COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15.04.1997 
COM(97)151 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
EU RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL 
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 
5-YEAR ASSESSMENT 
OF THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY RTD 
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES: 
* REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT EXPERT PANEL 
» COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 
- .MARCH 1997 -

The Decisions for the Fourth Framework Programme and the 
Euratom Framework Programme require "that the Commission 
shall have an external assessment conducted by independent 
experts into the management and progress with Community 
activities carried out during the 5-years preceding this 
assessment. It shall communicate this assessment and 
conclusions, accompanied by its comments, to the European 
Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social 
Committee prior to submitting its proposal for the next 
Framework Programme ". 
This Communication presents the report prepared by a high-
level independent expert panel (Part A). The report, which 
subsumes the final evaluation under the Third Framework 
Programme, gives a high-level strategic assessment and a set of 
corresponding recommendations. The opinions expressed in the 
report are those of the expert panel and are given under their 
responsibility. 
Part B presents the Commission's comments on the 
recommendations of the expert panel. 
' Decision N° 1110/94/EC 
2 Decision N° 94/268/EURATOM 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
PART A: REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL 1 
THE 5-YEAR ASSESSMENT PANEL 3 
TIME FOR A NEW LEAP FORWARD 7 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..9 
1. INTRODUCTION 17 
2. APPROACH APPLIED BY THE PANEL 19 
3. ASSESSMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 
DURING THE LAST 5-YEARS 19 
4. KEY ISSUES FOR CHANGE 20 
4.1 Programme Strategy 20 
4.1.1 Relevance 20 
4.1.2 European Added Value 21 
4.2 The Legal and Management Environment 22 
4.2.1 History of the Legal Problem 22 
4.2.2 A New Legal Framework 23 
4.2.3 Commission Programme Procedures 25 
4.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation of Programmes 26 
4.2.5 Intellectual Property and Patents 26 
4.3 Approach to the Implementation of the New Framework Programme 27 
4.3.1 Technology Diffusion 27 
4.3.2 SMEs ..." 28 
4.3.3 EUREKA 28 
4.3.4 Advanced European Virtual Institutes 28 
4.3.5 A Systems Approach 29 
4.3.6 Use of Articles (k), (1), and (n) 29 
4.3.7 The Joint Research Centre 29 
4.4 Programme Balance 30 
4.4.1 Fundamental Research and Applied Research 30 
4.4.2 Thematic and Activity Based Programmes 31 
4.4.3 External Balance 31 
ANNEX : RELEVANCE, EFFICIENCY AND 
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FRAMEWORK 
PROGRAMMES OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS 33 
Table 1 : Framework Programmes 3 and 4 44 
Table 2: Specific Programmes under Framework Programme 4 and 
Euratom Framework Programme 45 
Table 3: Commitments for EU RTD activities 46 
PART B: COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 47 
m 

l^M&*&JisJte&i ï».^ 
PART A 
5-YEAR ASSESSMENT 
OF THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY RTD 
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES 
BY 
AN INDEPENDENT PANEL 
CHAIRED BY 
VISCOUNT E. DAVIGNON 
February 1997 

REPORT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES 
5-YEAR ASSESSMENT PANEL 
We, the undersigned, the Framework Programmes 5-Year Assessment Panel, are pleased to 
present our Report to the European Commission. 
Viscount Etienne Davignon (Belgium) - Chairman of the Panel, 
President of the Société Générale de Belgique, 
Former European Commission Vice-President for ( K. , p--^ 
Research and Industry i/l^^^Ui / y^ 
Prof. Angelo Airaghi (Italy) 
Senior Vice-President FINMECCANICA 
Mr Fernand Braun (Luxembourg) 
Former European Commission Director General ror 
Internal Market and Industry 
Prof. Nicos Christodoulakis (Greece) sdb&jdtJy 
Junior Minister of Finance ^^.^^.../^^rr^T.. 
Prof. James Dooge (Ireland) ^- A^^_^ 
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs .^?~T^^^...,~!^T^^ 
Sir Robin Nicholson (United Kingdom) 
Chairman, Pilkington Optronics Ltd, 
Former Chief Scientist, Cabinet Office 
Dr Juhani Kuusi (Finland) 
Senior Vice-President, NOKIA 
Prof. Frieder Meyer-Krahmer (Germany) 
Director, Fraunhofer Intstitut fur Systemtechnik 
und Innovationsforschung (ISI) 
Prof. André Syrota (France) 
Director of Life Sciences, Atomic Energy Commission 
Mr Johannes van Ruiten (The Netherlands) 
Former Executive Director, NAGRON 
Prof. José Viana Baptista (Portugal) 
Chairman of ICAT (Instituto de Ciencia Aplicata a Tecnologia, 
Chairman of EDIFER and Vice-President of IRDAC, 
Former Minister of Transport and Communications 
Dr Alan Calder (United Kingdom) - Rapporteur of the Panel, 
Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd 

Le 19 février 1997 
Le Président 
Madame le Commissaire, 
Vous voudrez bien trouver, en annexe, le rapport d'évaluation du 
4ème programme de Recherche et Développement de l'Union 
Européenne, que vous avez bien voulu demander à onze experts 
indépendants de préparer. 
Ce document contient une série de recommendations, dont nous 
pensons qu'elles seraient de nature à répondre aux objectifs 
prioritaires de la recherche et du développement conduits au 
niveau de l'Union. 
Nous demeurons, bien entendu, à votre disposition pour vous 
apporter tout complément d'information que vous-même, ou vos 
services pourraient souhaiter. 
En vous remerciant de la confiance que vous avez bien voulu nous 
faire, je vous prie de croire, Madame le Commissaire, l'expression 
de mes sentiments très distingués. 
Etienne DAVIGNON 
Madame Edith CRESSON 
Membre de la Commission Européenne 
rue de la Loi 200 
1049 Bruxelles 
Société Générale de Belgique - Rue Royale 30. B-1000 Bruxelles 
Tel (322) 507 03 80 - 507 02 II - Fax (322) 507 03 00 

TIME FOR A NEW LEAP FORWARD 
In the Panel's view, the Framework Programme is not fulfilling its 
promise. It lacks focus and is underachieving. This is not the fault of 
individuals but of a structure which inhibits the formulation of real 
strategy and makes effective implementation difficult. 
As it is currently conceived and managed, the Programme is not 
flexible enough to respond to new challenges and opportunities. 
Nor is it clearly related to the goals and objectives of the European 
Union. For too long it has tended to be an aggregate of national and 
sectoral desires and ambitions. It must be more than that in the future. 
Essentially, the Union needs a strategy for determining Programmes 
whose priorities are those of the Union. It also needs the appropriate 
political and legal framework for governing the Programmes, 
improved managerial procedures for implementing them and, when 
necessary, for adjusting their priorities. 
We agree with the Commission that it is time for a major change, for a 
leap forward as qualitative and fundamental as the creation of the 
Framework Programme itself. Our recommendations are designed to 
achieve that objective. 
^pr>. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
1.0 The Panel and Its Work 
We are an independent Panel of eleven European citizens convinced of the contribution that 
science and technology can make to Europe in the next millennium. By virtue of being free of 
national or sectoral bias we are well qualified to offer the objective advice contained in this 
report. The Fifth Framework Programme is imminent and rather than offering a detailed 
evaluation of the past, we have geared our advice very much to the future. It is our hope that 
this report will be found useful in setting up this Programme. 
1.1 A Thorough Assessment 
Our analysis has been both strategic and top-down. Within the limits of what we could 
examine and absorb in the time available, we have greatly benefited from: 
• access to more than 100 submissions to the Commission on the Fifth Framework 
Programme; 
• consideration of the 5-year assessment reports on all 18 Specific Programmes in the Fourth 
Framework Programme and of the JRC; 
• discussions with the Directors of each Specific Programme (DGs III, VI, VII, XII, XIII, 
XIV, XVII, JRC) and with the chairmen of the 5-year Assessment Panels, the Director-
General of the Joint Research Centre and the Director-General of DGXII, his Deputy and 
other key staff. 
Inevitably, there were limits to the expertise and knowledge that the Panel brought to its 
assessment of the large volume of material made available. But it did not come across any 
areas of major concern regarding the quality of the research being undertaken in the 
Programmes. 
We have confined our recommendations to a small number of general reforms with the 
potential to achieve that leap forward in qualitative performance required for the Fifth 
Framework Programme. 
We believe that our proposals will greatly improve the efficiency, quality, and relevance of 
the Framework Programme, while also enhancing the reputation of the European Union's 
science community in the eyes of its citizens and elected representatives. 
2.0 The Objective for the Fifth Framework Programme 
A Strategy Based on Social and Economic Relevance and European Added-Value. 
It is time for a change because times have changed. There is much more caution about private 
and public investment in research in Europe than there was when the Framework Programme 
was launched in 1984. Then, there was strong political and public confidence in the 
contribution which science and engineering could make to the economic and social future of 
Europe. Major European companies saw a business advantage in increasing their investment 
in research and development. Now, market requirements prompt industry to focus on short-
term results, despite the heavy investment in science and technology by competitor nations 
and businesses, especially in the Far East and the United States. 
Nevertheless, the science and technology community in Europe is a vibrant, dynamic resource 
of the highest international quality. Provided that it can sustain the highest levels of scientific 
excellence, it is capable of making a decisive contribution to the task of maintaining and 
enhancing Europe's social and economic position in the face of increasing global competition. 
2.1 A Focusing Strategy 
The Framework Programme accounts for only 3.5% of all research and development 
expenditure in the EU. It is an instrument of the Union as a whole to be used to meet specific 
challenges and opportunities and its impact will be minimal if it is no more than an extension 
of national policies. Effectiveness is greatly determined by the criteria employed in the 
selection of programmes and projects. 
The Panel believes the strategy to focus the next Framework Programme must be firmly based 
on the twin pillars of scientific excellence and social and economic relevance. 
A focused strategy is unlikely to emerge if the Commission follows the same consultative 
approach in preparing the Fifth Programme as it has done for the two previous ones. 
Consultation is clearly essential, but the hundred or more submissions that have been received 
all suffer from a common defect - their points of view have been decisively coloured by 
national or sectoral perspectives. 
Simply adding them together will not produce a strategy for the Union. The Framework 
Programme is the responsibility of the Union as a whole, to be used to meet its specific 
challenges and opportunities. 
2.2 Establishing Relevance 
Relevance can be derived from forward-looking analyses of technologies and markets, 
monitoring and anticipating developments. These are essential inputs and some part of the 
Commission needs to be responsible for ensuring that even the weak signals of significant 
social and scientific change are analysed as future opportunities or threats. It has been 
suggested to the Panel that the potential for developing the role of the JRC s Institute for 
Prospective Technological Studies is worth examining in this connection. 
Additional support for strategy development should continue to come from the Targeted 
Socio-Economic Research Programme and the small policy/strategy sections within the 
various Directorates-General. The effective use of analysis, monitoring and early warning can 
best be ensured if they are made part of the Council of Minister's decision-making process by, 
for example, submission of an annual report to the Council. 
2.3 Adding European Value 
The Panel believes that, together with relevance, European added value should be the 
touchstone for selecting programmes and projects in future Framework Programmes. It is this 
criterion that separates work that should clearly be done at the European level from activity 
that should be sponsored solely within Member States. 
10 
Evidence of European added value is demonstrated by: 
• the existence of important large-scale facilities which no individual Member State would 
develop and sustain; 
• the promotion of internationally competitive R&D communities in new interdisciplinary 
areas such as information technology and biotechnology; 
• the creation of strong European industrial platforms based on common technical standards 
able to compete or cooperate at a global level e.g. mobile telecommunications; 
• the development of pan-European norms and standards for commercial applications. 
The primary instrument for adding European value is our invaluable scientific community, a 
precious legacy of previous Framework Programmes. It is a networked pool of talent whose 
level of international competitiveness is beyond the capacity of an individual Member State to 
replicate. Nonetheless, it can and should be further developed and strengthened by: 
• ensuring that European science supports and develops its existing strengths rather than 
focusing, as it has in the past, on compensating for weaknesses or "catching up"; 
• encouraging the scientific community to work closely with users to realise the fruits of 
scientific research; 
• recognising that European critical mass can often be achieved in areas where no single 
Member State can mount a major effort. 
If an excellent scientific community is a crucial means of delivering European added value, 
ensuring that its resources are concentrated in the areas of the Union's policy responsibilities 
is another. These now cover a very wide range, including the environment, transport, 
agriculture and food, communications infrastructures, as well as Euratom. 
