Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the response to the reports of the expert groups on the ex post evaluation of the sixth framework programmes
Date: 2009-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, expert's report ordered by a court, innovation, new technology, report, research and development, research programme

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.4.2009 
COM(2009) 210 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

On the Response to the Reports of the Expert Groups on the Ex Post Evaluation of the 
Sixth Framework Programmes  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

On the Response to the Reports of the Expert Groups on the Ex Post Evaluation of the 
Sixth Framework Programmes  

1. 

OVERALL CONTEXT 

The Decisions on the 7th Research Framework Programmes1 (EC and Euratom) stipulate that 
they should be evaluated within two years of their completion. The ex post evaluation of FP6 
(2002-2006) was carried out by a 13 member Expert Group, led by Professor Ernst Rietschel, 
President  of  the  Leibniz  Association.  The  evaluation  was  designed  to  assess  the  rationale, 
implementation  and  achievements  of  FP6  and  based  on  an  array  of  evidence2.  The  findings 
and recommendations of the specific evaluations on the JRC's direct actions and IST research 
were reported back to the Expert Group. 

Both  FPs  include  so-called  direct  actions  which  are  R&D  activities  carried  out  by  the 
European  Commission's  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC).  The  JRC  and  its  Board  of  Governors 
set up a Panel of experts, chaired by Sir David King3, which delivered its report in September 
2008.  Although  the  Commission  services  already  reacted4  to  the  findings  in  this  report, 
broadly supporting the recommendations made, the Commission finds it useful in the context 
of the general assessment of the whole FP6 to draw the attention to this dedicated evaluation 
report on the JRC, which the Commission considers to be the reference evaluation of the JRC 
(see annex).  

The ex-post evaluation of the IST Thematic Priority under FP6 was carried out by an Expert 
Group chaired by Mr Esko Aho. The Commission welcomed the report and set out its initial 
reactions to the recommendations made in a Communication5 to Institutional Stakeholders in 
September 2008. It proposed to make them the subject of a broad debate on European policy 
on innovation in ICT6. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological 
development  and  demonstration  activities  (2007-2013);  2006/970/Euratom:  Council  Decision  of 
18 December  2006  Concerning  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Atomic  Energy 
Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) 
Further details on the evidence and the method used by the FP6 evaluation Expert Group are available 
in the evaluation report at  
http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/fp6_evaluation_final_report_en.pdf  
Ex-post  Evaluation,  Joint  Research  Centre  Direct  Actions  in  the  6th  Framework  Programmes  (2002-
2006), Final Report September 2008 
Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Direct  Actions  under  the  Sixth  Framework  Programmes  for  Research 
Technology Development and Demonstration carried out by the Joint Research Centre, SEC(2008)3015 
COM (2008) 533 - 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0533:FIN:EN:PDF 
COM  (2009)  116;  "A  Strategy  for  ICT  R&D  and  Innovation 
Game"(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/tl/research/documents/ict-rdi-strategy.pdf) 

in  Europe:  Raising 

the 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
 
2. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  major  objectives  of  the  6th  Research  Framework  Programmes  (2002-2006)  and  their 
Specific Programmes were to integrate strengthen and structure the European Research Area. 
With a budget of €19.235 billion these were some  of the world's most comprehensive public 
research programmes and to evaluate them is a demanding task.  

The  Commission  has  recently  received  the  report  of  the  Expert  Group,  which  has  set  a 
benchmark in terms of the range and quality of evidence used and the level of detail provided.  

The findings, conclusions recommendations and the vision on the future of the FPs presented 
in this report provide valuable input for future policy development and follow-on evaluation, 
in particular the FP7 interim evaluation and the design of FP8, to start in 2014.  

The aim of this Communication is to respond to the issues raised in the ex-post evaluation in 
an open and transparent manner, outlining which actions the Commission intends to take or 
has  already  taken  to  alleviate  the  problem,  but  also  discussing  issues  where  no  obvious  or 
immediate solution exists.  

