Brussels, 07/12/2001 (Agence Europe) - Along the lines of the Lisbon strategy aimed at making the economy of the European Union the most dynamic and competitive in the world, the research ministers have on several occasions given their support to the development of the European Research Area proposed by Commissioner Philippe Busquin in order to increase the scientific and technical innovation capacity of the EU. During the last Research Council (see EUROPE of 31 October, p.8), they managed to reach common guidelines on the draft 6th framework programme for research and development (FPRD) that is to be the base and the main instruments for the building of a true European policy and area for research.
The Council meeting to be held on Monday in Brussels will make it possible to verify the capacity of ministers to go beyond certain corporatisms and to make Europe move forward with regards research. If there is sufficient political determination, the Council will reach an agreement on a common position that will not be too far from the text adopted by the European Parliament and would thus offer the possibility of keeping to a timetable that provides for the adoption of the FPRD before the end of the first half of 2002. If we are to believe the reaction of no less than ten Member States during the last meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper), conservatism remains well anchored and nothing has yet been achieved. Some sources close to the Commission do not hesitate to draw a parallel between this issue and that of the Community Patent, recommended by the Member States at the highest level on an initiative of Portuguese origin (Ed.: Mr Gago and Mr Guterres were the first to hope that the Commission would make such a proposal) and today blocked by several countries (above all Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, which are among the countries that invest the least in research and innovation) for linguistic reasons and/or the defence of their national offices. These same countries with an influential ally - Germany - make up the group of ten Member States which are reluctant to introduce new instruments (integrated projects, excellence networks and joint projects between several Member States) while France, the United Kingdom and Sweden have been won over. It is a known fact that Belgium is in favour but it holds the Presidency, and the Netherlands did not express an opinion. The stakes are considerable since the new instruments are essential for the development of the European research area and the concentration of financial means on projects comprising real European added value. In the beginning, the Commission had proposed replacing the old instruments by new ones but, at the request of the European Parliament, it agreed on the principle of two kinds of instruments coexisting in its amended proposal while mentioning that it would mainly call on the new instruments. Taking up the idea of the "stairway of excellence" developed by the EP rapporteur, French Socialist Gérard Caudron, the Belgian Presidency proposed a text which stresses the need for a transition period and a period for coexistence of instruments. The text, however, does not refer to repartition, and it is reproached for this by the ten Member States which fear that their research bodies may not have the time to adjust or that financing will only be granted to large scale projects (EUROPE recalls that the text provides credits explicitly for CRAFT and the allocation of at least 15% of the financing to SMEs). These ten delegations called for the former instruments to remain priorities or to be at least placed on an equal footing with the new. According to sources close to certain Member States, there is no need to be alarmed, however, and Council President François-Xavier de Donnéa showed he was very optimistic, although he does recognise that there is also divergence regarding the breakdown of funding and the budget of the Euratom programme.
The text of the Presidency compromise broadly takes account of
the amendments by the European Parliament
Like the Commission, but with some differences, the compromise text proposed by the Belgian Presidency takes into account the guidelines reached at the previous Council as well as the positions expressed by the Parliament, even though it does not systematically take up the wording of the amendments. Some amendments considered redundant or over-detailed (list of illnesses on which research is carried out, for example) have not been taken up by the Commission in its amended proposal or by the Presidency. The latter has, however, taken into account three quarters of the amendments of the EP, according to Mr de Donnéa, who mainly said that the concerns on transport, serious diseases, and thermonuclear fusion "were largely met". Two major differences exist, however, with Parliament. The first concerns the provision recommended by the EP to provide an ethical framework for research in the field of genetics (see EUROPE of 15 November, p.10). In its amended proposal, the Commission included many of the amendments but the Presidency preferred to reduce it to a simply list of the relevant texts because of its desire to not launch a full-scale debate at this stage into such sensitive issues that could delay the adoption of a common position, given the ethical debates raging in a series of countries and disagreements among Member States. EUROPE understands that the Commission is prepared to pledge to respect the EP's preferred ethical framework for Community-funded research to avoid the issue becoming a bone of contention between Parliament and Council. Another divergence focussed on the funding of the GEANT network (high speed interconnection) with Parliament wanting it to have EUR 350 million from the Information Society budget, an the Commission agreeing (in its amended proposal) to grant its EUR 150 million from the Infrastructure budget. The Presidency text does not quote a figure. The Presidency also increased the funding available from the Euratom budget (EUR 1.230 billion) for thermonuclear fusion (EUR 740 million rather than 700 in the Commission's proposal) by cutting the budget for managing radioactive waste (90 million rather than 140). This is unlikely to be popular in all quarters at either the Parliament or the Council but it was obviously close to Mr de Donnea's heart at a press conference where he pointed out that France had put forward Cadarache as a possible location for the ITER project (with strong Russian support). He said that the US should be persuaded to join in, noting that Vladimir Putin had already made an approach to George Bush and would be sending a letter to Bush in this connection if the Council supported him. Mr de Donnéa also proposed managing nuclear fusion research through an integrated project outlined by both scientists and industry and incorporating a timetable and deadline for reaching the final objective.
According to the Belgian Presidency's draft, the EUR 16.270 billion 6th FP budget (excluding Euratom) is broken down as follows (all sums in EUR, with amounts proposed by Parliament and Commission in brackets): Integrating research, 13.320 billion (13.195 billion EP; 12.770 billion in Commission's initial proposal): 1) Genetics and biotech: 2.350 billion (2.5 and 2) with unchanged 1.3 billion for genetics and health (no change) and 1.050 for combating serious diseases (1.2 for the EP which breaks it down for cancer and other diseases); 2) information society: 3.6 billion (3.950, adding 350 million for GEANT; 3.6); 3) nanotechnologies: 1.3 billion (no change); 4) aeronautics and space: 1.050 (EP and European Commission both propose 1 billion): 5) food security: 675 million (650;600); 6) sustainable development: 2.1 billion (1.975; 1.7) with the breakdown suggested by EP: 750 million (700 for EP) for energy; 650 million (rather than 600) for land transport; 700 million (instead of 675) for climate change and ecosystems; 7) citizens and democracy: 225 million (270 for EP); 8) specific activities in a wider field of research: 1.3 billion (1.550; 2.345) including a) anticipating the EU's research needs: 550 million (425; 850); research involving SMEs (CRAFT): 450 million (400 for EP); c) international co-operation: 300 (no change); d) JRC: 720 million (725). Structuring the European Research Area: 2.620 billion (2.725; 3.050) divided into 1) research and innovation: 300 million (250 for EP); 2) human resources: 1.7 billion (1.9; 1.8); 3) infrastructure: 565 million (475; 900); 4) science and society: 55 million (100; 50). Strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area: 330 million (350; 450) divided into 280 million for coordination (300; 400) and 50 million (no change) for developing policy.
The Council is also expected to adopt a resolution on the strategy for improving researchers' mobility in the European Research Area. Commissioner Busquin will present the Commission's action plan for science and society that the Commission has just adopted (EUROPE will return to this) and a progress report on the European space policy.