Good quality research is an essential precondition for good policy-making, not only in the 
setting of technical standards and regulations but also in wide areas of economic and social 
life. It provides vital technical underpinning for many of the policy proposals the Commission 
sends to Council. In a significant part of its work, the Joint Research Centre, the Union's own 
research capability, is meeting the criteria of excellence and European added value. 
Since the Structural Funds could be a source of finance for research in some Member States, 
the same criteria for establishing European added-value should be applied in making 
allocations. In addition, the Commission should encourage Member States to use Structural 
Funds to improve the quality of their research and to reinforce the benefits of the Framework 
Programme. 
3.0 Political and Administrative Governance of the New Framework Programme 
The Panel considers that changes are needed in the legal setting of the Framework 
Programme. At the moment it is subject to detailed laws and controls imposed by the Council 
of Ministers and the Parliament which lead to inflexibility and lack of focus. Adjustments to 
meet new needs, or to reflect new scientific advances require a tortuous and time consuming 
legal process. 
A new legal framework is needed with the following characteristics: 
11 
3.1 Council Decisions by Qualified Majority 
The present decision-making process is based on unanimous voting procedures in the Council, 
and co-decision by the Council and the Parliament. This tends to produce a programme built 
on national and sectoral interests, a view confirmed in discussions with many assessment 
panels. 
The Panel believes that a strategic Programme for the European Union is much more likely to 
emerge when Council decisions are made by qualified majority voting. It strongly 
recommends the Inter-Governmental Conference to consider adopting qualified majority 
voting for Framework Programme decisions. 
This would facilitate a process in which the Council and the Parliament will give the 
necessary political authorisation for a Framework Programme, including a limited number of 
general programmes with their financial commitments. 
3.2 Flexible Procedures 
Flexibility must be an essential characteristic of the next Framework Programme. It is 
currently lacking because each Specific Programme is governed by a legal decision fixing its 
topics and budgets for the full five-year term. With the approval process taking up to two 
years, the total effective span of the Framework Programme can be as much as seven years. 
Given the accelerating pace of change and scientific advance, this is much too long for a 
Programme to be without the possibility of change or adjustment except by means of a time-
consuming legal process. It must be made easier to adapt the Programme to new needs and 
scientific developments. 
The solution lies in the Commission committing only a part of the Programme budget during 
its first three years. This will allow the Council the choice every year of choosing either to 
fund new programmes or of leaving the budget as previously allocated. 
3.3 Improving Management Accountability and Quality 
The task of implementing the Programmes must be clearly delegated to the Commission, 
whose responsibilities would be to identify and design the list of specific projects which meet 
the goals set in the Framework Programme decision. The Commission must be clearly 
accountable for its detailed handling of implementation in a way which corresponds to best 
management practice in Member States and enterprises. 
The management challenge facing the Commission is to eliminate the levels of bureaucracy 
and delays which are currently the source of much frustration and produce negative 
consequences for the Framework Programme as a whole. It must take steps to ensure that 
ie; | » ir ibilities are delegated internally in such a way as to raise efficiency and effectiveness 
in line with best practices in Member States and private enterprises. 
3.4 Monitoring the Commission 
If the Commission is to have more delegated authority, then the Panel believes that it must be 
effectively monitored by means of a new and stronger link between the Commission, the 
12 
Council and the Parliament. We recommend the creation of a new Union Committee as a 
permanent and integral part of a more devolved process, made up of high-level independent 
experts appointed by, and responsible to the Council. The new Union Committee should 
replace the existing Programme Committee structure. 
4.0 New Approaches to Implementing the Framework Programme 
The Fifth Framework Programme must remain pre-competitive but its implementation and 
organisation need to be changed. The Panel wishes to re-emphasise that an essential 
precondition for pre-competitive research in Europe is that those submitting proposals must 
have total confidence that their scientific and technological content will be protected. 
Therefore, experts employed as reviewers of proposals must be bound by a confidentiality 
agreement. 
The Panel recommends the following: 
4.1 More Active Promotion of Technology Diffusion and Commercial Exploitation 
One of the clearest manifestations of Europe's less developed entrepreneurial culture 
compared with the USA lies in technology diffusion and transfer. Attempting to remedy this 
defect is the most important aspect of the Commission's implementation of the Fifth 
Framework Programme. The Panel recommends that: 
• Programme directors and managers must be made clearly responsible for diffusion and 
exploitation. They must ensure that the user community and non-participants in the 
Programme, particularly SMEs, are alerted to the possibilities of exploiting Framework 
Programme research. They should also improve links with the venture capital community and 
with EASDAQ; 
• EUREKA is concerned with establishing products in the market place and the Commission 
should improve its direct links with appropriate programmes and projects. 
4.2 Give More Help to SMEs 
A simplified and extended CRAFT scheme could help SMEs with legal (intellectual property) 
and financial issues. A decentralised form of management should be considered. 
4.3 Apply a Systems Approach to Implementation 
This is needed because the Union's technological challenges are increasingly complex, multi-
disciplinary and multi-sectoral, spanning, inter alia, safety, the environment, energy, transport 
and sustainability issues. 
4.4 Create "Virtual" Institutes 
Thought should be given to leveraging the resources of quality European research institutes by 
means of modern communications technology. Powerful "virtual" institutes in Europe would 
remove the Commission's need to invest in "hard centres" for its own research and could 
include elements from the JRC; 
13 
4.5 Establish the Union as a Partner in Member States' Projects 
The Union should be encouraged to take part in large joint projects with groups of Member 
States under article 130 (k), (1) and (n) of the Treaty. 
5.0 Balancing the Programme 
5.1 Fundamental Research vs Applied Research 
Each Thematic Programme should be given full responsibility for achieving the correct 
balance between fundamental and applied research. While many projects do not require 
fundamental research, it can be crucial in new emerging areas such as biotechnology and 
microelectronics. A linear approach spanning all programmes is too inflexible and simplistic 
when requirements change. For example: 
• BSE was once a diagnostic issue, now it demands fundamental research on the biology of 
the disease; 
• there is a strong trend away from fundamental research towards user needs in the ACTS, IT 
and Telematics Programmes, and a strong convergence between the three. 
The balance between fundamental and applied research will tend to depend on technological 
maturity. The need will be greatest in new, emerging so-called science-based technologies, 
such as biotechnology and microelectronics. 
5.2 Merge the IT Programmes 
Given the breadth of agreement on the convergence between the IT, ACTS and Telematics 
Programmes, the Panel believes they should be merged in the next Framework Programme. 
5.3 Thematic and Activity-Based Programmes 
In trying to encourage innovation, a correct balance must be struck between these two types of 
Programmes. Since the Panel has concluded that responsibility for exploitation should remain 
with the Thematic Programmes, the Innovation Programme should concentrate more on the 
demand side, disseminating technical information very close to the market and dealing with 
innovation management and organisational issues. 
5.4 External Balance - Enlargement, Developing Countries and International Cooperation 
Preparation for enlargement should be given a special place in the Framework Programme 
which is likely to overlap with the start of negotiations with the candidate countries. 
Technical projects for developing countries should contain a clear European interest, although 
some will be undertaken for political reasons, such as health-related research into tropical 
diseases. 
International cooperation activity can be assigned to Thematic Programmes, but with much 
stronger coordination with other Union Programmes such as PHARE, TACIS and MED A. A 
small team could be set up and charged with the responsibility of developing a global 
scientific and technology policy for those regions not covered by existing Union programmes. 
14 
6.0 Conclusion 
The Fifth Framework Programme needs to make a qualitative leap forward; it should not be a 
straightforward prolongation of the Fourth Framework Programme. 
It needs to be based on the twin pillars of scientific excellence and social and economic 
relevance, and it can only be made relevant if it is the result of a strategic approach. The 
Panel's recommendations for changes to the legal framework and for a more effective 
implementation process are the basis for such a strategy. 
However, scientific excellence and relevance have to be accompanied by European added 
value, which the Panel firmly believes must be the essential criterion for selecting 
programmes and projects in future Framework Programmes. 
15 

1. INTRODUCTION 
The European Union is approaching a watershed in relation to the Framework 
Programme created by changing perceptions about the role of research in society. 
Research is no longer considered to be an end in itself and increasingly has to be seen 
to be delivering benefits that are relevant to societies' industrial competitiveness and 
broader needs. 
As a result, a more selective approach is being taken towards investment in research in 
the public and civilian sector in Europe. This contrasts with the much more positive 
climate that existed in the early nineteen eighties when the Framework Programme 
was initiated. At that time there was much higher public and political confidence in the 
contribution that science and technology could make to the economic and social future 
of Europe. 
In Europe today many industrial RTD organisations have been both downsized and 
moved nearer to the market in product based divisions. This has led to a reduction in 
RTD expenditure in many sectors, with the notable exception of pharmaceuticals. 
University budgets throughout Europe are feeling the impact of pressures on public 
expenditure, and governments are clearly signalling that they may withdraw support 
from university research which is not internationally competitive. 
On the competitiveness front, a number of different indicators point to worrying 
differences in the level and application of RTD between the EU and its main 
competitors - the USA and Japan. Total European research investment in 1995 
amounted to 1.9% of GDP with comparable figures of 2.45% for the USA and 2.95% 
for Japan, which is still increasing its rate of RTD investment faster that the USA or 
Europe. Further pointers to more innovative cultures in the USA and Japan are their 
7.4 and 8.0 scientists and engineers per 1000 inhabitants, respectively, compared with 
4.7 in Europe. 
As Europe approaches the millennium, its main concerns are to maintain its social and 
economic advance in the face of increasing global competition. In detail, the issues to 
be faced are as follows: 
• unemployment - Europe now has 18 million unemployed: 
• competitiveness - Europe has lost industrial competitiveness in a number of 
high-tech product areas to the USA and Japan; 
• the Information Society - is now within reach but requires action to be fully 
established; 
Framework Programme refers to two separate Decisions: 
(a) Decision N° 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994 concerning the 
fourth Framework Programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological 
development and demonstration (1994 to 1998): and 
(b) Council Decision N° 94/268/Euratom of 26 April 1994 concerning a Framework Programme of Community 
activities in the field of research and training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994 to 1998). 
17 
• there is a need for sustainable development to improve living standards and 
reduce environmental damage; 
• enlargement - preparation must be made for the accession of new Member 
States from Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean; 
• support for a wider range of Community policies in the areas of agriculture 
and fisheries, transport, cohesion, health and energy, and the involvement of 
SMEs in research. 
Despite the pressures, the science and technology community in Europe remains a 
vibrant, dynamic resource of the highest international quality. It contains many areas 
of scientific and engineering excellence and is able to make an immense contribution 
to these issues. However, further efforts are required because this potential has not yet 
been fully realised in the achievement of economic success. 
In order that the appropriate resources can be allocated, it is the task of the science and 
technology community to honestly assess the contribution it can make to each relevant 
issue and advise the political process accordingly. In some cases political and 
scientific priorities may differ, and when they do the former must take precedence 
when it comes to allocation of public resources. To be successful, the Framework 
Programme needs to combine the traditions of scientific excellence with social and 
economic relevance. 
Given that this assessment has been made just before the formulation of the Fifth 
Framework Programme, it is highly appropriate that the Council of Ministers and the 
European Parliament have decided that an independent expert Panel be asked to 
evaluate the last 5-years of Framework Programme activities . In the light of the 
timing, the Framework Panel took the view that its primary focus should be on looking 
forward, rather than dwelling on the past, distilling the lessons learned from previous 
Framework Programmes into a sound body of advice for the future. 
The move from the Fourth to the Fifth Framework Programme now provides a unique 
opportunity to re-base the European Union's research activity on the important issues 
and priorities that concern the Union as it approaches the millennium. The criterion of 
scientific excellence must be maintained and enhanced. In addition, more emphasis 
must be paid to the criterion of social and economic relevance. These are the twin 
pillars upon which the Fifth Framework Programme must be built. 
The article 4.2 of the Decisions N° 1110/94/EC and that of N° 94/268/EURATOM on the Framework 
Programmes stipulate that: "the Commission shall have an external assessment conducted by independent experts 
into the management and progress with Community activities carried out during the 5-years preceding this 
assessment. It shall communicate this assessment and conclusions, accompanied by its comments, to the 
European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee prior to submitting its proposal for 
the next Framework Programme". 
2. THE PANEL'S APPROACH 
Members of the Panel met nine times between July 1996 and February 1997 and 
communicated extensively among themselves and with their independent Rapporteur. 
