Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Ways and means of strengthening the networks for the provision of information on and exploitation of applied RTD programmes in Europe'
14. 9. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 284/19 7. 10. The Commission is should report every three years on the effectiveness of the Regulation, on the basis of reports made by Member States. 7. 11. The Commission should consult Member States, the airline industry and consumer groups about how the rights available under the Regulation might best be brought to the attention of the travelling public. 7. 12. The Commission should carry out a full assess- ment of the Regulation’s costs and benefits, in consul- tation with interested parties, before the Regulation is reviewed again. This assessment should include the costs of the reporting and collating of the data required under the Regulation. More frequent reviews might be appro- priate prior to changes in compensation levels. The Commission should undertake a compara- 7. 13. tive analysis of EU and US denied compensation payment rules to check whether there is scope for simplifying the EU rules. Brussels, 1 July 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Ways and means of strengthening the networks for the provision of information on and exploitation of applied RTD programmes in Europe’ (98/C 284/06) On 29 January 1998 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Ways and means of strengthening the networks for the provision of information on and exploitation of applied RTD programmes in Europe’. The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion unanimously on 17 June 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Malosse. At its 356th plenary session of 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 1 July), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously. I. RECOMMENDATIONS ments in order to be able to disseminate new technologies tailored to European enterprises, The Economic and Social Committee, I. 1. the urgent need for a ‘structural’ strategy to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry in the interests of growth and employment, I. 2. the vital role played here by back-up and infor- mation networks in ensuring that enterprises, and particularly SMEs with an unexploited innovative capacity (‘vanguard’ enterprises), are able to participate in research programmes, the vital need to set up a mechanism for exploiting I. 3. research findings and monitoring technological develop- I. 4. the opportunity afforded to the 5th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Develop- ment (hereinafter 5th RTDFP) to help rise to this challenge of competitiveness, thereby permitting a clear break with previous programmes, as the European Parliament, Council and Economic and Social Com- mittee have advocated, I. 5. the excessive dispersal of existing national and Community networks which, in the view of the Com- mittee, are unable to make an effective contribution to any new strategy designed to break with the past, C 284/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 9. 98 presents the following recommendations in this own- initiative opinion to the Council, the European Parlia- ment and the Commission: ries, universities and back-up organizations. The Group could operate in conjunction with the ESC and carry out monitoring, evaluation and observation work. Recommendation No 1 Recommendation No 5 The Committee calls upon the European Commission to present a communication laying down an overall strategy for networks providing information, exploi- tation and back-up in RTD and innovation. Such a strategy should embrace the rationalization of existing mechanisms and incorporate a number of different European policies, viz. : the action plan on innovation; the 5th RTDFP; economic and social cohesion; educational and training programmes; policies in favour of competitiveness; enlargement and external policy. Recommendation No 2 Within the context of this overall strategy, the Economic and Social Committee recommends that existing mech- anisms (5th RTDFP, Structural Funds, educational and training programmes, SME programme. ) be used to help specialized support networks in promoting the principle of ‘mediation’. The aim of such ‘mediation’ networks would be to a) promote strategies for linkages between enterprises, b) further interaction between enterprises, research and universities, c) encourage the monitoring of technologi- cal developments, d) advance economic intelligence, and e) promote project management (legal, financial, etc. ). The Committee considers that the third horizontal action of the future 5th RTDFP (promoting innovation and encouraging the participation of SMEs) should be largely given over to achieving this objective. Recommendation No 3 The Committee urges the European Commission to take steps to improve the coordination between Community information/back-up networks and networks for the exploitation of RTD findings. In so doing it should also seek to achieve the vital goal of ensuring that the two types of networks remain complementary. The Commission must bring these networks within a larger mechanism of support for ‘mediation’ and must gear them exclusively to meeting the needs of users. Networks must not be allowed to further their own policy objectives. Recommendation No 4 With the aim of ensuring genuine consistency, the