Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report



CHAPTER 1 EU RESEARCH POLICY (continued)

  1.24     Towards FP5 2 gives more detail of the proposed "horizontal activities":

    --   "Confirming the international role of European research": involvement of non-Member States in FP5 programmes; specific bilateral co-operation programmes; grants to bring in young researchers from outside the EU to work on FP5 projects; co-ordination with EUREKA (see Appendix 5) and other international bodies.

    --   "Innovation and participation of SMEs": dissemination, exploitation and technology transfer; financial engineering and venture capital; and extra help for smaller firms, particularly in less developed regions. See below, paragraphs 1.34 and 1.44.

    --   "Improving human potential": training and mobility (see below, paragraph 1.36), networks, conferences, prizes, public information, socio-economic research, and support for science policy makers.

  1.25     The list of Key Actions and horizontal activities for FP5 suggests a high degree of continuity from the programmes and Task Forces of FP4; however Towards FP5 2 hints at certain differences of approach. FP5 will put more into demonstration, and "take more account, from the start, of user and consumer requirements in terms of safety and quality". There will be "closer linkages with initiatives and programmes carried out at Member State level". The "free space" (contingency fund) adumbrated in Towards FP5 will exist within each programme, and will be kept free until the timespan of the programme is around three-fifths spent. The Commission is prepared to contemplate using Articles 130 k, l and n of the Treaty "to implement activities which have a particular interest only for a certain number of Member States"; the examples it gives are aeronautics and space. Towards FP5 2 preserves the silence as to FP5's budget.

  1.26     The Commission's formal proposal for FP5 is to be published at the end of March, for preliminary consideration by the Council of Research Ministers on 15th May. Final agreement between the Council and the European Parliament is expected to be achieved some time next year. The Commission wishes to issue the first calls for project proposals in the autumn of 1998.

  1.27     In 1993 the Committee was concerned about the time taken for the details of the Framework Programmes to be finalised and the subsequent lack of flexibility in the programme budgets. We were concerned also about the openness of the budget allocation procedures and the way in which programme themes were determined. For example, the apparent pressure for existing themes to continue from one Framework Programme to the next might disadvantage the adoption of new programmes when budgets are finite.[10] We also recommended that greater emphasis be placed on support for mega-science topics (e.g. nuclear fusion) where the need for joint European action is clear, and that the Joint Research Centre should not continue to have a privileged `inside track' to EU research funds.

  1.28     We welcome the wide consultation process that is under way for FP5, but many of these concerns are still relevant today. At the forefront of current concerns are: the focus of FP5 and how its priorities are to be set; the balance between basic and applied research; co-ordination of activities within the Framework Programme; the role and funding of the JRC; the participation of smaller firms; the participation of Member States with less advanced scientific capabilities; management of the Framework Programmes, including evaluation; and the fundamental questions of value for money and the benefits of participation. These are concerns that affect all Member States.

TASK FORCES

  1.29     Under FP4 the Commission has addressed the problem of co-ordinating research efforts across Europe and reducing unnecessary duplication of effort by establishing a number of "Task Forces" within the Commission, aimed at strengthening the links between research and industry. They "are not the spending instrument as such. That remains ... the responsibility of the specific programmes" (Q 339). The Task Force themes are:

It will be noted that five of the eight Task Force themes concern transport.

  1.30     The initial Task Force activities were to establish the state of the art in existing research and, with industry, users, researchers and public authorities, to identify which sectors merited additional research. Other options which might contribute to the effective application of EU research by industry, for example regulatory and fiscal considerations, were also to be investigated. The outcomes of these exercises, if not the methods, are somewhat similar to those of the Technology Foresight Exercise. In EU RTD 1996 the European Commission said: "The Task Forces are an essential part of the Commission's strategy to improve the impact and reduce the fragmentation of research across the EU".

  1.31     The Commission sought an additional 700 MECU for Task Force activities; the Council of Ministers (in December 1996) were prepared to give only 56 MECU, for New Generation Aircraft, Educational Software, Transport Intermodality and Environment. The British Government has raised objections and reservations about the proposal for additional funding and has also said that it would not support any major reallocation of funding in FP4 to reflect Task Force priorities.[11]

  1.32     The "Key Actions" proposed for FP5 are explicitly intended to carry forward the Task Force concept; indeed each specific Task Force mission is to be found somewhere in the list of Key Actions in Towards FP5 2.

DISSEMINATION

  1.33     To gain the maximum benefit from the research process it is important for the results to be disseminated widely and for appropriate exploitation to be encouraged (p 127). In FP4, 352 MECU (£253m, 2.7 per cent of the budget) is allocated specifically to these tasks. Particular emphasis has been given to promoting industrial exploitation by smaller firms and in the less developed regions of the EU.

