Brussels, 29/06/2001 (Agence Europe) - As we pointed out (see EUROPE of 28 June, p.12), the European Parliament's rapporteur on the next research framework programme, French socialist Gérard Caudron, has drafted, after broad consultations, a working document which he himself calls a «first draft project ». In this document, he has sought to reconcile questions asked both by players in research and his colleagues from different political groups, whilst not calling into question the overall balance of a proposal which everyone recognises as innovative. Here is a brief snapshot of the guidelines proposed by the rapporteur in the light of the parliamentary debate, first in committee at the end of August or in mid-September, then in pleniary, at the end of September or in October.
As putting all the subject priorities into a single specific programme was not acceptable for Euro-MPs, the rapporteur suggests separating them into three specific proposals: (1) technologies ; (2) «bio» priorities; (3) the information society. It also suggests modifications for each of the eight priorities retained by the European Commission: - genomics: this subject would be subdivided into two parts: (a) «life sciences for health» with four areas (cancer, cardio-vascular diseases, neurosciences, rare diseases) ; (b) «genomics and biotechnology for health and for overall well-being» including the other axes of the Commission's draft to which the EP could add plant and animal genetic resources, creation of better quality food, traceability systems and environmentally-friendly bioprocedures; - information society: the amendments might introduce references to: - the knowledge society ; consequences in terms of human organisation ; - rigorous defence of privacy; - environmental technologies, etc.; - nanotechnologies: the rapporteur proposes to extend the concept of intelligent materials to structural materials (steel and concrete, for example) on which progress must still be made. Other amendments would mention management of the environment or robotics in car manufacturing ; - aeronautics: Mr Caudron proposes in particular mentioning research on the impact of aviation on the environment and health ; - food safety and quality and health risks: to provide every opportunity to resolve the problems posed by the whole of the food chain, water, and air quality, the rapporteur proposes extending this priority to environmental safety. The budget should have grown as a consequence ; - sustainable development and planetary change ; Mr Caudron suggests additions on marine sciences, the purification of polluted water, waste, improvement of returns and cleanliness of fossil fuels, stocking of energy, etc ; - citizen and governance in the European knowledge society: the rapporteur proposes replacing this title with «social and cultural research» and expanding the content with a division into four parts: (a) European society of knowledge ; (b) citizens, democracy and social and political institutions ; (c) understanding Europe ; (d) science, technology and philosophy ; - anticipation of EU needs: this famous priority conceived by the Commission as a margin of flexibility enabling them to respond to new needs whilst offering themselves room for manoeuvre leaves the rapporteur visibly perplexed. Referring to a lack of transparency, he underlines that «it may be necessary to review the complete structure of this chapter» and he waits for proposals on this issue. The rapporteur also suggests adding a new priority to cover surface transports, in particular in terms of safety, comfort, cleanliness, flow and intermodality.
With regard to research infrastructure, Mr Caudron wishes to clarify that this is not necessarily «major structures» and to stress the regional and transregional dimensions. As for the budget, he confirms that the overall amount of 17.5 billion euros cannot be reduced and that the 15% share proposed by the Commission for the SMEs as well as the 715 million for the CCR must be maintained. However he proposes, by reallocation, - increasing the funds for «food safety and dangers to health» as well as for human sciences ; - reallocate funds for genomics ; - unblock funds for surface transport. He raises possible reductions in funds earmarked for co-ordinating activities, even for «aeronautics and space», but underlines that «the debate remains open without significantly calling into question the main balances of the initial project». In the framework of what he calls a «ladder of excellence», he advocates a gentle introduction of new mechanisms. «The framework programme must not cut itself off from its roots», says Mr Caudron who thinks that the old instruments must carry on so as not to exclude valid partners. The "ladder" would enable benefits to be gained from a traditional instrument before reaching critical mass allowing for gradual benefit from new instruments. Mr Caudron also thinks that the use of article 169 of the treaty, never applied until now and which allows the Commission to participate in research projects common to several Member States, will not be sufficiently frequent to justify the general permission requested by the Commission to avoid a co-decision procedure on each project.
He also underlines that there is another article forgotten by the treaty, article 168, which envisages that, in the implementation of the pluriannual framework programme, complementary programmes can be decided. They are programmes which only certain Member States take part which ensure their funding subject to possible participation by the Community. He underlines that this mechanism, well used for the opening of national research programmes, would enable each Member State who wants to to become the host country of a particular area of research.