More reform needed at JRC - Director General talks to CORDIS News
When Barry McSweeney successfully applied for the job of Director general of the European Commission's JRC (Joint research centre), he knew that the easy part was over. Despite being selected over a number of other highly qualified candidates, he was aware that he was about to become the head of an unpopular organisation that needed to change just to survive. But it was also an organisation that, with the right kind of changes, could be in the frontline of major European Union initiatives such as the enlargement process. But first the changes, and a lot of them. There had been too much negative publicity about the JRC, it had a bad image. 'It was almost as if this was the DG that people loved to hate,' he says. Projects and institutes needed reform and the organisation as whole needed to have its complex structure simplified. Mc Sweeney knew that some of these changes had been initiated before his tenure as Director General began, but also knew he would have to bring a lot of his own too. 'Under no circumstances would I imply that many of the changes in the JRC now are because of me [but] definitely I aided and abetted them. The JRC had decided to change and had begun that process,' he says. Even before this, he had the crucial task of securing a sufficient budget, one that would enable him to make the best use of the JRC. 'I had a huge worry because this is the year that we had to convince those who provide our budget, European taxpayers, through the Council and Parliament in co-decision, to decide on our aspect of the Framework programme. One of the big worries was going into a situation where your organisation did not have a good reputation - how difficult would this be in delivering the budget?' He set himself the objective of getting 100 per cent of the budget that had been proposed for the JRC by the Commission in the Framework negotiations. 'I knew that if we had a further budget reduction, I would have serious doubts about whether the JRC could survive.' Mc Sweeney had had the benefit of seeing the problems of the JRC from an insider's perspective. He worked for a year at the JRC's Ispra site in Italy before becoming Director-General, now based in Brussels. This hands on experience gave him an insight into what awaited him later. He says that this gave him an understanding of the mechanics of the organisation without being there so long as to become institutionalised. 'I realised the day I joined the organisation that it is complex,' he says, and he wants to simplify things, starting with getting a clear idea of what the JRC does, and does best. 'Our job is to present the facts, the scientific facts. We've started our benchmarking. It's the only way to justify the existence of an organisation.' He then rattles off some of the results of the first report on the benchmarking exercise - the JRC was actively involved in 17 per cent of interservice consultations, produced 80 deliverables to Member States and was fully involved in 57 pieces of Community legislation or communications in 2000. 'My ambition is that by year end we will have a profile of the JRC and what we do. People say it's simplistic - no it's not. It answers the questions. That's the kind of precision I want to see in the JRC.' Only once he, and everyone else, has a had a clear diagnosis on the condition of the JRC can further shifts be made. A need for prioritisation and refocusing on objectives has been the clear message from some of the many reports (such as the Davignon report, internal audits, etc) that have been made on the JRC over the past couple of years. The problem is that without cuts to some of the existing areas, extra resources cannot be dedicated to the areas to receive more focus. This means that some difficult decisions have to be made. 'What surprised me was the number of interactions we have had from DGs and Parliament urging us not to cut out certain things. And if I don't prioritise then I am going to have an underfunded organisation that has no depth to it, and that I refuse to do. We're not going to please everyone.' He is clear on the criteria he'll use to help him make these decisions. 'I go along with the critics who say that the JRC is doing, in certain cases, things that Member States labs [laboratories] can do better. And I've asked our experts - find them and we'll close them down,' he says. Integration of projects is already taking place. Mc Sweeney gives the example of some projects in the JRC's environment and sustainability and institute and its health and consumer protection institute, both based in Ispra. 'I have a personal interest in integrating [these], because health aspects of the environment is what many people worry about.' But Mc Sweeney does not want simply a hatchet job. As he says himself, many of the staff are permanent, so sackings are not an option anyway. Rather he would like to see a staff training programme accompany any changes that are made. 'I am looking to spend some serious money [on this] particularly if they are young scientists who come into an area that is no longer required by the JRC. If that means sending them back to university, then that is what it will take, because that is investment in people.' This may have been one of the factors that has made the task of bringing change about easier.' The environment was not change resistant, there was no opposition from the trade unions. In fact the opposite was the case.' He wants many of the changes involved in place by 1 September, but says that some people have not waited and have already made the changes. He also wants to ensure that those outside the JRC get the best out of it. The first meeting of the high level user group (where Mc Sweeney meets with the Director-Generals of the client DGs in the Commission), which took place on 19 July was, he says, a success. 'The resonating message from the room was that we need the JRC. He also wants to make sure that any future work with the DGs goes forward in a way in which everyone is aware. Any new work will have to be signed off by the client DG, so that everyone can be sure that the work is necessary. 'We are not a policy DG, we are here to provide whatever help the policy DGs require. What's good about the JRC is that it is impartial.' Mc Sweeney would prefer to see a quiet and successful delivery of what the JRC is designed to do, rather than a trumpeting of its merits. He sees no benefit in spending resources and time educating the European public on the JRC, as he feels these resources could be better used elsewhere. 'Our job of supporting the policymakers and legislators will not grab the public's attention. I would much rather get the appreciation of the decision makers in the Member States,' he says. This also applies to the European Research Area (ERA). The JRC will play a significant role in this. 'We will be a very strong catalyst, but the ERA is huge, the JRC is tiny in this process. So this is why we are not a centrepiece.' However he does feel that the JRC's reference and validation systems will come to play an increasingly important part in the ERA. And he also sees the JRC's of a multinational, multicultural, interdisciplinary environment as a good example of the ERA in action. This applies as much to the researchers from the candidate countries as to the Member States. There have already been significant moves by the JRC to integrate the candidate countries - 18 projects with candidate countries, 61 shared cost activities and 33 scientists from candidate countries working in the JRC. 'Enlargement could be an important future legacy for the JRC,' says Mc Sweeney, emphasising that it is important that the best scientists come to the JRC from the candidate countries, but equally as important that they take their knowledge and training back home again afterwards, so that their home country benefits rather than loses. As Mc Sweeney sets about making more of the planned changes, he realises that he is coming to end of the honeymoon period at the beginning of his tenure. 'I have sensed huge goodwill to me personally. Is the honeymoon period over - probably! At least from the 1 September,' he says. He admits that the job has been harder than he thought and has had to work long hours to get to grips with it. But he has also set himself a goal of what he wants to be able to see when he leaves the position. 'When I see DGs who didn't even know us coming forward to talk to us, when we have positive reactions from the European institutions, when we have a happier organisation - that will make me feel I've done it.'