From the outset the Panel decided to take a strategic and top down view looking to the 
future and focusing on those issues that will stimulate the qualitative leap forward 
that it believes is required. 
The Panel has benefited from access to the more than one hundred submissions to the 
Commission made by national governments, European bodies and institutions during 
the consultative process. In addition, the Panel has had the benefit of the reports from 
the parallel 5-year assessments of all 18 current Specific Programmes as well as of the 
Joint Research Centre (JRC). 
Sub-groups from the Panel have also interviewed Specific Programme Directors from 
DG's III, VI, VII, XII, XIII, XIV and XVII and the Director-General of the JRC. In 
addition the Rapporteur interviewed either the Chairman or Rapporteur of each of the 
Specific Programme Assessment Panels and the JRC. Finally, discussions have been 
held with the Director-General of DGXII, his Deputy and other key staff. Many 
helpful documents have been supplied by the Commission Services, notably the DG 
XII Programme Evaluation Unit which has ensured the overall co-ordination of the 
assessment exercise. 
The Panel wishes to record its appreciation of the open and frank nature of all the 
discussions which were important in highlighting many of the key issues. 
The methodological approach of the Panel was to evaluate the legal and economic 
context of the Framework Programme and the European position at the world level, 
assess relevance, efficiency and effectiveness as^ well as strategy formulation and 
instruments. Despite the wide knowledge and experience of the Panel, its members 
could not look into all areas in detail. 
In the light of all the above, the Panel has concluded that it can be most effective in 
focusing its independent advice on a small number of general recommendations which 
it believes have the potential to create the qualitative leap forward that is required in 
the formulation of the Fifth Framework Programmes. 
The Panel wishes to stress the importance of the fact that the Framework Programme 
is a European Union Programme designed from a European perspective. The next 
Programme will fail if it repeats the tendency of previous Framework Programmes to 
be an aggregate of national and sectoral projects. 
3. ASSESSMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS 
In parallel with this assessment, separate 5-year assessments have been carried out by 
independent expert panels on all 18 Specific Programmes, the 7 JRC Institutes and the 
JRC as a whole. The Panel recognises the scale and uniqueness of this exercise 
involving some 170 European experts. While these assessments contained a wealth of 
valuable input to the overall exercise, the Panel felt that it could not carry out a 
rigorous analysis of all 26 evaluations. Nevertheless, a fairly detailed summary of all 
Panels' views of the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the Specific 
Programmes and the JRC was prepared by the Rapporteur and is presented as Annex . 
The overriding common theme from these assessments is the unacceptability of the 
levels of bureaucracy and delay that stem directly from the legal structure of the 
Framework Programme. The need for change in this aspect is covered in detail later in 
this report. In addition, the Panel takes the view that some of the Specific Programme 
reports could have had a wider scope if more Panel members had been taken from 
outside the same science and technology community. However, it is important to note 
that no areas of major concern were noted regarding the quality of the research 
being undertaken in the Programmes. On this basis, the Panel does not consider it 
necessary to make any specific comments on quality. 
4. KEY ISSUES FOR CHANGE 
The Panel"s view is that the Framework Programme has not so far fulfilled its 
promise. The Panel believes that this is principally because of a legal structure which 
makes strategy formulation and implementation difficult and leads to too much 
bureaucracy and inflexibility. In addition, the Panel feels that further efforts should be 
made to exploit the fruits of Framework Programme research with better linkages to 
activity in the market place. 
Finally, the Framework Programme has to achieve a correct balance between basic and 
applied research and also between thematic and activity based Programmes. 
This analysis has led the Panel to highlight a short list of issues requiring urgent 
attention in order to improve the structure of the Fifth Framework Programme. 
4.1 Programme Strategy 
The Panel"s view is that a real improvement is needed in the way in which strategy is 
developed for the Framework Programme. The Programme's approach to consultation 
with the Member States tends to lead to a negotiation between national and sectoral 
interests. Thus the Programme turns out to be shopping lists of national priorities, 
often with low coherence and little European added value. 
While recognising a continuing need to consult with Member States, the Commission 
is urged to employ a more strategic approach in proposing the content of the Fifth 
Framework Programme. 
4.1.1 Relevance 
The Panel believes that strategy should be firmly based on the criteria of relevance 
and European added value. Relevance should be based on a forward analysis of 
technologies and markets to see which new technologies are likely to be important for 
the future and which markets are likely to grow in response to future market drivers. 
This approach is the heart of technology foresight and many countries, including 
Member States, are undertaking market and technology foresight exercises to assess 
20 
which technologies and markets are going to be most important for future prosperity. 
The results from these exercises are now being used in some countries to set priorities 
for RTD support in universities. 
The Commission should make more extensive use of techno-economic and market 
scenarios and technology watch. In order to assist it in recommending new or adapted 
programmes, the Commission should also put in place measures to detect the weak but 
significant signals which point to key changes in the scientific or social environment 
that represent future opportunities or challenges. 
Looking at the resources available to the Commission, the Targeted Socio-Economic 
Research Programme and the small policy/strategy sections within the various 
Directorates-General can continue to work on the substantiation of strategic options. 
The IPTS (JRC Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville) is also a 
highly relevant resource and the Panel recommends that its role be examined to ensure 
that its work is both directed at this issue and included in strategy formulation. One 
priority is to create a centre of overall responsibility within the Commission for 
gathering all the different elements of the strategy. This must be clearly linked to the 
Council's decision making process. Such a role might be fulfilled by IPTS. (A fuller 
discussion of the JRC is given in section 4.3.7.) 
The Panel believes that these suggestions will create a more strategic basis for the 
formulation of Framework Programmes and will result in a better targeted and 
focused outcome. 
4.1.2 European Added Value 
The Panel firmly believes that, alongside relevance, the other main selection criteria 
for Programmes should be European added value. This criterion separates work 
which clearly should be done at the European level from activity that should be 
sponsored solely within Member States. The Panel has formed the view that European 
added value has not been given sufficient priority in previous Programmes. Its 
importance derives from the fact that the Framework Programme represents only 3.5% 
of all research and development expenditure in the public and civilian sectors of the 
European Union. This allocation is so modest that it can have only minimal impact 
without significant European added value. 
If it is to be the overriding selection criterion, then clearly European added value must 
be readily identified. Its qualities derive from: 
Treaty and Policy Obligations 
European added value here relates to Treaty obligations entered into by Member 
States for specific areas of research, e.g. Euratom. In addition, the Union has an 
obligation to support research in areas such as environment, transport, agriculture and 
communications infrastructure where there is a clear need to have Europe wide policy. 
The Commission also needs to be able to carry out research to substantiate its 
proposals. 
21 
The European Scientific Community 
A European scientific community now exists in many areas and past Framework 
Programmes have made a positive contribution to building it. It is a valuable asset 
which must be further developed in the next Framework Programme. The scientific 
community's added value lies in it being a networked pool of talent that can compete 
internationally at a level beyond the capability of an individual Member State. Hence a 
European critical mass can be established in areas where no one Member State can 
separately mount a major effort. 
This European network should be further extended to large scale facilities. They 
constitute an important research instrument to maintain the competitiveness and 
cohesion of European research when no individual Member State has the capacity to 
develop and fund them individually. European added value is also evident in 
promoting new interdisciplinary activity in such internationally competitive fields as 
information technology or biotechnology, with the aim of accelerating the growth of a 
viable RTD community. 
European Standards and Platforms 
Looking towards the market place, European added value is clear in RTD which 
creates pan-European commercially utilisable standards which can transform a 
technical into a commercial success. Building on European standards is also evident in 
RTD which creates strong European industrial platforms for co-operation or 
competition on equal terms with other global powers, for example, on mobile 
telecommunications. 
Although these criteria are aimed at the Framework Programme, the test of European 
added value could also be applied to the science and technology activities supported 
by other European Union initiatives such as the Structural Funds. 
These initiatives commit considerable additional RTD expenditure alongside the 
Framework Programme and essentially aim at improving the level of research in less 
well-developed regions. The Panel sees strong synergy between the use of Structural 
Funds for RTD and the Framework Programme, and urges the Commission to 
encourage Member States to use Structural Funds to reinforce the benefits of the 
Framework Programme. 
4.2 The Legal and Management Environment 
4.2.1 History of the Legal Problem 
The present complicated legal environment surrounding the Framework Programme is 
considered by the Panel to be the major area where change is required. European 
Union Research and Technological Development, a relatively recent introduction to 
the life of the Community, is subject to detailed laws and controls imposed by both the 
Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. These make the Framework 
Programmes subject to a set of legal decisions (25 in total for the Fourth Framework 
Programme and the Euratom Framework Programme) which fix topic areas and 
budgets at the beginning of the Programme for its 5-year duration. This practice has its 
22 
origins in the wishes of Member States to control the Programme content in their 
national and sectoral interests. The result is a Programme that is both inflexible and 
contains too many multinational 'shopping lists' and consequently lacks focus. A 
further constraint arises from the specific procedures of the Euratom Treaty. 
It follows that any subsequent changes to meet new needs or to reflect new scientific 
advances requires a tortuous and time-consuming legal process. For example, the 
need to mount a greater European response to the new threat to human health posed by 
BSE could not be adequately satisfied within existing Programmes and required 
additional budget finance under procedures involving the European Parliament. On 
transport, the legal process is so constraining that the Specific Programme 
management, while wishing to focus more on inter-modality, concluded they were 
powerless to make the necessary changes. 
These problems have diminished the reputation of the Union and the Commission and 
created frustration among participants. This has led to some companies and 
organisations refusing to participate and, for resource-limited SMEs, made the 
prospect of participation even more daunting. 
4.2.2 A New Legal Framework 
A new legal basis is urgently required for the Fifth Framework Programme to improve 
its strategic content, flexibility and efficiency. 
The key is to define clear roles for the Council and the Parliament in setting strategic 
policy and direction, and for the Commission in implementation. 
Policy 
The current legal basis requires unanimous adoption of the European Union 
Framework Programme by the Council and co-decision by the Council and the 
Parliament. The Panel's view is that the requirement for unanimity on the Framework 
Programme decision perpetuates fragmented approaches leading to sub-optimal 
Programmes sometimes based on national shopping lists. This view was confirmed in 
many of the discussions which the Panel had with the Assessment Panels of the 
Specific Programmes. This problem would be exacerbated, moreover, with the 
enlargement of the European Union. 
The Panel therefore believes that a strategic European Union Framework Programme 
will be much more likely to emerge when decisions are made by qualified majority 
voting. It recommends that the Inter Governmental Conference considers adopting 
qualified majority voting for the Framework Programme decision. This is seen to be 
the key to securing political authorisation from the Council and the Parliament in the 
form of a smaller number of more focused and strategically sound Specific 
Programmes together with the relevant budgets. 
Implementation 
The Panel recommends that the' task of implementing the Programmes is clearly 
delegated to the Commission. Its task will be to design and deliver the list of Specific 
23 
Programmes which meet the goals identified in the Framework Programme decision. 
The Commission will then be clearly accountable for implementing the Specific 
Programmes. This will conform with best practice in Member States where 
governments approve RTD programmes at a broad conceptual and budgetary level, 
leaving government officials clearly in charge of implementation. Similarly, directors 
of multi-national corporations approve budgets covering broad business areas and 
technologies, leaving research and project managers to translate commercial objectives 
into relevant RTD programmes for new and improved products, processes and 
services. 
A New Union Committee 
If more authority is delegated to the Commission, the Panel recognises the need to 
monitor its implementation activities. At the same time, the clear separation of roles 
between the Council and the Parliament on the one hand, and the Commission on the 
other, creates the need for strong formal links between the two. 
Accordingly, the Panel recommends the formation of a new Union Committee 
appointed by, and responding directly to the Council. It would consist of high level 
independent experts and should act as a Committee of the Union. The Panel believes 
that this new Union Committee should replace the existing Programme Committee 
structure. 
This Committee would take responsibility for monitoring the Commission's 
implementation activity and should also be the sponsor for the more detailed 
monitoring and evaluation of Programmes recommended in section 4.2.4. At the same 
time, this new Committee could play a key role in advising the Council and the 
Parliament on options for new Framework Programmes and on the interim decisions 
which could arise from the new budgeting mechanisms suggested in the following 
paragraph. 
