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.
14/254 page 6
![6 November 1996 ] [ Continued 40. It is not possible to make a straightforward comparison between the UK’s notional contribution to the funding of the framework programme, which was £314 million in 1994/95, and the receipts it receives. Not all the framework programme budget is potentially available for redistribution to member States through contracts won by researchers. Of FP4’s budget as a whole, about 7.3 per cent is top-sliced to fund the Joint Research Centre, the EU’s own research institution. A further 8 per cent is allowed for administration. The categorisation of information in the annual EU budget however does not allow these elements to be readily identified, so reliable year by year comparisons of UK receipts with the amount potentially available to be won are not possible. Nevertheless, estimates suggest that currently UK receipts are of the same order of magnitude as the UK’s contribution to that part of the overall budget that is available to member States. This, of course, ignores the broader financial benefits that derive from the exploitation of the research outputs and the non-financial benefits of participation. Though unmeasureable, these are likely to be considerable. Broader impact 41. As the EU’s RTD programmes are pre-competitive and long-term, their impact is typically not clear until several years after completion and even then the competitive benefits of the results may be difficult to identify or quantify. The lack of comprehensive data and limitations in the evaluations conducted by the Commission make such an assessment more difficult. 42. Nevertheless there is a fair amount of evidence from a variety of sources of the impact of the programme in the UK. Impact study 43. The 1993 study “The Impact of European Community Policies for Research and Technological Development upon Science and Technology in the United Kingdom”, which was funded jointly by OST and the Commission as part of a series of national studies, is the most thorough study of the impact of the framework programme in the UK. It gave a generally positive account. It showed that the programme was highly valued by UK academia and industry and that benefits arose through: — accelerating the timing of research and broadening its scope beyond what would be possible at a corporate or national level; — the results of the research itself and the derived intellectual property rights, both of which may be exploited more widely; — access to complementary expertise and the development of longer term European links; — the acquisition of new skills and enhanced technical standing; — in the case of industry, the development of new products and processes, and commercial links including strategic partnerships which facilitate access for new markets; and — influencing and participating in the setting of technical standards and other research related to the EU regulatory framework. 44. Collaborative links were often maintained after the completion of a project, for example between companies who have complementary expertise or interests. Repeat participations further underline the value ascribed to the programme by UK participants. The study considered that the broad orientation of the programme was ‘on the right lines with respect to the competitiveness goal’ though it was too early to make real judgements. 45. The main criticism made was the eneth and complexity of the application process, and other aspects of programme administration, which posed considerable burdens on applicants and participants. Barriers to the exploitation of results were also noted. Previous Evaluations 46. Evaluations conducted by the Commission or by independent panels of experts of specific programmes in FP2 and FP3 provide further evidence of the impact of framework programmes, though their coverage is patchy and their quality variable. They do not therefore provide a reliable assessment of the framework programme as a whole. The extent to which the Commission has been willing to take their recommendations into account has also varied. 47. A number of common threads run through the evaluation findings. They have tended to find that programmes have achieved most if not all of their technical objectives and brought about results that would not have been achieved without EU support, or would have been achieved more slowly; and that they have promoted successful and long-lasting collaborations, which have had positive effects on competitiveness. Nearly all evaluations commented on the complexity and bureaucracy of programme administration and the lack of transparency of the project selection process. These have acted as a particular discouragement to SMEs. Many also stressed the need for more effective exploitation and dissemination of results.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0014.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
