CORDIS Archive

Austrian Position Paper on a 5th Framework Programme for Research and Development

August 1996

Austria supports the general concept of a 5th Framework Programme (FP5) for Research and Technological Development (RTD). The RTD policy of the Community, based on the Community Treaties, must be adjusted to the evolving medium-term and global conditions for RTD.

Community Policy for RTD (Art. 130f -TEC)

Austria wishes to promote the overall goals of the Community policy on RTD, especially the strengthening of the scientific and technological bases for industry and international competitiveness. The latter should continue to be the primary aim of the Community's RTD activities. In this context, an improvement of the industrial bases should be closely connected to the attempts to ameliorate the European employment situation.

Increasingly, Austria views the framework programmes as an essential instrument to support other Community policies, e.g. environment, energy, education, mobility, transport and the common agricultural policy. Austria considers it to be of vital importance that the policies and measures in the various fields are coordinated within the European Commission and that the DGs in the European Commission cooperate.

Measures on Community Level / Coordination between the EU and its Member States as well as amongst the EU Member States (Art. 130g-h Treaty on European Union)

FP5 should entail measures in the following four areas: 'Research, Technological Development and Demonstration', 'Cooperation with Third Countries and International Organisations', 'Dissemination and Exploitation of Results', and 'Training and Mobility of Researchers'.

I. Austria would like to draw special attention to the clause in 130g TEC according to which all actions related to the above should be supplementary to those of the EU member states. It should therefore be a strong feature within FP5 to determine clearer than previously - according to the principle of subsidiarity (Art.3b) - which RTD activities are to be considered Community, regional or national tasks. On the Community level, only those measures are to be encouraged that include a European dimension, promise a European added-value and deal with problems that cannot be solved nor financed on a regional or national level.

The role of subsidiarity extends to cooperation in global markets. Whilst preparing FP5, it is necessary to decide which scientific, economic or technology-oriented activities within worldwide cooperation should be performed on a national or European level (as a positive example, take IMS).

Austria does not share the opinion that Community institutions should conduct a common systematic and comprehensive "foreign policy" towards third countries in the area of S&T.

II. RTD measures to support cooperation with third countries and international organisations as mentioned in Art. 130g of the Maastricht Treaty should continue as a separate action in FP5. Regarding the RTD policy towards the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC), though, a separate action only seems sensible if the activities deal with specific regional topics otherwise not covered in FP5. Considering future EU-membership of these countries, Austria supports basically equal access of CEEC to the specific programmes of Action I in FP5. For a CEE-partner to be able to take part in the specific programmes of FP5, the participation of at least two EU member states should continue to be required; the costs for CEE-participation must be provided by these countries themselves, by the support programmes of the EU or through Action II. Austria refers to the recent paper of the CREST Ad hoc Working Group on S/T cooperation with CEEC. S/T cooperation should be viewed as a valuable instrument for integration with positive effects for the whole European scientific landscape.

III. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership forms the basis for a legitimate policy towards neighbours. Closer cooperation with the Mediterranean countries, especially with respect to the Information Society, seems desirable. Also, the possibilities for cooperation with the CIS must be considered. Harmonisation as well as close connection between FP5 and other Community initiatives (e.g. PHARE, TACIS, MEDA and those in the fields of environment and energy) with S&T measures or programmes must be encouraged.

IV. Austria is convinced that in FP5 dissemination and exploitation of results as well as innovation and technology transfer must be given higher priority than in FP4. As a criterion for the selection and financing of RTD projects, the quest of FP4, to evaluate the market-value for potential industrial or public users, should be enforced in FP5. Austria agrees to an expansion of the technology transfer and innovation activities within the INNOVATION-Programme through which the cooperation with other overlapping subjects must be intensified as well as amongst the specific programmes and - should they be established - with the task forces. In general, innovation is to receive appropriate attention - as stated clearly in the 'Green Paper on Innovation' - in FP5, especially with a view to strengthening the potential for innovation of SMEs. Equally, Austria welcomes the introduction of 'SME-friendly' measures as well as the broadening of demonstration activities in the Innovation-Programme.

The Innovation-Programme should include certain structural improvements: less and more clearly defined actions, open calls for technology transfer and validation proposals and for networks and services, quicker handling of proposals, standardised application procedures, substantial increase of finances to 10% of FP5, incorporation of the Technology Stimulation Actions (TSA) and the Exploratory Awards of TSM into the Innovation-Programme, general coordination of dissemination and optimisation through the Innovation-Programme, links to EUREKA and similar initiatives on EU-level.

V. Austria encourages closer connections between the future FP5, COST, EUREKA and national programmes. For example, bottom-up COST- or EUREKA-projects could receive financial support under FP5 if they conform with clear goals of FP5. Also, projects completed under FP5 could continue as EUREKA projects for research on their market-value. Austria suggests to pay more attention to the possibilities for the transfer of research results between FP5 and EUREKA.

