological development with a view to sharpening competitiveness:

5.1.2.1. A dedicated budget line for information society technologies:

- applied IST research addressing major societal and economic challenges: technologies for trust and confidence; research to resolve major societal problems; research to resolve problems associated with business and employment; complex problem solving in science, engineering, business and society in general;

- communication, computing and software technologies: communication and network technologies; software technologies, embedded and distributed systems;

- components and microsystems: micro, nano and opto-electronics; micro and nano technologies, microsystems, displays;

- knowledge and interface technologies: knowledge technologies and digital content; intelligent interfaces and surfaces.

5.1.2.1.1. These thematic priorities take a different approach aimed largely at problem solving while also focusing on technologies that in some cases can also be found under priority 6. The Committee feels that greater clarity may be required, not least to give potential participants clear directions. The approach taken in the Council's common position appears clearer. According to the Committee, there should be a greater emphasis on research into digital security.

5.1.2.2. A dedicated budget line for nanotechnology and nanoscience, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, new production processes and devices:

- nanotechnologies and nanosciences: long-term interdisciplinary research into understanding phenomena, mastering processes and developing research tools; nanobiotechnologies; nanometre-scale engineering techniques to create materials and components; development of handling and control devices and instruments; applications in areas such as health, chemistry, energy, optics and the environment;

- knowledge-based multifunctional materials: development of fundamental knowledge; technologies associated with the production, transformation and processing of knowledge-based multifunctional materials and biomaterials; engineering support for materials development;

- new production processes and devices: development of new processes and flexible and intelligent manufacturing systems; systems research and hazard control; optimising the life-cycle of industrial systems, products and services (hybrid technologies and new organisational structures).

5.1.2.2.1. The Committee believes that research into product and material safety should be given an explicit mention. It would also be useful to include the subject of supramolecular and macromolecular architecture, as suggested in the Council's common position, along with image-guided robotic surgery and nano- and micro-robotics.

5.1.2.3. A dedicated budget line for aeronautics and space:

- Aeronautics: strengthening competitiveness; improving the environmental impact of engine emissions and noise; increasing aircraft safety; increasing the capacity and safety of the air transport system; Space: Galileo; GMES.

5.1.2.3.1. The Galileo programme research conducted in close cooperation with the ESA is very important and must be treated as such in view of the major implications it will have on the competitiveness of many sectors of European business and society. On the subject of aeronautics, the Committee would also stress the need to explicitly include all types of civil aircraft, in accordance with the decisions of the Council and the Parliament at the first reading. This is necessary in order to safeguard the skills and knowledge of major European industrial sectors facing intense international competition and to harness the efforts of a greater number of players.

5.2. Specific priority short/medium-term horizontal actions

5.2.1. supporting Community policies and anticipating scientific and technological needs:

- Research to back up Community policies: sustainable management of Europe's natural resources; offering the people of Europe health, security and a future; underpinning the economic potential and cohesion of a larger and more integrated Europe.

- Research to explore new and emerging scientific and technological issues.

5.2.1.1. The Committee endorses the intended support for Community policies such as the common agricultural and fisheries policies, common transport policy, the environment and energy policies, and the Community policy objectives set by the European Councils. As far as the exploration of new cutting edge technologies is concerned, especially in multi-thematic and interdisciplinary areas, it is important that they be selected transparently in the context of multi-annual planning, taking full account of the opinions expressed by the European advisory groups which are to follow the development of the framework programme's thematic priorities, by the specific programme management committees (and subcommittees) and by the EURAB body. Activities in this area should be the subject of an independent activity report including forward studies from the Seville IPTS and summaries on distributed strategic intelligence activities, to be submitted annually to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, not least with a view to preparing the future guidelines for Community RTTD.

5.2.2. Research and incremental innovation for SMEs, for cooperation between SMEs, research centres and universities, for business and professional joint research groupings and organisations, for the establishment of new high-tech companies, and for the creation of new innovative SME networks.

5.2.2.1. In the Committee's view the horizontal research activities for SMEs should be considered as additional to the 15 % minimum quota for SME-related activities within the thematic priorities of the first specific programme. It stresses the horizontal "bottom-up" activities in the free section, should be sure of a critical mass of financial resources of over 50 % more than the level allocated in the first reading. The rules for participation in cooperative and collective research projects should enable an increasing number of small companies to take part in both horizontal and thematic activities, partly through national- or regional-level intermediary bodies such as industrial or professional associations and chambers of commerce and craft associations. This is explained in the Committee opinion on the subject(12).