Committee proposes the organization, via telematics, of a conference of Community, national and intergovern- mental networks (Eureka, OECD. ) to which would be invited the ‘innovation units’ of specific programmes forming part of the 5th RTDFP. A vademecum of national, Community and intergovern- mental activities would offer better guidance to the competent authorities in their vitally important task of securing improved coordination. Recommendation No 6 In the interests of transparency and comprehensibility for the parties concerned (enterprises, researchers, uni- versities, new business entrepreneurs. ) the Committee proposes that Euro-info-centres be allotted the task of guiding the activities of specialized networks, including Community networks. Operating locally and in close touch with reality, Euro-info-centres would initially steer users towards the most appropriate information, exploitation and back-up network. Recommendation No 7 The Committee would recommend that the strategy proposed today be extended to all applicant countries as part of the EU’s pre-accession policy. The Committee also understands the case for a strategy of preferential partnership with the Euro-Mediterranean area, other European countries and the signatories to the Lomé Convention. Appropriate instruments would have to be brought into play to achieve this objective. The Committee would finally recommend that Europe work together with its developed international partners to achieve mutually beneficial synergistic effects. 1. Introduction This initiative follows on directly from the most 1. 1. recent Committee opinions on research, and in particular the opinion entitled ‘Towards the Fifth Framework Programme — scientific and technological objectives (1)’ and the own-initiative opinion entitled ‘The impact on SMEs of the steady, widespread reduction in funds allocated to research and technological development in the EU (at Community and national level) (2)’. The Committee proposes the setting-up of a ‘Users’ Group’ for Community networks. Represented on the Group would be a variety of users: enterprises, laborato- (1) OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997, p. 38. (2) OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997, p. 31. 14. 9. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 284/21 1. 2. In these opinions the Committee made the point that the industrial impact of Community RTD activities is too weak, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises which make up 99,8 % of all European enterprises. This view is widely shared by a variety of bodies and institutions such as the EU’s Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) which, as the Fifth Framework Programme was being prepared, adopted a report on the participation of SMEs in RTD activities. The recommendations made by CREST were concerned inter alia with the question of access to information. 1. 3. In its opinion on the Fifth Framework Programme the Committee said that it was desirable (1) ‘to directly involve research players and end-users, particularly the various types of SME, from the planning of the RTDFP right through to the innovative application of research results’. In its opinion on SMEs and RTD (2) the Com- 1. 4. mittee drew a distinction in particular between three categories of SMEs: (‘simple users of technologies’; ‘vanguard’ enterprises, i. e. those with an unused capacity for innovation; and finally ‘high-tech SMEs’. It then recommended that Community action be concentrated on ‘vanguard’ enterprises, or ‘technology followers’, of which there are thought to be between 1 and 1,5 million in the European Union. 1. 5. The present opinion is being drawn up as preparations go ahead to present the Community’s Fifth Framework Programme. However, mindful of the need for coherence, the Committee has deliberately widened the scope of its analysis to include all Community policies and programmes dealing with the concepts of innovation and related procedural matters. The Committee’s work is also placed within a context that takes into consideration the capacity of enterprises to develop, achieve competitiveness and create jobs. The Committee intends to draw up proposals which are consistent with regional, national and intergovernmental mechanisms such as Eureka. 2. The aims of the own-initiative opinion 2. 1. The foremost task of this own-initiative opinion is to recommend courses of action and make concrete proposals offering guidance in determining the practi- calities of Community action. The Union is preparing to adopt a Fifth RTDFP which, through the concept of key actions, seeks to exert a genuine impact on European industry and its level of competitiveness; in so doing it departs from previous programmes. The Committee’s (1) OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997, p. 38, paragraph 1. 3. (2) OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997, p. 31. own initiative is concerned with two questions which are essential to the success of this strategy, viz. : 2. 1. 1. the ways and means of ensuring, through the provision of information and assistance, that enterprises, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, are able to genuinely participate in research activities, 2. 1. 2. prises (insofar as they are potential users thereof). the exploitation of research findings by enter- The opinion needs to be strategically aware of 2. 