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.
19/254 page 11
![6 November 1996 ] [ Continued illustration of this approach). These would need to be supplemented by a limited number of policy related programmes to deliver specific EC policy and support objectives (eg agriculture, transport). Overall, this would lead to a smaller number of specific programmes and should aid management efficiency. The specific programmes would operate similarly to existing specific programmes in FP4, issuing calls for proposals, promoting networks etc. They should be overseen by regulatory committees composed of member states’ representatives. The mechanisms for delivering the programme objectives, including the promotion of enhanced co-ordination between member states’s own RTD activities as well as framework financed RTD projects and networks, should reflect the advisory groups’ advice. In addition to their formal regulatory role these committees should also have a role in ensuring the priorities of the advisory groups are reflected in the research programme. Robust and effective mechanisms for the monitoring and evaluation of FPS will be key features of an output driven programme. OTHER ACTIVITIES The UK considers that there is a good case for continuing separately to fund an international co-operation programme and to support researcher training and mobility. In FP5, the latter programme should, however, seek more actively to encourage industrial participation. There is also a case for the separate funding of the minimum of essential machinery to encourage the dissemination and exploitation of RTD results. More generally, however, the UK believes that these aspects should be given increasing emphasis within the RTD programmes themselves. In addition, the paper outlines a number of more detailed UK aspirations for the next framework programme relating to more effective and efficient administration; tighter focusing of programmes to reduce oversubscription; clearer and more consistent procedures of evaluating and selecting projects; a better understanding of those measures which will assist the involvement of SMEs; building on the steps to require the Joint Research Centre to offer truly competitive services; and ensuring a complementary relationship with other programmes such as Eureka and COST. The paper is presented to the European Commission as a contribution to the development of its thinking on a possible fifth framework programme. The UK will look forward to the further discussion of these issues in the months to come. The UK believes that there continues to be a need for a European programme of research and technological development (RTD). Considerable experience has been gained through the earlier framework programmes which has enabled them to become progressively more effective at addressing the RTD needs of the Union. The UK believes that the fourth framework programme (FP4), coupled with the experience of the introduction of task forces in 1995-96, provides a firm foundation on which a fifth framework programme (FPS) can be based. This paper seeks to outline the UK’s views on the structure and management of an FP5 which would build on the strengths of FP4 to provide an even better focused and more effective programme directly relevant to the RTD needs of Europe in the new millennium. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 2. The UK believes that the shape, content and management of any fifth framework programme of research and technological development should conform to the following fundamental principles: (i) it must seek to deliver results in respect of the two key roles described in the Treaty, ie enhancing the competitiveness of European industry and supporting European policies; (ii) it should be of a scale affordable within the constraints of the EU budget; (iii) it should, like the fourth framework programme, focus on objective-driven applied and strategic research and technological development,! including well-justified validation and demonstration projects (eg pre-competitive system demonstrators) which are designed to produce outputs which can be disseminated to others. It is not the place of FP5 to fund the development of near market products, processes or services; (iv) clear, testable objectives must be established for any activities which are carried out under the framework. Every activity within the framework should clearly derive from a customer or user; (v) the framework must take full account of the requirements of subsidiarity. FPS should only fund RTD which can only be done, or can only effectively be done, at European level and where value is clearly added by carrying out such RTD at that level; (vi) as provided for in Article 130h of the Treaty, the framework should provide a means for member states more effectively to co-ordinate RTD activities across Europe, reducing overlap and '. , applied research (ie original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective) including research which may not have yet advanced to the stage where eventual applications can be clearly specified.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0019.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