5.2.3. International cooperation, with actions of mutual interest aimed at the economic and social needs of groups of third countries.

5.2.3.1. The Committee stresses that international cooperation is essential for the establishment of a European research and innovation area that is attractive and open and able to focus EU and non-EU human and financial resources on the goal of a European knowledge-based society at the vanguard of sustainable global economic development. It recalls that the international cooperation activities include two lines of action of equal bearing, one developed in the context of the thematic priorities and the other in the context of the horizontal activities. The Committee feels that it is crucial that the two lines be coordinated as a single entity and that responsibility for coordination be clearly identifiable within and above all outside the European Union.

5.2.3.2. The Committee cannot overstress the need to lend clarity and transparency to the international dimension of European research policy and once again proposes that the horizontal international cooperation activities involve the following groups of third countries: Mediterranean and Balkan countries, Latin American and Asian countries; former Soviet Union countries, ACP countries and South Africa; for the industrialised countries, such as the USA, Japan, Canada and Australia, participation should be encouraged on the basis of real openness and reciprocal interests.

5.2.3.3. The Committee believes that specific mechanisms should be provided to facilitate international cooperation for SMEs and small research centres (Craft international being a case in point). The Committee would underline the importance of predefined plans with automatic mechanisms to allow for real synergy in the implementation and running of international scientific and technological cooperation with Community cooperation and technical assistance programmes in the above-mentioned country groups, with a view to ensuring that the Union's policies have a consistent and visible profile abroad.

6. The second specific programme: structuring the European Research Area

A second specific programme should be dedicated to the structural aspects of the framework programme, with a view to completing the European research and innovation area, using the following three dedicated budget lines:

6.1. Research/innovation interfaces and regional research and innovation initiatives; to coordinate and improve the various types of existing and emerging networks; to establish national/regional CORDIS services linked up with European CORDIS services; to strengthen economic and technological intelligence services; to optimise the flow of risk capital towards innovation in the euro market; to bolster interregional structures and networks with instruments through integrated transregional programmes and transregional networks of excellence; to coordinate the innovation and dissemination activities of integrated thematic projects and networks of excellence; to develop regional benchmarking and road mapping projects; to help small entities set up and manage European research projects; to support the establishment of GRID systems between companies, research centres and universities at regional and interregional level and also with areas bordering the Union; to set up RTDD actions tied in with the Structural Funds and other relevant financial and cooperation instruments, in particular the Innovation 2000 initiative, the EIF and the EIB.

6.1.1. The Committee is disappointed that the financial resources of this budget line are actually lower than those indicated in the previous framework programme and calls for them to be increased. With the Lisbon process in mind, innovation activities and regional and interregional initiatives will play a critical role in the establishment of the European area for research and innovation, with a view to countering the European innovation paradox. The Committee would also stress the importance of dedicated instruments for integrated projects and transregional networks of excellence as well as tuition measures, especially for small bodies. There should also be predefined plans for joint implementation with the Community measures for innovation and regional development.

6.1.2. The Committee would stress the importance of the economic and technological intelligence actions and would like to see a more heavyweight financial appropriation for this.

6.2. The mobility of human resources, including: exchanges between university/industry and between public and private research centres; support for individual researchers; the promotion of excellence; the return and reintegration of researchers; support for young researchers and the gender balance. More specifically:

- Host-driven actions: training networks by means of Marie Curie research; Marie Curie host fellowships for early stage research training; Marie Curie host fellowships for the transfer of knowledge; Marie Curie conferences and training courses.

- Individual-driven actions: Marie Curie intra-European fellowships for EU and associated country researchers; Marie Curie outgoing international fellowships for EU and associated country researchers; Marie Curie incoming international fellowships for third country researchers.

- Excellence promotion and recognition: Marie Curie excellence grants for a research programme to be developed; excellence awards for recognition of researchers; Marie Curie chairs.

- Return and reintegration mechanisms: grants to help EU and associated country researchers, those that have had a Marie Curie fellowship in Europe and European researchers outside Europe, return home to their country or region of origin and reintegrate professionally.

- Initiatives to foster synergies with national and regional programmes, involving "proximity support" for researchers and national and regional support for networking and new management methods.

- Support for training actions in other framework programme activities, providing assistance regarding common evaluation and selection criteria and the promotion of common approaches among the activities.

