6 Interim assessment of the 6th Framework
Programme for research and development
| (25924)
12053/04
COM(04)574
+ ADD 1
| Commission Communication responding to the observations and recommendations of the high-level Panel of independent experts concerning the new instruments of the 6th Framework Programme for research and development
Commission staff working paper — annex to the Commission's Communication
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 27 August 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 September 2004
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 23 September 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (22236) 6921/01: HC 28-xiii (2000-01), para 14 (2 May 2001); and (22928) COM(01)709: HC 152-ix (2001-02), para 25 (5 December 2001)
|
| Discussed in Council | 24 September 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
6.1 Article 161(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community
(the EC Treaty) requires the Council to adopt a multiannual framework
programme setting out the Community's research and technological
development (R&D) activities for the duration of the programme.
The 6th Framework Programme covers the years 2002-06.
6.2 Annex III of the Decision establishing the current
Framework Programme provides that R&D activities falling within
the Programme will be financed through two "new instruments"
and one other instrument.[10]
The new instruments are:
- networks of excellence
— the purpose of these networks is to strengthen and develop
Community scientific and technological excellence by the integration
of national and regional research capacities. Each network should
comprise academic and industrial bodies with a view to creating
a progressive and lasting integration of the participants' research
activities. The network should aim to advance knowledge in a particular
area by assembling a "critical mass" (undefined) of
expertise. The network should have long-term, multidisciplinary
objectives; its activities should not be aimed at developing predefined
products, processes or services.
- integrated projects
— these projects are intended to mobilise a "critical
mass" (again, undefined) of R&D resources and competences.
Each project should have several academic or industrial partners
or a combination of the two. The membership of the partnership
may change over the course of the integrated project. The project
should have defined scientific and technological objectives, covering
more than one issue, and should be directed at obtaining specific
results applicable to products, processes or services.
The third instrument comprises:
- specific targeted research
projects — the
purpose of these projects is to gain new knowledge about a specific
issue so as to improve or develop new products or demonstrate
the viability of new technologies. Each project has several
partners.
6.3 Annex III of the Decision requires that the effectiveness
of these three instruments should be evaluated in 2004 by independent
experts.
The Marimon Report
6.4 The independent evaluation was carried out by
nine experts, chaired by Professor Ramon Marimon, formerly Spain's
Secretary of State for Research. The panel of experts sent the
Commission its report in June.
6.5 The panel's recommendations were as follows:
"1. The New Instruments introduced in FP 6 [the
6th Framework Programme] are a powerful means to foster
transnational collaborative research in the European Research
Area (ERA). Moreover, too much discontinuity is detrimental with
respect to other forms of public and private funding. The New
Instruments should, therefore, be maintained in FP7. There are,
however, many design and implementation aspects that need to be
improved, possibly already during FP6.
"2. The European Commission should clearly classify
instruments according to the goals to which they are expected
to contribute, establish clear guidelines and criteria for their
use and communicate them to the participants to help them prepare
their proposals.
"3. The European Commission should specify the
portfolio of Instruments available and the strategic objectives.
Participants should define the specific research objective they
will pursue and why this can best be met by the Instrument they
have chosen.
"4. It is a common misconception that the New
Instruments should be very large. 'Critical mass' depends on the
topic, thematic area, the participants and the potential impact
and added value. The concept of 'one size fits all' should not
be applied across all thematic areas and Instruments. Participants
should justify in their proposal the way they have built their
consortium to reach the adequate critical mass.
"5. Networks of Excellence (NoEs) have met with
a significant level of criticism but the general concept of structuring
and strengthening the ERA has been well appreciated. Problems
with the processes need attention but the major problem has been
the concept of 'durable integration'. NoEs should be designed
as an instrument to cover different forms of collaboration and
different sizes of partnerships.
"6. Integrated Projects (IPs) have gained general
approval but, as with NoEs, processes such as consortia-building,
proposal submission, proposal evaluation and contract negotiation
need to be improved. The concept that Integrated Projects are
primarily concerned with delivering new knowledge and competitive
advantage to European industry needs to be emphasised. As IPs
and Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) have many common
characteristics, the differences between these Instruments should
be clarified.
"7. A greater role must be played by Instruments
such as STREPs and small consortium IPs. Such instruments are
better adapted to risk-taking, industry, participants from new
Member States and to smaller players in general. Their role for
the research community is essential. This must be reflected in
a substantial increase in the total share of the budget finally
allocated to STREPs in future calls of FP6 ['calls' refers to
the Commission's invitation for research proposals] and in the
future FP7.