It is obvious that a number of the issues raised in the evaluation report, in particular regarding 
the design and content of the FPs and financial rules which given their implementation cannot 
be  addressed  by  the  Commission  alone,  but  will  need  the  engagement  of  a  wider  group  of 
actors  including  the  Member  States,  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  working 
together.  

3. 

RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. 
Prior to proposing plans for FP8, the Commission should analyse and more clearly 
document  the  current  and  future  rationale  of  the  FP  at  both  aggregate  and  micro  levels. 
The  number  of  goals  set  for  a  FP  should  be  commensurate  with  the  Commission’s  and 
other  actors’  capacity  to  manage  towards  these  goals.  The  Commission  should  document 
and make more transparent the consultation processes involved in designing a FP at both 
the aggregate and the Work Programme level. 

The Commission agrees with the overall intent of the recommendation. 

The  preparation  and  design  of  the  FP8  proposal  will  be  preceded  by  extensive,  open  and 
transparent consultation with stakeholders. A detailed analysis of its rationale will be set out 
in the Impact Assessment accompanying the FP8 proposal.  

The  'realisation  of  the  ERA'  has  been  the  overarching  objective  of  EU  R&D  policy  and  the 
FPs since 2003 and will likely remain so.  

The  FP  will  increasingly  need  to  take  into  account  the  partnership  approach  with  Member 
States as set out in the Ljubljana process7 and the commonly agreed ERA vision for 20208: 

7 

The  Competitiveness  Council  of  30  May  2008  launched  the  Ljubljana  Process  of  enhanced  political 
steering and governance of ERA. At present five partnerships are being built between the Commission 
and  the  Member  States:  career  aspects  and  mobility  for  researchers;  management  of  intellectual 
property in knowledge transfer; joint programming between the Member States; pan-European research 
infrastructures; international science and technology cooperation. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
creating  a  European  internal  market  for  science,  knowledge  and  technology,  more 
coordination of research activities and policies and more focus on programmes and policies to 
address  major  societal  challenges–such  as  energy,  environment,  climate,  health,  ageing  and 
sustainable  development.  This  may  lead  to  challenging  issues  such  as  finding  new  ways  to 
leverage  resources  through  partnership.  It  will  also  aim  to  support  and  reinforce  the 
implementation  of  the  5  ERA  initiatives  launched  in  2008,  in  particular  the  researchers 
partnership,  the  strategy  for  international  research  cooperation  and  the  joint  programming 
approach.  

2. 
An FP, however, needs to be more than a reflection of what competing beneficiary 
or  stakeholder  communities  want  of  it  at  the  outset.  It  needs  the  flexibility  to  evolve  and 
change. The FP should not develop into a substitute for the RTD policies of Member States 
or  for  other  local  problems,  but  should  be  better  synchronised  with  national  research 
efforts  in  order  to  strengthen  and  structure  the  ERA.  It  should  also  consciously  avoid 
monopoly.  At  present,  the  Commission  and  the  FP  have  a  hand  in  almost  all  European 
RTD cooperations, risking a monotony of thinking and ideas and precluding the benefits of 
diversity in the European research system. 

The Commission is in broad agreement with the recommendation and the need to better align 
and coordinate Community and national research efforts in order to strengthen and structure 
the ERA.  

The ambition for better synchronisation, at policy and programme  level, is to a large extent 
the  rationale  behind  the  need  for  strong  and  durable  ERA  partnerships  between  the 
Commission and the Member States within the Ljubljana process. On the policy level, this is 
done  via  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  and  through  the  implementation  of  the 
Community  ERA  initiatives  launched  in  20089.  At  programme  level,  and  building  on  the 
experience  of  ERA-NETs  and  Art.  169  initiatives,  the  Commission  has  proposed  a  Joint 
Programming approach.  

The  FP  is  indeed  not  a  substitute  for  national  funding  but  has  to  provide  European  added 
value independent of the size and scope of the project and the instrument being used.  

