WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/00

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme

The effectiveness of predecessors of the Fifth Framework programme has never been examined in depth. Input data have been analysed and an overview of successful projects has been given. However, there has been no study of the benefits to society.

The Netherlands Central Planning Office (CPB) recently proposed a simple method of research (in working document 111 of July 1999). This involves examining to what extent research proposals which did not qualify for cofinancing under the Fifth Framework programme have nevertheless been implemented. The objective of the Fifth Framework programme is to promote research which economic operators would not carry out entirely on their own. If the projects rejected have in fact been fully implemented, that would indicate that the Fifth Framework programme is missing the mark.

1. Is the Commission aware of the research method developed by the CPB?

2. Does it consider that this method can provide an indication of the effectiveness of the Fifth Framework programme?

3. If not, why not?, If so, does it intend to apply this method?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the methodology proposed by the Nederlandse Centraal Planbureau (NCP).

2. In the light of its own series of studies on the issue, the Commission is of the view that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the framework programme is a complex task and that there is no single measure of its global impact. The method proposed by NCP is but one of many which might be considered in this regard. It has the drawback of being based only on rejected projects and of taking the view that the role of the framework programme is simply to support research which would otherwise not take place.

The value of Community support to projects should be explored by assessing not only whether the project would have been carried out in the absence of funding, but also by whether public support improved the way in which the project is done, for example making it better, larger, faster or more collaborative. Moreover, the reasons for financing a project should be judged against its European added value (EAV), a concept that derives from the application of the subsidiarity principle. Criteria used to evaluate programmes are also related to this Community added value that covers notably the establishment of a critical mass through the combination of resources available at national level, the contribution to the implementation of Community policies and the solving of problems arising at Community level. In order to assess the effectiveness of the framework programme it is therefore important not only to consider isolated projects but also to assess, as a whole, the projects financed under a programme. This takes into account the fact that the impact of programmes is more than the sum of the projects' impact.

For these reasons, the effectiveness of the framework and specific programmes cannot fully rely on the analysis of rejected projects that by definition are not supposed to comply with Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes objectives.

3. The importance of putting a strong emphasis on European added value has been confirmed by the group of outstanding experts in the field of research programme evaluation assembled by the Commission last year to examine the issue of measurement of RTD results and impact. The report of the group

Options and limits for assessing the socio-economic impact of European RTD programmes is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The recommendations of the experts group are currently being considered in the context of the monitoring and evaluation of the framework programme.