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.
24/254 page 16
![6 November 1996 ] [ Continued objective driven programmes would be the advisory groups. If such a mechanism was in place, there might be scope critically to review the role of regulatory committes to identify how member states could best achieve the degree of assurance they need over the management of programmes most cost-effectively. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 25. The UK attaches particular importance to the five year retrospective evaluation of framework programmes provided for under Article 4.2 of Decision 1110/94/EC, which is due for completion by Spring 1997. The evidence this evaluation will provide of the tangible impact of EU RTD programmes, and value for money achieved, will provide valuable lessons, which the UK will expect to see put into effect in FPS. 26. There will need to be built into FP5 robust and effective mechanisms for programme monitoring and evaluation, to allow early feedback on programme effectiveness. The new monitoring and evaluation mechanisms incorporated in FP4 should be vigorously implemented, reviewed at appropriate points and: adapted or strengthened as necessary. Member states should be able to input directly to the monitoring and evaluation process and should have access to all the information collated by external evaluators. SCALE OF FP5 27. The scale of any fifth framework programme will need to be considered carefully in the light of the new financial perspectives that will be set following the Inter-governmental Conference. On the basis of the analysis above, however, the UK considers that there is no case for an increase in the present level of the EU’s funding for RTD. In some areas it may be possible to reduce costs, eg where objectives can be met more effectively through closer co-operation between national programmes rather than through additional funding at the European level. Accordingly, the overall budget for FP5 should not be greater than that for FP4. 28. Within that total, the appropriate allocation of resources will reflect the RTD needs identified for each thematic objective through the processes described above. Among these allocations, the UK would expect FPS to spend less on nuclear safety research than FP4. In addition, the UK would wish to see a higher proportion of funding in general being devoted to exploitation and dissemination, and the share of funding going to training and international cooperation being at least maintained. INFRASTRUCTURE 29. In the course of developing proposals for specific programmes, the advisory groups envisaged above may conclude that there is a need for specific infrastructural developments (eg in the medical field for animal research and clinical trial facilities; in the environment field the development of centres of excellence linking national facilities in, for example, climate and ocean modelling and support facilities such as research aircraft). The presumption should be that these would best be developed bi- or multi-nationally on the lines of existing models, ie outside the framework programme. But where, exceptionally, it is considered that these are best supported through the framework, the UK regards it as important that such facilities should not have an open-ended life. They are most likely to meet customer needs and deliver value for money, if they are funded on a short-term, contractual basis, are based on and managed in the context of existing national facilities, and are subject to stringent periodic review. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 30. The UK agrees that the EU’s perspectives in RTD need to extend beyond Europe. As global economic integration proceeds, the EU’s industries are increasingly planning their strategies on a world basis. Many advanced technology sectors would welcome scope in FPS to collaborate with partners in other industrial economies, where inward technology transfer would be beneficial to the European partners. Greater openness, subject to suitable safeguards, would increase the attractiveness of the programme to potential leading edge participants. The UK would support the opening of the programme in this way on a project by project basis where there is mutual advantage to all those involved in the collaboration. 31. The EU also has a role to play in strengthening the scientific and technological capabilities of key groups of neighbouring states, particularly the associated states of Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. Within the framework of Barcelona, cooperation with the Mediterranean partner states will also be important, and, in line with the EU’s development cooperation policies, so will cooperation with developing countries. FP4’s programme for international cooperation has political as well as scientific significance and should be retained in FPS as a separate entity, though its administrative links with other programmes should be improved. It should receive the same level of funding in FPS as it has received in FP4. 32. The key priorities for FP5 should be assisting the CEE associated states’ preparation for EU membership, as outlined in Europe Agreements and in the pre-accession strategy agreed at Essen. The EU should promote particularly the CEE associated states’ ability to participate in FP5 specific programmes.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0024.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