"8. Emerging groups should be attracted rather
than discouraged from participation. The best research groups
and the most innovative firms must be attracted since they must
play a leading role in structuring the ERA.
"9. The position and participation of small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the New Instruments has
not been satisfactory. SMEs have found it almost impossible to
become involved in NoEs and SMEs have tended to be dominated by
larger organisations and disadvantaged in IPs. The emergence of
research-intensive SMEs as participants in the New Instruments
is to be welcomed but, in general, SMEs prefer the Traditional
Instruments of STREPs, Cooperative (CRAFT) and Collective Research.
"10. The portfolio of Instruments for collaborative
research should be designed and developed to enhance co-ordination
and collaboration with other forms of public and private funding
across the European Union.
"11. To improve the efficiency and reduce the
cost for participants, a well conceived two-step evaluation procedure
should be introduced.
"12. Administrative procedures and financial
rules should be significantly simplified and further improved
to allow more efficiency and flexibility in implementing participation
instruments."
The document
6.6 The document comprises the Commission's response
to the Marimon Report. A detailed statement of the Commission's
views on each of the report's recommendations is given in the
annex (ADD 1).
6.7 The Commission welcomes the panel's finding that
the objectives of the new instruments are valid. It endorses the
panel's conclusion that the scientific community needs continuity
of funding instruments and this will be reflected in the 7th
Framework Programme. The Commission accepts that improvements
are required to the implementation of the new instruments. It
says that it has already taken some "corrective measures";
others will be taken during the remainder of the present Framework
Programme or will be incorporated in the 7th Programme.
The Commission also agrees that the financial and administrative
arrangements need to be simplified and made more flexible while
ensuring the proper use of public funds. But the Commission does
not agree with the panel's recommendations for giving participants
choice about their research objectives and type of funding mechanism.
It also rejects criticisms of the Commission's procedure for evaluating
research proposals.
The Government's view
6.8 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Science and Innovation at the Department of Trade and Industry
(Lord Sainsbury) tells us that:
"the reaction to the first call for proposals
[under the 6th Framework Programme] indicated that
many in the European S&T community were unhappy with the new
instruments, with small and medium size businesses having particular
problems with the long-term commitment required to participate
in Networks of Excellence. Many of these concerns have been echoed
in the Marimon Report.
"The findings of the Marimon Report have received
widespread support from Member States. The UK, in common with
other Member States, is disappointed with some aspects of the
Commission's response, particularly where it does not propose
explicit action and is of the view that corrective measures already
put in place will address concerns raised by the report. We consider
that the Commission should:
make a high level commitment to raise industrial
participation to at least the levels seen in the Fifth Programme;
clearly indicate when and how remedial measures will
be implemented, their expected impact and issue a timetable for
monitoring and reporting the impact of the changes on participants;
agree with Member States, through each configuration
of the Framework 6 Programme Committees, appropriate actions to
improve delivery and raise industry participation, considering
the full range of the Marimon recommendations, including those
on the balance of funding between instruments, choice of instruments
and a two-stage process [for the evaluation of research proposals].
"These points have been made to the Commission
and we will continue to press for follow-up action, including
monitoring the impact of participants and projects of the corrective
measures."
Conclusion
6.9 We recognise that the management of research
is difficult, and all the harder for a programme as large and
diverse as the 6th Framework Programme. Even allowing
for that, we consider that the findings of the Marimon Report
are a cause for concern. We have in mind, in particular, the panel's
finding that industrial participation in projects has declined
and that the participation rate of small and medium-sized enterprises
is unsatisfactory. Because of the importance of the panel's findings
and the Government's reservations about the Commission's response
to them, we draw the document to the attention of the House.
6.10 When we scrutinise the proposals for the
7th Programme, we shall be looking for clear evidence
that they reflect the lessons to be learned from the Marimon Report.
6.11 Finally, we ask the Minister to tell us (in
more detail than in his letter of 7 October) the conclusions the
Competitiveness Council agreed when it discussed European research
policy on 24 September. Pending the Minister's reply, we shall
keep the document under scrutiny.
10 Decision 1513/2002/EC, OJ No. L 232, 29.8.02, p.1. Back
| 
