3 EU’s Framework Programme for RTD in context
3.2 Salient characteristics of EU’s 5FP compared to other FPs
fuller story to include the 6FP and some ideas about the 7FP.
FPs prior to 5FP
When the first framework programme was put in place in 1984, it was a response to the increasing complexity and disparity of the R&D activities to that date. There was in fact no Community policy on science and technology, and the R&D activities themselves were not strongly co-ordinated with other Community activities.
Responding to this, the Commission wanted to set up the new activities within a system that corresponded to their perceived complexity. The development of the framework programmes since then should be understood in the economic and political context that evolved. The increasing integration in Europe was stimulated by the movement towards the single market. The Single European Act was approved in 1986 and contained reforms to the European institutional set-up, but also had as a key aim to guide the process of European economic integration to its completion by 1992.
The rationale for the second and third FPs thus became development of concerted technological activities, in many cases often referred to as technology platforms. In particular, these were seen as the main instrument for paving the way and building the knowledge bases for new or emerging industries which the European Community believed essential for its future competitive position. They also implied a gradual shift to include R&D efforts in other Community policies, also in regional policies. The cohesion problem was seen mostly in terms of disparate economic development in various regions in Europe and the upgrading of the RTD systems of the less favored regions was seen as an important instrument to enhance regional growth and,hence, European cohesion.
The Maastricht treaty of 1992 created a more demanding framework for the European dimension for R&D, the treaty bringing more policy areas within the attention of the Commission, such as:
Economic and social cohesion on the one hand and social affairs on the other were given more prominence than they had before.
Culture, health and consumer matters became Community affairs, and the treaty set out a policy for trans-European transport, telecommunications and energy.
The principle of subsidiarity was given a key role in setting out a clearer picture of what the European dimension was, including a clearer demarcation between Community responsibilities and those of the member states. Even so, those of the former increased.
Salient characteristics of EU’s 5FP compared to other FPs
The Maastricht treaty affected research in some notable ways. For the first time, other policy areas than the science and technology policy became explicitly relevant for the overall R&D policy: ”It re-emphasised, at the highest juridical and institutional level, the idea which originally gave rise to the framework program: the Community’s R&TD policy should be, first and foremost, at the service of other Community policies.” (Guzetti
1995:153) It gave more legitimacy to the research activities that were not directly linked to the Single Market idea of competitiveness, etc. One aspect of this was that areas like health and environmental research became grouped under a strategic heading: Quality of life. But another consequence became evident: Social sciences were opened up and given more priority.
The emergence of 5FP
The development of the 5FP represented a renewed effort to move towards a less
technologically driven policy. Social objectives and wider Community concerns became more evident in the preparatory work, and an important publication signalled a change:
Society – the endless frontier4 addressed the need to develop a research policy that should serve the European society, not only industrial development. This was formulated in the mid 1990’s at a time of severe unemployment and structural weaknesses in the European economy. In addition, in the early 1990’s much attention was given to the problem of policy co-ordination, both within the Commission, and between the EU-level and national levels.
Further, the 5th signalled a significant shift in the way of organising the EU’s R&D
activities. Whereas a “technology push” linear model thinking dominated the 4FP and was implemented through the means of 15 sub programmes under its first activity and 3 other horizontal support activities5, the 5FP implied a greater concentration on defined key problem areas. This led to implementing the programme through key actions, a method which was supposed to focus and integrate more basic research with applied. In fact, the 5FP combined concentration efforts with a move towards a more systemic model in the integration of research types.
The change from a linear model to a more systemic or integrated model had more to do with the need to legitimize the use of EU resources as relevant for real European problems, rather than a dramatic change in the way research was conducted. It should be noted that the basic idea from the framework programmes over the years was kept in place: The framework programme was first and foremost an instrument to stimulate trans-national research collaboration.
4 Cf.: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/pulse/society_en.html - written in 1997 by P. Caracostas and U.