Flexibility 
As indicated above, the current Framework Programme lacks flexibility essentially 
because the whole budget is allocated to Specific Programmes at the beginning of the 
5-year period. To create the flexibility needed to respond to new developments or 
threats, the Panel recommends that not all of the Framework Programme's allocated 
budget is committed at the beginning of the 5-year period. The Commission should 
only commit a relevant part to cover the first 3 years. It is likely that the uncommitted 
part of the budget will vary between different areas depending on the perceived rate of 
evolution of the science and technology. 
However, in a case where, for example, no more than 80% of the total budget is to be 
committed over the first three years, the Panel envisages the following. In year one of 
the Programme, 100% of the allocation for that year will be committed, up to 80% of 
the allocation for year two and up to 60% of the allocation for year three. 
Under this new procedure, the Council would be advised by the new Union Committee 
which every year would be reviewing the potential or need for new initiatives or 
Specific Programmes that could be supported by uncommitted parts of the budget. If 
24 
the Council does not opt for new proposals, the budget would then be allocated to the 
existing Programmes along the scheme above. 
The package of legal changes outlined above is an absolute prerequisite for a 
significant increase in flexibility within the Framework Programme. The changes will, 
we believe, have a greatly beneficial effect on the efficiency, quality and relevance of 
the Framework Programme and enhance the reputation of the European Union's 
science community in the eyes of the Union's citizens and elected representatives. 
The Panel believes that this greater flexibility will make it much easier for the 
Framework Programme to respond to new opportunities or challenges. This is a 
particularly important justification for flexibility, given the extremely rapid pace of 
evolution of some technology areas, e.g. in microelectronics and biotechnology. 
4.2.3 Commission Programme Procedures 
While a lighter legal base and more delegation to the Commission will provide a 
backdrop for a more flexible Framework Programme, many of the detailed procedures 
employed by the Commission have been criticised by the Assessment Panels of the 
Specific Programme. These criticisms are endorsed by our Panel and changes are 
recommended and outlined below: 
• Delegation - with more delegation to the Commission it is clear that authority 
to act within the Commission itself is a critical issue for improving efficiency 
and effectiveness. There needs to be transparency of authority and, in 
particular, sufficient robustness at Programme director level consistent with 
best practice in Member States. 
• Overall time-scale - this issue provoked by far the majority of 
recommendations for change from the Specific Programme assessments. 
Almost all Assessment Panels registered strong discontent with the length of 
elapsed time between closing of calls for submission and first payment. 
Generally speaking, this is normally more than a year and there are clear calls 
for a reduction to six months at most. Looking at the steps in the process, the 
least satisfactory appears to be the stage concerned with agreeing and signing 
contracts. Clearer and less complex contractual agreements are called for, 
along with a change in culture within the Commission's legal and financial 
services. 
• Transparency and feedback - an improvement in the transparency of selection 
procedures is deemed to be necessary, especially when deciding between 
highly rated projects. More regular and clear feedback is required during this 
process, especially when delays occur and when turning down highly rated 
projects. Debriefings with those whose proposals are rejected should also be 
considered. Published service standards based on declared quality procedures 
would be helpful in this area. 
• Commission staffing - there is clear evidence from a number of Specific 
Programme Assessment Panels and interviews that the Commission is 
understaffed in some areas. While this appears to be a deliberate tight 
25 
management policy, it is contributing to delays and loss of efficiency in some 
areas together with poor morale amongst overworked staff. The problem is 
regarded as sufficiently general and serious to ask the Commission to review 
staffing and ensure that workloads are adequately balanced. Delegating specific 
tasks outside the organisation might provide a solution in some situations. 
4.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation of Programmes 
The delegation of more authority to the Commission in running the Framework 
Programme and the implied greater flexibility of approach does highlight a greater 
need for effective monitoring and evaluation of Community RTD programmes. In this 
matter, the Panel supports the broad proposals made by the Commission and endorsed 
by CREST, ' and already being implemented by the Commission. 
These call for an annual monitoring of Programmes by a small group of independent 
experts consisting of a representative from industry, an academic and an expert in 
programme evaluation. At an interval of every 4th year, the evaluation of Programmes 
should cover each 5-year period and be carried out by a panel of five or six 
independent experts. For continuity, a few members of monitoring panels could join 
the evaluation panels, but a majority of the evaluation panel members must be 
different from those participating in the monitoring process. 
The Panel is of the opinion that the scope of the evaluation exercises should be 
increased by considering the broader context of Programmes, international 
developments, as well as a detailed and serious set of input and output indicators 
addressing questions such as "what happened ?" and "did the EU promotion make any 
difference ?"". This is a continuous task of the Commission or of external evaluation 
studies, which has to be performed as a preparatory input for the panels. The task of 
the panels is not to guide this fact finding process, but to survey and interpret these 
facts and results and to draw conclusions. 
These procedures will provide an independent view on key issues relating to 
Programmes" development and will constitute an important check on the integrity of 
the new approach to managing the Fifth Framework Programme. 
4.2.5 Intellectual Property and Patents 
An associated area with important legal implications concerns the establishment of 
intellectual property and patents. At the moment the cost of patenting in the European 
Union is about ten-times that of the USA and is seen as a highly negative factor for 
competitiveness based on exploitation of technology. The very high charges are 
particularly discouraging tor high-tech SMEs which are increasingly seen to hold the 
key to employment and growth. Apparently much of the difference between the US 
and European costs relate to translation. Moves are being made to limit this by 
COM(96)220 final - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. 
"Independent external monitoring and evaluation of Community activities in the area of research and technology 
development". 
CREST/1208/95 - CREST advice to Council and the Commission on the monitoring and evaluation procedures 
for Community research programmes". 
26 
narrowing the range of languages required. The Panel strongly supports further efforts 
to simplify and to reduce the cost of the European patent system. 
Moreover, if European pre-competitive research is to realised, it will be essential that 
those submitting proposals must have total confidence that their scientific and 
technological content will be protected. Confidentiality must, therefore, be assured. 
4.3 Approach to the Implementation of the New Framework Programme 
Comparative studies suggest that while research activity in Europe compares well with 
that in the USA and Japan, the innovation culture in Europe is weaker, and the 
development and exploitation of research through to commercial success is pursued 
with less vigour. In addition, venture capital is less available in Europe, and there is a 
lower rate of formation of high-tech SMEs. 
The current Framework Programme is clearly pre-competitive and has three main 
instruments: the 50/50 funded shared cost action, which is the main vehicle, concerted 
actions and the direct work of the JRC. 
In essence, these policy instruments have been unchanged for 12 years while no 
Member State has left RTD policies untouched over this period. In general, most 
national governments have pulled back from the 50% shared cost form of funding in 
favour of an increased emphasis on broader innovation policies. These focus strongly 
upon providing firms with the capabilities to make use of scientific and technological 
knowledge. At a minimum the Framework Programme should have a much more 
integrated approach to support for RTD and support for innovation. The present 
separation of responsibilities between at least three Directorates-General 
institutionalises and implies acceptance of the linear model of innovation, rather than 
fostering interaction between knowledge creation and application. 
The Panel's view is that while remaining pre-competitive the Framework Programme 
requires an enhanced range of modalities to ensure that it can play a full part in 
promoting a more innovative culture leading to economic success. In that context the 
Panel sees a strong role for the Commission's Programme directors and managers. 
They should have a much clearer responsibility for managing projects all the way 
towards a successful commercial outcome. The Panel recommends that the 
Commission adopts the following approach to developing a more innovative culture. 
4.3.1 Technology Diffusion 
The Panel considers this to be an important aspect to be tackled by the Commission. 
;\ manifestation of Europe's less developed entrepreneurial culture compared with the 
USA lies in technology diffusion and transfer. In the USA, the market is more efficient 
at transferring technology from its creation in universities and institutes to industrial 
firms, especially SMEs. As a contribution to improvement in this area, the Panel 
strongly recommends that the Commission's Programme directors and managers 
within the Specific Programmes have clear responsibility for ensuring the diffusion 
of the technology developed within their Programmes into the market place for 
commercial exploitation. While the most successful outcome is one in which project 
participants commercialise their own findings, other avenues of exploitation need to be 
27 
vigorously pursued with non-participants when this does not occur. In such 
circumstances, Programme Directors and Managers need to have contact with the 
venture capital community. 
4.3.2 SMEs 
The support and development of SMEs, particularly in the high-tech sector, is critical 
to the employment growth objectives of the Union. Many SMEs are already involved 
in the Framework Programme and the improvements to implementation procedures 
recommended here should encourage further participation. It is clear, however, that 
their participation would be better facilitated if they had more help with all the 
financial and legal issues related to exploiting research, particularly in the area of 
intellectual property issues. 
The Commission is urged to examine whether the existing CRAFT scheme could be 
further developed as a vehicle for this. It would also be appropriate to examine 
whether the provision of such services could be delegated to Member States and 
organisations nearer to the local market. 
4.3.3 EUREKA 
Better links should be encouraged with EUREKA. This organisation was launched in 
1985 by seventeen Western European countries. The main objectives of EUREKA are . 
to raise productivity and competitiveness of European industries and economies in the 
civilian world market. EUREKA is aimed clearly at putting products directly into the 
market place and hence operates beyond the pre-competitive line that must be 
respected by the Framework Programme. However, Framework Programme and 
EUREKA projects could readily dovetail in an enhanced innovation chain propelling 
Framework Programme RTD into the market place. 
The Commission is urged to build the necessary links with EUREKA to achieve this 
purpose. 
4.3.4 Advanced European Virtual Institutes 
The success of the European Yeast Genome Sequencing Network highlights the 
potential of linking European centres together in thematic areas to mount projects 
with international critical mass. 
The Panel feels that this concept could be developed further using modern 
communications technology to create European virtual institutes in appropriate 
thematic areas. These would allow greater European focus on emerging areas of 
technology and the more rapid establishment of a competitive European position. Such 
an approach could obviate the need for the Commission to invest in further 'hard 
centres' for its own research. 
The basic idea is to create a modern institutional arrangement for international 
research which offers: 
• flexibility through limited duration (5-10 years); 
28 
• a stable medium term operating environment to allow continuity over a certain 
period; 
• close co-operation between excellent research groups in Europe (and abroad). 
Such a new instrument would support a modern and advanced research organisation, 
which is institutionally located between the established research infrastructure (such as 
the JRC) and the (time-limited) project-specific co-operations. 
The Commission is urged to seek appropriate opportunities to implement this 
concept. 
4.3.5 A Systems Approach 
Increasingly the technological challenges that face the Union have a complexity that is 
difficult to contain within a traditional thematic Framework Programme. More and 
more of the challenges are multi-disciplinary requiring combinations of scientific and 
technological disciplines. In addition, a multi-sectoral approach is required since many 
opportunities are at the interfaces between sectors, or clearly involve more than one 
sector. This is true, for example, of major projects that relate to safety, the 
environment, energy, sustainability, transport. 
The challenge here lies in effective co-ordination of the various elements and in the 
Panel's view a new systems approach is required. 
It is recommended that the Commission put in place a systems approach based on a 
set of co-ordinating mechanisms to deal with major projects. 
4.3.6 Use of Articles 130 (k), (1) and (n) 
The Maastricht Treaty on European Union introduced articles 130 (k), (1) and (n) to 
further boost the possibilities for RTD co-operation in addition to the Framework 
Programme. These articles open the way for the Union to participate in major projects 
financed by groups of Member States, including participation in the structures created 
for the execution of the relevant programmes. 
The Panel recommends that the Commission promotes the use of this vehicle for large 
development projects funded essentially by interested groups of Member States. 
4.3.7 The Joint Research Centre 
The JRC is the European Unions' own internal research capability concentrated in 
seven separate research institutes located in various Member States. As such, it is an 
important instrument of the Union which increasingly needs many different research 
activities in support of policy. 
The Panel's view is that much of the work of the JRC meets the criteria of excellence 
and European added value, especially the Transuranium Institute at Karlsruhe. The 
Panel also supports the view expressed by the JRC Assessment Panel, that the JRC 
29 
should further focus its research efforts, concentrating only on those areas where it can 
achieve true scientific excellence. 
The Panel welcomes the progress made in putting the JRC on a more commercial 
footing, noting that an important part of its income derives from research contracted 
by third parties. 
Recruitment appears to have been a problem at the JRC for some time. The Panel 
therefore welcomes the new research personnel policy, and encourages moves to 
increase the flexibility of JRC personnel. 
The Panel would also like to see further moves to increase the autonomy of the JRC. 
4.4 Programme Balance 
In a number of important areas both inside the Framework Programme and concerning 
its external relations, the Panel's view is that a correct balance must be struck between 
key factors. 