6.2.1. The Committee takes the view that scientific and technological human resource training and mobility activities are crucial for Europe and in that respect it welcomes the considerable financial resources allotted to this budget line. It also believes that a significant portion of these resources (at least a third) should be linked more directly to the framework programme's thematic priorities. In addition, the (two-way) link between the academic world and industry should have top priority in terms both of the critical mass of financial resources and the development of activities. Resource management should be as decentralised, red tape-free, lean and close to the final user as possible. Lastly, there should be research into administrative, tax- and social security-related obstacles to the mobility of scientists, engineers and researchers within Europe, in order to back up the work to remove the barriers to mobility decided on by the Council and to create a career structure for these professionals that is accepted throughout Europe, both by industry and the academic world.

6.3. Research infrastructure with support geared towards: major infrastructure and networks; the development of infrastructure on a small and medium scale; the development of new infrastructure. The aim of this budget line is to:

- ensure that European researchers have access to the infrastructure they require;

- support a coordinated approach to the development of new and existing research infrastructure, at regional and transregional level.

6.3.1. Five support schemes are proposed:

- transnational access to major infrastructure for research groups or individual researchers;

- integrating activities for the supply of network services and the execution of joint projects to facilitate the exploitation of research findings, especially by SMEs, with integrated initiatives and coordination measures;

- development of a communication network in connection with the thematic priority "Information Society Technologies" for all European researchers by means of Geant, GRID-type distributed computational models, specific high performance test-beds, and electronic publishing services;

- preparatory and technical feasibility studies to prepare new infrastructure taking into account all the potential users and in synergy with contributions from the EIB and the Structural Funds;

- development of new infrastructure with a limited number of projects taking into account the Member States' opinions, giving additional support to EIB or Structural Fund contributions.

6.3.2. The Committee agrees with the importance given to the support of research infrastructure, which clearly has great capacity to contribute to the future competitiveness of the Union, in order to raise and accelerate the performance of European research, provide top-level services to SMEs, foster the dissemination and exploitation of research results, and set up high-quality centres of excellence for regional transnational development. Synergic use of the Community's regional policy instruments would be easier if they were more focused on the strategic objective of establishing, throughout the Union, the most competitive knowledge-based society in the world.

6.3.3. The Committee would stress the importance of the excellence of network capacity - irrespective of whether the participating bodies are large, medium or small - for providing effective support, not least in terms of network proximity, for the establishment of a well-equipped and cohesive European area for research and innovation.

6.4. The proposed Science and Society budget line is discussed in point 5.1.1.4.1 above, which reiterates comments made in the relevant Committee opinion(13).

7. The third specific programme: coordinating and developing the European Research Area coherently

A third specific programme should, in the Committee's view, be dedicated to ongoing activities such as coordination, coherent policy development, and building and developing a permanent cycle to monitor/evaluate/assess/and forecast research and innovation activities at the various levels of the European research area, using the following budget lines:

7.1. Support for the coordination of activities, in particular developing joint initiatives, such as:

- the coordination of national activities, especially in the field of health, biotechnology, the environment and energy, providing incentives and supporting joint initiatives for a number of countries and developing instruments to promote synergy between national activities of common strategic interest;

- the coordination of European-level activities, developing cooperation and joint initiatives with COST, Eureka, and the ESA and also working platforms with ESO, EMBL, ESRF, ILL and CERN, and possible similar new European initiatives, promoting international cooperation with initiatives such as Intelligent Manufacturing System and Human Frontiers;

7.2. Support for coherent policy development: creating warning systems for bottom-up processes and for new processes and ideas and possible concepts; pinpointing challenges and sectors of common interest; harmonising the benchmarking of national policies; providing systematic synoptic and permanent frameworks, broken down by like groupings of national/regional research and innovation initiatives for the use of public and private operators; setting up a strong network of planning bodies with JRC support to underpin government/parliament decisions; developing a benchmarking system for research and innovation policies at the various European, national and regional levels; expanding the activities on mapping excellence; conducting studies and identifying and disseminating best practice in order to improve the regulatory and legislative environment for research and innovation in Europe, and thus encourage private sector investment in research and technology.

7.3. Permanent cycle of Distributed Strategic Intelligence (new budget line): to secure a single vision, a clear and transparent economic and social impact, and real momentum and legitimacy for forward-looking Community programmes, as part of the coherent and coordinated completion of the European research and innovation area, a network for the dissemination of intelligence at European, national and regional level must be set up and financed in order to monitor and evaluate technological developments and their impact, and provide for possible future developments as part of an integrated, bottom-up, monitoring-evaluation-assessment-forecasting cycle.

