COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Accompanying the document 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 Report of the High Level Expert Group on the Ex-Post Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme
Date: 2016-01-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, innovation, project evaluation, research and development, technological change

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 19.1.2016  SWD(2016) 1 final   Ex-Post Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Accompanying the document 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 Report of the High Level Expert Group on the Ex-Post Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme {COM(2016) 5 final} {SWD(2016) 2 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet (Max 2 pages) 

Introduction 
The Staff Working Document (SWD) assesses the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) on 
the basis of the five evaluation criteria of the Better Regulation Guidelines. It covers the seven 
years of FP7 implementation. It cannot present a complete picture of FP7 results and impacts, 
since more than 50% of the FP7 projects are still on-going.  
1. How effective has FP7 been? 
FP7 contributed to increasing the competitiveness of Europe's industry and had a positive 
impact  on  growth  and  jobs.  FP7  only  accounts  for  a  small  proportion  of  total  public  RTD 
expenditure in Europe. It is estimated that FP7 will increase GDP by approximately 20 billion 
EUR  per  year  over  the  next  25  years  through  its  indirect  economic  effects  and  create  over 
130,000  research  jobs  per  year  and  160,000  additional  jobs  per  year.  The  Joint  Technology 
Initiatives and other Public-Private Partnerships boosted industry participation by more than 
50%,  made  it  possible  to  realise  strong  leverage  effects,  and  contributed  to  the 
competitiveness of Europe's industries in areas such as pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and fuel 
cells and hydrogen. The Risk-Sharing Finance Facility improved access to loan finance with 
EUR  11.3  billion  loan  agreements  signed.  FP7  participants  reported  innovative  product 
developments, increased turnover, improved productivity and competitiveness. It is, however, 
too early to make a final assessment of FP7's micro-economic impacts. 

FP7 was particularly effective in strengthening scientific excellence. FP7 projects have  so 
far  generated  over  170,000  publications,  with  an  open  access  rate  of  over  54%  for  all 
scientific peer reviewed publications created during the life time of FP7. In some programmes 
of  FP7  30%  of  publications  rank  among  the  top  5%  of  highly-cited  publications  in  their 
disciplines  -  above  the  European  and  US  averages.  Finished  FP7  projects  led  to  more  than 
1,700  patents  and  7,400  commercial  exploitations.  FP7  promoted  ground-breaking  research 
through the European Research Council (ERC).  

FP7  trained  and  involved  leading  international  scientific  and  technological  talent.  FP7 
fostered  inter-disciplinary  research  whilst  increasing  Europe-wide  research  and  innovation 
collaboration  and  networking.  FP7  was  an  open  system  that  funded  more  than  21,000  new 
organisations. FP7 helped increase the participation of women researchers and of international 
researchers.  FP7  involved  the  EU-13  Member  States  to  a  significant  extent  taking  into 
account national R&D capacities.  

FP7 contributed to increasing the level of research investment. Through short-term leverage 
effect  and  long-term  multiplier  effects  each  EUR  spent  by  FP7  generated  EUR  11  of 
estimated  direct  and  indirect  economic  effects.  FP7  enhanced  the  alignment  of  research 
activities between Member States.  
2. How efficient has FP7 been? 
FP7 simplification measures led to cost savings for participants of 551 million EUR compared 
to FP6. However, FP7 did not succeed in delivering large scale simplification. The different 
components  of  FP7  risked  at  creating  silos.  The  variations  in  rules  and  procedures  between 
different  parts  of  FP7  hindered  its  efficiency,  which  is  demonstrated  in  part  by  FP7's  high 
error rate. 
3. How relevant was FP7? 
Under  FP7,  actions  were  taken  to  respond  to  the  economic  crisis.  FP7  addressed  relevant 
societal challenges such as food safety, climate change, health and socio economic issues such 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
as migration and radicalisation, investing more than 28.7 billion EUR in 7,873 projects.   

4. How coherent was FP7 internally and with other (EU) actions? 
FP7  worked  coherently  with  other  EU  policy  initiatives  such  as  the  Competitiveness  and 
Innovation  Programme  and  the  Structural  Funds.  However  there  could  have  been  greater  
synergies. FP7 provided the knowledge-base to support EU policies in more than 374 cases 
and  contributed  to  international  commitments  such  as  the  Millennium  Development  Goals. 
FP7  was  open  to  the  world,  involving  participants  from  170  countries.  The  different 
components of FP7 operated as isolated silos. 
6. What is the EU added value of FP7? 
FP7 addressed transnational European societal challenges which could not have been resolved 
by  Member  States  alone.  FP7  ensured  additionality,  meaning  that  only  a  small  minority  of 
projects would have gone ahead in its absence. Many FP7 activities were of such a scale and 
complexity in terms of knowledge and skills from different sectors and disciplines that they 
could  only  be  carried  out  at  EU  level  to  achieve  the  required  critical  mass.  FP7  helped 
creating durable cross-border, cross-sectoral, inter-disciplinary networks.  
7. Lessons learnt 
Notwithstanding the measures that were introduced in the course of the Programme, FP7 did 
not lead to large-scale simplification and rules remained too complex. While FP7 as a whole 
proved adaptable to changing economic circumstances, FP7 could have had a greater scope to 
adapt to unexpected and emerging issues. FP7 sought to ensure complementarity with other 
related programmes, but could have been more effective in building synergies.