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.
20/254 page 12
![6 November 1996] [ Continued duplication and allowing member states to rationalise their priorities where appropriate. It should also encourage effective coordination between the sub-components of the programme itself; and (vii) it should pursue its RTD objectives in the most cost effective way. Where on this basis it is appropriate to fund RTD projects directly it should fund only the highest quality RTD relevant to programme objectives. 3. To give full effect to the principles above, FPS needs to show a stronger sense of priorities than its predecessors and to give a clearer voice to the potential users of the programme’s outputs. This note describes an approach which, building on the best features of FP4 and the task force model, is intended to achieve this. Its key feature is the clearer definition of the distinct roles of the customers (industry, member states, policy DGs) of the research and the providers (ie researchers, funded through Commission contracts or otherwise). AN OBJECTIVE DRIVEN APPROACH 4. The UK believes that the programme should be organised primarily around objective driven themes which seek to address the medium-term technological needs of European industry, to contribute to improvements in quality of life, and to support European policies more broadly. Such an approach would increase the effectiveness of the programme, maximise the impact of EU RTD spending and allow the EU and member states better to demonstrate the purpose and value of the programme. 5. Taking these points together, the UK considers that FP5 should seek to implement the principles outlined in paragraph 2 above through an objective-oriented programme which exploits the best features of the task force approach—in particular engaging users, concentrating on outputs and deploying appropriate expertise—and which ensures that all RTD support within the research activity clearly derives from an agreed set of key European priorities. Specifically, the UK considers that the programme should be constructed and managed at a strategic level on the following lines: (i) member states should be invited in CREST to consider the objectives they would wish to see pursued as FPS. They should also identify the technology or policy based RTD programmes through which these objectives would be pursued. The Commission should then come forward to the Parliament and the Council with a proposal, based on the advice of CREST and other bodies as appropriate, for a European Community and European Atomic Energy Community framework programme. This programme would consist of a matrix outlining the chosen objectives, with budgets allocated to each, and the small number of RTD specific programmes through which they were to be pursued; (ii) for each objective in the framework, an advisory group should be set up. The purpose of the advisory groups would be to serve as a proxy customer, providing the Commission and the Council with advice on the RTD needs relevant to each objective. They would be expected also to advise on the application of the budget attributed to each objective, indicating the proportion that should be devoted to each relevant specific programme to achieve those RTD needs. They should also specifically consider and advise the Commission and the Council on other factors relevant to achieving these objectives, in particular on the mix of research project funding, network-funding and/or increased co-operation which will be most cost effective; (iii) based on this advice, essentially by aggregating the RTD components of individual objectives to form technology-specific delivery programmes, the Commission would bring forward proposals for the specific programmes and their associated budgets. Following consultation with the Parliament, these specific programmes would be adopted by the Council. They would thereafter be subject to the oversight of regulatory committees. Alternatively, in some policy areas it may be most appropriate for some or all of the relevant objectives to be pursued through an interdisciplinary programme under the guidance of the relevant policy directorate, rather than through the technology-specific delivery programmes; (iv) the advisory groups would remain in existence to review at an aggregate level the research undertaken in support of each objective and to offer further advice, as appropriate, to the Commission and regulatory committees on later calls for proposals. Their primary role would be to provide a strategic oversight of the technological progress being made towards the thematic objectives of the framework programme. They would have an important part to play in ensuring that the programme evolved as necessary during its lifetime to respond to new and/or changing needs. 6. To ensure technological coherence and to avoid fragmentation, it would be important strictly to limit the number of technology/policy programmes. The UK considers that it should be possible to deliver an objective-orientated framework programme through a maximum of six technology specific programmes, as shown in Annex A, together with a small number of policy related programmes. In most cases, the specific programmes will contribute to the achievement of several objectives; equally the pursuit of each objective will usually be dependent on more than one specific programme. The approach is discussed in further detail in paragraphs 21-24. A diagram outlining the process for deriving the specific programmes is shown at Annex B.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0020.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