2. the dual need to make a clear distinction between the specific functions of a) information and b) RTD exploitation, whilst at the same time ensuring that the two aspects remain complementary and operationally interlinked. The route to information and exploitation is not a linear one, leading straight from the research laboratory to industrial applications but is made up of a criss-cross pattern of interactions. Information about applied RTD programmes 2. 2. 1. is geared both to identifying circles liable to promote RTD activities but also to raising awareness of potential opportunities for innovation, the transfer of technologies and the exploitation of RTD. It embraces elements which are as diverse as they are complementary: observation, training, advice, hearings, analysis of requirements. A permanent two-way flow of ideas is therefore required if information is to effectively fulfil all these various tasks. 2. 2. 2. The exploitation of RTD, seen as a means of introducing scientific elements into mechanisms which are not particularly well suited to integrating them, more especially when we are talking about SMEs, needs to be conceived as a system which feeds into the processes of transfer and innovation a whole range of other factors such as: a culture of innovation, the identification of needs and innovative capacity, adaptability to new technologies, the transfer of expertise and know-how, business-plans and commercial planning. 2. 3. Despite a number of praiseworthy initiatives which seem to be scattered about loosely among various European Commission departments (Contact points within the Craft network, Innovation Relay Centres, Cordis network, Euro-Info-centres, Regional Innovation Strategies, associations of universities and enterprises, etc. ), the impact of European RTD on industry remains weaker than expected. A ‘Hearing’ on these networks, organized by the Committee’s study group, has led to the clear realization that each of the networks addresses a unique and different set of concerns and adopts its own distinct but nevertheless legitimate approach to achieving goals such as: increasing the participation of SMEs in the Community’s RTD programmes, setting up a European network for the exploitation of RTD informing SMEs more widely of European results, affairs, consolidating regional innovation strategies with a view to economic and social cohesion in the Union, improving links, through training schemes, between research and the business world. Thus a clear distinction has not always been made between information and back-up on the one hand and the exploitation of findings C 284/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 9. 98 on the other. The set-up as a whole throws up problems of consistency, comprehensibility, coordination and efficiency. Mindful of the need to make an overall response to the problem of competitiveness through specific, appropriate support, the Committee thus intends to make a number of suggestions aimed at ensuring that the 5th RTDFP is quite different from its predecessor. 2. 4. Since Community research only represents 4 % of all research activities carried out within the European Union, it is also necessary to widen discussions to take in the complementarity, or reasons for the lack of complementarity, between European activities on the one hand and national or local activities on the other. The Committee would recall here the comments and recommendations made in its opinions on the 5th RTDFP (1), and particularly its call for a comparative set of tables, a vademecum whereby the progress of national, European and intergovernmental programmes can be compared and monitored, topic by topic. 3. Efforts to achieve coherence and integration 3. 1. Whatever the area of discussion and line of enquiry, vigilance is required to combat the continuing tendency of innovation support networks in Europe — be they of Community, intergovernmental, national, regional or private origin — to remain compartmental- ized. The search for coherence — be it within the Fifth RTDFP itself, or in respect of other Community actions on innovation or in respect of national programmes — must first and foremost involve the presentation of proposals concerned with instruments and means. 3. 2. In addition to the search for coherence, any future proposals will have to ensure the effective integration of objectives with actions, more especially in: the promotion of competitiveness; the integration of economic and social cohesion with job-creating objectives; consideration of the strategic role of SMEs and of their specific needs; the systematic search for complementarity and synergies between networks and between different types of enterprises: hiving-off ten- dencies of big firms, new relations between big firms and SMEs, concept of clusters. The success of this integration strategy is contingent upon the establishment of a framework that encourages a large number of interactions between all the actors concerned, viz. : industrialists, professional organizations, chambers of commerce, industry and trade, universities, research centres, regions, educational and training establish- ments, companies specializing in the funding of inno- vations. (1) OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997, p. 38 and OJ C 73, 9. 3. 1998, p. 133. 3. 