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.
23/254 page 15
![6 November 1996 ] [ Continued IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME 21. The Commission will need to consider how best to administer and manage a programme on the lines described above. Adaptation of existing structures, and indeed of some aspects of Commission working culture, will be needed. Different procedures will apply to the programme agreed under the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty from those that will apply to the programme agreed under the Treaty of Rome. To an extent, the best form of overall organisation cannot be identified until FP5’s objectives are clearly known. 22. As discussed in paragraph 5 (iii) above, some policy RTD objectives might best be delivered wholly through the commissioning of interdisciplinary research under the close guidance of the relevant policy Directorate General. In such cases, exceptionally, it might be appropriate for the advisory group to become the regulatory committee. For other areas, however, the UK considers the following approach would be most appropriate. (i) it would be wrong to attempt to implement these objective driven programme through separate organisational structures and management arrangements for each objective. Such an approach would lead to excessive fragmentation, new boundary problems between specific programmes and to a loss of coherence in the development of underpinning technologies; (ii) accordingly these aspects of the programme would be best administered through specific programmes organised (in most cases) on technology, rather than objective driven, lines. These would administer the components of the themes relevant to each scientific or technological discipline, implementing work programmes to meet the specified RTD needs. In this way the specific programmes would provide for the development of the generic technologies that will deliver the objectives of the programme; (iii) the specific programmes would then be implemented as in FP4: calls for proposals would issue, proposals would be evaluated by independent experts, short lists would be proposed, contracts would let, and projects would be monitored and evaluated; (iv) the specific programmes would be overseen by regulatory committees composed of representatives of member states. Their role would be to ensure that the Commission was delivering the Council’s decisions on the specific programmes and, within those decisions, responding to the priorities specified by the advisory groups. In particular, they would play a formal regulatory role in respect of calls for proposals, evaluations, shortlisting and contract management; (v) the regulatory committees’ role would differ from that of the advisory groups who would be monitoring at a strategic level the RTD being undertaken in support of individual thematic objectives. Regulatory committees would report from time to time to the advisory groups on the research undertaken in pursuit of the relevant objectives. It would then be for the advisory groups to take an overall view on the direction of the specific programmes, and as appropriate to issue advice on future calls for proposals. The advisory groups would thus provide the strategic oversight, and feedback to member states, of the Commission’s delivery of the objectives. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE 23. The UK does not have a fixed view of the number of technology or policy based programmes that should administer the programme or of the S&T disciplines they should cover; much will depend on the objectives agreed for FPS and the S&T content these generate. The fewer the units, however, the less scope there would be for overlaps and consequent problems with coordination. The units should not be so large as to be unmanageable. It would be surprising, however, if the appropriate number were not a good deal fewer than the 18 specific programmes of FP4. As indicated in paragraph 6 above and Annex A, we believe it should be possible to deliver the framework programme through six discipline related specific programmes and a small number of policy related specific programmes. The six discipline related programmes we envisage are: — information and communication technologies — life sciences and medical technologies — energy technologies — engineering, chemical and material technologies — environmental and marine sciences and technologies — social and economic sciences. 24. Member states need a mechanism which gives them an adequate degree of assurance that the programme is managed well and that decisions are taken on the basis of transparent and fair criteria which place an appropriate premium on the quality of the RTD to be carried out. In FP4, regulatory committees of member state representatives serve this purpose. But their influence is limited and the value added is questionable. In the model described above, member states’ primary vehicle for strategic oversight of the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0023.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