7.3.1. The Committee believes that coordination within the framework programme and at Community level with other international, European, national/regional levels should be a major element of the VIth framework programme as should consistent policy development. The fact that Community budget resources are still too restricted compared with the global sum of the European effort means that the Community can only act as a catalyst in this area. For this reason, it is essential that such activities be formulated in a specific independent programme with its own management committee and European advisory group (EAG), which should be the hub of future planning of the VIIth framework programme and its full incorporation into the action strategy for a genuine integrated research and innovation area, as described above in points 2.8 and 2.9.

7.3.2. The Committee is therefore in favour of bolstering these activities and recommends developing joint voluntary plans for standardising procedures for calls for applications, for selection and evaluation systems, and for publicising access and making it transparent. It also recommends developing coordinated and coherent co-normative and pre-normative activities as an essential factor in the competitiveness of the European system and harmonised statistical survey systems, also at disaggregated level. The Committee would stress the need to use cooperation protocols, such as the one agreed with CERN, to formalise cooperation with the other European research bodies and also agreed Community standard protocols for cooperation between Member States and between regions.

7.3.3. Lastly, the Committee would repeat the comment it made in its opinion on the VIth framework programme(14), that a strong, adequately financed Distributed Strategic Intelligence measure as described in point 6.3 is essential for the establishment of a cohesive and coherent European area for research and innovation, for effective and informed implementation of the VIth framework programme and for a clear, informed and transparent approach to the VIIth framework programme.

8. The JRC-EC specific programme

8.1. The Commission proposal for the content of the specific JRC-Joint Research Centre programme can be broken down as follows:

- food, chemical products and health, with priority measures for: food safety and quality; genetically modified organisms; chemical products, biomedical applications;

- environment and sustainable development: assessing and preventing global changes; protection of the European environment (air and water quality and terrestrial resources); contributing to the sustainable development of energy, environmental assessment, supporting the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security initiative;

- technological foresight: techno-economic foresight; international foresight cooperation forum;

- reference materials and measurements: Community Bureau of References and certified reference materials; metrology in chemistry and physics;

- research into public safety and protection against fraud: international civil protection; natural and technological hazards and emergencies; cyber-security; monitoring respect for EU regulations and the fight against fraud;

- research training and access to infrastructure: training grants and international researcher mobility.

8.2. The JRC conducts vital networking activities to support the European research and innovation area, other EU policies, product and process safety, international cooperation, enlargement and Mediterranean cooperation, researcher training and mobility, and technology foresight to back up the permanent cycle of Distributed Strategic Intelligence. The Committee would stress the strategic interinstitutional role that the JRC can play in assisting policy-makers, by providing a neutral scientific and technological basis for policies and the Community institutions, including the European Economic and Social Committee.

8.3. In the Committee's view, the JRC is the EU hub of a pan-European research network, a European network of scientific technical reference systems, acting as an integrator of knowledge and researchers at international level and a bridge between research and civil society: with regard to this last point, the Committee would underline the importance of synergies with the thematic priority "citizens, democracy and new forms of governance/ science and governance". The Committee feels that the horizontal activities, and more specifically the technology foresight activities, should be allocated more financial resources, as should the other research training and infrastructure access support measures. The Committee is strongly in favour of giving the JRC an opportunity to play a full part in all the Community instruments, in addition to the direct actions of its own institutes. The Committee stresses the role that the JRC must play internationally in training scientific staff, in order to attract intelligence and knowledge within the international scientific and industrial Community. The planned 10 % cut in permanent staff must be more than made up for with a quota of 15-20 % of international fellowship holders.

9. Implementation structure and content of the Euratom specific programmes

The Committee endorses the implementation structure for the VIth Euratom framework programme specific programmes, i.e.:

- a specific programme on nuclear energy;

- a specific JRC (Joint Research Centre) - Euratom programme.

9.1. There are currently two different methods of producing energy by means of nuclear reactions: fusion, which uses very light nuclei such as deuterium, tritium and helium, and fission, which uses very heavy nuclei such as uranium. The Committee notes that the two methods differ significantly in terms of techniques used, the related problems, the resources required and available, and environmental aspects. Assessment of their long-term potential and measures taken must therefore be differentiated accordingly.

9.1.1. Nuclear fusion is full of potential in terms of safety, the almost unlimited availability of resources, the minimal amount of waste generated and the absence of any "greenhouse gases". Although research on the subject is still at the development stage, European tests have produced impressive results and the Committee is convinced of the need to continue and accelerate Community efforts and give this positive option full backing with appropriate financial resources.

