Skip to main content
European Commission logo print header

Article Category

Content archived on 2022-12-02

Article available in the following languages:

ESC opinion on Fifth RTD Framework Programme budget

The Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities adopted a second opinion on the proposal for the Fifth RTD Framework Programme at its plenary session in December 1997. The Committee's first opinion, adopted on 1 October 1997, did not address the Commission's budg...

The Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities adopted a second opinion on the proposal for the Fifth RTD Framework Programme at its plenary session in December 1997. The Committee's first opinion, adopted on 1 October 1997, did not address the Commission's budget proposal, which is the focus of the second opinion. The Commission's budget proposal of 11 August would provide a maximum of ECU 16,300 million over the five years of the Fifth Framework Programme. The ESC calls for this to be increased to at least ECU 17,000 million, and also calls for a flexibility reserve of ECU 700 million (4.5% of the total) to be kept aside. In addition, the Committee calls for an increase in funding for the International Cooperation and Innovation and SMEs programmes, which it feels would enhance their efficiency. Turning to the key actions, the ESC calls for these to be limited to ten or so, with one in the Euratom Framework Programme. Each key action should have a minimum of ECU 1,000 million in funding from both public and private sources, according to the opinion. Community funding for the key actions should be contingent on performance assessments, and each should have sufficient funding for demonstration, innovation and SMEs. The Committee also calls for a reorganization and strengthening of the SME innovation and participation action and the creation of a new "ad hoc" support mechanism for the setting-up of technological joint ventures. The importance of close cooperation between the Framework Programme and non-EU cooperation frameworks, particularly COST and EUREKA are stressed. Finally the Committee emphasizes the need to provide simple, modern, transparent management procedures.

Related articles