Brussels, 12/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - On 23 April, the parliamentary committee on industry will take a stance on the draft report by Gérard Caudron (PES, France) with a view to the second reading of the European Parliament on the sixth framework programme for research and development (FPRD). The plenary should take a final stance in May, the timetable providing for adoption of the FPRD before the end of the term thus being kept, unless the adoption of amendments that are too far removed from the common position lead to conciliation procedure. This is what the rapporteur is seeking to prevent, by continuing cooperation with the various political groups but also with the Commission and Council in the context of regular informal trilogues. The latter seem to have shown that the fifty or so amendments proposed by the rapporteur in his report are negotiable, but there were finally around 170 amendments on the table early this week. As part of these amendments were redundant, Mr Caudron hoped to reduce the number in a first "grooming", but over one hundred should nonetheless be submitted to the vote of the parliamentary committee. Some of the amendments are on ethical issues, a matter on which the Council obviously went as far as it could during the first reading. According to the rapporteur's own words, they run the risk of re-opening "Pandora's box". Mr Caudron is at present seeking to convince his colleagues of the need to focus on several priorities "adopted massively" in order to be as effective as possible in negotiations with Council, without questioning final adoption after the second reading.
Mr Caudron's draft report proposes taking on board a certain number of amendments that had not been adopted by the Council after the first reading. It is mainly a matter of clarifying certain aspects of medical research, which must not be exclusively concentrated on the genome. The report insists that the EUR 400 million should be devoted to cancer research and that the taking into account of various diseases (cardio-vascular, diabetes, central nervous system including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob, hepatitis C, allergies and rare diseases) should be explicitly provided for. He again calls for research to be financed concerning resistance to medicine and above all to antibiotics, questions linked to animal feed and also problems relating to hygiene and consumption of medicines. Other amendments aim to set out the priority aspects of research in the transport sector, including the reduction of pollution or the improvement of the quality of transport vehicles and systems. The report again calls for emphasis to be placed on the development of a system for the production and distribution of safe and health food. Furthermore, it reintroduces action on the safeguarding of cultural heritage. The report again urges for the introduction of a "stairway of excellence" allowing the different research structures to pass gradually from the older instruments of the fifth framework programme to the three new instruments. It requests that 3% of the total amount of each research project should be systematically devoted to an assessment of social and environmental impact. Other amendments concern: - the development and the validation of experimental methods that do not use animals; - the needs of the disabled; - the taking into account of developments in defence and security policy; - the reduction and/or elimination of risks from weapons of mass destruction stocked or pending destruction in the former USSR; - and encouragement for fundamental research.
German Christian Democrat Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl has also submitted her two draft reports on rules of participation, which should be definitively adopted this autumn at the latest in order to allow effective implementation of the FPRD from early next year. The time limit for submitting amendments is 24 April and the vote in committee is set for 28 May, which would allow the plenary to conclude the first reading in June. The first draft report concerns the EEC part of the framework programme, which is the subject of codecision procedure. A large part of the amendments aim to specify certain definitions and strengthens in passing the role of project "coordinator" assured by one of the members of the consortium. It considers that the number of participants cannot be less than three independent legal entities, of which at least one must have its seat in a Member State or in a candidate country, each being established in a different country (the Commission only introduced this rule for the excellence networks and integrated projects, but with at least two Member States or associated candidates). An amendment also aims to specify that the candidatures cannot be anonymous because assessment must take partners' experience into account. The Commission should ensure that all the conditions of confidentiality are respected throughout the procedure.
Another amendment sets out in detail points to be settled in the Consortium contract. The EU's financial contribution would be paid to the coordinator. Rather than the collective liability proposed by the Commission in the framework of the reform that would leave research stakeholders to manage the project, the report suggests introducing a mechanism whereby: 1) any participant whose shortcomings contributes or leads to greater participation by the Commission will be responsible for using the EU's financial contribution pro rata in line with their share in the project in line with the sums they've received; 2) if it isn't possible to hold a participant liable for a shortcoming and if the consortium has managed to identify the failing partner and inform the Commission of this within six weeks, all partners will be held liable pro rata with regard to the share of each in the project; 3) the co-ordinator's accounting must enable the share of any participant in a project to be determined at any moment; the co-ordinator will send the Commission each year documentation on how the money has been used: 4) participants are not allowed to invoke force majeure to justify failing to carry out the contract. In terms of the EU's annual contribution, the report believes this can rise to 100% of expenditure for networks of excellence concerning the integration of participants at European level. Consortium management fees would also be 100% reimbursed. The second report on the Euratom part of the Framework Programme (on which the Parliament is only consulted) basically includes the same measures as for the EEC programme, but has two amendments concerning fusion research. The amendments specify that EU funding should not exceed 23% (rather than 17.5% as proposed by the Commission and 25% in the 5th Framework Programme), but can exceed 23% for ITER reactor projects (the Commission proposed 37.5%).