The  suggestion  of  a  monopoly  by  the  Commission  and  the  Framework  Programme  in 
European research is not borne out by the evidence. Institutions and activities such as CERN, 
EUREKA, the ESF and COST are just a number of the Europe-wide and multilateral bodies 
which today support the European research system.  

The  ‘Third  country’  terminology  must  be  abandoned  as  it  stands  in  the  way  for 
3. 
strategic thinking. It should be replaced by three strategies: one for EU FP collaboration 
with  the  developing  countries;  one  for  collaboration  with  growth  economies;  and  one  for 
collaboration with industrialised countries outside the EU. The budget for cooperation with 
the  major  existing  (such  as  US  and  Japan)  and  emerging  economies  (including  India, 
China  and  Brazil)  should  be  increased  dramatically  and  strategies  tailored  to  reinforce 
mobility with these countries and to engage them as partners in the mainstream of the FP, 
thereby strengthening both the quality and purpose of ERA. FP activities for collaborating 
with  developing  countries  should  concentrate  on  topics  and  technologies  of  relevance  for 
development and where EU scientists are globally in the lead. 

8 
9 

The 'ERA Vision 2020' was adopted by the Competitiveness Council on 2 December 2008 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/specific-era-initiatives_en.html 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
The term 'third country' covers those countries which are not full members of the Framework 
Programme, including non-EU and non Associated Countries.  

The Commission acknowledges even though the term might have some disadvantages it has 
not been an obstacle to more targeted and nuanced thinking on strategic research partnerships 
with  the  three  types  of  country  specified10.  To  replace  the  term  using  further  classification 
would not necessarily be in the interests of clarity or simplification. The Commission would 
also  emphasise  the  importance  of  maintaining  the  focus  on  excellence  in  international 
cooperation through the FPs, whilst paying attention to the particular research needs identified 
by partner countries and also encouraging support for capacity building for research through 
other funding sources.  

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  need  to  provide  a  clearer  focus  to  research  collaboration 
with  'third  countries',  as  was  stated  in  the  recent  Communication  on  a  Strategic  European 
Framework for International Science and Technology Cooperation.11  

The  Commission  is  very  supportive  of  the  need  to  see  an  increase  in  the  level  of  funding 
going to research partnerships with developed countries thus strengthening the link with the 
best global science. Practical hurdles need to be overcome before this will be achieved.  

Several developments in FP7 point the way forward:  

•  the  Specific  International  Cooperation  Actions  have  proven  effective  in  supporting 
partnership  on  shared  challenges,  particularly  with  growth  economies  and  developing 
countries – for example coordinated calls with strategic partners such as Russia and India 
have been launched  

•  building  a  strategic  partnership  with  the  Member  States,  notably  'Fostering  strategic 
cooperation  with  key  third  countries  through  geographic  and  thematic  targeting'  -  to  this 
end, a new Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation has been established  

•  mutual opening of programmes, such as in the area of 'health' between the EU and US 

4. 
A  new  bottom-up  format  (inspired  by  NEST  in  FP6)  should  be  introduced  to  test 
research  directions  and  original  ways  of  achieving  collaboration.  The  format’s 
characteristics  should  be  swift  and  risk-taking,  ‘scientific  excellence’  being  the  only 
criterion for selection.  

Frontier research has much greater weight in FP7 and the 'bottom up' philosophy, pioneered 
by NEST is a key principle of the European Research Council (ERC), covering all areas of 
science and technology including social sciences and the humanities. The ERC's support for 
Principal  Investigators  and  individual  teams  is  a  change  in  approach  from  the  collaborative 
research promoted by NEST.  

