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.
16/254 page 8
![6 November 1996] [ Continued 55. The UK position paper on FPS proposes that the JRC should build on these first steps. It suggests that the JRC should be required to obtain 80 per cent of its funding from customers over the life of the programme either competitively (from specific programmes or from contracts for third parties) or, in respect of non- competitive work done at the request of a specific customer in another DG, through explicit and costed customer/contractor relationships. As a matter of principle, the UK believes the JRC should improve its performance in current core areas before developing any new areas of competence. 56. Through its representative on the JRC Board, the Director General of the Research Councils, Sir John Cadogan, the UK has pressed for a number of changes to the working practices of the JRC institutes which, if fully implemented, would bring new discipline to the running of the JRC. Amongst the issues currently under discussion are the introduction of institute performance indicators, which would provide an additional monitoring tool for the Board with which to measure the transition of the JRC towards a more competitive approach; the establishment of industry advisory boards to enable an industry input at the earliest level in the development of JRC work programmes; and the need for JRC institutes to have closer co-operation with | relevant specific programme committees. 57. Major forthcoming issues for the Board to consider include the future status of the JRC. In our view, the JRC needs to have the flexibility of agency status to perform efficiently and competitively in the areas where it is strong and to reorientate its activities where it does not have sufficient expertise. COHESION 58. The framework programmes make a valuable contribution to the EU’s cohesion objectives. The most effective strengthening of the scientific and technological capabilities of the EU’s less favoured regions (LFR) will arise through their participation in the highest quality RTD. The 1996 Commission Annual Report on RTD indicates that the LFRs are active participants in the programme. Their researchers are involved in 46 per cent of FP4 projects and they provide 14 per cent of the total number of participants. The cohesion benefits of projects are legitmately included among the factors considered in the selection process. Even then, scientific merit remains paramount. 59. Strengthening the research infrastructure and the supply of trained scientific manpower are prime concerns of the less favoured regions. The EU’s main instruments for achieving these however are the Structural Funds: within the programmes through which member States use these funds, substantial sums here been allocated for S&T support. It is important that framework programme priorities are not distorted for this purpose. Within the framework programme, LFR interests in this area are taken into account in the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) programme, under which TMR fellows from LFR may receive grants to carry out further research in their region of origin. Researchers from LFR participate strongly in the TMR programme, accounting for about 25 per cent of TMR fellows appointed in FP4 so far. The “third activity” of the framework programme, which is concerned with the dissemination and exploitation of results, and the European Regional Development Fund, both measures to promote regional innovation and technology transfer strategies and projects. SMEs 60. We recognise that SMEs have an important role to play in shaping and supplying the technology needs of the EU but that, because of their size, they face greater barriers to participation in the framework programmes than do larger organisations. Most of the specific programmes in FP4 contain Technology Stimulation Measures (TSM) to encourage SME participation. These consist of Exploratory Awards, which cover up to 75 per cent of the cost of preparing a complete research proposal, and Co-operative Awards which are intended to enable groups of at least four SMEs with little or no RTD capacity to,solve technical problems by engaging a third party to carry out research on their behalf. UK SMEs have been particularly successful in obtaining TSM funding; the number of UK SMEs participating in the main programmes of FP4 is also encouraging. 61. The Government would like to see a broadly similar level of special provision for SMEs in FP5 as in FP4, but does not wish to see a separate SME programme. While the framework programme can make a useful contribution to Community SME policy, its priority must remain the quality of EC funded RTD. It is in the SMEs’ interest, as well as helping to secure research of the highest quality, that SMEs should be encouraged to work in European consortia with larger companies, adding the user dimension to projects and obtaining the benefits of collaboration with larger partners in the supply chain. 7 COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAMME 62. The Commission adminster the programme in a professional, thorough manner, using well qualified staff of generally good calibre. Their commitment is not in question. At any one time they administer several thousand project contracts, far more than any other EU activity. The costs of programme administration are however high, with an average of 8 per cent (range 5-14 per cent) of programme budgets set aside for](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0016.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
