ERCIM News No.26 - July 1996
ERCIM Views on the 5th Framework Programme
by Jean-Michel Chassériaux
In its recent strategic report 'ERCIM views on Information Technology
in Europe p; the preparation of the 5th Framework Programme and the
Revision of the Maastricht Treaty', ERCIM proposes several guiding principles
for the 5th Framework Programme.
Today, European industry in the information technology sector seems both
weak in terms of hardware and software products and stagnant in terms of
computer services. European research is of high quality but it remains insufficient
in quantity as witnessed, for example by the stagnation in overall R&D
expenditures, its weakness in human potential and a negative specialization
index for scientific publications and patents in the IT sector. There exists,
however, significant reserves of creativity. As an example, the 13 European
research institutes which are members of ERCIM have given raise to over
150 start-up ventures over the last ten years (see ERCIM News 24). But European
high-tech companies still face more difficulties than their American competitors.
At the national level, the economic difficulties experienced in European
countries have affected public R&D budgets which have most often stagnated
or decreased. Public research organisations have been encouraged by their
governments to increase their own revenues and to orient their research
towards issues of direct interest to industry. The multiplication of short-term
contracts makes the definition of coherent and ambitious scientific policy
more difficult.
At the European Community level, the R&D activities have been considerably
reinforced since the beginning of the 1980s. Their annual budget tripled
between 1984 and 1994 to nearly 2500 MECU which constitutes approximately
3% of the R&D expenditures of the Member States. This amount may seem
modest but consists of essentially incentive funding (up to 50%) for trans-national
projects. At the same time, the content of the Framework Programme (FP)
has also considerably evolved. Initially it was aimed at the reinforcement
of the scientific and technological bases of European industry and focused
especially in the fields of energy and IT. But increasingly its priorities
have turned towards the satisfaction of social demand (the environment,
medicine, socio-economic research, etc.). More precisely, programmes directly
related to industrial competitiveness (IT, industrial technologies, energy)
have seen their share fall from 80% in the 2nd FP to 62% in the 4th FP.
The projects selected are closer and closer to market demands, and vertical
partnerships associating technology users and providers are favoured. Information
technologies' share of FP funding has decreased regularly since 1987 from
42% in the 2nd FP to 28% in the 4th FP. And within the corresponding programmes,
the place of long-term research has been gradually reduced.
The extension of the objectives of FP has been accompanied by a certain
dispersion of the available funds among the different Commission Directorates,
some of whose areas of competence may overlap. Those Directorates are thus
compelled to make significant efforts to co-ordinate not only among themselves
but also with other policy-making Directorates.
Nowadays, it does not seem that long-term planning is sufficiently addressed,
either at the national or Community level. One commonly admitted opinion
would suggest that by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, the financing
of long-term research should be primarily assured by the Member States.
In fact, a rigorous application of this principle would lead rather to the
opposite conclusion:
Long-term research satisfies without difficulty the basic requirements of
the Community's R&D policy which are transnationality and non distortion
of competition. In particular, the added value of European networks of researchers
has been amply demonstrated. By contrast, the Community's increasingly market-oriented
R&D policy runs into difficulties which hinder its viability:
- the development of key technologies only rarely occurs in an international
co-operation context (except when it comes to the construction of large
systems: Airbus, TGV, etc.). Thus Community co-operation projects too often
concern non strategic themes or are far from ordinary consumer markets
- the accent placed on user requirements favours innovations in process
and the incremental improvement of existing products rather than genuinely
new product ideas which are more likely to create jobs
- the desire to construct Europe has led to the favouring of regional
partnerships whereas the IT market is world-wide
- the Community's procedures are poorly adapted to a market which evolves
rapidly. As a consequence, the mechanisms set up to encourage SME participation
have been more profitable for consulting groups and SMEs in traditional
sectors than for those in high-tech sectors
- the priority accorded to vertical co-operations makes the co-ordination
of the scientific policy of national research organisations more difficult
since they find themselves involved in different consortia with competing
industries.
Thus, it is in no way obvious that, for equivalent means, supporting close
to the market R&D and demonstration projects can better be undertaken
at Community rather than at Member State level. Some of the orientations
on which the Community's R&D policy has been founded during the past
few years have to be reconsidered. The relationship between research and
industry and the satisfaction of social demand are at the heart of the problem.
The first point concerns both Title XIII (Industry) and Title XV (Research
and Technological Development) of the Maastricht Treaty. The possibility
offered by Title XIII have not been much used up till now and, over time,
the FP which is covered by Title XV of the Treaty has become the principal
instrument of industrial policy.
The preparation of the 5th FP could be the occasion the get closer to the
spirit of the Treaty in order to fully implement its dispositions. In this
regard, certain general orientations can already be sketched:
- to reinforce the scientific and technological bases of Community industrial
competitiveness by increased support to long-term research efforts and the
training of researchers; and by encouraging horizontal co-operation between
R&D organisations in order to facilitate the co-ordination of national
policies
- concentrate the funding directly linked to the competitiveness of
industry and services in fast growing markets
- make European R&D and industry more open to the world by increasing
and re-orienting the funding of international co-operation and improving
the synergy with the technical co-operation programmes of the DG I and DG
VIII
- leave more responsibility to local authorities for the dissemination
and optimization of the results of activities in Community research and
for telematic applications aimed at the public sector, both for reasons
of efficiency and to respect the principle of subsidiarity
- define more precisely the frame for the participation of R&D to
the satisfaction of the needs of society.
Please contact:
Jean-Michel Chassériaux - ERCIM Manager
Tel: +33 1 3963 5303
E-mail: office
ercim.org
return to the contents page