4.4.1 Fundamental Research and Applied Research 
One of the most important aspects within the Framework Programme is the balance 
between fundamental research and applied research and development. This issue 
becomes even more important as many areas of the Framework Programme move their 
centres of gravity nearer to user needs and applications. 
In the past, an over-simplified approach was used. This followed linear assumptions 
about the RTD process and tended to apply the same rules to different thematic areas. 
In addition, the lack of flexibility of the Programme made the evolution from 
fundamental to applied research more difficult. 
It is clear that there cannot be a uniform approach to this issue. The Panel firmly 
believes that it is the responsibility of each Thematic Programme to achieve the 
correct balance between fundamental and applied research. 
The correct balance will inevitably depend on the state of technological maturity of the 
field. The research need will be greatest in new emerging areas, the so called science 
based technologies such as biotechnology and microelectronics, where there is clear 
European added value in rapidly building a critical mass of competitive research in the 
Union. 
It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that the balance between fundamental and applied 
research will vary widely between Thematic Programmes. 
The correct balance within a thematic area will not, however, be static. BSE, for 
example, first appeared as an animal disease and early research was mainly confined to 
its epidemiology. However, the emerging threat to human health has recently 
precipitated much more fundamental research on the biology of the disease. 
30 
In the ACTS, IT and Telematics Programmes the balance between fundamental and 
applied research has been shifting steadily through the successive Framework 
Programmes towards the applied end and user needs. At the same time, it is widely 
perceived that these technologies are converging in advanced applications meeting 
complex user needs. 
The Panel therefore recommends that the ACTS, IT and Telematics Programmes are 
merged under the Fifth Framework Programme. 
In a similar way convergence is seen in the biotechnology elements within the 
Agriculture, Biomedical and Biotechnology Programmes and the Panel recommends 
that these aspects also be merged in the Fifth Framework Programme. 
Finally, and subject to meeting European added value criteria, the Panel wishes to 
stress its support for a continuing level of fundamental research linking universities 
and industry in fruitful partnerships. It is essential that this is retained as a platform 
for new concepts that can replenish the science and technology reservoir. 
4.4.2 Thematic and Activity-Based Programmes 
The Panel believes in the principle that wherever possible research projects and 
programmes should be managed from within the thematic areas. In addition, 
responsibility for dissemination and exploitation of project and programme results 
should also be the clear responsibility of the Thematic Programme. 
In the case of the Innovation Programme, this means a refocusing and freedom to 
concentrate more on the demand side, co-ordinating Programme-wide issues that 
cover the interests of all Specific Programmes, e.g. issues of innovation management 
and organisation. 
In the training field, the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) Programme is 
seen by the Panel as needing to be better linked to the Thematic Programmes. The 
Panel's view is that the Programme has a potentially high European added value and is 
held in high regard by the European academic community as being a useful scheme, 
even if it often supports unfashionable areas that are otherwise difficult to fund. 
In the past, a weakness of the Programme was its inability to attract the highest quality 
young researchers in Europe, partly because of image but also because of bureaucratic 
slowness in the appointment process. The Panel understands that measures have been 
taken to improve this situation and hopes that the Programme will be able to attract the 
best candidates. 
The Panel supports a TMR Programme with a greatly improved image so that the best 
young minds will be proud to occupy European Fellowships. 
4.4.3 External Balance 
Regarding the external balance of the Framework Programme the key issues are seen 
to be enlargement and international co-operation. 
31 
On enlargement, the Union has already made a significant effort to co-operate with 
the RTD communities in Eastern Europe where most of the potential new Member 
States are located. The Panel very much sees this as a platform to build on and 
recommends that the Commission takes further initiatives to stabilise and develop the 
RTD communities of aspiring Member States. This should be an element within the 
Fifth Framework Programme handled wherever possible within the appropriate 
Thematic Programme. 
In the international co-operation field, the Panel's view is that much of the research 
activity should be reassigned to the appropriate Thematic Programme. A need is also 
seen to greatly improve co-ordination between INCO and other Union Programmes 
that operate externally such as PHARE, TACIS and MEDA. Finally, a small team in 
charge of developing a global science and technology policy towards regions outside 
the Union not covered by these Programmes, could be put in place. 
Regarding developing countries, some notable success has been achieved, particularly 
with Biomedical Programmes on tropical diseases. Such Programmes however are 
mainly to the benefit of the developing country and have little European added value. 
As such, they form part of the wider political relationship between the Union and 
developing countries. While the Panel views this as a legitimate area for RTD co­
operation, it would also encourage the Framework Programme to establish more 
technically driven co-operative projects which meet European added value criteria. 
32 
ANNEX 
RELEVANCE, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FRAMEWORK 
PROGRAMMES DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS 
1. INTRODUCTION 
The 18 Specific Framework Programmes, the 7 JRC institutes, and the JRC as a whole, have 
all been the subject of 5-year assessments in parallel with the overall Framework Programme 
assessment. 
A significant part of the overall picture is the assessment of relevance, efficiency and 
effectiveness of the Specific Programmes. Having decided to take a top-down strategic view, 
the Framework Programme Assessment Panel will not to comment in detail on the results of 
all the specific assessments. The summary below represents the views of the Specific 
Programme Assessment Panels themselves. However, the Framework Programme Assessment 
Panel does wish to note that no areas of major concern were noted regarding the quality of the 
research being undertaken in the Specific Programmes. 
2. FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME - MODES OF OPERATION AND DELIVERY MECHANISM 
The objectives of Community Research and Technology Development (RTD) policy as 
defined in the EEC Treaty (article 13 Of) are aimed at strengthening the science and technology 
base of European industry and bolstering its international competitiveness. Following the 
Treaty on the European Union, there is also an obligation to promote all research actions 
considered necessary under the terms of other Community policies. 
Article 130g of the Treaty lays out the following list of activities as relevant to the above: 
• implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes by 
promoting co-operation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities; 
• promotion of co-operation in the field of Community research, technological development 
and demonstration with third countries and international organisations; 
• dissemination and optimisation of results of activities in Community research, 
technological development and demonstration; and 
• stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Community. 
Community RTD policy is mainly implemented through three types of action: shared cost 
contractual research, concerted actions, and the Community's own research programme within 
the Joint Research Centre (JRC). The Community Framework Programme (FP) dates from 
1984 with the introduction of FP1 (1984-87). FP2 (1987-1991) was followed by FP3 (1990-
1994) and the current FP4 (1994-1998). Current annual expenditure is about 3.5 bn ECU, 
representing about 3.8% of the Community budget. 
The detailed objectives of FP3 and FP4 are described in Table 1. Building on EU concerns for 
industrial competitiveness, standards and the propagation of a European dimension, FP4 
added co-ordination of research policies between Member States and the Community, 
dissemination of research results to SMEs and technological support for the whole of EU 
policy. 
33 
FP4, together with the Euratom FP, consists of 15 Specific Programmes covering different 
technological areas, referred to collectively as Activity 1. Three horizontal activities (called 
also Specific Programmes) cover all sectors and deal with Co-operation with Third Countries 
(Activity 2), Dissemination and Optimisation of Results (Activity 3), and Stimulation of the 
Training and Mobility of Researchers (Activity 4). In addition, the work of the Joint Research 
Centre (JRC) seven research centres falls within the Framework Programme. The 18 Specific 
Programmes are listed in Table 2. 
Each Specific Programme has a responsible director within the Commission and is assisted by 
a Programme Committee, representing Member States. Following calls for proposals, 
scientific peer review committees evaluate applications and make recommendations for 
funding to the Commission. 
Independent evaluation of Programmes is an important policy platform for the Commission 
and frequent reviews are held. In particular, a series of 5-year assessments of all Specific 
Programmes has just been completed and the summary evaluation described in this document 
is based on that output and represents the views of the Specific Programme Assessment 
Panels. 
The total financial commitment to the various programmes is shown in Table 3. 
3. SUMMARY OF 5-YEAR ASSESSMENT 
For assessment purposes the 18 Specific Programmes are divided naturally into three groups 
as follows: 
Industrial Programmes Life Sciences & the Other Programmes 
(A) Ecosystem (B) (Q 
* Telematics Applications * Biomedicine and Health * Targeted Socio-
Economic Research 
* Communications * Biotechnology (TSER) 
Technologies (ACTS) 
* Agriculture & Fisheries * Co-operation with Third 
^Information Technologies , ^ ^.^ & Countries (INCQ) 
Technologies * Dissemination & 
* Industrial & Materials Fm/:rnnmpnt * riîmnt„ Optimisation of Results TW4inr»ir»m*»c fTiMTY Environment & Climate v 
1 ecnnologies (1M1 ) (INNOVATION) 
* Standards. Measurement & * Trainiim & Mobility of 
Testing (SMT) Researchers (TMR) 
* Non-Nuclear Energy 
* Transport 
* Nuclear Fission Safety 
* Fusion 
34 
3.1 Relevance of Specific Programmes 
The Panels generally conclude that the selection criteria of research projects as outlined in the 
Specific Programme objectives had been adhered to. It is also clear that Specific Programmes 
are considered to be relevant to European industry and to the Community's general socio­
economic policy orientations. Indeed, some Programmes were noted as 'even more relevant', 
especially in bringing to FP4 a sharper focus and more accent on user applications and 
deliverables rather than basic research. 
Relevance was identified in terms of the creation of new or improved scientific and 
engineering models and methods, processes and technology validation that benefit industry 
directly. In addition, Programmes provided significant input to the drawing of guidelines for 
the establishment of European or even global norms and standards which are especially 
important in the creation of technology systems that confer competitive advantage on Europe. 
Industrial Programmes (Group A) 
For the major industrial Programmes, i.e. Telematics, ACTS, IT and to some extent IMT, a 
significant shift occurred between FP3 and FP4. These Programmes had previously had a 
technology push focus aimed at closing the technology gap between Europe and the USA and 
Japan. For FP4 the focus moved sharply to user needs and applications, more in the 
innovation area and recognising the broad needs of all industries. This focus on applications 
recognises that much of the added value arises at that point in the innovation chain and that 
this has added relevance for European competitiveness. 
Looking forward, the ACTS Programme is calling for standardisation on a European 
Information Infrastructure combining telecommunications, data networking and broadcasting 
capability with a focus shift from technical standards to volume deployment especially around 
home multimedia. 
In the IT field while continuing with the emphasis on user involvement, closer attention 
should be paid to electronic systems builders and IT user companies. Structurally the 
Programme should adopt a base of macro-domains in microelectronics, software technologies 
and applications. Microelectronics is especially crucial as an infrastructure issue. To facilitate 
its spread, links between RTD and structural funding should be substantially extended. The 
Telematics evaluation draws attention to the emerging multimedia industries as offering major 
business opportunities over the next two decades, and calls for a continuing focus on 
standards, particularly open standards, infrastructure and platforms (e.g. SAP). 
All three Programmes (i.e. Telematics, ACTS and IT) are calling for closer integration and, 
indeed, a common integrated ICT programme. 
The IMT evaluation focuses on the increasing relevance of technological competitiveness as 
most manufacturing industries are engaged in fierce global competition. This is aided by the 
shortening of product design and development time-scales, and the continuing trend to 
concentrate on core activities. 
On Standards, Measurement and Testing, metrology objectives remain valid and should 
continue into FP5 providing a base for European standards. However, competitive product 
standards should be the responsibility of relevant Specific Programmes. 
35 
Non-Nuclear Energy objectives are still valid in the light of increased environmental 
concerns around fossil fuel burning, the potential expansion of the Union to countries of 
Eastern Europe and the likely sharp increase in energy demand from an expanding world 
population. 
Transport research continues to be important, given the fragmentation of standards among 
Member States, serious traffic congestion and the objectives of sustainable mobility and 
European competitiveness. Activity has served to institutionalise the co-operation between 
Member States by bringing together key industries and operators in the rail, air and 
waterborne areas. 
For Nuclear Fission Safety, the growing and ageing European population of nuclear reactors 
and the situation of the pre-accession countries of Eastern Europe point to continuing 
relevance of this Programme. The raison d'être of the 5th Framework Programme in this field 
should be to maintain European Union expertise. It will need to emphasise research on new 
concepts, advanced reactors, safe management of nuclear waste as well as knowledge of the 
effects of radiation on man and the environment. 
For Fusion, the Assessment Panel was particularly impressed by the progress made by the 
Programme over the last five years. The Programme is highly relevant for long term energy 
supply creating options for the middle part of the next century. Global co-operation is being 
sought against a background of tightening public spending in Europe. A key strategic decision 
is required to clarify the future for Europe's large community of fusion researchers. 
