COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION - EU RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES - 5-YEAR ASSESSMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY RTD FRAMEWORD PROGRAMMES: REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT EXPERT PANEL - COMMISSION'S COMMENTS
Date: 1997-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, project evaluation, research and development, technological change

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 
this 
this  assessment  and 
communicate 
It 
assessment. 
conclusions,  accompanied  by  its  comments,  to  the  European 
the  Economic  and  Social 
Parliament, 
the  next 
its  proposal  for 
Committee  prior 
Framework  Programme ". 

the  Council  and 
to  submitting 

the  5-years  preceding 

shall 

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 
recommendations  of the expert panel. 

the  Commission's 

comments  on 

the 

'  Decision  N°  1110/94/EC 
2  Decision  N°  94/268/EURATOM 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

P A RT  A:  REPORT  OF THE INDEPENDENT  PANEL 

THE  5-YEAR  ASSESSMENT  PANEL 

TIME  FOR  A NEW  LEAP  FORWARD 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

2.  APPROACH  APPLIED  BY THE  PANEL 

3.  ASSESSMENT  OF THE  FRAMEWORK  PROGRAMME 

DURING  THE  LAST  5-YEARS 

4.  KEY  ISSUES  FOR  CHANGE 

4.1 Programme  Strategy 
4.1.1  Relevance 

4.1.2  European  Added  Value 

4.2  The  Legal  and  Management  Environment 
4.2.1  History  of the  Legal Problem 
4.2.2  A New  Legal  Framework 
4.2.3  Commission  Programme  Procedures 
4.2.4  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  of Programmes 
4.2.5  Intellectual  Property  and Patents 

4.3  Approach  to the Implementation  of the New  Framework  Programme 

4.3.1  Technology  Diffusion 
4.3.2  SMEs  ..." 
4.3.3  EUREKA 
4.3.4  Advanced  European  Virtual  Institutes 
4.3.5  A Systems  Approach 
4.3.6  Use of  Articles  (k),  (1), and  (n) 
4.3.7  The Joint  Research  Centre 

4.4  Programme  Balance 

4.4.1  Fundamental  Research  and Applied  Research 
4.4.2  Thematic  and  Activity  Based  Programmes 
4.4.3  External  Balance 

ANNEX  : 

RELEVANCE,  EFFICIENCY  AND 
EFFECTIVENESS  OF THE  FRAMEWORK 
PROGRAMMES  OVER  THE  LAST  FIVE  YEARS 

Table  1 : Framework  Programmes  3 and  4 
Table  2:  Specific  Programmes  under  Framework  Programme  4 and 

Euratom  Framework  Programme 

Table  3: Commitments  for  EU  RTD  activities 

P A RT  B:  COMMISSION'S  COMMENTS 

m 

1 

3 

7 

..9 

17 

19 

19 

20 

20 
20 
21 

22 
22 
23 
25 
26 
26 

27 
27 
28 
28 
28 
29 
29 
29 

30 
30 
31 
31 

33 

44 

45 
46 

47 

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. 

(  K. 
i / l ^ ^ ^ Ui 

, p --^ 

/  y^ 

sdb&jdtJy 

^^.^^.../^^rr^T.. 

^- 
. ^ ? ~ T ^ ^ ^ . . .,~ ! ^ T ^^ 

A ^ ^ _^ 

Viscount  Etienne  Davignon  (Belgium)  - Chairman  of  the Panel, 
President  of the Société  Générale  de Belgique, 
Former  European  Commission  Vice-President  for 
Research  and  Industry 

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) 
Junior  Minister  of Finance 

Prof.  James  Dooge  (Ireland) 
Former  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 

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 Président 

Le  19  février  1997 

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  F OR 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 
the  Programmes, 
improved  managerial  procedures  for  implementing  them  and,  when 
necessary, for adjusting  their priorities. 

legal  framework 

for  governing 

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 
is  greatly  determined  by  the  criteria  employed  in  the 
of  national  policies.  Effectiveness 
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  J RC 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 

the  existence  of  important  large-scale  facilities  which  no  individual  Member  State  would 

the  promotion  of  internationally  competitive  R&D  communities  in  new  interdisciplinary 

Evidence of European added value is demonstrated  by: 
• 
develop and sustain; 
• 
areas such as information  technology and  biotechnology; 
• 
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 creation of strong European  industrial platforms  based on common  technical  standards 

ensuring  that  European  science  supports  and  develops  its  existing  strengths  rather  than 

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: 
• 
focusing,  as it has in the past, on compensating  for weaknesses or "catching up"; 
• 
scientific  research; 
• 
Member  State can mount a major  effort. 

encouraging  the  scientific  community  to  work  closely  with  users  to  realise  the  fruits  of 

recognising  that  European  critical  mass  can  often  be  achieved  in  areas  where  no  single 

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; 
• 
and Telematics Programmes, and a strong convergence between the three. 

there is a strong trend away from  fundamental  research towards user needs in the ACTS, IT 

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  Specific  Programme 
is  so  constraining 
management,  while  wishing  to  focus  more  on  inter-modality,  concluded  they  were 
powerless to make the necessary changes. 

legal  process 

that 

the 

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 

legal  basis  requires  unanimous  adoption  of  the  European  Union 
The  current 
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. 

for  monitoring 

take  responsibility 

This  Committee  would 
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. 