3. After having analysed the problem and verified the state of play at both national and Community level, we need to draw up a number of proposals aimed at achieving these goals of coherence and integration. Priorities would include: 3. 3. 1. Widening the circle of users of the information network(s) about Community RTD, the prime target being ‘vanguard’ enterprises which should be involved in the programmes but whose potential is ill-defined and not easy to bring up to date. Redefining the function of exploiting RTD 3. 3. 2. results, especially in relation to SMEs, regarding it as a continuous and complex process of transferring exper- tise and know-how — something to be achieved first and foremost through the use of training and advisory services. 3. 3. 3. Establishing a suitable framework for breaking down the barriers between existing innovation-support networks in order to give them a truly European dimension. 3. 3. 4. Taking on board the innovations of the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, viz. : 3. 3. 4. 1. The Fifth Framework Programme is highly ambitious in its thematic approach and is innovative in combining the new concept of ‘key actions’ with the traditional idea of specific programmes. It enumerates a wide variety of methods for implementing plans and within the 21 lines of the paragraph promoting the participation of SMEs under the Third Activity (‘Action specific to the innovation and participation of SMEs’ activity’) no less than eleven proposed strategies can be identified. Unless further information is forthcoming, there is therefore a danger that the least well prepared categories of enterprises, notably the vanguard enter- prises, will back off or show no interest in the strategies. 3. 3. 4. 2. In the view of the Committee, another major innovation of the Fifth Framework Programme lies in the obligation on all promoters of action to draw up a ‘technological implementation plan’. The Committee is happy with this measure if it makes it possible to effectively use such plans as flexible follow-up mecha- nisms with a view to measuring the impact of the work carried out and, as a corollary, to facilitate economic exploitation and the acquisition of development funds. With this in mind, the role of networks for exploiting RTD may be of vital importance in providing back-up for the effective implementation of such plans. 4. Theoretical proposals Enterprises, and particularly vanguard SMEs, 4. 1. have specific needs in terms of back-up, technical support and specialized services, viz. : 4. 1. 1. Information — back-up training — both in connection with RTD programmes and technologies (products, markets). 14. 9. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 284/23 4. 1. 2. of innovations, including intellectual property rights. Advice about the technical and legal feasibility 4. 1. 3. Development of innovative technological pro- jects: identifying possibilities, technological and eco- nomic feasibility, evaluation and licensing of projects, scientific and technical cooperation. 4. 1. 4. projects. Study, setting up and development of European Back-up and follow-through of technological 4. 1. 5. applications: training, evaluation, introduction of proto- types, advice on utilization by third parties, etc. 4. 1. 6. Economic and commercial back-up and exploi- tation: research surveys, commercial launch, marketing, development for European market, financial manage- ment of projects. All these activities concerned with back-up, 4. 2. support, advice and follow-through should be resolutely pro-active and should encourage a spirit of enterprise where risks are minimized and opportunities maximized. 5. Operational proposals The Committee believes that if the challenges of 5. 1. the new Fifth Framework Programme (key actions, technological development plans) are to be met, if instruments are to be coherent, and if objectives are to be integrated with policies, then the Commission must put in place an overall, consistent and integrated strategy that guarantees complementarity and synergy between activities concerned with information/back-up and mechanism for exploiting RTD. In the view of the Committee this strategy should 5. 2. be based on the following: — the need to promote and remove barriers between specialized support services; — the need to set up initial guidance units; — the need to develop Community instruments to ensure that this strategy of consistency and inte- gration gets off the ground; — the need to guarantee consistency beyond the bounds of the European Union. 6. Promoting and removing the barriers between spe- cialized support services 6. 1. The aim would be to develop the principle of ‘mediation’, which would mean internal or external (public or private) back-up services being used to offer advice and support to enterprises and research organizations in respect of the transfer of technologies, inter-firm relations, the hiving-off activities of major firms, strategic link-ups, strategies on the ‘clustering’ of firms, relations between firms, universities and research centres. Ways must be found of stimulating the activities of these services by combining Community aid with regional/ national aid, as well as public funds with private support. The European Union can make a vital contribution in this area, notably by taking the following action: compiling a record of best local and regional 6. 1. 1. practices (both in Europe and elsewhere) and using this as a platform to introduce ‘benchmarking’ pilot schemes; 6. 