Luxembourg, 30/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday in Luxembourg, Research Ministers held a detailed discussion on the main workings of the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FPRD) without, however, reaching an overall political agreement. The result was a predictable one, although the European Parliament has still to complete its first reading after the adoption, last week, of the report by French Socialist Gérard Caudron by the Committee on Industry (see EUROPE of 25 October, p.15). The debate, however, allowed a certain number of difficulties to be smoothed out and should facilitate the adoption of a common position during the next Council session, on 10 December in Brussels. It also illustrates a certain convergence of views with the concerns expressed by MEPs.
The consensus reached in Luxembourg covers not only the general architecture but also the total budgetary allocation for the FPRD presented by the European Commission. The ministers did not, however, enter into details on budgetary breakdown. We give below the main guidelines resulting from the discussion pertaining to:
1. Thematic priorities. There was a large majority in favour of including research on plants and animals in the budget devoted to genomics and biotechnology, without however questioning the importance granted to human health. The position of the ministers thus coincides with that of the rapporteur of the parliamentary committee who also insisted on the importance of sequencing of certain small plant genomes that may be extremely useful for the comprehension of certain mechanisms in Man. Like the EP's Committee on Industry, ministers took a stance in favour of sub-dividing the priority devoted to sustainable development into three parts: transport, energy and the environment. They hoped for unanimous strengthening of funding allocated to this priority.
2. Forecasting the Union's scientific needs. While acknowledging the fact that this flexibility allocation (EUR 880 million) recommended by the Commission to meet the new needs during current programmes (see also EUROPE of 17 October, p.12) still requires some "clarification", Council President François-Xavier de Donnea pointed out that there is consensus for keeping this 8th priority which should allow the framework programme to support Community policies. The Council did not, however, give its stance on the amount of funding, that the parliamentary committee has chosen to divide in two. During the meeting, German Minister Edelgard Bulmahn had suggested sharing the allocation between the various priorities. Spanish Secretary of State Ramon Marimon proposed earmarking 10% for each priority, while keeping the 8th priority without allocation.
3. The new instruments: Like the EP Committee on Industry, the ministers reached consensus on the need for the new instruments (integrated projects and networks of excellency) to co-exist with the old mechanisms. The German minister and her Spanish counterpart suggested fixing percentages, but Mr de Donnea declared this a "minority" idea, and Mr Busquin explained one should avoid this kind of "bureaucratic constraint" that only makes things take longer.
4. Specific programmes. Mr de Donnéa explained that the Council had reached consensus on the amendment tabled by Mr van Velzen (EPP, the Netherlands) and Ms Plooij-van Gorsel (Dutch Liberal) and adopted by the Industry Committee whereby a subcommittee for each thematic priority would be added to the committee of the specific programme under which the priority in question fell. This not only meant that the architecture of the programme was not being challenged, stressed Mr Busquin, but also means that a committee is maintained that has the necessary overview required in the light of building the European Research Area.
5. Infrastructure. The Ministers also reached consensus on the funding of the new infrastructure, which should focus on other high-performance tools than buildings (i.e. communication networks, equipment and databases).