- Email: [email protected]
Comment on ‘science and technology in the European communities: the history of the cost projects’
it]
theeu
he cost proj bY A.
KLOSE
Commission o f tl re European Communities, Scienz
and E. j Jcatior), &use/s,
Oirec toi a tes-General for Research,
Belgium
With their p;pe!r entitled “Science and Teclmolo~ y ..n the European Cornmunitics: The History of the CBST p’tijects” Akeo and Gummett have tilled a0 informatic n gar’, ihe exish:nce of hicl~ was constantly being ltigliligl~ted bvs recurring enquiries addressed to the Common ty departments from the authities, from industry and from private bodies. Thzse enquiries concerned t2i*ztechnics1 tzcnter!~t,form and crg:mizational str Acture. not only of COST ‘r”rojec!swhich had already been sigred, but 9so 9s: which were still in the prepai-;lrory shge. It is understan~lab’.e that the various bodies conzerried should show some perphty and confusion, when they Eeani that t ie projects in question are concerned riot Mith Community programmes but with international agreemc 13ts . - despite the fact that these projects were originally evolved b> the Commuritj, Institutions (Council and Commi %nS 2nd the Management Committee secretari;at services were provided hy I he Commhsion. Confusion is increased ~vr4~~1 oclly one of the three Ccmmunil ies is seen to be ir,volved in a project anc;l Ilot ail the Member States are signatories. The r’act that a ver!, high degree of work c>ordhation is possible de!,pite the non-availability of financial res su:rc:es from a common fund represej Its a new depa!t*tmrein that corzcerte,d ac:ticm 11s~been initiated for the first: til ne [rn an international level!. For the ou,sicier the situation becomes totally incomprehensible when he lea!*ns that t l:leGropean Celtlitrefo: Medium-rr;Lngc~ Wl:ather Forecasts (Proj~ect 70”r is a ne VV,joitl tly financed dnternational orEanhation, having no direct co,,inecti,on with the %ommemity or its instituhor s f*om the moment that the .q ;eti:met?t r;;;ikesel:‘ect. He:ie. too, the formulat ,on of the Collveration, the relevant technical and fina .icial annexes and th e s%i:affregulationsI, was the OIItcome 0~”many years’ wl;)rk in the frameu or1 ot’ COST, wii~h the help iaf
the Co\it$cil Ser!::.retariat ;amd the competent Commission d’epartments. In. addition,, eight o;iit of the niine Member States belong to this organisation. picture and sqppljies many of thie (anslA’ers The pjapci!rb ;s ;a,nextc&nt werd to the problem l raiscfi!. The point is n?ladievery elffectively that, i,n.the !fi nal anaiygjja, the Ct4:)S’T .P’rc#xts iand the entire giim.ut of'cooperation i,n lthis framework. repr.;;:senteLfa corm~~lrc~mise or even a substitute for a much more a.mbitiaus or idr.Aistic I<&.D lpoliq, for which thle tim:: was not ‘yet ripe,PrIn t,his sense, the thrork on tk’e crealtion and ;pursuance of the COST projects is the history of i;t& D policy irn recent years. The reade:. learns something of the CERD and the .A\ERCi*, th,e Eurrltom crisis and the Idecisions, or lack of decisi.ons, whicii:Ic&ninated in1the 19 nati.on Ministerial. Conference hieM c ‘1 21 Nove:mber 1 Wf . In this connect iion, it should1 be pain ted out t”htiltasIlong ago a.s 1967 dlztaill:ld csm:parisons oli national research programmes and budgets wlere recognised as valid aiims of :II conzrn~or~R &.D llolicy, ~~lthou&!-1 it was not until .I 974 that they were formally ;acknovvledgt.:d a:ncl given pr:cti.cal expression in th.e Council Re~~lolutionon CRE5;T of Ii4 January. Notwi thsta ading the fact that they &erz?se:lvlesare we!11disp ns+eI?l:owards the COS’I’ I’r+Ws, the auth!ors have nevertheless skilfulli7r . . managed to highlight the objections which were ra:scsd right from the start in connection with these projects. I have in mind here cost-benefit considerations which have been mentioned in order to contrast planning expenditure with actual research expenditure. The result is disappointing - a fact which can