WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/00 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme.
Date: 2000-01-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU research policy, cost-effectiveness analysis, evaluation method, impact study, management, research programme

C 330 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/00

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

Subject: Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme

(26 January 2000)

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

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

1.

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

Does it consider that this method can provide an indication of the effectiveness of the Fifth

2.
Framework programme?

3.

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

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the methodology proposed by the Nederlandse Centraal Planbureau

1.
(NCP).

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

that derives from the application of

The value of Community support to projects should be explored by assessing not only whether the project
would have been carried out in the absence of funding, but also by whether public support improved the
way in which the project is done, for example making it better,
larger, faster or more collaborative.
Moreover, the reasons for financing a project should be judged against its European added value (EAV), a
concept
the subsidiarity principle. Criteria used to evaluate
programmes are also related to this (cid:145)Community added value(cid:146) that covers notably the establishment of a
(cid:145)critical mass(cid:146) through the combination of resources available at national level, the contribution to the
implementation of Community policies and the solving of problems arising at Community level. In order
to assess the effectiveness of the framework programme it is therefore important not only to consider
isolated projects but also to assess, as a whole, the projects financed under a programme. This takes into
account the fact that the impact of programmes is more than the sum of the projects(cid:146) impact.

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

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

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/85

(cid:145)Options and limits for assessing the socio-economic impact of European RTD programmes(cid:146) is sent direct
to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. The recommendations of the experts group are
currently being considered in the context of the monitoring and evaluation of the framework programme.

(2000/C 330 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0110/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Decentralisation of air communications

(26 January 2000)

As part of the plans announced by the Member of the Commission responsible for transport in relation to
the Europeanisation of European air space, and in the light of the chaotic experience of recent years, will
the Commission encourage the decentralisation of air communications through the development of
alternative international airports such as that at Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, Spain, thus avoiding
the congestion caused by the irrational concentration of flights in Madrid, where the central government
intends to focus yet more airport investment on the construction of new runways and even a new airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

Existing Community legislation on intra-Community air transport
implies that air carriers take the
decisions on their network structure including frequency of flights and localisation of connecting points
on the basis of their own commercial considerations taking into account factors such as airport charges,
availability of slots and size of the markets to be served. In relation to flights to and from third country
destinations, however, most of the bilateral air services agreements concluded individually by Member
States include rules which restrict the capacity of regional airports to attract additional traffic.

The Commission is of the opinion that direct public intervention in the commercial decisionmaking of air
carriers on the location of operations should be limited to specific situations such as safeguarding public
service operations or distribution of traffic within an airport system on the basis of specific rules
established by Community legislation. More general
interventions aimed at steering traffic from one
airport to another are incompatible with the rules and the goals of air transport liberalisation.

Notwithstanding these general principles the Commission is currently examining whether increasing
concentration of air transport operations towards few hub airports could be eased by appropriate support
measures for enhancing the role of regional airports (secondary hubs) in the overall airport system. It
intends to present the outcome of this examination in 2001. In addition, the Commission will continue
and strengthen its efforts to conclude air transport agreements for the Community as a whole with third
countries that would improve the possibility of regional airports to attract additional traffic.

(2000/C 330 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Environmental deterioration of the river Tea in Galicia

(26 January 2000)

Ecological organisations have complained that the river Tea, which flows through south-western Galicia
is suffering serious environmental damage due to work linked to land
and joins the river Miæo,