Hungary backs FP6 and ERA, but calls for more focus on candidate country needs
The Sixth Framework programme (FP6) and the proposed European research area (ERA) could help speed up integration of candidate countries into the European Union, according to a new Hungarian position paper. But this can only happen if there are sufficient measures to address candidate country specific issues. The paper, issued by the Hungarian ministry for education, broadly welcomes the outlines of both FP6 and ERA. It also notes the that the original proposal for FP6 specifically mentions the need to integrate candidate countries, pointing out that this is a tool to help the enlargement process. But Hungary wants it to go further. Specifically, it would like to see enlargement incorporated into FP6 as part of priority eight, which refers to 'anticipating the science and technology needs of European Union policies.' The paper also calls for enlargement-related research to be integrated as a thematic and a horizontal priority in the framework programme. 'Participation in the new Framework programme at a time of transition to EU membership can be unhindered and successful only if candidate countries are considered as if they were EU members from the outset (and even in the preparatory phase) of FP6,' the paper says. Attention is required for the structural and socio-economic element of research necessary to address enlargement. Research that focuses on the issues thrown up by enlargement should be prioritised, but participation should also be open to any country. The Hungarian paper states that good examples of this type of research would be the introduction of standards and measurements in support of application of the 'acquis communautaire', as well as clean technologies, data security and electronic commerce. In terms of the research infrastructure in candidate countries, Hungary welcomes the Commission's proposal that candidate countries be treated as less favoured regions in FP6. It also suggests that 'research-oriented use of pre-accession and structural funds before and after should get a new impetus.' The issue of researcher mobility also needs to be addressed in the context of the candidate countries, the paper states, as the obstacles to mobility which they face may be even more acute - referring to the possible brain drain from these countries and differences in payment levels. Hungary's paper emphasises that while it is looking forward to participating in the next framework programme, efforts should be made to ensure that there is minimum disruption to existing arrangements. In particular, Hungary says that the more than 30 bilateral intergovernmental agreements it has, as well as its membership of international organisations, should remain unaffected by the new ERA. And it also requests that the rules of participation in the next framework programme be similar to the last, as the country has made 'extensive effort to establish the necessary human and technical support infrastructure' for these. As for the actual format of the framework programme, the new instruments of networks of excellence and integrated projects should be introduced gradually. There should also be maximum transparency in establishing the consortia who participate in these. With the foreseen use of article 169 of the Treaty, Hungary emphasises that smaller countries should be allowed to coordinate, and not just participate in, joint actions. In conclusion, the paper highlights the benefits of the new research structure. 'Integration of candidate countries into European structures as well as achieving their socio-economic competitiveness is a lengthy process. By establishing the ERA, this process can be speeded up,' it says.