ERA should be medium term policy target - ESF opinion
'The ERA has to be seen as providing a medium term policy target and template against which one can focus decisions both on the structure and on the funding of research,' states the European Science Foundation's (ESF) position paper on the European Commission's proposals for the next framework programme. ESF is the European association of 67 major national funding agencies devoted to basic scientific research in 24 countries The ESF welcomes the proposals, but calls for a commitment to investment in basic research, tailored funding policies according to the area concerned, a balance of interests and continuity between framework programmes. 'Investment in the research base is vital and ESF strongly recommends that EU Member States, the other countries of the EEA [European Economic Area] and the Accession States commit themselves to a high level declaration on such investment,' states the paper. One of the criteria to measure the success of the ERA will be its effect in stimulating investment at the national level with convergence on pre-set targets, the document continues. The ESF claims that there is 'insufficient clarity in the descriptions of the detailed methodologies for the implementation of the programme'. The foundation believes that there should be a means of tailoring the instruments and the mechanisms of the programme according to the specific needs of the different scientific fields and the problems identified in the proposal. The foundation also believes that this would create a balance between large scale and small scale funding for long and short duration projects and between contracts and grants. Referring to one of the proposed new tools, integrated projects, the paper notes the implication that future funding would be concentrated within allocations of large scale funding and expresses concern at the repercussions of such a policy. 'The rigid application of the principle of large scale funding may well have the effect of excluding smaller countries from effective full participation in the Framework programme,' asserts the paper. Referring to the application of Article 169, which would allow a group of Member States to forge ahead with research and development programmes on their own, the ESF urges a careful balance between community and sectoral interests and between national and research driven priorities. 'The danger that Article 169 actions will be driven only by the same few member states is also a cause for concern,' adds the paper. The ESF also states that they would consider it 'unthinkable' that a co-decision process need be used for every action that may arise through Article 169. The document makes the case for more continuity between framework programmes, claiming that 'the inability to fund more than three year projects has been a major drawback of previous framework programmes.' The paper outlines a number of areas, such as clinical trials, environmental observation and support for shared infrastructures, which it believes have been hindered by the three year time limit. The ESF calls for more explicit continuity, proposing that individual projects be funded for up to five years and suggesting the adoption of the 'renewable funding' principle. Making participation in the framework programmes easier, both by a simplification of the application process and by improving infrastructures is a priority for the ESF. The ESF notes that the framework programme has 'consistently suffered from an unacceptable over application rate' and suggests that this was due to too many ill defined objectives and insufficient resources. The opinion proposes a two stage application process, in which preliminary outline proposals can be sifted. A reduced number of proposals proceeding to the second, full application stage would save both time and money for the European research community, states the paper. Addressing the issue of infrastructures, the paper refers to the declaration from the Strasbourg Conference of September 2000. The conference declared that 'the provision of first class infrastructure is now of paramount importance to European research and a substantial strengthening of European research infrastructures will not be possible without additional significant funding from the individual nations and from the European Commission'. The ESF considers that there should be an explicit reference to this mode of working within the Commission proposal, and that consideration should be given to new ways of funding infrastructure development, using, for example, Structural Funds, particularly in the case of the accession countries.