Life Sciences and the Ecosystem (Group B) 
Biomedicine and Health had the objective of contributing to the improvement of medical and 
health research and development in Europe by facilitating the establishment of new 
collaborations and/or consolidating and strengthening existing collaborations. This objective 
continues to be relevant with an ageing western European population and provides a European 
dimension for responding to new threats, e.g. the human form of BSE. The Programme is 
strongly basic research-oriented and has produced an impressive list of publications and 
patents. 
For Biotechnology, a strong shift from curiosity-driven research to industrial collaboration is 
evident in the move from Biotech I to Biotech II and is increasing the relevance of the 
Programme. Programme changes were made for various calls, demonstrating flexibility at 
Programme Committee level and a capability to respond to new developments, especially in 
molecular genetics. Europe's lagging position opposite the USA is a spur for enhanced 
activity in this field, both at a research level and at the exploitation stage, where routes to 
market are less evident than in the USA. 
The development of financial platforms alongside the industrial area is recommended to plug 
the venture capital gap. While high European added value is evident, too many projects are 
approved allowing different laboratories to proceed with independent research. 
For Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Specific Programme Assessment Panel was 
concerned that it had become too short-term in focus because of its close links to the Common 
36 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), it. To be able to lead 
policy evolution the research agenda must include longer term issues. Two broad objectives 
are clear. The first is concerned with productivity and international competitiveness, but 
increasingly issues related to the sustainability of all rural systems are coming to the fore. The 
Specific Programme Assessment Panel feels that research on sustainability should be more 
strongly encouraged, taking care to develop new methodologies which do not compromise 
scientific rigour and paying particular attention to the needs of the environment. 
Taking Biomedicine and Health, Biotechnology, and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 
together, several of the Panels recognised a strong biotechnology thread running through all 
three. This is not currently recognised in any co-ordination mechanism. It is suggested that 
for FP5 the biotechnology elements of all three Programmes are combined. 
For Marine Science and Technology, the objectives are seen to be more relevant than ever in 
view of increased competition in the sector from the USA and Asian countries. In addition, 
utilisation of marine resources is now a matter of much greater public concern. Most recent 
programmes emphasise getting end users in industry more involved along with government 
research institutes and policy makers. 
For Environment and Climate, the Programme goals of strengthening the European science 
base, conducting policy relevant research, and supporting research capable of improving 
competitiveness of European industry, remain valid. The major themes addressed in the 
Programme are considered to be relevant to the international scientific agenda and 
developments. 
The Programme content was seen to go too far in reflecting local issues of national concern 
and hence care has to be taken not to dilute European added value. Clarity of objectives 
improved between FP3 and FP4 where a clear distinction was made between science base, 
policy and industrial objectives. This distinction, however, is not obvious across the work 
plan and there are few instances of verifiable objectives. 
Others Programmes (Group C) 
The Targeted Socio-Economic Research programme was launched in 1994 under FP4 as a 
new programme in Community research. The Programme consists of three parts: 
Area 1 evaluation of science and technology policy options in Europe; 
Area 2:Research on education and training; 
Area 3: Research into social exclusion and social integration in Europe. 
The three areas chosen represent a narrow selection from the wide range of possible topics for 
this new Programme. Area 1 is a continuation of the previous MONITOR Programme aimed 
at giving policy advice on day-to-day issues - it remains as relevant as ever. A key issue 
concerns the need to underpin technology policy using more advanced systematic approaches 
than the old linear model of innovation. This area has produced many good, high quality 
projects from excellent groups of workers. 
On education and training, an impressive progress seminar was recently held covering a range 
of issues to do with developing the knowledge base. 
37 
Area 3 is important as a basis for social cohesion but much more research is required. The 
issues of integration, enlargement, joining EMU etc. all have major social implications. At 
first glance the project portfolio gives an impression of fragmentation, but on closer 
inspection projects are clustering and overlapping in an interesting way. Of special importance 
is the need to create links between the projects and policy-makers. 
Co-operation with Third Countries and International Organisations (INCO) collaborative 
activity is divided between sectors with widely differing characteristics. The Specific 
Programme Assessment Panel found that the efforts undertaken were generally relevant to the 
objectives laid down and that high relevance continues given the prospective enlargement of 
the Union and the rising need to collaborate globally. 
The INCO/COST collaboration has yielded impressive results especially in vaccine research 
which has facilitated long-term co-operation between the scientific research sector and 
industry. Collaboration with EUREKA has been less successful owing to the difficulty in 
finding suitable projects. 
The COPERNICUS and INTAS Programmes were essential but temporary responses to 
urgent needs arising in Central Europe (CCE) and the New Independent States (NIS). The 
impact of these Programmes has been sub-optimal because of the lack of local infrastructure 
and high priority should be given to PHARE, TACIS to support structural reforms in RTD 
and in industrial application. 
Wherever possible it is recommended by the Specific Programme Assessment Panel that full 
participation in First Activity Programmes by CCE/NIS should replace COPERNICUS. The 
Panel considers that collaboration with non-European industrial countries and emerging 
economies is rapidly growing in importance and that all Community Programmes should be 
opened up to participation on a case-by-case basis under reciprocity and suitable IPR 
agreements. 
The original aims of the Japanese S&T Fellowship Programme have now been achieved and it 
should be scaled down/phased out over 2-4 years. 
The basic objectives of INCO-Developing Countries remain highly relevant across the major 
areas of health, agriculture, the environment and technology. In the case of technology, co­
operation should be funded at a higher level so that the benefits of IT and communications 
technology can be more widely accessible in the developing countries. 
The Innovation Programme is seen by its Assessment Panel as more relevant than ever to the 
Community's concerns about competitiveness and economic and social cohesion. Innovation 
is a major source of new, high quality jobs and leads to creation of wealth. This means 
management skills, circulation of knowledge across borders and sectors, flexible product 
markets and market oriented RTD. In addition, standards and regulations that promote 
innovation are required as well as beneficial tax policies and capital markets. A European 
patent policy that cost-effectively defends property rights worldwide is also required. At the 
same time, research institutions and industry should work much more closely together to meet 
customers needs. 
Broadly speaking, the Programme was seen to be cost-effective although there are some 
priorities to reassess and other shortcomings to be corrected, but these problems are not seen 
38 
as paramount. The Specific Programme Assessment Panel argues that such is the importance 
of innovation that the activity should be expanded and based on new organisational 
arrangements within the Commission in support of a European innovation policy. In effect, a 
'think tank' is proposed to lead thinking in the field. 
The alternative of boosting innovation within the Specific Programmes (currently 1% of 
budget) does not appear to have been considered. 
The basic premise of Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) remains correct and still 
relevant. Europe will be better placed to face future challenges if its scientific and technology 
community is ready to cooperate across discipline, across culture and across regional and 
national boundaries. A training and mobility programme has a substantial contribution to 
make in developing this co-operation. 
Further, these training and mobility activities must take account of the challenges and play a 
part in the development and stabilisation of Central and Eastern Europe. Equally, the activities 
must have the capability of transcending purely EU concerns to ensure research encompasses 
the global dimension of industrial competitiveness and sustainable development. 
Regarding priorities - the Marie Curie Fellowships should become the flagship of the 
Programme and limited to high quality candidates cf. Rhodes scholars. Follow up on 
contribution to European research is key. On research networks (PhD training) - it is seen as 
key to extend these to Eastern Europe and to get more variety and a better cost/benefit ratio. 
On large scale facilities (LSF), some interesting clusters have appeared and efforts should be 
made to increase this activity via more active co-ordination. However, this activity should not 
become a platform for looking at the creation of new LSFs. There is some feeling that a better 
position could be found in FP5 giving more freedom to develop this area. 
3.2 Efficiency of Specific Programmes 
Generally speaking, the views of the Specific Programme Assessment Panels are that 
Programmes are being efficiently run but most believe that there is room for improvement in 
making the project selection and funding procedure more streamlined and swift. This was the 
most commonly highlighted area among the Panels and the area of most serious criticism to 
which the Commission absolutely must pay attention. Telematics and Biotechnology Panels 
were particularly critical of procedures. 
All Panels cite the long period, often longer than a year between calls closing and contract 
signing, as being completely unacceptable, especially in fast-moving areas like IT and 
Biotechnology where the picture can change dramatically within a year or, for example in 
Eastern Europe, where scientists may depend on EU money for survival. Legal and financial 
aspects are believed to be particularly responsible for delays. It is considered that this 
problem, already well highlighted, must be solved for FP5. 
Panels are calling for a process that reduces the overall time delay to 5-6 months. Increased 
delegation of authority is seen as essential to make progress, particularly to enable the rapid 
approval of smaller projects with financial control decentralised in line with modern business 
practice. Other suggestions call for 'total re-engineering' (IMT) and the implementation of the 
39 
US ARPA model (Telematics). The use of letters of intent to allow work to start early is 
recommended (IMT). 
A further aspect concerns over-subscription which exacerbates the time-scale problem by 
creating unmanageable peaks. Some Programmes have implemented a two-stage process with 
much clearer guidelines for applicants. This aspect of best practice is also recommended by 
several Panels. 
The IT Specific Programme Assessment Panel has recommended a bankruptcy contingency 
fund to protect those situations where the project co-ordinator goes bankrupt. The 
Biotechnology Panel called for much better feedback to all applicants and more consultation 
with industrial research managers, users and SMEs (instead of IRDAC!). 
Regarding management efficiency, almost all Specific Programme Assessment Panels have 
concluded that within the financial and personnel constraints the Programmes were efficiently 
managed by the Commission staff. Indeed, in a number of cases, notably IMT, Transport, 
Biomedicine and Health, Panels offered the view that Commission staff were unacceptably 
over stretched in units running at staffing levels of around two-thirds of the agreed 
complement. This seems serious enough to ask the Commission to review workloads 
generally and ensure that units run at the staff levels agreed to ensure efficiency. 
Operational efficiency is obviously influenced by flexibility to deal with emerging rising 
priorities in a timely way. A traditional fixed budget and topic Framework Programme tends 
to lack the flexibility necessary to respond to developments in, for example, IT and 
biotechnology. 
Some Programmes, e.g. IT, have responded vigorously to this challenge by creating a rolling 
programme broken up by frequent calls. Supporting this, the ACTS Panel is calling for FP5 to 
be a 'headings only' Programme to facilitate adjustment, re-targeting and reallocation. Other 
Programmes, e.g. Transport, are calling for greater flexibility but have made little internal 
response seeing the issue at Framework Programme level. 
Efficiency is also seen to be compromised by Programmes that are over-influenced by 
national shopping lists at the expense of large, broader European programmes. This criticism 
has been made by the assessment panels for IMT and Transport. 
The Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme only began under FP4 and has seen its 
early efficiency compromised by frequent changes in director (four in two years) and other 
key staff. 
The INCO Programme cites poor communication, infrastructure and lack of local banking 
facilities for the generally moderate efficiency of many of its overseas projects. 
Several Programmes call for greater use of electronic communication and video conferencing 
to be formally led by the Commission. 
/ir> 
3.3 Effectiveness of Specific Programmes 
All Panels assert that the initial objectives of the Specific Programmes related to Council 
decisions have mainly been achieved. Most research is deemed to be of high quality and the 
main research objectives achieved. 
However, while most of the research was successful it often lacked clear goajs in terms of 
deliverables and hence impact, particularly .economic impact. It has to be added that- under 
FP4 much more attempt has been made to define clear measurable goals that reflect positive 
economic impact - the major shift to user focus in most of the industrial Programmes will 
ensure a clearer impact in future assessments. 
Most commonly effectiveness is related by Specific Programme Assessment Panels to 
satisfactory project outputs such as publications in refereed journals, other publications, 
workshops, conferences, test methods, new processes and prototypes. Patenting rates often 
look low in Specific Programmes - again related to the strong research perspective of the 
earlier Framework Programmes. Higher patenting rates are expected from FP4. 
Some quantitative data on effectiveness is presented. The IMT Panel notes that quantitative 
studies of exploitation potential made over 1991-1995 identified an average economic return 
of between 4 and 6 ECU for each ECU invested in pre-competitive research in the 
BRITE/EURAM Programme. In the Non-Nuclear Energy Programme, Community research is 
judged to have made some contribution to the slight fall in the amount of energy required to 
generate a unit of GDP between 1973 and 1994. For THERMIE, 28% of projects gave an 
acceptable payback in relation to the current price of fossil fuel. In the INCO/COST 
Programme impressive results have been obtained in vaccine development, while in the 
biotechnology area major achievements are recognised in genome research and technology for 
lipase and lactic acid production. 
