EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1997
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
11/254 page 3
![6 November 1996 ] [ Continued Commission Annual Report 14. Under Article 130p of the Treaty, the Commission is required annually to send a report on its activities to the Council and the Parliament. Its second such report, for 1995, was finalised by the Commission in September 1996. The report reviews progress with both FP4 as a whole and the individual programmes within it. . 15. At the level of the framework programme, the Annual Report provides a wide range of input statistics. It shows, for example, that 2,660 projects involving 12,185 participants were approved in 1995; that a total of 10,043 projects were let under FP3; and that 20 per cent of participants in the first year of FP4 (as compared with 17 per cent in 1994) involved SMEs. This provides useful background for the monitoring of the programme. 16. The UK remains critical, however, of the Commission’s Annual Report. It is produced very late—nine months after the year to which it relates. It focuses too much on inputs and not enough on outputs. More consistency is needed in the accounts given of specific programmes, with generally more emphasis being given to results, and clearer recognition of the findings of the monitoring reports. The government is pursuing these points with the Commission through the usual channels. Five year evaluation 17. Clearer views on the effectiveness of FP4 are expected to emerge as subsequent monitoring reports are produced and through the evaluations required by the Framework programme legislation are completed. At the mid-point of framework programmes, each specific programme is to be subject to a full evaluation looking back at its impact over the previous five years. Like the monitoring reports, these evaluations are to be conducted by independent panels of experts. An overall evaluation is also to be conducted for the framework programme as a whole, drawing together the findings of the individual evaluations. 18. Panels have recently been appointed to conduct the evaluations required at the mid-point of FP4. These are expected to report towards the end of 1996 so that the results are available before the Commission brings forward its proposal for the Fifth framework programme. While the evaluations will look back at the impact of the later years of FP3 and, where relevant, that of FP2, they should also be able to give an assessment of early progress with FP4 and to make recommendations for any necessary future improvements. 19. The government remains concerned, however, at the way the Commission has handled these evaluations. The teams evaluating specific programmes were appointed very late, and have been set very restrictive timescales in which to report. There is some anecdotal evidence that they have therefore been artificially constrained in the extent to which they can gather relevant evidence for their evaluations. The overarching framework evaluation panel will in addition have very little time in which to consider the reports of the specific programme evaluation teams before it is required to produce its own report. The UK will look carefully at these aspects when the reports are made available. SHOULD THERE BE AN FP5? WHAT KIND? 20. The government believes that there is a continuing need for a European programme of research and technological development directed, as set out in Article 130f of the Treaty, at promoting the competitiveness of Community industry and underpinning EU policies. The UK position paper (Appendix A) on FP5 recommends that the programme be focused even more strongly in future on these objectives, by adapting the structure, management and content of the programmes so as to place a new emphasis on achieving material and important results. 21. As before, the government has agreed that the programme should concentrate on supporting the RTD that can only be done at European level and where there is clear added value from such RTD. While the early framework programmes may have put a premium on encouraging Europe’s researchers to work together, such collaboration is now well established and widespread. The government’s view is that the programme now needs to be directed more sharply and clearly towards the Treaty objectives. 22. The government considers that this goal can be achieved with a programme at most of current size and possibly smaller. The emphasis should be on making more effective use of programme resources rather than necessarily increasing the overall level of expenditure. In parallel, there remains room for the Commission to play a part in helping member States better to co-ordinate in the RTD activities, ie to search for a better overall deployment of Europe’s RTD resources. 23. Reflecting the experience of the technology foresight exercise, the UK paper places particular emphasis on the importance of FP5 focusing more clearly on users’ needs. In part at least, previous programmes have been criticised for pursuing technological advances, with insufficient emphasis on market or policy priorities. In addition, earlier programmes have been criticised for covering too much ground: impact has been lost because resources have been too thinly spread. 24. To redress this, the UK paper argues that the programme should be defined by reference to clear](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0011.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
