The Commission's Communication entitled "Research after Maastricht : an Assessment; a Strategy" is intended to be a reference document for the Community's RTD policy in the years to come. The communication comprises an outline of Europe's situation in research and technological development; an assessment to date of Community activities in this field; an analysis of the perspectives opened up by the Maastricht Treaty for Community RTD; future guidelines for Community action; and a set of indications for initiatives which the Commission intends to propose. The Commission's reflections on the future of Community research are based on one observation : since the mid 1980's European industry in high technology sectors has shown clear signs of a fall in competitiveness. Part of the reason lies in the inadequate level of RTD expenditure in European Countries compared with the United States or Japan; the Community devotes 2.1 % of its GDP to research, compared with 2.8 % for the United States and over 3 % for Japan.

However, this is not the only factor. Europe is comparatively strong when it comes to fundamental research. Europe's real weakness is found in industrial research. European companies do not invest as much as their competitors in research and technological development activities. Above all, they suffer from an inability to convert scientific and technological breakthroughs into industrial successes, and those successes into commercial results. Putting for the first time research policy explicitly at the service of all other Community policies, the Maastricht Treaty emphasized the importance of the former's central objective: to reinforce the competitiveness of European industries. Despite the very visible and positive results achieved so far in terms of creating European networks and reinforcing cooperation habits, Community research activities have not, as yet, been able to fulfil this objective. To deal with this state of affairs, the Commission is proposing to redirect Community activities. Alongside the

traditional RTD activities, more effort should be concentrated on several generic technologies which have a strong industrial impact in many sectors. This could be undertaken through large priority technology projects. The projects in question, submitted directly by companies on their own initiative, would mobilize a whole array of different skills and disciplines around major industrial problems. Relevant problem-areas may include for example microelectronics, advanced technologies with an impact on transport and environmentaly friendly industrial technologies. In order to ensure that there is optimal exploitation of research results obtained, close cooperation between producers and users of technologies will be sought within the projects themselves. The Maastricht Treaty has explicitly established one guiding principle for all Community action : the principle of subsidiarity. In the communication "Research after Maastricht" the Commission analyzes the consequences of applying this principle to research an

d technological development activities. It has identified five activities where the criteria of dimension and effects - mentioned by the Treaty as prerequisites which justify Community action - are plainly visible. First, "big science", meaning projects involving many actions and large investments in the medium and long term, such as research in thermonuclear fusion, the human genome or "global change". Secondly, technological priority projects, meaning developing key technologies which can have a bearing on a number of industrial sectors; substantial investments and cooperation of a large number of actors, including non-Community partners, are needed to develop these key technologies. Thirdly, activities designed to organize the Single Market, such as developing a unified system to control air traffic, or the interconnection of public administrations' telematic networks. Fourthly, pre-normative research : acquisition of scientific and technological data necessary for the preparation of standards, norms and

regulations in the fields of, for example, health, security and the environment. Finally, activities promoting Europe's scientific community, such as human resource development in science right across the continent. To achieve this reorientation, the Commission is proposing an increase in resources. The provisions of the "Paquet Delors II" (Community financial perspectives for the period 1993 to 1997) foresee such an increase in the means allocated to research. Starting from today's 2.4 billion ECU, the annual research budget is set to grow progressively. Within these perspectives two proposals are formulated for a Fourth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (1994-1998) as well as a supplementary financing for the Third Framework Programme (1990-1994). If the Maastricht Treaty gives research activities, among others, an undeniable political boost, it is less satisfactory when it comes to the procedural level. It establishes a particularly complex and cumbersome system. The Framewo

rk Programme will be adopted only when Member States reach unanimity, in co-decision with the European Parliament. Specific programmes will be adopted after qualified majority has been reached, and the Parliament consulted. This lengthy adoption procedure hardly fits in with the need to react rapidly to changes in knowledge and requirements of science and industry. Accordingly, the Commission has proposed an inter-institutional dialogue between the institutions involved (Commission, Council, Parliament) as soon as possible. This should make it possible to resolve legislative problems in advance.