surely be explained simply by pointing +#I the number of participants. To secure dgrecrnent rhong 19 countries is, in f&C, more dit‘ficult tl an when nine or six countries are involved, or evftrl in comparison with bilateral negotiations. It is to be regretted that the description of the difficulties encountered by the .Community in participating as such in the relevant projects includes no reference of Sacchettini’s work entitled “European Cooperat;.on in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST)” [ 13 . Naturally, menl:ion is made #ofvarious eventts and notably: _I opinion of tthe Europeran Parliament on the COST l?rojects; -- Paris Summit Coinference of 1972; _- enlargemen,t. cbfthe Communities )(19’73); -‘- four-year research programme for the Joint Research Cerrtrt (1973); -- environmemtzd programme (1973:); -- Copenhagen Summit Conference (Dacember 1973); -- R & D profqammc; set t/m8 up of CFYZSTin January 1974. ,. A point whic,h is not made clear, however, ils that it is precisely these events which prompted the Commission, in reply to the Belgian M’emorandum, to
forward its proposal to the Co:anci on tlhe !;cien f i:fic and techniIi;:al cooperaI:ion within the framework of COST. The Bt:lgi:,m:!Vlemorandum i:!,based on l:h~z!foliowin;g l’lndi,nbt: “1. COST procedure is long,, complicated and, i n :r word, rerlativdy ineffiicimt, since in the case of sevieral Member Statiz (.including Belgium), it requires ratification by the National Parliament. F’or example, it should, tie recalled that COST Project 1 I , cm the establishm,smt of a European DataProcessing NetlNork, was signed in 1971, and at 1thcierd of 1973 it is still not in force in the Community. MOXOVCi, . th,is co-operation is on,ganiseed according to specific procedures which often &j’;fer from one project to the orlne1. 2. COST pro$cts are often similar or close:ly weluted in mmtenl to the integr’ated pr0 je cts o f the Joint Programme *. Th’!s s’tate of affairs tends to i,ncrease confus’ion and irndeed duplication, sub arc’ina ting the con tent of the J’oint Programme to extra-Community interests and finally progressively depriving the Joint Programme of its intrinsic, value. This could be the case for projects such as COST 50,&l/52 (‘Equipment for gas turbines), COST 61 ;a . (SO2 in the atmosphere) aF1.dCOST 6atb (Micropollutsnts in \a.ate.!-). 3. Thi:: practice seems to havt: arisen whereby the Comrnisi;ion, us such, ts called upon to participate in COST projects which only some of the-Nine have decided to support. The effect of this is to impose a financial con:zibution on some Member States, through the Community budget, to pr:rjects which do not involve them. An example of this type of problem is COST Project 12 (European Program Library). 4. The fundamental philosophy of COST is to develop l~rcalZy-cwn~D~~ltratc’il and optional projects and to lay down, as the basic criterion for the selection of these projects, the intrinsic value of such a selection to each country. The result is a lack ofan overall picture of the fields covered by these projects and the absence of a minimum programme which has to be executed jointly. 5. COST projects are based at the Commission, despite their intergovernmental nature. Secretariat expenses are met by the Community Mem. er States alone, from the common bt,dget with no contribution from fa.c)l+ Member States are not involved. mernber countries, even ‘some 6. Entrusting to the Con 1mission the smetarial stwices -for intergoverimenlial projects lidistorts the role! allocated to the Coqlmissior: by the Treaties and * 1Yh.ejoint programme comists of both direct and, indirect Community projects decided on by the Council on the basis of th!e Euratom Treaty, Article 7, and the EEC Treaty, Article: 235. Direct projects are financed entireily by the Community and executed in the Joint Rescwch Centrc:;; indirect projects are financed only partially by the Community and executed in national research centres.