9.1.2. The fission reactors have generated ten-yearly results showing a significant efficient and safe contribution to the EU electricity market and, by their very nature, to a reduction in CO2 levels. However, one of the problems intrinsic to existing fission reactors is that they produce significant quantities of nuclear waste, although there are no emissions of CO2 or any other greenhouse gases. Another problem is plant safety. The absence of a broad consensus on the treatment and storage of waste is one of the main obstacles to the more widespread future use of energy from fission. The Committee would reiterate the need for research in order to develop and certify disposal technologies, locate appropriate sites, promote scientific knowledge of safety assessment methods, develop fair decision-making processes, and explore new types of reactor and fuel cycles, as well as clarifying the prospects for industrial scale disposal with proper safety outlay.

9.1.3. The Committee believes that one reason for society's aversion to nuclear technology is of a socio-economic nature and lies in the lack of adequate and reliable information on the opportunities and risks involved. That gap must be bridged, first and foremost by means of broad educational programmes in schools and universities, and research and teaching must not be restricted to major projects in those disciplines. In a broader context, this shortcoming is part of the more general problem of the general public's poor education in the field of the natural sciences and the associated modern technologies, as the Committee noted in its opinion on "Science, society and the citizen in Europe"(15).

9.2. The specific programme on nuclear energy

The specific programme on nuclear energy centres on three priority thematic research areas:

- controlled thermonuclear fusion;

- nuclear waste management;

- radiation protection.

In addition to these three budget lines there are other activities in the field of nuclear technology and safety.

9.2.1. Regarding the dedicated budget line for controlled thermonuclear fusion, the Committee believes that the progress made in research into nuclear fusion justifies a major effort to build a fusion-based power station. In the latter half of the century, energy from fusion could help to generate emission-free electricity on a large scale. The contribution made to this process by JET and the other European laboratories bears witness to the success of the European research area, which has already been established in this field.

9.2.1.1. The Committee approves of the proposed contents of the Next Step project for demonstrating the scientific feasibility of fusion, using JET and existing installations to back up the Next Step with the development of concepts, such as the "stellarator", optimising specific techniques for commercial use and developing the physics and technology basis of fusion materials.

9.2.1.2. The Committee would once again recommend an increase in the financial resources earmarked for fusion beyond the EUR 750 million indicated in the Council common position and adopted by the Commission, in particular to support the ITER project (with EUR 200 million) and the negotiations for the establishment of an ITER legal entity, its location in Europe and its implementation jointly with international partners. The Committee is pleased to note that the European Parliament shares this view.

9.2.2. As far as the budget line for radioactive waste management is concerned, the Committee feels that the Commission's proposals regarding the content of the specific budget line should be expanded to incorporate the processing and conditioning of waste in addition to research on storage processes, research to reduce the impact of waste, and research on new reactor technologies and in particular on the High Temperature Reactor (HTR) and the study of power conversion systems and their application.

9.2.2.1. As for the resources provided, the Committee is disappointed by the excessive and in its view unjustified budget cuts, especially in the field of radioactive waste management, where the figures first proposed by the Commission have been cut by 40 %. This reduction is in clear contradiction with the need to develop appropriate and proven technologies that can provide decision-makers and the public with evidence that risks are being minimised and the most is being made of the opportunities for emission-free nuclear fission power stations that generate smaller and wholly manageable quantities of radioactive waste.

9.2.3. With regard to the radiation protection budget line, the Committee feels that radiation protection activities, studies into innovative concepts for new and safer processes, education and training in nuclear safety and radiation protection are essential for Europe and its industry, above all, for the sake of protecting the public and preserving fission energy as a major element and a long-term option for the supply of safe and risk-free power. The Committee would reiterate the recommendations made on the subject in its opinion on the VIth RTD framework programme(16) concerning existing nuclear power stations in the applicant countries and neighbouring states. The European Union and its industry must develop a policy and appropriate technical and scientific solutions here, bearing in mind recent developments and the plans of Russia and the United States to develop advanced types of reactor and build a large number of new plants.

9.2.3.1. On the subject of budget appropriations, the Committee believes that the limited resources earmarked should be restructured to reflect the importance of the activities in this field.

9.2.4. The other activities in the field of nuclear technologies and safety concern support for Community health, energy and environment policies, the aim being to maintain a high capacity in areas not covered by the thematic priorities and to contribute to the establishment of the ERA. The financial resources allocated to these activities could, in the Committee's view, be reshuffled in order to increase the budget line for radioactive waste management.

