Brussels, 15/05/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's rapporteur on the 6th research and development framework-programme (RDFP), French Socialist Gerard Caudron, set out his reflections and ideas in the context of the debate that has begun on the proposal that the European Commission submitted to the EP and Council and that is the subject of a co-decision procedure.
Regarding the general approach, Mr. Caudron considers that the general architecture of Commissioner Philippe Busquin's project should not be placed back into question. He does, however, believe that it is essential to ensure utmost transparency at all levels of implementation. He places emphasis of the rejection of breaks in measures embarked upon and the obligation of proving that choices are not taken in any way to the exclusion of anyone. It being a question of priority research fields chosen by the Commission, Mr. Caudron proposes:
The rapporteur would like to deepen the debate on the: - future of the Joint Research Centre (JRC); - SME participation; - follow-up to international cooperation; - shipbuilding (Caudron believes that there is a real problem of consistency between the Council's requests and the Commission's answers in this field); - human resources (scholarships and mobility); - research infrastructures; controlled thermonuclear fusion and ITER; - the need to place all priority sectors in a single specific programme. On this last point, recalling that the 5th RDFP contained 10 specific programmes for each priority sector, Mr. Caudron refers to two possible strategies: (1) we agree to the specific programme for 8 priority actions making it conditional on democratic debate and parliamentary control being possible; (2) we spread the 8 actions into 2, 3 or 4 specific programmes. (On the content and structure of the Commission's proposal, also see EUROPE of 21 February, p.6).
Parliamentary and sectoral contributions to the debate
Several MEPs. researchers and industrial sectors have contributed to the debate that began in February. These contributions may be consulted on Mr. Caudron's Internet site at the following address: http: //http://www.citoyendeurope.org/. Here is a brief overview.
"I am satisfied with the proposal made by the Commission, especially regarding the thematic priorities it sets", writes German Social-Democrat Norbert Glante MEP, who also declares himself satisfied with the proposed budget of 17.5 bn euro and hopes that it will be possible to stick to it. Mr. Glante also welcomes the proposals concerning: - networks of excellence; - the integrated projects (but believes that co-funding to the tune of 50% is sufficient); - EU participation in cooperation projects between several Member States (Article 169 of the Treaty), with a proviso: he recalls that this procedure will have to be subjected to co-decision which will considerably slow down its execution. Another SPD MEP, Rolf Linkhor places special emphasis on fundamental research activities, and considers that the impact of thermonuclear fusion is under-represented in the 6th RDFP.
French researcher Paul Janiaud, Research Director at Inserm, states he is "sincerely afraid that the process for making a network of national programmes will be the subject of favourable declarations of principle that will not have an impact". He also underlines the gap between Europe and the United States in terms of budget devoted to research. Considering that "it is in the new instruments that one can see prospects", Mr Janiaud regrets that such instruments are not described in the Commission's proposal. The chairman of the committee of senior officials for COST (European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research), Gösta Diehl, deplores the fact that the financial support given to COST is no longer explicitly mentioned although EUR 100 million are needed. Mr Charbonnier (Usinor group) considers as highly positive the organisation of a true European area for research. He mainly welcomes the fact that industry may also take part in networks of excellence. While acknowledging that there is a need to avoid spreading funding thinly and to support European projects of great added value, he regrets that two major priority sectors do not appear among the themes selected by the Commission: - on one hand, overland transport and automobiles in particular and, on the other, housing and construction. He went on to explain that the reduction in CO2 emissions and the improvement of energy performance in construction are two important issues for European citizens. Mr Charbonnier considers, however, that the "sum of EUR 17.5 billion is already consequential if it is well used". The trade union for shipbuilders (France) considers the Commission's proposal "inadmissible" and calls for a "marine technologies" line to be maintained with funding that is greater than that which appears in the 5th Community Programme for Research and Development. Foratom, representing the European nuclear industry, considers it is necessary to considerably increase the funding available for nuclear research.
The European Commission must adopt several communications, end May and early June. These communications will specify the content and the arrangements for the various specific programmes, including that containing the 8 priority themes. These documents should make it possible to clarify many aspects and thus respond to the concerns expressed by MEPs during the last meeting of the parliamentary commission for the industry with Commissioner Busquin. EUROPE recalls that, as far as research is concerned, the European Parliament gives its opinion through codecision on the framework programme, but that the specific programmes and operational modalities come, in principle, under the responsibility of the Community Executive.