1. 2. making back-up organizations (trade associ- ations, chambers, technical centres) eligible (alongside enterprises) for indirect RTD activities under the Fifth Framework Programme, giving them the specific tasks of a) identifying the innovative potential of small and medium-sized enterprises and craft-based firms and b) running collective schemes concerned for example with participation in RTD activities and trial schemes on the transfer and tailoring of new technologies to a given sector; 6. 1. 3. supporting regional innovation strategies (RIS) by ensuring that they are perfectly consistent with the new objectives of the Fifth Framework Programme, and strengthening the implementation of such strategies in the least developed countries and regions, through Structural Funds, and in applicant countries, through partnership schemes focused on eventual accession; such regional innovation strategies must nevertheless have a cross-border as well as a national dimension; 6. 1. 4. giving an additional stimulus to inter-firm link-up strategies by integrating existing mechanisms (BC-NET, Interprise. ) with key thematic actions of the Fifth Framework Programme, and possibly using the ‘Joint European Ventures’ financial instrument to support joint ventures; 6. 1. 5. offering more vigorous support for contractual relations between universities, research institutes, train- ing centres and firms in order to develop, through partnerships set up to share knowledge, a culture of innovation, link-ups and the transfer of know-how; 6. 1. 6. strengthening, and removing barriers between, sectoral or horizontal technology monitoring mecha- nisms which today are insufficiently developed and too centred on the Member States themselves, the aim being to ensure that European enterprises have access to a coherent economic intelligence mechanism capable of rapidly detecting adaptable technologies at the lowest cost. 6. 2. The European Union must therefore ensure that its own networks (Innovation Relay Centres, Craft Contact points. ) are part and parcel of this ‘mediation’ C 284/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 9. 98 mechanism. Community networks must be set up within existing organizations and must be known and recognized by potential users. Their function is to offer a complementary service and they must focus on clear objectives to avoid duplication and dilution. Above all, the Union must support the principle of ‘mediation’ networks and ensure that their compartmentalization is broken down with financial help from the 5th RTDFP, without such networks being linked exclusively to Community programmes. 7. The establishment of guidance units An initial survey of current national and Com- 7. 1. munity measures to promote information and RTD exploitation shows that there is already a very rich and deep vein of initiatives, networks and programmes involving a wide spectrum of players. A large number of public bodies, associations, consultancies and enter- prises specializing in RTD exploitation are active in the different areas covered by these specialized services. But if activities are pursued in watertight compartments, this rich diversity can very quickly develop into an overabundance and end up by creating considerable confusion and inefficiencies. So rather than superim- posing new networks on existing ones, the Committee proposes to explore the possibility of improving syner- gies between existing mechanisms. 7. 2. The Committee therefore considers that if the specialized services which enterprises require are to be encouraged, top priority should be given to removing barriers between the different networks. It is not a question of creating new structures which would provide the whole range of services but of supporting existing local organizations in their new task of offering guidance, identifying problems and supporting specialized services in order to organize resources and coordinate the provision of services to SMEs. Such organizations would therefore be both ‘first-stop shops’ and guidance units. Whilst having a light profile, these units should neverthe- less be firmly established within representative orga- nizations or at least organizations recognized by indus- try. Ideally, they should not be completely dependent on the State, nor be subject to mere commercial interests, but should come under the umbrella of non-profit making associations or similar institutions governed by private law, professional associations, or chambers of commerce, industry or the small business sector. In the interests of efficiency, such units must reflect local realities and could be organized on either a local or sectoral basis. 7. 4. (EIC), The network of Euro-Info-Centres strengthened recently by associated EIC and head-of- network EIC, fits in well with this concept of initial guidance units. The Committee therefore recommends that Euro-Info-Centres be allotted the tasks of initial guidance units. 8. The need to provide the Community with instru- ments to implement this strategy of coherence and integration The essence of these proposals is the desire for 8. 1. coherent actions and integrated objectives. The present situation cannot be regarded as satisfactory. The Com- mittee refuses to make proposals which would be tantamount to superimposing structures or creating new networks. The Committee considers that problems of coordination and coherence must be tackled at a political level. This would entail: The publication by the Commission of a 8. 