9.3. The JRC-Euratom specific programme

The activities proposed for the JRC-Euratom specific programme are as follows:

- radioactive waste management and safeguarding nuclear materials: spent fuel and high level waste treatment and storage; Euratom and IAEA safeguards; support for activities aimed at the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

- safety of different types of reactor, monitoring and metrology of ionising rays: safety of different types of reactor, monitoring of ionising radiation.

9.3.1. The Committee wonders why the specific JRC-Euratom programme includes no activities relating to the medical applications of nuclear research, despite their having a long tradition of success and being of great interest to university networks, research centres, medical associations and the pharmaceutical industry. The mention made of these activities in the JRC-EC specific programme appears neither adequate nor relevant. The reduction in the budget for the overall programme is unjustified, particularly for waste management and the safety of fissile material and reactors, above all with enlargement on the horizon. The Committee also sets great store by the targeting of clearly identified financial resources for training researchers and highly-qualified staff to maintain and develop nuclear expertise in the Union and the associated States, particularly in the light of enlargement.

10. The instruments proposed for the implementation of the specific programmes

10.1. The Committee has already commented on the general framework relating to the new instruments proposed in the draft framework programme for specific thematic programmes. It called unanimously for:

- the relevant mechanisms to be defined and assessed for effectiveness and feasibility;

- these mechanisms to be backed up with some of the instruments currently available in the Vth framework programme. This would extend rather than restrict stakeholder participation;

- the mechanisms provided for in the back-up measures to be bolstered with instruments for tuition, training and feasibility/exploratory studies;

- the scale and duration of projects to be flexible, in order to ensure that they are accessible to and can be managed by all potential participants - including minor ones;

- the players to be given a choice of "toolbox" that is not predetermined in the calls for applications;

- definition of the conditions whereby consortia may "arrange their own competitive calls (...), provided that they act within the framework defined by the Commission in order to ensure transparency, equal treatment and consistency with the programme's objectives"(17).

10.1.1. On this note, the Committee is glad that the Commission has taken on board a few of the suggestions it made in its opinion of 11 July 2001, for instance on maintaining certain Vth framework programme instruments such as the specific research projects along with the new instruments proposed for the VIth framework programme, in order to secure greater participation of players, large and small, in Community research activities, as protagonists in the European Area for Research and Innovation.

10.1.2. The instruments provided for the various strands of the specific programmes need a clear, transparent and simple framework of access arrangements and procedures for financial involvement, and must fit in with the Commission's own guidelines for State aid to research.

10.2. Instruments planned in the proposed specific programmes

10.2.1. Networks of excellence

10.2.1.1. The Committee feels that the elements demonstrating the level of integration of the networks of excellence should necessarily include the level of integration between industry and academia, that the level of excellence in services supplied to the scientific and industrial community should be among the main criteria considered and that this criterion should provide the networks of excellence instrument with a clear dynamic, avoiding crystallisation into predefined closed circles, with predetermined interim objectives that can be measured and monitored by the Commission's scientific officer. The Committee is also firmly convinced that, where appropriate, the group of participants in the networks of excellence should expressly include an industrial partner and network users, in particular SMEs, in order to ensure it dovetails with the action strategy described in points 2.8 and 2.9 of this opinion. The Committee feels that the selection and evaluation criteria should in all cases belong to a predefined set of elements from which those specified in the work programme and information package may be chosen. These must take into account the need to encourage the establishment of new networks of excellence and networks of excellence for small/medium-sized bodies. Changes in objectives and partners mid-project must be made with maximum transparency and on the basis of common predetermined rules, under Community supervision and control.

10.2.1.2. The Committee has serious misgivings about the proposed system of joint and several liability and would refer back to its opinion on the rules for participation(18). In the Committee's view, immediate clarification is required of the two divergent approaches to eligible costs: the negative list proposed for the VIth framework programme and the positive list given in the rules on State aid for RTDD.

10.2.1.3. The management subcommittees to be set up for every dedicated budget line should share in the decision-making on final evaluations for accepting proposals on changes to networks of excellence.

10.2.2. Integrated projects

10.2.2.1. The Committee welcomes the fact that the scale of an integrated project will no longer be used to discriminate in access to the instrument and that the critical mass of the integrated project will be assessed qualitatively and not quantitatively, although all forms of discretion will have to be avoided. The Committee believes that for these projects too, the consortium must achieve a strong synergy between industry and academia, and between private and public bodies, with the full participation of smaller bodies, SMEs in particular, and of the final users. On this note, provision must be made in each integrated project for the presence of partners from academia and from SMEs and also users as key participants.