1198
A. Kiosc
confers
upon it the status of the secretariat of an intergo:rernrnental org,ani.zation such as the OEC!D. 7. The dissemination of i~zf?wrnhm is generally linrite(j to the participants alone and furthermore, Gthin a given ,xoject, dissemination can be restricted to countries participating; in a simple project. 8. Finally, t?re question of industrial propertv has given rise to legal difficulties which have not been solved since 1971;‘. This Belgian memorandum constituted a threat to the continuation of the COST Projects. However, since the varilous arguments it put forward failed to attract the unqualified support of the other Member Stares, the Commission’s proposal was aimed at creating a new structure for COST, on the nderstanding that: - the Community did riot wish to create a “closed shi;~~p”in research and development ; Brussels should remain a centre of at.traction for other European countries; - in future the Community, through its own programmes, would constitute a new focus in CQST. After months of rkgotiations, the Community reached a decision, this being one of the first measures taken by the newly created CREST* which, through its opinion to the CY~uncil,provided a compromise acceptable to 1 a11. The opinion formally noted by the Council on 23 September 1974, is in the following terms: “1. In Ihe Iwith the Council Resolutions of 14. Janzxy 1974, tl‘ie COST Group should be kepr: in being as a permanent framework enabling nonmember countries to participate in Community projects r&enever this is felt desirable. 2. Projects whose Community interest was recognised by the Council subsequent to an opi-,nion being given by CREST within three months -would be finalised in the COST framework with a view to reaching appropriate agreements between the Community and these non-member c,ountrie:s. It is understood that recognition of Community interest in a project does 1 ot imply any commitment for all Member States to take part in it. 3. In the case of projects wltoae Community interest was not recognisec subsequent to an opinion being given by CREST within three months - the COST Group could well be regarded, dur%lg the experiment;:1 stage referree to in the Council Resolution of 14 January 1974, as an appropriate frame-
* CREST was set up b_v Council Re!;olu*tion of 14 January
1974 for the purpose of assisting the CommisGon and the Counc.;il in defining objectives and ensuring the development of a common policy in l.he field of science and technology.
Cornme~t on “‘Science and techolog~~ in the European Cc~mmunitied’
299
lidork for the preparation of intergovernmental agreements. The administraition of these agreements could possibly be ertrusted to the Cornmission by ,the signatories. In s.uch an event, the Commission would not use its Iperrnanent staff, but wou’d take on the necessary staff for the duration of each project. The administrative costs involved would be borne by the signatories. 4. The principles and procedures outlined would be applied to proposals from non-member countries. 5. On the basis of the information it receives through regular consultation ‘between its members, CREST could at any time reconsider its opinion OGthe Community interest of projects whose Community interest had not been recognised and could submit any appropriate recommendation concerning them to the Council and the Commission. 6. CRES’T would report to the Council and the Commission in the light of the results obtained during the experimental stage referred to in paragraph 3”. Anyone who expected this decision to provide p?l,verful incentives for the resumption or continuation of the COST activities 1.2s to concede, after more than a year’s experience, that neither the Commun;ty programmes for nonmember countries, nor the proposals by those countries to the Commission, have produced any significant results. How far the economic situation in the various countries and in the Western world as a whol,e or other political events have contributed to this state of affairs is a question we clo not propose to discuss here. It is naturally too soon to draw conclusions, and there are some signs of a new dynamism (Swedish and Yugosla,v proposals; Commission presentation of its environmental research programme). However, the whole pl~losopl~y of COST is likely to be reviewed. New structures with different forms of organisation and different purposes are coming into being, stich as: - the Energy Agency in Paris, bringing together all COST-countries except Yugoslavia, France, Greece, Finland; - the Paris North--South dialogue with the developing countries; - the Euro-Arab dialogue with the oil-p -educing countries; - the European Security Conference in l-lels:nki with the Eastern bloc countries. Thus there is no shortage of new opening:: for cooperati,on in the scientific and technological field. Just how far COST itself will hare to undergo further changes will depend on the degree of importance accordecl to these structures. An attempt could conceivably be made to concentrate COST activities on fields which are confined to IrNestern Europe from geographical or political consid.erations. .APnatingsuch subjects could be traffic problems, transmission of news and information and data-processing. Other areas requiring attention
300
A.
Hose
on a world-Kde scale, e.g., energy, agriculture and d.eveloping countries, should be assignsB to panels of experts already in existence or due to be set up. Accordingly, the Community will try to promote cooperation in a multinational framework rather than through bilateral associations. This could lead to a reappraisal of the question whether it, might not be better to break altogether with the aim of the ‘Projects’. A new task which one could visualise for the Senior Officials would be to promote a permanent high-level dialogue on R & D topics (again limited to the 19 West European countries). Activities hitherto performed in this area would then either be replaced or supplemented by seminars, -workshops and a continuous exchange of infc -mation. Whatever the course adopted in the future, the experience acquired by the Community and the non-member countries in COST wil stand them in good stead when 3 comes to developing new forms of multinational partnership in the R & D sector.
REFERENCE [l
J
Quarterly review, European law, 10th year, No. 3 (July-September 1974); R6vue Trimestrielle de Droit Europien, 10e an&e, No. 31 (iuillet-ceptembre 1974), (Editions Sirey).
theeu
he cost proj bY A.
