Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**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 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_ _"._

_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_ _the_ _Commission's_ _comments_ _on_ _the_
_recommendations of_ _the_ _expert panel._

_' Decision N°_ _1110/94/EC_
_2_ _Decision_ _N° 94/268/EURATOM_

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**PART A: REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL** 1

THE 5-YEAR ASSESSMENT PANEL 3

TIME FOR A NEW LEAP FORWARD 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..9

1. INTRODUCTION 17

2. APPROACH APPLIED BY THE PANEL 19

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

DURING THE LAST 5-YEARS 19

4. KEY ISSUES FOR CHANGE 20

4.1 Programme Strategy 20
4.1.1 Relevance 20

4.1.2 European Added Value 21

4.2 The Legal and Management Environment 22
4.2.1 History of the Legal Problem 22
4.2.2 A New Legal Framework 23
4.2.3 Commission Programme Procedures 25
4.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation of Programmes 26
4.2.5 Intellectual Property and Patents 26

4.3 Approach to the Implementation of the New Framework Programme 27
4.3.1 Technology Diffusion 27

4.3.2 SMEs ..." 28

4.3.3 EUREKA 28

4.3.4 Advanced European Virtual Institutes 28
4.3.5 A Systems Approach 29
4.3.6 Use of Articles (k), (1), and (n) 29
4.3.7 The Joint Research Centre 29

4.4 Programme Balance 30
4.4.1 Fundamental Research and Applied Research 30
4.4.2 Thematic and Activity Based Programmes 31
4.4.3 External Balance 31

ANNEX : RELEVANCE, EFFICIENCY AND

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FRAMEWORK

PROGRAMMES OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS 33

Table 1 : Framework Programmes 3 and 4 44
Table 2: Specific Programmes under Framework Programme 4 and

Euratom Framework Programme 45
Table 3: Commitments for EU RTD activities 46

**PART B:** COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 47

**m**

_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.

**Viscount Etienne Davignon** (Belgium) - Chairman of the Panel,
President of the Société Générale de Belgique,
Former European Commission Vice-President for _(_ K., p - _- ^_
Research and Industry i / l ^ ^ ^ U i / y ^

**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) _sdb&jdtJy_
Junior Minister of Finance _^^.^^.../^^rr^T.._

**Prof.** James Dooge (Ireland) ^ - A ^ ^ _ ^
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs . ^ ? ~ T ^ ^ ^ . . . [,] ~ ! ^ T ^ ^

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 19** **février** **1997**

Le Président

**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 FOR 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 legal framework for governing the Programmes,
improved managerial procedures for implementing them and, when
necessary, for adjusting their priorities.

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 DirectorGeneral 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 shortterm 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
of national policies. Effectiveness is greatly determined by the criteria employed in the
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 R C 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

Evidence of European added value is demonstrated by:

- the existence of important large-scale facilities which no individual Member State would
develop and sustain;

- the promotion of internationally competitive R&D communities in new interdisciplinary
areas such as information technology and biotechnology;

- the creation of strong European industrial platforms based on common technical standards
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 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:

- ensuring that European science supports and develops its existing strengths rather than
focusing, as it has in the past, on compensating for weaknesses or "catching up";

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

- recognising that European critical mass can often be achieved in areas where no single
Member State can mount a major effort.

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 timeconsuming 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, multidisciplinary 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;

- there is a strong trend away from fundamental research towards user needs in the ACTS, IT
and Telematics Programmes, and a strong convergence between the three.

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

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

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

This Committee would take responsibility for monitoring 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.

     - _Overall time-scale_     - this issue provoked by far the majority of
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 the Commission is
understaffed in some areas. While this appears to be a deliberate tight

**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 Panel is of the opinion that the _scope of_ _**the**_ _**evaluation**_ _exercises_ _**should be**_
_increased_ by considering the broader context of Programmes, 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 responsibilities between at least three Directorates-General
institutionalises and implies acceptance of the linear model of innovation, rather than
fostering interaction between knowledge creation and application.

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 that the

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

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**

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

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

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

4.4.2 **Thematic and Activity-Based Programmes**

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

In the case of the _**Innovation Programme,**_ this means a _**refocusing and freedom**_ _**to**_
_**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.

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 cooperation, it would also encourage the Framework Programme to establish _**more**_
_technically driven co-operative projects_ which meet European added value criteria.

**32**

**ANNEX**

**RELEVANCE, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FRAMEWORK**

**PROGRAMMES DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS**

**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 (19901994) 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 Life Sciences & the Other Programmes
(A) Ecosystem (B) (Q

 - Telematics Applications - Biomedicine and Health - Targeted Socio
Economic Research

 - Communications - Biotechnology (TSER)
Technologies (ACTS)

                 - Agriculture & Fisheries                  - Co-operation with Third
^Information Technologies, ^ ^ . ^ & C o u n t r i e s ( I N C Q )

Technologies                  - Dissemination &

 - Industrial & Materials F m / [:] r n n m p n t [ *] r i î m n t [„] Optimisation of Results _v_
TW4inr»ir»m*»c fTiMTY Environment & Climate
1 ecnnologies (1M1 ) (INNOVATION)

 - Standards. Measurement & - Trainiim & Mobility of
Testing (SMT) Researchers (TMR)

 - 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 socioeconomic 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
health research and development in Europe by facilitating the establishment of new
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, cooperation 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 interconnectivity 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)

95

0,2

1

3017,1

3018,3

2,1

3020,4

**92**

230,9

2160,5

**2391,4**

308,4

**2699,8**

**93**

14,8

1929,5

150

**2094,3**

440,2

**2534,5**

94

3,9

1264,7

750

0

2018,6

571,8

2590,4

91-95

1520,5

5651,7

900

3017,1

11089,3

1491,3

12580,6

YEARS

FP 1987 - 1991 (FP2) 0)

FP1990- 1994 (FP3) (D

Suppl. Financ. (FP3) (2)

FP 1994- 1998 (FP4) (1)

Total RTD programmes

APAS (3)

Total RTD programmes + APAS

**91**

1270,7

296

**1566,7**

168,8

**1735,5**

(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**

1991 - 1995
COMMITMENTS

MECU %

Activity 1:

Information Technologies and Communication 4 1 9 2 [ 4] 33 3

Industrial and Material Technologies 1791,9 14,2

Environment 1098,2 8,7

Life Sciences 1202,3 " 9,6~

"
Energy 2285,3 18,2 ~
Transport 96,8 0,9

Targeted Socio-Economic Research 51,5 0,5

Total Activity 1 10748,6 (1)~ 85,4~

Activity 2:

Cooperation with Third Countries and Int. Organisations 717,6 5,7

Activity 3:

Dissemination and Exploitation of Results 293,8 2,3

Activity 4:

Training and Mobility of Researchers 820,6 6,5

Total RTD programmes + APAS ~ 12580,6 100

(1) Including JRC support to other EU policies

## **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
improve access to the programmes, especially for SMEs. In addition, new management
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.
Nevertheless, and in accordance with the Commission's SEM 2000 initiative, good
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.

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 Programme**

_The Panel suggests_ _that a_ _more integrated approach to support for RTD and innovation is_
_needed,_ _with an enhanced range of modalities._

- _Clear responsibilities for ensuring diffusion_

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

As noted in the Commission's second working document on the Fifth Framework
Programme, closer ties with EUREKA are being uctively sought. Efforts will be made to
ensure complementarity between these two instruments, and to guarantee the flow of
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".

- _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 [ 4i] key 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 DirectorateGeneral, 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
fully reflected in the Fifth Framework Programme. Two aspects of the Framework
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**