Dissemination is seen as a relatively weak area in many Programmes, especially MAST, 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Biotechnology, Telematics and IMT. In the last case 
special information/advisory units are recommended to enhance dissemination in key areas, 
e.g. aeronautics. 
Indeed, in some areas, for example biotechnology, there is a conflict between exploitation and 
dissemination, especially if participant companies are not sure whether they wish to 
commercially exploit technology developed within the Framework Programme. 
In contrast, dissemination is seen to be particularly good in the Standards. Measurement and 
Testing Programme albeit in a slightly different sort of community. 
Many Panels are calling for a much clearer dissemination and exploitation plan to be a firmer 
part of the original project evaluation. 
All Panels believe that an important contribution is being made to building a genuine RTD 
community which will have benefits for European competitiveness and, of course, contribute 
to Community cohesion. Building on that, the ACTS Panel sees much greater inter-
connectivity and interpretability within the Community. On a related theme, the IMT Panel 
notes that many collaborative relationships continue after completion of projects. 
41 
Significant contributions to the development of European standards are noted for ACTS, IT 
and SMT. 
Major contributions to EU policy making are highlighted for IMT, SMT, Transport, 
Biotechnology and Targeted Socio-Economic Research. For MAST the major impact was on 
national policies in Member States. The Environment and Climate Panel noted a poor 
relationship with policy-makers that needs to be improved. 
A number of Panels drew attention to the poor exploitation record of Europe as evidenced by 
low rates of high-tech SME start-up and growth. Better links are proposed with the venture 
capital community including the idea of establishing clear financial platforms alongside 
industrial ones. 
Finally, many Panels referred to poor co-ordination and collaboration between different 
Directorates-General. While this is not always the case, e.g. on Agriculture, there does appear 
to be a general problem that needs to be tackled at Commission level. 
3.4 JRC 
Evaluation of the JRC is based on interviews with Professor J.M. Rojo, responsible for the 
overall evaluation of the JRC and Mr J.-P. Contzen, the responsible Director-General in the 
Commission. 
In addition, the reports from the seven separate Visiting Groups to individual JRC Institutes • 
were available. 
Professor Rojo considered that the JRC had improved significantly over the last 10 years in 
terms mainly of scientific excellence in a number of areas, especially on basic actinides 
research at Karlsruhe, and now had a positive external reputation. However, it still had to 
focus more because research excellence is not possible across the board. In parallel with 
focusing research, there is a need for increased activity to provide technical support to the 
Commission. It is clear that several DGs need technical and scientific help with formulating 
very complex directives. 
All Visiting Groups considered that good progress had been made since the last visit and most 
of the points highlighted then had been dealt with. All Visiting Groups welcomed the new 
competitive approach and challenge and the success which resulted. This had engendered 
more positive attitudes and morale. There were some concerns, however, that the competitive 
spirit should not lead to dilution of effort beyond core competences. 
Several Visiting Groups called for greater focus of objectives, especially in the space 
applications, on radioactive transfer modelling, and remote sensing of forests. At the same 
time, some units, e.g. the Institute for Transuranium Elements, were encouraged to broaden 
activity beyond the core to analytical aspects of nuclear safeguards. 
In several areas it was felt that work had progressed beyond the point where external testing of 
concepts was required, e.g. on multimedia networks, dependable software and sensor-based 
robotics as well as on results obtained on 3D-holographic images. This links to other calls for 
JRC to adopt a more business-like approach, do more marketing and interestingly, set up a 
commercial incubator at ISPRA. 
42 
Regarding management, several groups called for better objective setting and project 
management and the use of external programme user advisory boards containing some 
industrialists to help focus. Most Visiting Groups referred to the need for wider collaboration 
between JRC units and sites with more staff transfers and more senior staff transfers from the 
JRC to Directorates-General in Brussels. 
Other management aspects concentrated on the old problem of recruitment. While some 
progress is being made with the new three-year contracts, many inflexibilities still exist and 
several Groups urged that JRC Directors are given more flexibility in selecting, promoting 
and removing scientific staff with the internal progress review system being better oriented 
towards the needs of the Institute. Use of head-hunters to find talent intemafionally was 
recommended by several Groups. These recommendations are made in the knowledge that in 
several Institutes significant bodies of key staff are nearing retirement and will need to be 
replaced. 
Finally, considerable progress is judged to be taking place at IPTS Seville. It now has a much 
clearer brief, formal budgets, a defined set of customers and a skilled and enthusiastic staff. 
Greater interaction is. however, seen to be necessary particularly with key customers in 
Brussels but also with other JRC sites. Electronic communication and Internet usage is 
encouraged to facilitate this. 
Notwithstanding the generally positive nature of the above assessment, two of the Specific 
Programme Assessment Panels comment on JRC. The Environment and Climate Panel 
reports that the contribution of JRC in the field of environment is largely unrecognised by 
much of the research community served by the Environment and Climate Specific 
Programme. There are also concerns about the size of the environment RTD budget allocated 
to JRC and a question of whether the budget should be reallocated to the Specific Programme. 
In the Nuclear Fission Safety report, lack of clarity is perceived on how JRC objectives are 
co-ordinated with those of the Specific Programme. In addition, poor working level contact is 
cited between DGXII staff managing the Specific Programme and the managers of the JRC 
Programme. 
-^mr — 
43 
TABLE 1 
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES 3 AND 4 
The Framework Programme 3 was broadly designed to meet six major objectives: 
• Improving industrial competitiveness; 
• Attainment of large market objectives via norms and standards; 
• Encouraging transnational industrial initiatives; 
• Introducing a European dimension into training of RTD staff; 
• Increasing economic and social cohesion while ensuring the scientific and technical 
excellence of research projects; 
• All initiatives to take into account environmental protection and the quality of life. 
In industrial programmes, the emphasis was on precompetitive research and technological 
development. 
The Framework Programme 4 built on that, with a number of new strategic goals: 
• Creation of high level infrastructures in information technology, communications, transport 
and energy; 
• Greater competitiveness in industrial technologies and their compatibility with quality of 
life, environmental protection and safety, and smart, clean production technologies; 
• Systematic dissemination and utilisation of research results, in particular for small 
businesses; 
• Co-ordination of Member States R&D policies with Community research policy. 
44 
TABLE 2 
SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES UNDER FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 4 
AND EURATOM FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 
Activity 1 
Telematics Applications 
Advanced Communications Technology and Services (ACTS) 
Information Technologies (IT) 
Industrial and Materials Technology (IMT) 
Standards, Measurement and Testing (SMT) 
Environment and Climate 
Marine Science and Technology 
Biotechnology 
Biomedicine and Health 
Agriculture and Fisheries 
Non-Nuclear Energy 
Nuclear Fission Safety 
Fusion 
Transport 
Targeted Socio-Economic Research (TSER) 
Activity 2 
Co-operation with Third Countries and International Organisations (INCO) 
Activity 3 
Dissemination and optimization of Results (INNOVATION) 
Activity 4 
Stimulation of the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) 
JRC Programmes 
45 
TABLE 3 
COMMITMENTS FOR EU RTD ACTIVITIES 
(current prices in MECU) 
A. YEARLY COMMITMENTS BY FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES (FP) 
YEARS 
FP 1987 - 1991 (FP2) 0) 
FP1990- 1994 (FP3) (D 
Suppl. Financ. (FP3) (2) 
FP 1994- 1998 (FP4) (1) 
Total RTD programmes 
APAS (3) 
Total RTD programmes + APAS 91 
1270,7 
296 
1566,7 
168,8 
1735,5 92 
230,9 
2160,5 
2391,4 
308,4 
2699,8 93 
14,8 
1929,5 
150 
2094,3 
440,2 
2534,5 94 
3,9 
1264,7 
750 
0 
2018,6 
571,8 
2590,4 95 
0,2 
1 
3017,1 
3018,3 
2,1 
3020,4 91-95 
1520,5 
5651,7 
900 
3017,1 
11089,3 
1491,3 
12580,6 
(1) As initially approved by Decision. 
(2) Supplementary financing of FP3 in a separate Decision. 
(3) Accompanying measures approved by Decision. 
B. TOTAL COMMITMENTS: BREAKDOWN ACCORDING TO 
THE FP4 STRUCTURE 
1991 - 1995 COMMITMENTS 
MECU % 
Activity 1: 
Information Technologies and Communication 4192 4 33 3 
Industrial and Material Technologies 1791,9 14,2 
Environment 1098,2 8,7 
Life Sciences 1202,3 " 9,6~ 
Energy 2285,3 " 18,2 ~ 
Transport 96,8 0,9 
Targeted Socio-Economic Research 51,5 0,5 
Total Activity 1 10748,6 (1)~ 85,4~ 
Activity 2: 
Cooperation with Third Countries and Int. Organisations 717,6 5,7 
Activity 3: 
Dissemination and Exploitation of Results 293,8 2,3 
Activity 4: 
Training and Mobility of Researchers 820,6 6,5 
Total RTD programmes + APAS ~ 12580,6 100 
(1) Including JRC support to other EU policies 
PARTB 
COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 
ON 
THE 5-YEAR ASSESSMENT REPORT 
47 

Introduction 
Viscount Davignon and the members of the Independent Panel are to be commended for their 
report, which has fully achieved the expectations of this first 5-year retrospective external 
assessment of the Framework Programme. The Panel's recommendations, benefiting greatly 
from its members' deep knowledge of European research, and the thorough appraisal of the 
past record of achievement of the Framework Programme constituted by the Specific 
Programme evaluations, are authoritative, constructive and forward looking. 
The Commission welcomes the Panel's observation that there are no areas of major concern 
regarding the quality of research carried out under the Framework Programme, and its 
recognition of the networked pool of talent which the Framework Programmes has produced. 
The Panel stresses that to be successful the Framework Programme needs to continue the 
traditions of scientific excellence but with more emphasis on social and economic relevance. 
It concludes that the Framework Programme has not so far fulfilled its promise because of the 
lack of a truly European strategic approach. The Commission agrees that a more strategic 
vision must guide the preparation of the Fifth Framework Programme if its potential 
contribution to the economic and social welfare of the European Union is fully to be realised. 
The Commission fully endorses the Panel's conclusion that the Fifth Framework Programme 
offers the opportunity for major change, notably in the following respects. It must rise to the 
challenge posed by the heavy investment of the Union's competitors in R&D. It must be more 
focused and more effective. At the same time, it must respond more flexibly to changing 
needs, hs structure should be simplified, management by the Commission should be further 
streamlined, the dissemination and exploitation of results should be given greater emphasis in 
the research programmes, and resources should be concentrated through the strict application 
of selection criteria including that of European added value. The Commission's practical 
response is set out in its formal proposals for the Fifth Framework Programme. The following 
provides more detailed comment on the Panel's recommendations. 
Headings below refer to the sub-headings of section 4 of the Panel's report. "Key Issues for 
Chance". 
1. Programme strategy 
The Panel proposes a more stratégie approach to the Fifth Framework Programme firmly 
based on programme selection criteria of relevance and European added value, which 
includes support for infrastructure and coordination with structural funding. 
The Commission agrees that a more rigorous application of the criteria of relevance and 
European added value together in the selection of research themes, taking full account of 
social, economic and technological trends, will result in a more strategic approach. Relevance 
must be judged on the basis of both social demand - improving employment, quality of life 
and health (including security and quality of goods and services for consumers), 
environmental protection, mobility, etc. - and prospects for economic development and 
scientific and technological progress. 
49 
The Panel's suggestion that European critical mass applies to networking large scale facilities 
should also be taken up in the Fifth Framework Programme; each of the Thematic 
programmes, as well as the "improving Human Potential" programme including activities in 
support of networking and access to research infrastructure. The Commission concurs with 
the Panel that a high level of mutual reinforcement should be sought between the Framework 
Programme and Structural Funds. Its forthcoming communication on research and cohesion 
will examine the scope for improvements, whilst respecting the specificity of these two 
instruments. 
2. The legal and management environment 
The Panel proposes a package of legal and management changes to improve flexibility and 
focus in the Framework Programme: 
• Legal changes: qualified majority voting in the Framework Programme eodecision 
process, a new Union Committee to replace the Specific Programme Committee structure 
and a management procedure to provide budgetary flexibility during the course of the 
Framework Programme. 
