Europe needs more than the RTD Framework Programme, says report
The European Union will need more than the Framework Programme if it wants to achieve targets set at the Lisbon summit to face the challenges of the new economic situation and become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world. This is the main message to emerge from the latest five-year assessment of the European Commission's research and technological development (RTD) Framework programme. The Lisbon summit put RTD policy at the heart of the EU's development strategies, said Joan Majó, chairman of the independent panel which carried out the assessment. But while 'improving and enhancing the Framework programme will be necessary,' it will not be sufficient. 'It ....needs to be complemented by other tools.' The panel recommends continuing the Framework programme after a generally positive assessment of the final phases of the Third, the majority of the Fourth and the beginning of the Fifth Commission RTD Framework programmes between 1995 and 1999. But major reforms will be necessary to make it simpler for participants and to reduce administrative burdens on the Commission, it advises. A significant part of the panel's report concentrates on the threats to both Europe's industrial and scientific communities and the actions which need to be taken at EU level as well as at the level of the Member States. 'Looking from the side of the economy, the most important threat is of Europe falling further behind other economic areas over the next decade. Looking from the scientific community the fear is of Europe losing its place as a centre of excellence for the creation of knowledge. I am convinced that both threats are the same,' says Majó. Since RTD policy is inherently linked with policy in other spheres - especially education and innovation - the panel recommends changes within an overall strategy for Europe 'articulated at the level of the EU and supported by all the Member States.' The suggestion is fully in line with current discussions of the need for a European Research Area, sparked by a communication from European Commissioner for Research, Philippe Busquin earlier this year. While the panel praises the Framework programme for its overall achievements, particularly in promoting international collaboration and the training of researchers, it calls for a broader scope to the Framework. In order to met the Lisbon goals and the demands of enlargement, the panel recommends: - maintaining the emphasis on social relevance and continuing to use Key Actions as a way of focusing programmes; - maintaining a strong emphasis on collaborative RTD projects supplemented by a variety of other actions; - emphasising excellence and the participation of leading-edge researchers; - encouraging participants to propose 'riskier' projects; - enhancing measures encouraging the mobility of researchers within the EU and elsewhere; - retaining support for generic , competence building RTD activities; - increasing the emphasis on the research need to support other EU policies. Existing policy instruments available to support science and technology are currently under exploited, adds the panel, recommending 'a major review of the systems and procedures used to devise overall goals, specify delivery mechanisms and implement programmes.' Again echoing the ethos of an ERA, the panel goes on to recommend the adoption of a European RTD strategy at the 'highest political levels'. 'The Heads of Government should then delegate the task of formulating and implementing this strategy to the European Commission, supported by an appropriate advisory structure.' While this would require the Member States to have a greater level of trust in the Commission, the panel recommends disbanding the Programme committees. 'A review of the management and administration of the framework programme should concentrate of ways of re-engineering existing structures and procedures to delegate responsibility for tasks downwards within the Commission, or externalise them.' In addition, more emphasis should be placed on ensuring the Framework programme achieves its goals and less 'excessive focus' should be placed on procedures, advises the panel. But the panel does acknowledge that its recommendations call into question some of the basic principles governing the operation of the European Commission as a whole and, as a result, calls for and underlines the need for support 'at the highest political levels'. It also stresses the need for more investment in RTD. There needs to be an increase in the relative size of the budgets allocated to science and technology compared to other policy domains, it emphasises: 'The percentage of GDP spent in the EU on public and private RTD should rise to at least 3% over the next ten years.' Indirect measures such as RTD tax incentives across the EU could also be used to attract private investment in European RTD and urgent action must be taken to counter skills shortages envisaged over the next decade, it adds. The Commission also has a role to play in preventing duplication of research efforts. Enlargement is another key issue. Here the panel advises that support provided to the Central and Eastern European countries' RTD Activities should be channelled temporarily through the existing scientific academies 'until new competitive structures for the organisation of science and industry can be developed...the Commission [is urged] to ensure that innovation-related activities are high on the agenda of actions supported by the Community Structural funds and the Accession funds for the applicant countries.' If the EU wants to become the leading knowledge based society in the world, it must adopt a 'much more clearly articulated European strategy linking RTD policy with policies in other domains,' the panel concludes. 'This report is a contribution to the work of the Commission and a plea to European leaders, both in the Union and in the Member States, for the substantial policy review needed in order to implement a coherent follow up to the statements made in Lisbon.' Introducing the report, Joan Majó puts this more simply: 'New circumstances call for new goals. And new goals call for new policy tools.'