Because collaborative schemes can be efficient means of stimulating interdisciplinary frontier 
research via cross-European partnerships, as a complement to the ERC, NEST-style research 

10 

11 

In  fact  the  levels  are:  'associated  countries';  'neighbourhood  policy  countries'  (Mediterranean,  and 
Eastern);  and  'strategic  countries',  the  later  with  thematic  focus,  including  global  challenges, 
development goals, etc. 
COM  (2008)  558,  'A  Strategic  European  Framework  for  International  Science  and  Technology 
Cooperation' p.7 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
has  been  taken  up  as  a  component  of  each  of  the  FP7  thematic  priorities.  Notable  amongst 
these  is  the  Future  and  Emerging  Technologies  (FET-Proactive)  initiative  under  the  ICT 
thematic  priority  which  aims  at  focusing  resources  on  visionary  and  challenging  long-term 
goals with strong potential for future impact.  

The Commission accepts that more attention may be necessary to ensure that the combination 
of  instruments  to  promote  frontier  research,  both  by  individual  teams  and  cross-European 
partnerships, works effectively across the range of FP research. A reflection on strengthening 
NEST-style  frontier  research  should  not  limit  itself  to  targeted  research  within  specific 
thematic objectives but also consider 'bottom-up', 'cross-thematic' interdisciplinary research.  

5. 
SME participation in the thematic priorities is important and should be encouraged. 
However,  the  utility  of  an  overall  15%  target  should  be  re-examined  in  favour  of 
mechanisms which are more in line with the relevant industrial dynamics.  

The  Commission  feels  that  the  participation  of  SMEs  in  the  Framework  Programmes, 
including within the thematic priorities should be encouraged. The 15 % target is a reflection 
of the importance the co-legislators attached to the issue and was never intended to be an end 
in itself. Regional and national programmes and their partners are frequently better suited to 
the nature and the needs of SMEs.  

Across many FPs there have been sustained efforts, including currently an Interservices Task 
Force, to monitor SME participation and establish specific provisions which fit their particular 
needs. A notable success includes the Eurostars Programme which is a joint initiative between 
EUREKA  and  FP7  to  provide  funding  for  market-oriented  research  and  with  the  active 
participation of research performing SMEs.  

Detailed  study  work  is  under  way  to  explore  the  benefits  which  SMEs  gain  from  FP 
participation, including the special measures in the Capacities Specific Programme. This work 
is  also  intended  to  provide  a  much  improved  understanding  of  the  nature  of  SME  research 
activities inside the FP, including the needs of high, medium and low-tech SMEs, with a view 
to streamlining SME support in future Framework Programmes.  

6. 
The  Expert  Group  recommends  continuing  the  ESFRI  process,  including  its 
roadmap  and  foresight  activities,  recognising  that  FP  activities  that  support  research 
infrastructures which serve multiple fields have proven highly effective.  

The  Commission  will  continue  to  support  the  activities  in  the  European  Strategy  Forum  on 
Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). ESFRI plays a key role in the development of strategy, in 
particular  through  its  Roadmap  for  new  European  Research  Infrastructures  (ERIs).  This 
should  be  complemented  by  development  of  national  roadmaps  by  Member  States,  and  by 
increased  coordination  of  research  infrastructures  at  the  global  level.  This  is  in  line  with 
Community actions in this domain. In particular in FP7 a new action aimed to help develop 
the  next  generation  of  European  research  infrastructures  (Construction  -  Preparatory  Phase) 
are targeted to the ESFRI Roadmap.  

The  Commission  is  complementing  this  with  a  new  legal  framework  for  ERIs  which  will 
foster and speed up the decision process.  

The  Commission  acknowledges  the  effectiveness  of  infrastructures  which  serve  multiple 
fields,  such  as  the  ICT-based  infrastructures.  It  will  continue  to  provide  strong  support  for 

EN 

6 

   EN 

their  further  development  in  the  future,  taking  into  account  their  rapid  technological 
evolution, their global dimension, as well as the advice provided by fora such as the eIRG12.  