10.2.2.2. The Committee thinks that in the interests of adaptability and flexibility, the integrated projects should include a category for smaller bodies in the form of Nano Integrated Projects to account for a large portion of the 15 % of resources earmarked for SMEs in the thematic priorities, with a shorter duration (two to three years), fewer partners (two bodies from two different countries) and dedicated calls for applications.

10.2.2.3. Each integrated project must have clearly defined, measurable and quantifiable objectives, including clear elements relating to forecasts of innovation potential in terms of the use of knowledge acquired on route and at the end (i.e. new activities or expansion of existing activities, spin-offs, establishment of new innovative companies and the marketing of knowledge). As for the networks of excellence, the selection and evaluation criteria must belong to a set of elements predefined in the relevant rules. Maximum transparency must be secured at Community level in changes to the integrated projects' objectives and membership.

10.2.3. Collective research projects

10.2.3.1. The Committee would reiterate its fully positive stance on this new instrument. Its use should not be limited to the budget line dedicated to SME horizontal activities, but should also be made available for the other specific budget lines of the specific programme on integrating the European research area and, in particular, for the thematic priorities and specific support measures for international cooperation included in these budget lines. Likewise, this instrument should be used in the context of the budget line for research/innovation interfaces and regional research and innovation initiatives, in the specific programme on structuring the European research area.

10.2.3.2. Furthermore, a significant portion of the increased budget line for horizontal research activities involving SMEs should be reserved for use through this instrument.

10.2.4. Cooperative research projects

10.2.4.1. The Committee is pleased that this instrument is being retained, as it has already proved its worth in previous framework programmes. The Committee believes that the use of this instrument should be extended to the implementation of the budget lines for the entire programme on integrating the European research area, especially in the area of financing thematic activities and international cooperation, for which the Committee is in favour of supporting CRAFT International. Furthermore, as stressed in its opinion on the rules for participation(19), the Committee recommends taking appropriate measures to simplify the method of submitting documentation and calls on the Commission to draft an action plan to define such procedures, for instance through the decentralisation of the pre-selection systems and the allocation of global grants to intermediaries.

10.2.5. Participation in national programmes carried out jointly (under Article 169 of the EC Treaty)

10.2.5.1. These programmes will cover priority research areas of the VIth framework programme. Their joint implementation will involve drafting harmonised work programmes, coordinating the assignment of budgets, redirecting certain actions to increase complementarity, and launching joint calls for proposals(20).

10.2.5.2. The Committee has already commented on this area in its opinion on the framework programme proposals (point 7.4.5 and those following in particular)(21).

10.2.6. Specific targeted research projects

10.2.6.1. These projects are structured like those in the 1998-2002 Vth framework programme, and the Committee feels that they should be an integral part of the options offered in parallel to the other instruments mentioned above, in each call for proposals concerning the implementation of the thematic priorities. The Committee feels that it would be a positive and progressive idea to put the various implementation instruments in competition with each other, in order to measure their actual efficiency and degree of adaptation to the requirements of public and private users, who are the main players in the achievement of technological progress and its application for the realisation of the Lisbon strategy and of an integrated research and innovation area in Europe.

10.2.6.2. While agreeing that the new network of excellence and integrated project instruments should be used "from the start of the programme in each thematic priority area", the Committee feels that all the instruments described above should be offered in parallel for the implementation of the specific programme on integrating Community research, to ensure that the winners are those that are the best and most user-friendly and those that respond to the requirements of the participants rather than to the requirements of those responsible at Community level for programmes and the relevant calls for proposals.

10.3. Other instruments

10.3.1. The instruments proposed for the implementation of the specific programmes include:

- coordination actions;

- specific support actions;

- specific targeted innovation projects;

- integrated infrastructure initiatives;

- actions to promote and develop human resources and mobility.

10.3.2. According to the Committee, the implementing instruments of the second specific programme on structuring the European research area should also include a specific "Tuition Projects" instrument to support smaller organisations, above all, in research and innovation initiatives, accelerating their progress on the stairway of excellence for full participation particularly in integrated projects and transregional networks of excellence.

10.3.3. The Committee takes the view that the actions for the promotion and development of human resources and mobility should: have as their main objective the interconnection between academia and industry; aim to attract internal and international excellence, particularly young people; be to a large extent associated with the priority themes(22); provide simple decentralised procedures, close to the potential users.

10.3.4. As for the integrated initiatives for research infrastructure, the Committee agrees that support should be given to the network activities associated with support or research activities, financing new infrastructure but also bolstering smaller existing structures. As for the specific support actions, interconnection with the GEANT project should definitely be built into all of these, as nearly a third of the Community resources for this budget line are earmarked for this.