  1.34     Towards FP5 2 indicates that the Commission intends to encourage exploitation from FP5 in a range of ways. Every thematic programme will have an Innovation Unit, an innovation support network, and a "structured interface" with the European Investment Fund and Investment Bank. Every project will include in its life-cycle actions to facilitate technology transfer, including finance and protection of IPR. The Commission will create "a service giving assistance in the area of IPR and access to private finance, notably the Venture Capital Funds".

TRAINING AND MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

  1.35     The expertise of individual researchers involved in Framework Programme projects is a resource in its own right and valuable for the process of technology transfer. FP4 caters for this through the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) programme, accounting for a further 792 MECU (£570m, 6 per cent of the FP4 budget). TMR provides fellowships, research networks, access to large-scale national facilities, and funding for conferences and courses. Most TMR grants go to researchers from universities rather than from industry (Q 58).

  1.36     Towards FP5 2 indicates that TMR will survive in FP5 under the banner of "Improving human potential". Activities will include research training networks; personal grants, open to industrial as well as academic researchers; support for access to infrastructure, where this is not provided by one of the thematic programmes; and conferences and networks.

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

  1.37     The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the "corporate research laboratory" of the European Union. The JRC is supported by the Framework Programme, to provide impartial expertise to meet the needs of Community policies. The JRC developed from the need for expertise in the nuclear field in the 1960s and the bias today is still towards this area of research. It currently operates seven institutions at five localities in Europe.

  1.38     The JRC was originally attached to DG XII, but, following a Commission decision in April 1996, it became an independent Directorate-General in its own right with Professor Jean-Pierre Contzen as the Director-General in charge. The work of the JRC is split into two main areas: research activities contributing to the Framework Programmes, and scientific and technical support activities related to other EU policies (e.g. energy, agriculture, the environment and industry). Most of the funding for the JRC is top-sliced from the budget of the Framework Programmes; FP4 will allocate nearly 960 MECU (£691m at current rate, 7.3 per cent of the post-accession FP4 budget) to the JRC during 1994-98. Funding from third parties, separate research for the Commission and other activities (including research on a commercial basis for public and private organisations) are expected to raise the JRC's total budget to over 1200 MECU (£864m) over this period.

JRC funding 1994-98
  MECU
Information technologies       11.5
Industrial and materials technologies     96.0
Measurement and testing     112.5
Environment and climate     313.0
Agriculture and fisheries     50.0
Non-nuclear energy     21.0
Nuclear fission safety     270.5
Controlled thermonuclear fusion     49.0
Targeted socio-economic research     35.0
Co-operation with non-Member States and international organisations     7.0
TOTAL     958.5

  1.39     The JRC operates a programmes directorate, a resources co-ordination unit and the following research institutions:

    --   Environmental Institute (EI), Ispra, Italy: Global change, manmade pollution (e.g. aerosols, groundwater pollution) and effects including impacts on health. Also support for agriculture policy, quality control of medicines and foodstuffs.

    --   Space Applications Institute (SAI) Ispra, Italy: Remote sensing applications (e.g. agriculture, fisheries, land-use management and environmental monitoring). Scientific support for agriculture statistics.

    --   Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety (ISIS) Ispra, Italy: The science and technology of safety management (e.g. improving safety of civil engineering structures and nuclear reactors), the application of information technology, and methodologies for environmental management.

    --   Institute for Transuranium Elements (ITU), Karlsruhe, Germany: Raising safety standards of the nuclear fuel cycle (main focus on the safety of actinides), modelling of fuel properties, characterisation of spent fuel.

    --   Institute for Reference Materials and Measurement (IRMM), Geel, Belgium: Standardisation in analytical measurements, quality of standards and reference materials (isotopes and radioactive reference samples in particular). Main focus on nuclear safeguards and consumer products.

    --   Institute for Advanced Materials (IAM), Petten, Netherlands: Advanced materials e.g. for coatings, structural components, clean technologies and nuclear fusion. The IAM also operates a High Flux Reactor supplying radioisotopes to the pharmaceutical industry.

    --   Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Seville, Spain: Observation and follow-up of technological change. Technology Watch: to detect scientific breakthroughs and trends that might lead to innovation. Focus on relationship between technology, employment and competitiveness.

  1.40     Ispra, Karlsruhe, Geel and Petten go back to the early days of EURATOM. Further information on each of these institutes can be found on the World Wide Web (www.jrc.org). Professor Contzen kindly supplied us with examples of the JRC's work (p 192); these include technical support for the European Agency for Evaluation of Medicinal Products, at Canary Wharf in London, provided by the Ispra Environmental Institute.