1. 1. Communication on RTD information and exploitation networks, with a prioritization scheme, a description of complementary features, and a mention of the resources available for guaranteeing coherence. The European Commission must assume its responsibilities and work on improving synergies. The organization of a Users’ Group, for net- 8. 1. 2. types of users (enterprises, works, comprising all intermediate agencies, research centres, universities, professional associations, chambers of commerce, indus- try and trades) and with the task of monitoring the objectives of coherence and integration and ensuring that the mechanisms of information and RTD exploi- tation are available to a wider audience. This Group could be organized in conjunction with the ESC and its Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research within the framework of its role of monitoring and evaluating. 8. 2. The role of the European Union would also be to organize a ‘standing conference of networks’ (in the form of a ‘virtual conference’ with the help of modern communication technologies. The conference would be responsible for organizing the interfaces between the different ‘mediation’ networks belonging to, or sup- ported by, the Union, the innovation units of the different thematic programmes of the 5th RTDFP, the initial guidance network (EIC) and the other European and national mechanisms for the provision of infor- mation and RTD exploitation, including Eureka actions, OECD networks, etc. 9. Guaranteeing consistency beyond the bounds of the European Union It is nevertheless vital for the units to satisfy a 7. 3. certain number of criteria such as the capacity to mobilize local expertise, the ability to open up lines of communication with the different parties involved in research, familiarity with the various programmes of public support for research, links with universities and private laboratories, etc. In preparing for future enlargement the European 9. 1. Union and its Member States should be invited forthwith to expand this overall strategy to applicant countries as part of the pre-accession strategy. As far as the other countries of central and eastern Europe, the countries the former USSR and non-EU Mediterranean of countries are concerned, enterprise partnership pro- 14. 9. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 284/25 grammes and industrial cooperation centres should be set up to stimulate the exchange of technological know-how and promote technological agreements (licences, transfer of patents. ), between enterprises. The Committee recommends that the resources of Phare, Tacis and MEDA be mobilized to this end. 9. 2. Notwithstanding the priority given to the appli- cant countries, our other neighbours and the Euro- Mediterranean Area, it is desirable for the European Union to join forces with our main developed partners in promoting the opening up of networks for the promotion, exploitation and provision of information on RTD on the basis of the principles of reciprocity and mutual interest. Schemes could be launched with the developing 9. 3. countries, and more especially our partners under the Lomé Convention, to create favourable conditions for the dissemination of technologies geared to the needs of their economies and particularly SMEs and local craft-based industries. In its opinion on the Green Paper on the future of the Lomé Convention (1), the Committee had proposed horizontal instruments for cooperation and the dissemination of technological innovations under the new European Development Fund. (1) OJ C 296, 29. 9. 1997, p. 65. Brussels, 1 July 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Costs of poverty and social exclusion in Europe’ (98/C 284/07) On 11 July 1996, the Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion, in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, on the ‘Costs of poverty and social exclusion in Europe’. The Section for Social, Family, Education and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 June 1998 (the rapporteur was Mr Burnel). At its 356th plenary session held on 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 1 July), the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) adopted the following opinion by 130 votes to six, with 14 abstentions. I. THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE CALLS ATTENTION TO THE SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION — Interim programme to combat poverty (3). — Specific action to combat poverty (4). 1. The ESC has always paid considerable attention to inequality and injustice; it has therefore always been concerned about poverty and its extreme manifestation, namely social exclusion. The following opinions and reports issued by the ESC serve to demonstrate its concern for this issue: — Programme of pilot schemes and studies to combat poverty (1). — Modifications to the programme of pilot studies to combat poverty (2). (2) OJ C 263, 17. 11. 1975. (3) OJ C 180, 28. 7. 1977. — Amendment to the decision on a specific Community action to combat poverty (5). — Information Report on poverty (March 1989) (not published in the Official Journal). — The economic and social integration of the least- privileged groups (6). (4) OJ C 113, 7. 5. 1980. (5) OJ C 25, 28. 1. 1985. (6) OJ C 263, 20. 10. 1986. (7) OJ C 159, 26. 6. 1989