7. 
Steps must be taken to substantially increase the participation of female researchers 
in  FP  projects,  by  means  of  much  more  pro-active  approaches  such  as  (re)introducing 
specific  gender  equality  actions  after  quality  criteria  as  a  condition  of  funding  in  large 
instruments.  Statistics  must  be  systematically  and  continuously  gathered,  analysed  and 
monitored and actions taken if progress towards equality is not being achieved.  

The Commission supports the need for a better gender balance amongst European researchers. 
However, it is cautious with the direction proposed by the Expert Group. The FP should act as 
a best practice example and set standards. But the proportion of women in the FP is already 
higher than overall in national programmes and there are limits to what the FP can achieve on 
its own. The foundation for any future action must be based on a better collection and analysis 
of statistics on the gender of researchers. There is the need for more bottom-up approaches, in 
cooperation with the Member States and other policy fields that impact on gender equality, a 
good  example  being  the  Code  of  Best  Practices  for  Women  and  ICT13  which  is  looking  at 
creating the conditions, in co-operation with the European ICT industry to attract and retain 
women.  

It  is  crucial  for  Europe’s  future  scientific  and  technological  vitality  and 
8. 
competitiveness  to  ensure  that  research  is  seen  by  young  people  as  an  attractive  career 
choice.  Focusing  the  FP  more  strongly  on  addressing  the  major  global  needs  and 
challenges could be one way of addressing this issue. Other elements would be to promote 
further  the  mobility  of  young  European  scientists  and  to  allow  more  students  and  young 
researchers from scientifically emerging countries to study and work in Europe.  

The Commission agrees with the need to attract young people to make a career in science and 
technology.  The  Rocard  Report  on  Education  Science14  clearly  demonstrated  the  declining 
interest of young generations in science studies and amongst its conclusions noted the need to 
radically change science teaching models.  

Solutions  will  need  to  be  found  at  Member  States  and  Community  level,  involving  actions 
from different policy fields and including a wide range of stakeholders.  

FP7 is already increasing its focus on major global needs and challenges, one example being 
renewable  energy  technologies  within  the  strategic  energy  technology  (SET)  plan.  Joint 
Technology  Initiatives,  the  proposed  joint  programming  approach  and  also  building  global 
partnership  within  the  new  international  S&T  strategy  all  focus  on  major  global  needs  and 
challenges.  

Another  area  where  progress  has  been  made  is  with  the  market  place  for  researchers.  The 
recent European Partnership for Researchers aims at national and European policy measures 
to make Europe overall a more attractive place in terms of researchers careers and mobility. 
Further  work  on  the  uptake  at  the  level  of  research  institutions  of  the  principles  of  the 
European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for their Recruitment will help create 

12 
13 
14 

e-Infrastructures Reflection Group : http://www.e-irg.eu 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/itgirls/doc/code.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-
education_en.pdf 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
stronger  research  careers  and  real  competition.  The  Commission  also  expects  to  see  more 
awareness raising in secondary education where career junctions are set.  

On  the  question  of  encouraging  young  scientists  to  study  and  work  in  Europe,  the 
Commission  points  to  the  very  real  progress  with  innovations  such  as  the  'scientific  visa' 
which provides a specific residence permit for third country researchers. At the same time, it 
is important to avoid creating a scientific brain drain. The aim is to promote a true exchange 
including  a  return  phase  to  the  third  country  to  allow  building  their  national  institutions  up 
while at the same time creating links for mutual long term benefits.  

9. 
Administration  of  the  FP  needs  radical  overhaul,  not  incremental  tinkering.  The 
Commission should engage external help to review its procedures – including its financial 
control procedures, with specific targets including reducing the ‘headline’ time-to-contract 
indicator by 50% and of moving from a cost basis in contracts to a price basis, so that cost 
no longer needs to be audited except perhaps for a small number of projects. In its support 
of scientific projects, the Commission should continue to change from a contract to a grant 
basis.  