Muldur.
5 Co-operation with third countries, dissemination and exploitation of results, and research mobility.
EU’s Framework Programme for RTD in context
Salient characteristics of EU’s 5FP compared to other FPs
Background of 6FP
If there was a significant shift from the 4th to the 5FP, the shift from the 5th to the 6th has been even more distinct. There are two basic foundations for the recent development:
Already in the early 1990s there was increasing discussions on ways to move from the framework concept to include member states more directly. Key players in the EU R&D policy domain like Bertti and Reisenhuber introduced a discussion at a EUREKA conference in 1990 on the possibility of intergovernmental co-ordination, and this was at that time seen as possible. The task forces of the 5FP were to a great extent part of the same thinking: “Pooling” and “Critical mass” came more to the centre of design criteria.
As the perception of a strong link between research, innovation and economic growth became more widespread, political support for R&D had increased during the late 1990’s. On this backdrop the European Council decided in its Lisbon meeting in March 2000 to give more priority to R&D, proclaiming that the EU should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. This was followed up by the Barcelona process in 2002 with its agreement on member states to invest at least 3% of GDP in R&D by 2010.
These two foundations were echoed by the Panel for the Five-year assessment of the EU research and technological development programmes, published in 2000. It stated that the framework programme would not be sufficient to reach the Lisbon objectives, and that a more comprehensive strategy for Europe was needed. This encompassed expanding the various tools to be used in consistence with the EU Treaty and adoption of a R&D strategy at the highest level combined with a more decentralised system of implementation.
This trend-shift could be observed in how the new policy was implemented in the 6FP.
While the 4FP and 5FP were essentially project-based R&D collaboration to enhance knowledge creation and utilization, and thus essentially a bottom-up strategy, the 6FP became a strategy to enhance the competitive strength of European R&D.
More to the point, the 6FP became a structuring device to create what was conceived as better conditions for excellent research and innovation-driven growth. It contained a new regime for research collaboration that included the previous instruments of RTD projects and thematic networks, albeit under new names, but introduced profoundly new
instruments, notably integrated projects (IP) and networks of excellence (NoE). The latter was in particular an instrument to structure and integrate the research community in large, sustained networks that could increase the quality of research and operate more
autonomously vis-à-vis the Commission. In addition to these two, another new instrument or collaboration scheme was introduced, the ERA-NET, which may be seen as the
forerunner of the European Research Area (ERA). The ERA is qualitatively different from a programme; it is a structured co-operation and co-ordination between research funding and support institutions. The aim is to prepare an open co-ordination and participation of
Major perspectives in EU’s framework programmes in relation to Norwegian RTD-policy
national research programmes at the EU-level.
An interesting feature of the 6FP is the renewed focus on technology platforms in the IPs, a focus that was a key ingredient particularly in the 3FP. This reintroduction reflects the success of technology platforms because of its potential to build integrated knowledge bases for technological development.
Institutional aspects of ERA vs. FP
The ERA as a new, emerging institutional construction should be distinguished from the institution of the FP. The latter is still the main R&D activity of the EU, managed by the Commission, while the ERA is an integration system of the various national R&D institutions and resources.
Beyond 6FP
What will take place in the 7FP? At present, the idea of 7FP is still in its infancy, making predictions conjectural. But it is highly likely that the focus on capacity building and excellence will continue, combined with institutional changes in the overall EU R&D policy. Current signals point to a diffusion of responsibilities from the Commission, i.e. an
“agencification” of the implementation structure. A possible new system could be fivefold:
a) Collaborative research within the classical framework system by DG Research b) Support for excellence, even supporting individual projects, by a new European
research council
c) Mobility measures, possibly through an external agency
d) Technological platforms, possibly through an agency or with member states e) Support for infrastructure by DG Research
A development along such lines would mean that participating nations – including Norway - will have to revise their strategy for participation.
3.3 Major perspectives in EU’s framework programmes in