VI. Austria accepts training and mobility of researchers as one of the most important accompanying measures of FP5 in the hope that this will help the young generation to develop a "European identity". Therefore, an improvement of the administrative handling is deemed necessary, especially with respect to delays in money transfer actions. Basically, Austria commends to boost the synergy between research and educational measures in the fourth activity of FP5.

An advance of potential synergy between research and educational programmes and with it improved coordination should not only happen within the framework programme but also in connection with external initiatives. In particular, possibilities for cooperation between universities and companies in the action for vocational education, LEONARDO, could be more closely linked to projects within the framework programme (e.g. preceding or subsequent mobility projects or further education as follow-up to successful research projects).

VII. Initiatives which further the coordination of national RTD activities with those of the Community (Art. 130h) will find Austrian support whenever this coordination includes European added-value and respects the principle of subsidiarity. To encourage better coordination on an international level, Austria suggests to expand cooperation between the EU and international organisations, e.g. ESA (Art. 130m TEC).

Multiannual Framework Programme: Specific Programmes / Difficulties of European Dimension (Art. 130i TEC)

The dominant objectives of FP5 should continue to be an improvement of the scientific bases as well as a strengthening of the competitiveness of European industry. In addition, when defining its scientific and technological goals, FP5 should envisage a positive influence on the employment situation in Europe. In view of the deteriorating labour market in the whole of Europe, employment-related programmes should receive relatively high funding. Possible long-term effects on the job situation should be taken into account when evaluating and ranking projects. Equally for the definition of Community goals in FP5, Austria sees a necessity to consider growth and prosperity in Europe with respect to aspects of sustainability and, - based on democratic procedures - the acceptability of technology.

To achieve the goals of the EU in the field of RTD as set out in the TEC, Austria advises to take a more problem-oriented stance in FP5. Questions involving research, industry and society should be concentrated into common activities, the idea of task forces basically being an acceptable form of doing this. It should be stressed, however, that for the decision process establishing these task forces transparency and participation of the member states are to be guaranteed to the highest possible degree. Also, it must be possible for member states to propose task forces to the European Commission. The responsibilities of the programme committees of the specific programmes must not be reduced through the creation of task forces with respect to administration or contents. Austria suggests to choose the topics for the task forces from common problems and questions of European dimension, not from particular branches of industry. At the same time, basic research should be integrated already in the planning phase of FP5 to avoid a short-term orientation of FP5.

The approach of the current framework programme, based on research disciplines, should recede or be reconsidered regarding its problem-solving capacity in view of the rising complexity and interdisciplinarity of the topics in research, industry and society. This examination should take into account that research must increasingly be concerned with its vertical dimension, with the complete research process from the cradle of new knowledge to its application on the market. In Austria's opinion, a continuation of the generic programmes of FP5 is essential. In this context, it is Austria's special request to advance appropriate mechanisms which will warrant a link from basic research to innovation.

Given the verticality of research, not only the respective project proposals at every stage of the research process should be evaluated but also the results of each completed phase. At this point, Austria would like to refer to the many suggestions in the 'Green Paper on Innovation'. In any case, for the selection of project evaluators an appropriate number should be chosen with practical market-experience. Austria points out that the ongoing evaluation of FP4 and its specific programmes is extremely important for the concepts and shaping of FP5. These results should be borne in mind and form an essential input.

When formulating the Community RTD activities within FP5, it must be ensured that not only technology-oriented questions concerning the competitiveness of industry and the labour market be taken into account but also questions which affect the complete social structure of the Community. A technology-oriented approach should be adjusted according to the objectives of social policy which are the pillars of sustainable development. When market mechanisms are not (yet) effective, these objectives should explicitly be dealt with (questions of feasibility, environmental concerns, socio-economic aspects, e.g. the acceptability of new technologies or large-scale projects, aspects of economic and long-term effects of new technologies like waste disposal, external costs, energy). Especially for complex social and environmental topics new interdisciplinary and inexpensive technologies are required which present a low financial burden for customers - private and business, further the acceptability of industry, and are globally marketable. Therefore, in addition immaterial solutions should be sought and put into use.

Austria declares herself for a cooperation between RTD policy and European legal instruments (environmental law, transport law, trade law, telecommunication law and also structural funds). The internal Austrian discussion shows that RTD must contribute to the development of a European identity and to integration. The relationship between national and European identity affects the future constitutional development of the Union, whereby related socio-economic questions should be dealt with in FP5.