Efficiency would indeed be significantly enhanced if the Commission were to have more 
delegated authority for the implementation of the Framework Programme. In its submissions 
to the InterGovernmental Conference (IGC) the Commission is strongly supporting the 
extension of qualified majority voting by the Council. Pending the outcome of theJGC, the 
Commission is committed to improving development and management of the Framework 
Programme to the degree which is achievable under the present rules. In particular: 
• The structure of six Programmes envisaged for the Fifth Framework Programme should 
enable a better strategic view to be taken by each Programme over a wider range of 
research. 
• The Commission envisages that the main responsibility for implementing programmes 
should be delegated to the Commission, with the Programme Committees continuing to 
have their privileged position in monitoring programme implementation and dealing with 
research priorities, adjustment of work programmes and allocation of funds; not however 
pronouncing on individual measures. 
The Commission furthermore shares the Panel's view that holding back a proportion of the 
Programme budgets in the early years of implementation would allow for greater flexibility in 
later years. 
• Changes to management procedures in relation to delegation, timescales, transparency 
and feedback, and to address understaffing 
Continuous efforts are being made to improve management systems for Community research. 
In the short term, measures are being implemented to reduce oversubscription, improve 
transparency and consistency of evaluation of proposals, reduce the timescales for evaluation 
of proposals and contract negotiation, and simplify financial aspects. These should help to 
improve access to the programmes, especially for SMEs. In addition, new management 
formulae are being studied, based on-modern best practice. 
50 
In accordance with the Panel's recommendations, clear lines of responsibility for management 
of the fifth Framework Programme should be established, but this must be combined with 
adequate arrangements for coordination, within the Framework Programme, with other 
policies and with the range of activities outside the Community context, including research 
programmes of the member states. 
On the question of staff levels, the fact that growth in staff numbers has been well below that 
of the overall Community research budget reflects the lean management policy .of the 
Commission as well as the tight limits of personnel and administration costs set by the 
Council in the Specific Programme decisions. 
• Evaluation activities, with broader scope, to include the broader context of jwogrammes, 
international developments and input and output indicators, so as to provide an 
information base for monitoring and assessment panels. 
Focusing research more directly towards social and economic objectives, particularly in the 
context of "key actions" should involve clear work programmes with milestones against 
which future achievements can be measured. Regular updating of detailed objectives and 
work programmes is also envisaged. To achieve this, the Commission would review progress, 
while analysing and evaluating developments in the broader scientific and technological arena 
in the light of social and economic developments, and giving special attention to the 
international context. 
As a result of this process, both programme monitoring and retrospective programme 
evaluations would benefit from a wider information base, as recommended by the Panel. 
Nevertheless, and in accordance with the Commission's SEM 2000 initiative, good 
management practice requires a clear distinction between execution and assessment. It is, of 
course, essential to maintain the quality and independence of the external monitoring and 
assessment process and in particular of the experts who will be involved. 
The Commission is continuing its efforts to develop and make available on a consistent and 
up-to-date basis management and statistical information on Community research activities. It 
is also pursuing efforts to develop a wide range of indicators of scientific and technological 
progress at regional, national. European and global levels, through the European Science and 
Technology Indicators Report. 
• Further efforts to simplify and reduce the cost of the European patent system. 
A working party of IRDAC has addressed the broad range of questions relating to intellectual 
property in the context of EU research. Its conclusions accord with that of the Panel on the 
high costs of patenting in Europe. This issue goes beyond the scope of the Framework 
Procramme. Patentiim costs are allowable under Community research contracts. 
3. Approach to the implementation of the new Framework Programme 
The Panel suggests that a more integrated approach to support for RTD and innovation is 
needed, with an enhanced range of modalities. 
• Clear responsibilities for ensuring diffusion 
The Fifth Framework Programme should incorporate a "lifecycle approach" to project 
management, wherever possible "building in" effective uptake of research from the very start 
of projects. This would allow modalities to be tailored effectively to the specific needs of 
programmes/projects. A consistent and effective implementation of this approach should be 
fostered by means of local "innovation units" in each of the programmes. 
• More help to SMEs on financial and legal issues related to exploiting research 
Special attention is being paid to legal and financial aspects of the exploitation of results, with 
due regard to the particular circumstances and needs of high technology SMEs. Ways in 
which the flow of information can be improved between research projects and the world of 
innovation finance are being investigated, with the objective of developing more structured 
and efficient interfaces. In the Fifth Framework Programme a service could be developed 
within the horizontal programme on "innovation and participation of SMEs" to give 
assistance to projects in the areas of intellectual property rights and access to private finance. 
The present scheme of cooperative research should be continued and further developed in the 
Fifth Framework Programme so as to be able to respond better to the broad range of needs, of 
SMEs in particular, for access to contract research in order to supplement their own research 
capabilities, which may be limited or non-existent. 
• Better links with EUREKA 
As noted in the Commission's second working document on the Fifth Framework 
Programme, closer ties with EUREKA are being uctively sought. Efforts will be made to 
ensure complementarity between these two instruments, and to guarantee the flow of 
information from the Framework Programme to EUREKA as work progresses, results are 
produced and projects move closer to the market. This approach could be developed notably 
within the "key actions". 
• Further development of (he concept of Advanced European Virtual Institutes 
The yeast genome sequencing project, cited by the Panel, which involved nearly 100 
laboratories within Europe (including 10 SMEs) in coordination with laboratories in the US. 
Canada and Japan, demonstrates the effectiveness of large scale networking of European 
centres of excellence. The associated "Industrial Platform" has also been an effective means 
for keeping industry apprised of the results of the project and their potential commercial 
implications. This and other approaches to distributed research are being studied by the 
Commission as models for application within the Fifth Framework Programme, specifically in 
the context of "key actions". The Fifth Framework Programme can furthermore include 
research in support of information infrastructure to link research establishments. 
The project is being followed up with the l\l:ROI'AN project, involving 144 European laboratories, to carry ont a 
systematic analysis of genes of unknown function. 
52 
• A multidimensional systems approach to complex technological challenges 
This is precisely the aim of the 4ikey actions" identified in the Commission's second working 
document. These actions would bring together the diverse scientific and technological 
resources, involving different disciplines, technologies and related capabilities, which are 
needed to attack major social, economic and industrial challenges. This integrated approach 
would be driven by means of an action plan developed in consultation with the scientific 
community, industry and more generally those who are concerned with and use research, 
which would focus in particular on overcoming the critical bottlenecks of a scientific and 
technological and/or socio-economic nature. 
Because they are orientated towards social and economic objectives, permanent liaison with 
other Community policies affecting these matters is intrinsic to the concept of key actions, as 
is regular review and updating of workprogrammes to reflect the latest results they have 
achieved and the changing technological, social and economic context. The systems approach 
should, however, go beyond Community action alone. The subjects being addressed by key 
actions are by definition of European interest and it is essential that they benefit from the 
broadest possible contributions of research. Following the path laid by the task forces, and 
using a variety of means of communication, formal and informal, the key actions in the Fifth 
Framework Programme would serve as the nucleus for wider coordination of research, 
including especially that conducted under member states' programmes, across the Union. 
• Use of Articles 130k, I and n 
The possibility has been raised on a number of occasions of exploiting these articles of the 
Treaty in addition to the other activities of the Framework Programme, notably in order to 
implement activities which have a particular interest only for a certain number of Member 
States. This possibility will not become a reality unless the Member States show a firm 
willingness to enter into this type of initiative. If such willingness were to be demonstrated, 
one or more activities of this type could be foreseen. 
• More focus and autonomy for the Joint Research Centre' 
The Commission fully supports the Panel's conclusion that the JRC has a central role in 
support of Community policies. It has a neutral status which is of particular importance with 
respect to many aspects of Community regulation, as well as highly specialised facilities and 
capabilities which are needed to perform this function, some of which are unique in Europe. 
As in the case of national laboratories, the JRC is having to adjust its approach to face up to 
new realities and the Commission is committed to making the changes necessary for it to do 
so, including better focus on the areas in which it excels. Since 1988, a major effort has been 
made to build up contacts between the JRC and the academic and industrial research worlds. 
In addition to the points made in this section, the following clarification may be helpful with regard to remarks 
made in the annex to the Panel's report, which states that "lack of clarity is perceived on how JRC objectives fin the 
evaluation report of the Nuclear fission Safety specific programme! are coordinated with those of the Specific Programme", 
and that "poor working level contact is cited" between DGXII and JRC staff. The Commission is of the view that working 
relations are excellent. I low ever, the nature of these relations must reflect the fact that, in the field o( fission safety, the JRC 
competes (successfully ) against other proposers for shared-cost funding. I'he Kuratom Specific Programme for the JRC is 
mainly concerned with research on nuclear safeguards, which are not the subject of shared cost actions. 
53 
with a programme to improve the customer-contractor relationship for policy related research. 
This effort has been strongly increased after the Decision on the 4th Framework Programme 
and on the basis of the Council Conclusions of 26 April 1994 on the role of the JRC. 
Increasing the autonomy evidenced by the establishment of the JRC as a separate Directorate-
General, is one of the essential administrative and legal steps in this process. 
4. Better programme balance 
The Panel recommends that in a number of respects measures need to he taken to ensure a 
correct balance within the Framework Programme 
• A correct balance between fundamental and applied research, including the merging of 
convergent research areas 
The proposal for the Fifth Framework Programme defines a structure which can reconcile the 
need to help the Union maintain and develop the flow of ideas and scientific and technological 
knowledge with that of developing its technological capability in the most critical areas. The 
role of the Framework Programme is not to duplicate national funding of "blue skies" 
research. Nevertheless, the ever-closer interlinking of more basic and applied research in 
modern science and technology and in innovation nevertheless must be acknowledged and 
fully reflected in the Fifth Framework Programme. Two aspects of the Framework 
Programme need to be considered in this respect: 
• The key actions, where the specific bottlenecks may require focused basic research as well 
as applied technology development. 
• Activities for research and development of generic technologies. 
The same strict selection criteria would be used to identify all research actions. Moreover, 
any basic research component would vary as a function of the maturity of the research area 
and may be modified as progress is made. This is in accordance with the views of the Panel. 
Also in accordance with the recommendations of the Panel is the merging of programmes 
dealing with information and communications technologies and telematics applications 
(theme II), and the biotechnological elements within agriculture, biomedical research and 
biotechnology (under theme I). 
• A correct balance between thematic and activity based programmes 
A general principle underlying the structure and content of the Fifth Framework Programme, 
as recommended by the Panel, is that research projects should be managed, to the extent 
possible, from within the hematic programmes. Strong linkages will therefore be secured 
between the thematic and horizontal programmes, as in the case of exploitation of research 
where the functions of thematic and horizontal actions have been noted. In the case of 
training and mobility, the Panel believes changes are needed to improve the image of these 
activities and reduce delays. The programme on "improving human potential" will 
incorporate a number of changes based on experience of the TMR programme. In addition to 
reducing the timescale of evaluation and selection of proposals for fellowships (the target is 3 
54 
months), new measures will be introduced, such as ''industry host fellowships" which will 
create a more transparent and predictable environment in which to attract the very best 
researchers. 
• A correct balance with respect to the international dimension of EU research: further 
initiatives for aspiring member states and greater European added value in partnerships 
with developing countries. 
More intensive research cooperation, including with countries aspiring to become members of 
the European Union* is indeed being sought under the new Framework Programme. Full 
association with the Fifth Framework Programme would be possible for certain accession 
candidate countries, notably in Central and Eastern Europe , should they choose this formula. 
This would allow participation in the Programmes under similar conditions to the EEA states. 
An alternative would be participation on a project by project basis, in principle without 
Community funding; this being open to central and eastern European countries not fully 
associated. European Newly Independent States and Mediterranean third countries. 
As regards developing countries, cooperation projects will continue to be oriented towards 
these countries to develop scientific knowledge and technological capabilities which are 
appropriate to their needs and can assist in solving their development problems. There is also 
a recognised need to improve cooperation with "emerging economies" whose markets are 
growing very fast and which represent important opportunities for the EU. 
Conclusions 
The Commission's analysis of the report of the Framework Programme 5-Year Assessment 
Panel, demonstrates that its detailed recommendations will be very extensively taken up in the 
proposals for the Fifth Framework Programme. Nonetheless, the Panel recognises that fully 
to achieve the substantial changes they recommend, changes are needed to the legislative 
environment, which go beyond the scope of the Commission's Framework Programme 
proposals. 
In addition to Switzerland and Israel. 
55 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 151 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 12 15 16 05 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-142-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-18099-8 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
S"6