THE HORIZONTAL PROGRAMMES

The programme on international cooperation

The description of the programme on international cooperation is vague. Precise details of the planned cooperation arrangements with the individual groups of countries are lacking; this is particularly true of the cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which ought to be one of the programme's priorities, given the proposed accession of some of these countries to the Union. The Commission also fails to give particulars of the nature of the support, the administrative arrangements and the financial contribution. No mention is made of coordination with the Phare and Tacis programmes, something explicitly called for by the Davignon Panel.

Cooperation with developing countries on the basis of individual R&TD projects should be a component of European development policy. In this connection, the planned introduction of grants for young scientists from the developing countries is welcome. Support for cooperation schemes for its own sake, i.e. support which makes no proper reference to European policy and no contribution to achieving its objectives, must be rejected.

The coordination of the fifth framework programme for research with other R&TD support measures at European level, such as Eureka or Cost, must be an integral part of the framework programme. Eureka has largely developed into a specific SMU-related instrument, which is not surprising, given its bottom-up approach tailored to market-related issues. As a result, Eureka often tends to focus on development, rather than research. The coordination with Eureka should therefore be geared to examining whether research components from Eureka projects are suitable to form part of EU R&TD programmes and, if appropriate, incorporating them into those programmes, or, in a reverse of that process, to using Eureka more frequently to implement development-related projects from the framework programme and comply with the SMUs' wish for greater involvement. In view of past successes, cooperation with Cost should also be stepped up.

The programme on the dissemination of results

Support for SMUs is a stated political aim of the Union, particularly in view of their extremely well-documented ability to create jobs. However, given that SMUs come in many different forms, a flexible approach must be adopted to the promotion of research. The vast majority of SMUs do not themselves carry out research, but instead apply the research findings of state or industrial laboratories and are dependent on this cooperation to develop and improve products or procedures. However, there are certainly also industrial sectors - such as the pharmaceuticals industry - in which small and very small undertakings carry out basic research at a very high level. For that reason, particular assistance - for example by means of new financing instruments - should be given to high-tech SMUs of this kind, in particular 'start-ups'. In this respect, the Commission proposal is inadequate. Here, the basic features of an approach designed to encourage the provision of private risk capital for SMUs active in the sphere of high technology must be incorporated into the programme, on the basis of empirical data.

Access to the programmes must be facilitated and projects must be given prompt financial support. Delays in making payments pose unacceptable risks to SMUs in particular.

Implementing European research policy

With a view to the implementation of European research policy, greater flexibility and substantially improved management are key prerequisites for the success of the framework programme. The decision-making procedures are complicated, costly and time-consuming. At the same time, research and market requirements and priorities have often changed by the time a topic which was important when the framework programme was being prepared has been approved in the context of a practical European research project (the process, from the announcement of the proposal for the framework programme, via the definition of the specific programmes and the work programmes to the call for proposals, the assessment and - finally - the approval of projects, lasts years). A leaner codecision procedure under Article 189b of the Treaty would bring a substantial improvement here. The specific programmes might also be incorporated into the framework programme, particularly as most of the relevant proposals have in any case already been drawn up and are presented immediately after the adoption of the framework programme.

At Commission level, consideration should be given to a one-stage process for the assessment of project applications, i.e. an integrated strategic and scientific assessment, although the decision should be left largely in the hands of scientific assessment bodies on which eminent figures must serve. There is also scope for a simplified procedure for smaller-scale projects and for the delegation of decision-making powers in conjunction with the establishment of effective internal monitoring. The simplification of the procedure for the processing of project applications by means of its division into preliminary and main stages is a fundamentally positive step. However, this procedure should be organized in such a way that a favourable preliminary outcome makes the granting of support very likely; in this way, unnecessary frustration can be avoided.

It remains essential that the Commission should rigorously examine and improve its internal decision-making procedures, since the problems in this respect are clearly substantial. Here is a quote from an assessment report for a specific R&TD programme: 'Small high-tech firms and applicants taking part in the programme for the first time will probably come to the conclusion that the additional expenditure and the deadlines are unacceptable. Small firms cannot afford to release their few highly-skilled employees to carry out the additional activities which are expected from participants in the projects under the framework programme in its current form. It is irresponsible to encourage such firms to take part.' In the opinion of the author of the report, this statement does not only apply to the programme concerned.

Consideration should also be given to how and in which sectors certain large-scale projects could be administered on a decentralized basis. The AMICA project, which dealt with plant genetics and was administered by a consortium, shows that in principle this approach can be successful.

The programme on mobility

Exchanges involving scientists make the European dimension to the framework programme visible and tangible and represents a vital contribution to the development of a European science community. According to the assessment reports, the programme, and, in particular, its organization on the basis of a bottom-up approach, have proved their worth.

As in the case of the programme on international cooperation, a weak point of the programme is the lack of involvement of industry. Greater scope must therefore be created for participation by young researchers, in particular doctoral students, in industrially relevant training measures.

According to the proposal, the programme should also focus on support for science and technology policy. With that aim in view, a forum for exchanges of information should be set up in the form of the European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN). However, ETAN should have become fully operational a long time ago under the fourth framework programme (socioeconomic research). The Commission must therefore put forward a detailed timetable and organizational arrangements. Continued financing of statements of intent is out of the question.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC)

The committee has set up a working party to consider in detail the problems of and prospects for the JRC. Without wishing to prejudge the working party's findings, a number of basic remarks should already be made.

In 1994 the role of the JRC was redefined and it was urged to step up its involvement in the competition for research funding. The links between the JRC and the fourth framework programme reflected this.

In practice, however, the issue of the role of the JRC has yet to be resolved. Should it carry out leading-edge research, or rather act as the Commission's scientific and technological advisory body? In both cases, consideration should be given to how the JRC can create European added value.

If the scientific claims for the JRC are taken seriously, then one of its fundamental problems lies in the fact that, on the one hand, in terms of its administrative and staff structures it resembles an authority, but, on the other, it increasingly faces competition from other research laboratories.

A coherent conception of its role is vital to the continued existence of the JRC. In addition, the researchers must have a staff status commensurate with the demands made on a research organization. As a matter of principle, JRC researchers should not be officials. In addition, in the research sphere fixed-term contracts must be the norm. A period of work at the JRC must be seen as a qualification and a stage in a researcher's career, and must not become a long-term posting. The assessment report drawn up by a panel chaired by Professor Rojo (Madrid) refers to the solution of the staff problem as the key to the future of the JRC.

The aforementioned assessment report comes to the conclusion that the JRC has made clear progress since the last assessment by Sir Hermann Bondi in 1992. In order to ensure that this trend continues, the report sets out a series of recommendations concerning staff administration, quality objectives and the focusing of research efforts. The implementation of these recommendations is a vital prerequisite for the establishment of worthwhile and effective links between the framework programme and the JRC.

Provisions on the Community's financial contribution to research projects

The level of the Community's future contribution to research projects must be discussed. In general, the Commission envisages a 50% contribution to costs. There are arguments in favour of reducing this rate to 40%. As a result, more projects than hitherto could be supported, an important factor in view of the high proportion of suitable projects currently rejected and the frustration which this engenders.

At the same time, a lower support rate should prompt applicants to assess their own projects more critically, since their own contribution to the funding would be higher. A greater proportion of funding would go to the intended recipients. However, a reduction in the Community contribution would make sense only if it did not serve to reduce the incentive to participate below a critical threshold. The benefits of participation must always be higher than the cost. The contribution rates could also be staggered more widely according to research area, size of the firm, number of employees, etc.