- 

far 

this 

time-scale 

issue  provoked  by 

the  majority  of 
Overall 
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 
is 
in  some  areas.  While  this  appears  to  be  a  deliberate  tight 
understaffed 

the  Commission 

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  broader  context  of  Programmes, 

The  Panel  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  exercises  should  be 
increased  by  considering 
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 
three  Directorates-General 
institutionalises  and  implies  acceptance  of the  linear  model  of  innovation,  rather  than 
fostering  interaction  between knowledge creation and  application. 

responsibilities  between 

least 

at 

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 
the 
Commission  adopts the following  approach to  developing a more innovative culture. 

that 

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 

In  such 
vigorously  pursued  with  non-participants  when  this  does  not  occur. 
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. 

that 

The  Panel  feels 
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 
the 
Agriculture,  Biomedical  and  Biotechnology  Programmes  and  the  Panel  recommends 
that  these  aspects  also  be merged  in the  Fifth  Framework  Programme. 

elements  within 

Finally,  and  subject  to  meeting  European  added  value  criteria,  the  Panel  wishes  to 
research  linking  universities 
stress  its  support  for  a  continuing 
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. 

level  of fundamental 

4.4.2  Thematic  and  Activity-Based  Programmes 

The  Panel  believes  in  the  principle  that  wherever  possible  research  projects  and 
the  thematic  areas.  In  addition, 
programmes  should  be  managed  from  within 
responsibility  for  dissemination  and  exploitation  of  project  and  programme  results 
should  also  be  the  clear responsibility  of the  Thematic  Programme. 

to 
In  the  case  of  the  Innovation  Programme, 
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. 

this  means  a  refocusing  and  freedom 

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 

RELEVANCE, EFFICIENCY  AND EFFECTIVENESS  OF THE  FRAMEWORK 

PROGRAMMES  DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS 

ANNEX 

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 
(A) 

Life  Sciences & the 
Ecosystem  (B) 

Other  Programmes 
(Q 

* Telematics Applications 

* Biomedicine and Health 

* Targeted  Socio-

* Communications 

Technologies  (ACTS) 

* Biotechnology 

Economic  Research 
(TSER) 

^Information  Technologies 

* Agriculture & Fisheries 
^ .^  & 
,  ^ 

* Co-operation with Third 

C o u n t r i es  ( I N C Q) 

Technologies 
F m /:r n n m p nt  *  r i î m n t„ 
Environment  &  Climate 

* Dissemination & 
Optimisation  of Results 

v 

(INNOVATION) 
* Trainiim & Mobility  of 
Researchers  (TMR) 

* Industrial  & Materials 
TW4inr»ir»m*»c fTiMTY 
1 ecnnologies (1M1 ) 

* Standards. Measurement  & 

Testing (SMT) 

* 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 
the  establishment  of  new 
health  research  and  development  in  Europe  by  facilitating 
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 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

91-95 

FP  1987 -  1991 (FP2) 

F P 1 9 9 0-  1994 (FP3) 

Suppl.  Financ.  (FP3) 

FP  1994-  1998 (FP4) 

0) 

(D 

(2) 

(1) 

1270,7 

230,9 

14,8 

3,9 

0,2 

1520,5 

296 

2160,5 

1929,5 

1264,7 

1 

5651,7 

150 

750 

900 

0 

3017,1 

3017,1 

Total  RTD  programmes 

1566,7 

2391,4 

2094,3 

2018,6 

3018,3 

11089,3 

APAS 

(3) 

168,8 

308,4 

440,2 

571,8 

2,1 

1491,3 

Total  RTD  programmes  +  APAS 

1735,5 

2699,8 

2534,5 

2590,4 

3020,4 

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 

COMMITMENTS 

Activity  1: 

Information  Technologies  and  Communication 

Industrial  and  Material  Technologies 

Environment 
Life  Sciences 
Energy 
Transport 
Targeted  Socio-Economic  Research 

Total  Activity  1 
Activity  2: 

Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  and  Int.  Organisations 

717,6 

Activity  3: 

Dissemination  and  Exploitation  of Results 

293,8 

Activity  4: 

Training  and  Mobility  of Researchers 

Total  RTD  programmes  +  APAS 

820,6 
12580,6 

~ 

(1) Including JRC support to other EU policies 

1991 -  1995 

MECU 

% 

4 1 92  4 

1791,9 

1098,2 
1202,3 
2285,3 
96,8 
51,5 

" 
" 

10748,6  (1)~ 

33 3 

14,2 

8,7 
9,6~ 
18,2 ~ 
0,9 
0,5 

85,4~ 

5,7 

2,3 

6,5 
100 

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 
In  addition,  new  management 
improve  access  to  the  programmes,  especially  for  SMEs. 
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. 
initiative,  good 
Nevertheless,  and 
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. 

in  accordance  with  the  Commission's  SEM  2000 

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  P r o g r a m me 

The  Panel  suggests 
needed,  with  an  enhanced  range  of  modalities. 

that  a  more  integrated  approach 

to  support  for  RTD  and  innovation 

is 

•  Clear  responsibilities 

for  ensuring  diffusion 

incorporate  a  "lifecycle  approach"  to  project 
The  Fifth  Framework  Programme  should 
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 

in 

the  Commission's  second  working  document  on 

As  noted 
the  Fifth  Framework 
Programme,  closer  ties  with  EUREKA  are  being  uctively  sought.  Efforts  will  be  made  to 
the  flow  of 
ensure  complementarity  between 
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". 

instruments,  and  to  guarantee 

these  two 

•  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 
in  the  Fifth  Framework  Programme.  Two  aspects  of  the  Framework 
fully  reflected 
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