KLOSE
Commission o f tl re European Communities, Scienz
and E. j Jcatior), &use/s,
Oirec toi a tes-General for Research,
Belgium
With their p;pe!r entitled “Science and Teclmolo~ y ..n the European Cornmunitics: The History of the CBST p’tijects” Akeo and Gummett have tilled a0 informatic n gar’, ihe exish:nce of hicl~ was constantly being ltigliligl~ted bvs recurring enquiries addressed to the Common ty departments from the authities, from industry and from private bodies. Thzse enquiries concerned t2i*ztechnics1 tzcnter!~t,form and crg:mizational str Acture. not only of COST ‘r”rojec!swhich had already been sigred, but 9so 9s: which were still in the prepai-;lrory shge. It is understan~lab’.e that the various bodies conzerried should show some perphty and confusion, when they Eeani that t ie projects in question are concerned riot Mith Community programmes but with international agreemc 13ts . - despite the fact that these projects were originally evolved b> the Commuritj, Institutions (Council and Commi %nS 2nd the Management Committee secretari;at services were provided hy I he Commhsion. Confusion is increased ~vr4~~1 oclly one of the three Ccmmunil ies is seen to be ir,volved in a project anc;l Ilot ail the Member States are signatories. The r’act that a ver!, high degree of work c>ordhation is possible de!,pite the non-availability of financial res su:rc:es from a common fund represej Its a new depa!t*tmrein that corzcerte,d ac:ticm 11s~been initiated for the first: til ne [rn an international level!. For the ou,sicier the situation becomes totally incomprehensible when he lea!*ns that t l:leGropean Celtlitrefo: Medium-rr;Lngc~ Wl:ather Forecasts (Proj~ect 70”r is a ne VV,joitl tly financed dnternational orEanhation, having no direct co,,inecti,on with the %ommemity or its instituhor s f*om the moment that the .q ;eti:met?t r;;;ikesel:‘ect. He:ie. too, the formulat ,on of the Collveration, the relevant technical and fina .icial annexes and th e s%i:affregulationsI, was the OIItcome 0~”many years’ wl;)rk in the frameu or1 ot’ COST, wii~h the help iaf
the Co\it$cil Ser!::.retariat ;amd the competent Commission d’epartments. In. addition,, eight o;iit of the niine Member States belong to this organisation. picture and sqppljies many of thie (anslA’ers The pjapci!rb ;s ;a,nextc&nt werd to the problem l raiscfi!. The point is n?ladievery elffectively that, i,n.the !fi nal anaiygjja, the Ct4:)S’T .P’rc#xts iand the entire giim.ut of'cooperation i,n lthis framework. repr.;;:senteLfa corm~~lrc~mise or even a substitute for a much more a.mbitiaus or idr.Aistic I<&.D lpoliq, for which thle tim:: was not ‘yet ripe,PrIn t,his sense, the thrork on tk’e crealtion and ;pursuance of the COST projects is the history of i;t& D policy irn recent years. The reade:. learns something of the CERD and the .A\ERCi*, th,e Eurrltom crisis and the Idecisions, or lack of decisi.ons, whicii:Ic&ninated in1the 19 nati.on Ministerial. Conference hieM c ‘1 21 Nove:mber 1 Wf . In this connect iion, it should1 be pain ted out t”htiltasIlong ago a.s 1967 dlztaill:ld csm:parisons oli national research programmes and budgets wlere recognised as valid aiims of :II conzrn~or~R &.D llolicy, ~~lthou&!-1 it was not until .I 974 that they were formally ;acknovvledgt.:d a:ncl given pr:cti.cal expression in th.e Council Re~~lolutionon CRE5;T of Ii4 January. Notwi thsta ading the fact that they &erz?se:lvlesare we!11disp ns+eI?l:owards the COS’I’ I’r+Ws, the auth!ors have nevertheless skilfulli7r . . managed to highlight the objections which were ra:scsd right from the start in connection with these projects. I have in mind here cost-benefit considerations which have been mentioned in order to contrast planning expenditure with actual research expenditure. The result is disappointing - a fact which can surely be explained simply by pointing +#I the number of participants. To secure