Implementation of the Framework Programme: Improved Procedures (Art. 130j TEC)

• Austria considers it to be an important condition for the success of FP5 to facilitate the access for SMEs. Therefore, Austria suggests - in order to create an SME-friendly climate - to favour projects involving a higher number of SMEs if these projects are of equal quality to others with fewer SMEs or none. A system of bonuses which fosters projects with SME-participation would be welcomed by Austria.
• Many SMEs are not in a position to contribute 50% of the costs for a research project. For this reason, possibilities should be found in FP5 to alleviate the financial strain for SMEs, eg. through a reduction of costs for SMEs.
• In the Specific Programmes of FP4 in which the proportion of rejected proposals with SME-partners is especially high, Austria would like to consider additional financial support for SMEs by earmarking special funds. Projects could be initiated by SMEs; these would be bottom-up and thematically less restricted within a given framework. These SME projects should have a duration of one or one-and-a-half years, include 2-3 partners and be decided upon by the EU-gremia within three months after application. In general, in the calls for proposals in FP5, the programme information should be shorter, more precise and thus better comprehensible than currently.
• To Austria it seems sensible to introduce a category of pure demonstration projects in FP5; in such projects, the application of available knowledge becomes particularly important and SMEs would have good options for participation.
• In addition to special assistance for SMEs, Austria supports all measures which further cooperation between SMEs and university institutions. Through increased and extensive mobility programmes for students of industry- and application-oriented subjects, the ground for innovation should be laid in those SMEs that have no previous experience in cooperation with universities. Synergy with all other mobility programmes is to be ensured by the administration.
• To facilitate application procedures for SMEs, funds for topically unrestricted, high-quality technology, multi-country cooperation projects amongst SMEs are to be made available; there should be a few calls for proposals a year.

• In view of the long-term impact of once accepted working programmes, Austria suggests to reserve funds for urgent new, short-term concerns on the level of the Specific Programmes. It must be guaranteed that the member states be involved in such decision procedures.
• Austria supports the idea that, two years after the start of FP5, the RTD measures and goals are reconsidered and possibly adjusted in view of the new and relevant matters of European interest in the field of RTD. In particular, aspects of interdisciplinarity as well as the priorities of the working programmes of the Specific Programmes should be re-examined.
• Where industrial RTD predominates, the objectives of the programmes should be decided upon but not all the details. The calls are not to be narrowly defined but inspiring - research and industry can be trusted to develop ideas for RTD within the general framework of goals; this will result in a flexible FP5.
• Experience from the previous framework programmes for RTD has shown that a growing number of project proposers must be turned down - despite partly excellent proposals - for lack of funds. In Austria's opinion, over-subscription as it happened in most Specific Programmes must be avoided in FP5 to prevent negative effects on the motivation of European researchers to partake in the framework programmes of the Community.
• Wherever applicable, Austria recommends an endorsement of concerted actions (coordination costs only).
• To maintain the motivation of proposers to participate in FP5, Austria suggests to reimburse the project preparation costs for those proposers whose projects were considered excellent but due to financial restrictions had to be rejected.
• The evaluation mechanisms should become more transparent. Therefore Austria agrees that the proposers be informed of the reasons for which their projects are accepted or rejected.
• Austria supports a two-tier procedure in project evaluation for those Specific Programmes where this has already been successfully employed (eg. industrial programmes but not life sciences). In general, attempts should be made to have quicker and more transparent decision procedures and to reduce the time-span for project decisions.
• Regarding rejected projects that are nonetheless realised without Community funds, Austria suggests to examine whether the consortia of these projects should be accepted and supported under the INNOVATION-programme in order to disseminate their results.
• To facilitate project submission, Austria would like to see more 'open calls' in FP5.

III. EURATOM

Austria is not opposed to a continuation of some activities such as "Radiological Impact on Man and the Environment" or "Historic Liabilities" of the current Specific Programme "Nuclear Fission Safety" - preferably with a new title (risk research). Austria will not accept a continuation or an intensification of the activities in research on innovative concepts (development of new reactor architecture).

Notwithstanding the long-term goal to construct the prototype of a thermonuclear reactor, the realisation of which can hardly be expected before mid next century, research in the field of thermonuclear fusion belongs to a great extent to applied basic research. Considering the numerous unsolved scientific and technical problems it seems too early to give a final assessment of this technology. Austria therefore upholds its reservations towards a European research programme on Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion.

If the Community programmes 'Nuclear Fission Safety' and 'Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion' are to be continued in FP5, Austria would like to ensure that the allotment of funds is shifted further in favour of research in the field of non-nuclear energy, in particular renewable energies and rational use of energy. Austria will not approve increases in funds - proportional or absolute - for the EURATOM programmes.

Topics of special Austrian and European interest

Austria suggests the following problem-orientated topics for FP5:

1. Industrial research, especially process engineering
2. Transport-related topics
3. Sustainable regional development
4. Socio-economic aspects of European integration

This is the original text submitted by the Austrian government.