Brussels, 05/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - The proposal for the 6th framework programme for research (2002-2006) adopted by the European Commission on 21 February received a first positive welcome when it was presented by Commissioner Philippe Busquin to the European Parliament's Committee on Industry. Approval is widely shared by industry and the scientific world, which already support the setting in place of a European Research Area and see the draft framework programme on research and development (FPRD) and its three new instruments as a means to achieve a real leap forward as far as quality is concerned. The importance given to genomics and nanotechnologies was also appreciated.
Examination of the proposal will continue in Parliament during a meeting of the "shadow rapporteurs" of the different political groups, on the fringe of the next plenary session in Strasbourg. The rapporteur for the 6th FPRD, French Socialist Gérard Caudron, plans to seek the broadest possible agreement within the European Parliament. In a first analysis, published on his Internet site (http://www.citoyendeurope.org ), Mr Caudron considers that Mr Busquin's project is the "positive fruit of a partnership and of quality debates" with genuine account taken of many of Parliament's priorities and requests. 'The project in itself is quite clear and well structured. It is largely positive even through questions are raised, but these should receive rapid answers", continued Mr Caudron. He finds as highly positive: - the obvious determination to make progress along the road towards the constitution of a true European research area; - the choice of priority sectors; - the support to mobility; - and the amount of EUR 17.5 billion allocated. On this last point, the rapporteur confides: "I agree with the Commissioner. We must try to keep to it. This amount is not only important but also necessary and reasonable".
Mr Caudron considers that certain aspects are still to be specified and above all cites the coordination of national policies and the setting in place of joint implementation of national programmes, which is an "excellent initiative" but with financial means that are inadequate for five years. Other reservations concern the choices made regarding sustainable development technologies. During the meeting of the parliamentary committee on industry, several MEPs spoke along the same lines. Others had regretted that the transport sector is no longer named among the programme's priorities. Some criticism was made of the amount devoted to information technologies (EUR 3.6 billion), considered insufficient although this is in fact the largest allocation. Contradictory opinions were expressed concerning thermonuclear fusion, aeronautics and space research. Such concerns give a fore-taste of the more detailed "shopping lists" that MEPs are seeking to defend in coming weeks. There is an obvious risk of "unknitting" the whole of the project conceived in order to escape the rigidity of the earlier programmes and allow more flexible management better adapted to reality on the ground and the evolution of scientific needs. Mr Caudron is aware of this as he asks: "How can one prevent this very concentrated project from exploding and disintegrating under the dual pressure from Member States' overcautiousness and the Parliament's greediness?"