dgrecrnent rhong 19 countries is, in f&C, more dit‘ficult tl an when nine or six countries are involved, or evftrl in comparison with bilateral negotiations. It is to be regretted that the description of the difficulties encountered by the .Community in participating as such in the relevant projects includes no reference of Sacchettini’s work entitled “European Cooperat;.on in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST)” [ 13 . Naturally, menl:ion is made #ofvarious eventts and notably: _I opinion of tthe Europeran Parliament on the COST l?rojects; -- Paris Summit Coinference of 1972; _- enlargemen,t. cbfthe Communities )(19’73); -‘- four-year research programme for the Joint Research Cerrtrt (1973); -- environmemtzd programme (1973:); -- Copenhagen Summit Conference (Dacember 1973); -- R & D profqammc; set t/m8 up of CFYZSTin January 1974. ,. A point whic,h is not made clear, however, ils that it is precisely these events which prompted the Commission, in reply to the Belgian M’emorandum, to
forward its proposal to the Co:anci on tlhe !;cien f i:fic and techniIi;:al cooperaI:ion within the framework of COST. The Bt:lgi:,m:!Vlemorandum i:!,based on l:h~z!foliowin;g l’lndi,nbt: “1. COST procedure is long,, complicated and, i n :r word, rerlativdy ineffiicimt, since in the case of sevieral Member Statiz (.including Belgium), it requires ratification by the National Parliament. F’or example, it should, tie recalled that COST Project 1 I , cm the establishm,smt of a European DataProcessing NetlNork, was signed in 1971, and at 1thcierd of 1973 it is still not in force in the Community. MOXOVCi, . th,is co-operation is on,ganiseed according to specific procedures which often &j’;fer from one project to the orlne1. 2. COST pro$cts are often similar or close:ly weluted in mmtenl to the integr’ated pr0 je cts o f the Joint Programme *. Th’!s s’tate of affairs tends to i,ncrease confus’ion and irndeed duplication, sub arc’ina ting the con tent of the J’oint Programme to extra-Community interests and finally progressively depriving the Joint Programme of its intrinsic, value. This could be the case for projects such as COST 50,&l/52 (‘Equipment for gas turbines), COST 61 ;a . (SO2 in the atmosphere) aF1.dCOST 6atb (Micropollutsnts in \a.ate.!-). 3. Thi:: practice seems to havt: arisen whereby the Comrnisi;ion, us such, ts called upon to participate in COST projects which only some of the-Nine have decided to support. The effect of this is to impose a financial con:zibution on some Member States, through the Community budget, to pr:rjects which do not involve them. An example of this type of problem is COST Project 12 (European Program Library). 4. The fundamental philosophy of COST is to develop l~rcalZy-cwn~D~~ltratc’il and optional projects and to lay down, as the basic criterion for the selection of these projects, the intrinsic value of such a selection to each country. The result is a lack ofan overall picture of the fields covered by these projects and the absence of a minimum programme which has to be executed jointly. 5. COST projects are based at the Commission, despite their intergovernmental nature. Secretariat expenses are met by the Community Mem. er States alone, from the common bt,dget with no contribution from fa.c)l+ Member States are not involved. mernber countries, even ‘some 6. Entrusting to the Con 1mission the smetarial stwices -for intergoverimenlial projects lidistorts the role! allocated to the Coqlmissior: by the Treaties and * 1Yh.ejoint programme comists of both direct and, indirect Community projects decided on by the Council on the basis of th!e Euratom Treaty, Article 7, and the EEC Treaty, Article: 235. Direct projects are financed entireily by the Community and executed in the Joint Rescwch Centrc:;; indirect projects are financed only partially by the Community and executed in national research centres.