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  importance  of  administration  and  simplification  and  in 
particular of the two concrete issues highlighted by the Expert Group. Simplification has been 
one of the main objectives of FP7, and achievements have been outlined in the recent progress 
report  on  FP7,  for  example  with  respect  to  the  Participants  Guarantee  Fund  which  has 
permitted abolition of ex-ante financial viability checks for the majority of participants; one-
off  submission  of  legal  documents  via  the  unique  registration  facility;  and  new  electronic 
tools to facilitate the negotiation of contracts.  

As outlined in the Progress report, the Commission's ability to simplify is constrained by the 
given legal context. The radical overhaul suggested by the report could be based on external 
help  to  review  procedures,  but  it  will  also  require  a  joint  effort  with  the  legislator,  the 
budgetary  authority  and  the  Court  of  Auditors  to  change  the  overall  legal,  financial  and 
control  framework.  This  should  aim  to  achieve  a  better  balance  between  simplicity  and 
reduction  of  bureaucratic  burden  on  the  one  hand,  and  sound  financial  management  and 
accountability on the other.  

A  Commission  Communication  on  simplification  is  planned  for  2010,  which  would  be  the 
occasion for reflecting on these issues and for taking account of the ongoing dialogue with the 
Legislative Authority and the Court of Auditors in respect of the concept of the tolerable risk 
of error15.  

10. 
The  Commission  should  broaden  its  evaluation  culture  considerably,  in  order  to 
measure  and  demonstrate  the  impacts  of  the  FP.  To  date,  evaluations  of  the  FP  have 
tended to focus on the planning and organisation of the most recent programme. There is a 
significant deficit in our understanding of the effects of the FP over time and on the wider 
context  (including  institutions;  disciplines  and  technologies;  industry;  society  at  large; 
policy).  While  the  programme-focused  style  of  evaluation  promoted  by  the  Commission’s 
internal  regulations  is  of  course  important,  it  is  hard  to  develop  a  good  understanding  of 
how the FP works and to improve it without also considering these other perspectives.  

15 

Following Communication (COM(2008)866 of 16.12.2008, "Towards a common understanding of the 
concept of tolerable risk of error". 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
The  Commission  recognises  the  need  to  undertake  more  research  on  the  longer-term  and 
structural  impacts  of  the  FP  (on  institutions,  industry,  Member  States  etc.)  and  has  already 
taken steps to ensure such work is carried out.  

Strong support from the Member States in understanding the longer-term impacts is crucial. 
The  recent  impact  studies  and  conference  to  emerge  from  the  EUFORDIA16  grouping  have 
provided a timely lesson on what can be achieved through such ad hoc initiatives, to which 
the Commission will continue to give its strong support.  

4. 

OUTLOOK  

This response to the FP6 evaluation is part of a renewed and strengthened commitment made 
by  the  Commission  to  report  on  the  implementation,  progress  and  achievements  of  the 
Framework Programmes.  

Together with the current work, the sequence of reporting and evaluation exercises includes 
the  recently  published  FP7  Monitoring  report17,  the  FP7  Progress  report  and  in  2010  the 
interim evaluation of FP7.  

The FP6 ex post evaluation report and the Commission response as well as the specific reports 
on the JRC's direct actions and IST research will be key elements feeding into the FP7 interim 
evaluation. This will help to ensure not only better continuity and a deeper understanding of 
the issues being examined but also a stronger engagement between evaluation and processes 
for  policy  and  decision  making.  Ultimately  this  will  help  to  adapt  the  current  Framework 
Programme  and  the  design  of  FPs  to  contribute  to  the  realisation  of  the  European  Research 
Area:  a  European  internal  market  for  science,  knowledge  and  technology  which  increases 
scientific and technological excellence through competition and at the same time provides a 
space  for  coordination  of  research  activities,  programmes  and  policies  in  Europe  to  address 
major societal challenges more effectively and efficiently.  