  1.41     The Commission has been agonizing over the status of the JRC for some time. It has endeavoured since 1987 to operate the customer-contractor principle, and to reduce the dependency of the JRC on direct funding. In 1987, it was proposed that the JRC should be only 60 per cent direct-funded by 1991, and 50 per cent by 2000; but today the figure is still 74 per cent (POST 3.7). Each institute is now overseen by an independent Visiting Group. According to Towards FP5 2, "the institutional and operational role of the JRC in implementing FP5 would be at least on a par with its role in FP4".

SMALLER FIRMS

  1.42     The participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)[12] in the Framework Programmes is limited, and the Commission wish to improve it (p 130). Smaller firms face a number of problems: they may be unaware of the programmes and funding available; they may not have the links with other European firms and organisations needed to secure funding or conduct the research; and they may not have adequate resources to complete, or even contemplate, the application procedures which can take several months. Some initiatives have now been implemented under the heading of Technology Stimulation Measures for SMEs and firms may now submit their proposals in two stages (an outline followed by a full proposal) with financial aid from the Community. Also, under Co-operative Research Action for Technology (CRAFT), smaller firms may entrust the execution of collaborative R&D work to one or more research organisations, while maintaining ownership of the results.

  1.43     The Commission told us (p 130) that in 1995 1,782 smaller firms participated in the Framework Programme, and accounted for 15 per cent of EU research funding (20 per cent of participants, up from 17 per cent in 1994). However, "the current level of participation by SMEs in European research must be improved. A working party responsible for inter-programme coordination of implementation of the technology stimulation measures is working on this".

  1.44     It appears from Towards FP5 2 that the Commission intends to carry forward the Technology Stimulation Measures into FP5. It also intends to create a "one-stop shop" for dealings with the Framework Programme by smaller firms.

COHESION

  1.45     One of the aims of the Framework Programmes since their inception (POST 2.3) has been to support European economic and social "cohesion"[13]. The Framework Programme aims to support less developed regions, for example by helping researchers and laboratories from these regions to join European research networks. Under the Training and Mobility of Researchers programme, for example, the following specific measures have been adopted to promote cohesion: an additional year's grant to help researchers from less developed or thinly populated regions to return to their region of origin; support for networking, in the form of funding for laboratory equipment; support for stays in these regions by experienced researchers; and "priority for young researchers from these regions for participation in Euroconferences". According to Towards FP5 2, FP5 will offer "Development grants intended to help develop a high-level research capacity in the less favoured regions of the Union".

  1.46     According to EU RTD 1996 (p 10 and Table 6) only 6 per cent of European Union researchers live in regions defined as underdeveloped. However in 1995 46 per cent of Framework projects had at least one participant from such a region; 14 per cent of Framework Programme participants came from such regions; and 17 per cent of the total amount spent on all projects was spent on projects involving at least one participant from such a region. According to the Commission's First Cohesion Report of November 1996 (p 71), "The participation of the cohesion countries in successive [Framework] programmes has gradually risen, even if slowly, and they have increasingly developed links with partners in the North of the Union". A Commission Communication on research and cohesion is expected shortly.

EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING

  1.47     The system for evaluating, assessing and monitoring specific programmes and the Framework Programme as a whole has recently been improved. DG XII A4 of the Commission is now dedicated to evaluation of FP4. Each specific programme is now evaluated in three ways: continuous and systematic monitoring of progress by external panels; external assessment of each programme and its management every five years; and external assessment on completion. The Framework Programme as a whole is monitored continuously, with annual reports; the first of these, by an international high-level panel serviced by a United Kingdom consultancy, came out in March 1996. The Programme is also to be externally assessed every five years; the first five-year assessment, by a panel chaired by Vicomte Davignon, is just completed. The criteria for assessment are scientific quality, quality of management, and achievement of objectives. These procedures are currently being rationalised, as part of the Commission's financial management initiative "SEM 2000". The Commission has also conducted multi-programme evaluations of Framework fellowships, of the impact of the Programmes on industry and on "cohesion", and of impact in particular Member States, and "meta-evaluations", or evaluations of the process of evaluation itself. More detail is given in POST 5.2.

THE COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY

  1.48     This report was prepared by Sub-Committee I, whose members are listed in Appendix 1. They received evidence from the witnesses listed in Appendix 2; we are grateful to all the witnesses for their time and trouble. The call for evidence is set out in Appendix 3, a list of acronyms in Appendix 4, and a list of European research policy organisations in Appendix 5. The evidence is printed separately, in HL Paper 49-I.


10   The only new theme in FP4 compared with FP3 was targeted socio-economic research, although transport, which was only a minor topic in previous Programmes, has been greatly expanded. Back

11   UK Government's Response to the Commission's Green Paper on Innovation, DTI, 1 May 1996. Back

12   For these purposes, a SME is an independent company with no more than 500 staff and an annual turnover of no more than 38 MECU (£28 m). Back

13   "In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including rural areas." Treaty of Rome as amended, Article 130a. Back


 


© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 5 March 1997