1198
A. Kiosc
confers
upon it the status of the secretariat of an intergo:rernrnental org,ani.zation such as the OEC!D. 7. The dissemination of i~zf?wrnhm is generally linrite(j to the participants alone and furthermore, Gthin a given ,xoject, dissemination can be restricted to countries participating; in a simple project. 8. Finally, t?re question of industrial propertv has given rise to legal difficulties which have not been solved since 1971;‘. This Belgian memorandum constituted a threat to the continuation of the COST Projects. However, since the varilous arguments it put forward failed to attract the unqualified support of the other Member Stares, the Commission’s proposal was aimed at creating a new structure for COST, on the nderstanding that: - the Community did riot wish to create a “closed shi;~~p”in research and development ; Brussels should remain a centre of at.traction for other European countries; - in future the Community, through its own programmes, would constitute a new focus in CQST. After months of rkgotiations, the Community reached a decision, this being one of the first measures taken by the newly created CREST* which, through its opinion to the CY~uncil,provided a compromise acceptable to 1 a11. The opinion formally noted by the Council on 23 September 1974, is in the following terms: “1. In Ihe Iwith the Council Resolutions of 14. Janzxy 1974, tl‘ie COST Group should be kepr: in being as a permanent framework enabling nonmember countries to participate in Community projects r&enever this is felt desirable. 2. Projects whose Community interest was recognised by the Council subsequent to an opi-,nion being given by CREST within three months -would be finalised in the COST framework with a view to reaching appropriate agreements between the Community and these non-member c,ountrie:s. It is understood that recognition of Community interest in a project does 1 ot imply any commitment for all Member States to take part in it. 3. In the case of projects wltoae Community interest was not recognisec subsequent to an opinion being given by CREST within three months - the COST Group could well be regarded, dur%lg the experiment;:1 stage referree to in the Council Resolution of 14 January 1974, as an appropriate frame-
* CREST was set up b_v Council Re!;olu*tion of 14 January
1974 for the purpose of assisting the CommisGon and the Counc.;il in defining objectives and ensuring the development of a common policy in l.he field of science and technology.
Cornme~t on “‘Science and techolog~~ in the European Cc~mmunitied’
299
lidork for the preparation of intergovernmental agreements. The administraition of these agreements could possibly be ertrusted to the Cornmission by ,the signatories. In s.uch an event, the Commission would not use its Iperrnanent staff, but wou’d take on the necessary staff for the duration of each project. The administrative costs involved would be borne by the signatories. 4. The principles and procedures outlined would be applied to proposals from non-member countries. 5. On the basis of the information it receives through regular consultation ‘between its members, CREST could at any time reconsider its opinion OGthe Community interest of projects whose Community interest had not been recognised and could submit any appropriate recommendation concerning them to the Council and the Commission. 6. CRES’T would report to the Council and the Commission in the light of the results obtained during the experimental stage referred to in paragraph 3”. Anyone who expected this decision to provide p?l,verful incentives for the resumption or continuation of the COST activities 1.2s to concede, after more than a year’s experience, that neither the Commun;ty programmes for nonmember countries, nor the proposals by those countries to the Commission, have produced any significant results. How far the economic situation in the various countries and in the Western world as a whol,e or other political events have contributed to this state of affairs is a question we clo not propose to discuss here. It is naturally too soon to draw conclusions, and there are some signs of a new dynamism (Swedish and Yugosla,v proposals; Commission presentation of its environmental research programme). However, the whole pl~losopl~y of COST is likely to be reviewed. New structures with different forms of organisation and different purposes are coming into being, stich as: - the Energy Agency in Paris, bringing together all COST-countries except Yugoslavia, France, Greece, Finland; - the Paris North--South dialogue with the developing countries; - the Euro-Arab dialogue with the oil-p -educing countries; - the European Security Conference in l-lels:nki with the Eastern bloc countries. Thus there is no shortage of new opening:: for cooperati,on in the scientific and technological field. Just how far COST itself will hare to undergo further changes will depend on the degree of importance accordecl to these structures. An attempt could conceivably be made to concentrate COST activities on fields which are confined to IrNestern Europe from geographical or political consid.erations. .APnatingsuch subjects could be traffic problems, transmission of news and information and data-processing. Other areas requiring attention
300
A.
Hose
on a world-Kde scale, e.g., energy, agriculture and d.eveloping countries, should be assignsB to panels of experts already in existence or due to be set up. Accordingly, the Community will try to promote cooperation in a multinational framework rather than through bilateral associations. This could lead to a reappraisal of the question whether it, might not be better to break altogether with the aim of the ‘Projects’. A new task which one could visualise for the Senior Officials would be to promote a permanent high-level dialogue on R & D topics (again limited to the 19 West European countries). Activities hitherto performed in this area would then either be replaced or supplemented by seminars, -workshops and a continuous exchange of infc -mation. Whatever the course adopted in the future, the experience acquired by the Community and the non-member countries in COST wil stand them in good stead when 3 comes to developing new forms of multinational partnership in the R & D sector.
REFERENCE [l
J
Quarterly review, European law, 10th year, No. 3 (July-September 1974); R6vue Trimestrielle de Droit Europien, 10e an&e, No. 31 (iuillet-ceptembre 1974), (Editions Sirey).