16 
17 

European Forum on Research and Development Impact Assessment 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/first_fp7_monitoring_en.pdf 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Annex 

An independent assessment of the Joint Research Centre’s (JRC) 
direct actions in FP6 

The ex post FP6 Evaluation of the JRC by a Panel chaired by Sir David King, deals with all 
direct  actions  in  the  Framework  Programmes  and  reports  on  the  results  in  the  JRC  Specific 
Programmes. It provides the Commission and the JRC with recommendations for a continued 
improvement of its science-based policy support.  

Rather  than  assessing  the  performance  of  each  of  the  seven  JRC  Institutes  the  Panel 
emphasised  an  integrated  approach  to  the  JRC  and  evaluated  the  organisation  as  an  entity 
focussing on its main competence areas according to the structure of the Multi-Annual Work 
Programme (MAWP) for FP6. Thematic achievements have been assessed on the basis of site 
visits  and  parallel  desk  studies  of  the  background  material  provided  by  the  JRC.  The  Panel 
paid  special  attention  to  the  quality  of  the  research  activities,  as  well  as  to  the  quality  of 
implementation  and  management,  and  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  set.  In  addition,  it 
took evidence from JRC customer surveys carried out by an external survey company.  

The  overall  assessment  of  the  JRC’s  performance  and  achievements  during  FP6  is  positive, 
coming to the conclusion that “the JRC has undergone a major transformation over the last 10 
years,  consolidating  its  position  as  an  indispensable  source  of  knowledge  and  expertise  in 
support  of  the  political  agenda  of  the  EU”.  The  delivered  science  and  policy  support  is 
qualified  as  “good,  very  good  and  sometimes  excellent”.  The  Panel  observed  a  continued 
improvement of the customer orientation of the JRC from FP5 through to FP6 ever since the 
adoption  of  the  new  mission  of  the  JRC  in  1998.  They  acknowledge  the  JRC’s  strategic 
framework: a convincing mission statement, a value statement and regular internal evaluation. 
To complete the strategic framework and to lift the organisation to a higher level in serving 
the policy customer the Panel underline the need for the JRC to establish a longer-term vision 
and an overarching corporate strategy. In such a higher mode of operation the Panel is also of 
the opinion that the JRC has the right knowledge base and skills to intervene in a proactive 
way in relevant policy processes.  

The positive assessment of the JRC’s implementation of the direct actions in FP6 in terms of 
its  customer  orientation,  its  quality  and  its  impact  is  well  received.  The  Commission 
welcomes the findings and the high level of the analyses in the report, as well as the thrust of 
the recommendations. It acknowledges the role of the Board of Governors in the discussions 
of the early results and is pleased with the positive reactions from the scientific community18 
which will help to further strengthen the position of the JRC, as the Commission’s in-house 
provider of scientific support and advice. 

Fully  accepting  the  recommendations  in  the  report,  the  Commission  is  committed  to 
establishing an overarching corporate strategy of the JRC in time for the interim evaluation of 
FP7.  The  ultimate  goal  is  an  optimum  exploitation  of  the  knowledge  base  of  the  JRC  in 
support  of  EU  policies  as  well  as  a  clear  place  for  the  JRC  in  the  discussions  on  science, 
science policy and research in the EC and Euratom Framework Programmes. Within the JRC 
it will also lead to further integration and coordination across the institutes.  

18 

"Dismal  no  more:  Europe's  Joint  Research  Centre  should  be  empowered  to  stimulate  other  EU 
institutions". In: Nature 457, 357-358 (22 January 2009)  

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
In  FP7  the  JRC  started  taking  a  more  proactive  approach  in  its  policy  support  with  the 
publication  of  JRC  reference  reports.  These  JRC  reports  nurture  the  debate  on  important 
societal issues that are of major concern to the European policy makers and citizens alike, all 
in the spirit of the recommendations. Given its accumulated knowledge and experience, and 
its close contact with the scientific community, it is well placed to see problems coming. In 
this light the Commission supports the JRC in meeting the challenge by designing a corporate 
strategy that is also aimed at developing the desired, more proactive approach in supporting 
the policy making process. 

EN 

11 

   EN