10.3.5. Lastly, on coordination and the other specific support actions, concerning both the first and second specific programmes and the one relating to policy coordination and cohesion and distributed strategic intelligence, the Committee feels that there should be more detail as to their working procedures and that they should at all events not be limited to just organising conferences and meetings and setting up expert groups.

10.3.6. These actions are strategically and operationally vital for securing the establishment of the integrated research and innovation area and its harmonious development, and for laying the foundations for its responsible and informed projection into the VIIth 2006-2010 framework programme and subsequent Community action planning. The specific support actions could include grants for feasibility studies and exploratory projects for the smaller research bodies, and not just for new research infrastructure, in order to help them to participate in the framework programme, especially in peripheral and remote areas and in the applicant countries.

11. The governance of the specific programmes

11.1. The implementation of the VIth framework programme introduces major new aspects in its aims, approach and structure and in its implementing instruments and procedures. It aims to be a catalyst for a major process integrating the various public, private, academic and industrial strands of European research and of national, regional, Community and European efforts, and it demands strong links between the relevant decision-making levels.

11.2. It is therefore indispensable that the Commission have access to a well-organised and well-defined system of management and consultative bodies for interface and dialogue, conferring about decisions and policies in the implementation of the specific programmes of a framework programme designed to establish an integrated research and innovation area in Europe, which by its very nature must involve diverse parties from the Member States and the applicant and associated countries.

11.3. In this light, the presence of governmental programme committees, the European committee of governmental experts for research and technological development - CREST, the independent body of academic and industrial representatives - EURAB, and the European advisory groups from industry and research - EAG, should in the Committee's view, be able to operate on the basis of the proactive and interactive support of Commission action so that all the prime elements of the European research and innovation system can move in a transparent, harmonious and cohesive way. As regards the JRC, the Committee believes it would be useful for the relevant management boards of the institutes to act as supervisory bodies in addition to observers from the other European institutions, including the European Economic and Social Committee.

11.4. As regards the programme management bodies, the Committee is in favour of a horizontal committee for each specific programme that can bring the various actions of the programme together into an overall picture. A central role would be given to that committee and its respective subcommittees for each thematic action and sub-theme. These bodies would, in the Committee's view, provide the main place for forming and galvanising a genuine European research area for every field of science and technology, and the starting point for task allocation and cooperation.

11.5. The Committee believes, for this reason, that the scope of the activities and responsibilities of these committees must be clearly defined and based on predefined schedules for meetings whose make-up will vary in accordance with the individual thematic budget lines planned for each individual programme. These committees should meet on a regular basis and their functions should be not only consultative but also co-decisional, in particular regarding the definition of work programmes, information packages, calls for proposals, proposal evaluation and user guides.

11.6. The Committee feels that the role and function of a new CREST - a body which was set up several decades ago - in the implementation of the VIth framework programme must be reassessed and strengthened, to enable it to provide a valuable link between players and specialists on specific topics at Community, national and regional level, the aim being to establish an integrated research and innovation area. To this end, the new CREST should also be organised around specialist groups for the various individual framework programme themes, promoting integration between the Community level and national/regional level.

11.7. The Committee is of the opinion that European advisory groups (EAGs) should be set up for each budget line of the specific programmes, in order to encourage the full involvement of the scientific and industrial worlds and of SMEs and intermediate and final users in the gradual implementation of the VIth framework programme, and also in preparing for the VIIth framework programme. The EAGs should also develop contacts and links with the recently formed body EURAB, whose tasks and functions should be better defined and whose work must be sufficiently transparent, visible and publicised.

Brussels, 30 May 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) OJ C 155, 29.5.2001.

(2) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

(3) See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament SEC(2002) 105 final of 30.1.2002.

(4) See EESC opinion on the rules for participation in the VIth framework programme, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(5) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

(6) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, point 4.1.1.1.

(7) See EESC opinion CES 1425/2001, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002, and new opinion in preparation.

(8) The Committee is preparing an additional opinion on energy research.

(9) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, points 1.1 and 7.3.2.

(10) Genetically modified organisms.

(11) See EESC opinion CES 192/2002 of 20.2.2002, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(12) See EESC opinion, CES 185/2002, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(13) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001.

(14) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, points 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2 and 11.4.3.

(15) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001.

(16) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

(17) See EESC opinion, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(18) See EESC opinion, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002, points 3.2.5, 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2.

(19) See EESC opinion, OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(20) See COM(2002) 43 (EN), p. 86.

(21) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

(22) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.