Introduction

For more than 12 years the Community has been drawing up multiannual framework programmes to encourage research, technological development and demonstration activities, programmes whose substance and structure have become ever more complex. The fourth R&TD framework programme, which runs out in 1998, breaks down into no fewer than 18 specific programmes, which cover a wide variety of sometimes unconnected research topics and the administration of which is spread across seven directorates-general and the Joint Research Centre. The assessment of the programme by an independent panel chaired by Viscount Davignon reflects this: the current structure of the programme prevents the framing of a proper strategy and hampers implementation. The programme cannot meet the hopes invested in it; it fails to focus properly on priority areas; there is no linkage with the Union's objectives; there is no scope for reacting flexibly to new challenges and opportunities. In its recommendations, the panel therefore recommends a comprehensive revision of the decision-making procedure, the management arrangements and the structure and objectives of the programme.

The stipulation that the Council must take unanimous decisions did indeed pose a serious obstacle to a genuinely European approach to the R&TD framework programme. The result is the plethora of sectoral and national preferences in the programme, with no overarching strategy, a state of affairs also criticized by the panel. Although the unanimity requirement in the Council will still apply to the adoption of the fifth framework programme, efforts must nevertheless be made to gear the programme strategy to the Community's objectives and to revamp both its substance and structure. In future, however, and starting with any revision of the fifth framework programme, majority voting should be employed in the Council, as it is in the case of the other codecision procedures. At the Amsterdam Summit, the European Council took the first step in that direction.

Finally, the differing arrangements governing Parliament's say in the EC and Euratom research programmes must be done away with. The parliamentary deficit in the Euratom Treaty can no longer be justified and the Commission should therefore examine whether there is really any obstacle to it putting forward a proposal for the nuclear section of the framework programme in accordance with the EC Treaty.

The Commission proposal

The Commission has tried to take account of the criticisms of the framework programme and has taken up many suggestions. Its basic concept for the programme points in the right direction. Apart from the obvious support criteria, such as high scientific quality and relevance to the key political concepts of the Union, the intention to focus more closely on a limited number of topics/problems of exceptional economic, ecological or social significance and the requisite 'added value for Europe' is particularly welcome.

The Commission has put forward a proposal which differs substantially from the previous framework programme. One central point, which must be welcomed as a matter of principle, is the reduction in the number of specific programmes, the aim being to improve coordination, make management tighter and enhance flexibility. The Commission now envisages three thematic ('vertical') and three horizontal programmes, along with a programme for the JRC.

However, in reducing the number of thematic programmes the Commission has gone a very long way. Thematic programmes I 'Unlocking the resources of the living world and the ecosystem' and III 'Promoting competitive and sustainable growth' are very broad in content and cover relatively disparate research areas, which may produce more problems than benefits as regards coordination, management and assessment. In particular, there is a case for hiving off the areas of the environment and energy from the programme 'Promoting competitive and sustainable growth' (and, by the same token, the programme 'Unlocking the resources of the living world and the ecosystem'). These are particularly substantial research areas which are thematically related and can relatively easily be separated from the other areas covered by the programme, so that they could form a free-standing fourth thematic programme.

The value of further divisions - for example an independent transport programme - must be examined in the light of the danger of fragmentation.

A new, welcome feature of the Commission proposal is the concept of 'key actions' within the thematic programmes. The Commission has thus switched from a technology-oriented to a problem-oriented approach to the definition of research topics. Research policy thus becomes much more 'political'. The Community now acts as a client of the research industry; it defines the practical economic, social or ecological challenges and problems which are to be resolved as a matter of priority and with the help of research and technology. Unlike in the case of the thematic programmes, the Commission has been generous in setting the number of key actions, but has described their substance very succinctly. The Commission puts forward a total of 18 key actions whose topics are mostly already familiar from the fourth framework programme (specific programmes or sub-programmes). The description of the key actions repeatedly departs from the problem-oriented approach. The dividing line between a key action and generic research is not clear.

Although the introduction of the key actions represents an important innovation, basic research and generic research, i.e. research with a wide range of potential applications, should remain key features of the framework programme. They may, but must not necessarily, be linked to the key actions. 'Compulsory' linkage with the actions would give rise to a narrow approach to specific problems, leave no scope for new, interesting topics not covered by the key actions and, at the same time, run counter to the aim of greater flexibility.

The Commission must be criticized for the fact that, as far as can be judged, the proposal for the fifth framework programme essentially embraces topics already included in the fourth framework programme. Should the substance of the fifth framework programme be revealed to some extent as old wine in new bottles, then the objective of a radical revamping and focusing of the programme will have gone by the board.

The thematic programmes

The thematic programmes should focus on the key research areas and technologies which will have a decisive influence on society at the start of the 21st century: life sciences and ecology, information and communications technologies (ICT), industrial technologies, including energy research, and transport technologies.

The programme 'Unlocking the resources of the living world and the ecosystem' is designed to improve the quality of life and level of health of European citizens, deal with urgent environmental problems, and, at the same time, improve the competitiveness of European undertakings in the sphere of leading-edge technologies with high economic potential, such as the many and varied applications of biotechnology.

The programme is exceptionally significant. In recent years pioneering advances, such as the deciphering of the yeast genome, have been achieved in the spheres of biomedicine and biotechnology and further advances can be expected. The key actions proposed by the Commission focus on the most important problems, even if one could certainly imagine them covering other or additional problems. However, the Commission provides only very succinct descriptions of the key actions and the generic research topics. Here, a more precise definition of the projects and their objectives is required.

The programme appears to be very broad-based. It should focus as a matter of priority on the life sciences, where there is a close link between science and technology, a corresponding need for coordination and clearly definable 'target group'.

A possible free-standing environmental programme (which could be designed separately or together with an energy programme) should incorporate, for example, key actions IV to VI of the first thematic programme and areas from the third thematic programme.

The development of the instruments needed for a user-friendly information society can make a decisive contribution to increased growth and employment. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the Community should promote information and communications technologies, in view of the enormous international competition and their importance for industry as a whole, thereby endeavouring also to exert an influence on the development of the information society.

The most recent assessment issued by the panel chaired by Professor Carneiro (and the assessment body chaired by Professor Colombo in 1996) confirms that major successes have been achieved in this research field. The decisive factor was that the programme served to encourage and establish on a lasting basis cooperation between European firms.

Taking its cue from the assessment reports, the Commission is now very sensibly proposing a single ICT programme. It is questionable, however, whether this merger of programmes must necessarily lead to an increase in the percentage share of the research budget devoted to this field, something the Commission fails to justify.

As already stated, one of the programmes' key aims, the establishment of European cooperation, has now been achieved, so that the relative importance of future Community R&TD support for this area by comparison with other research fields in the framework programme should be examined.

The descriptions of the substance of the key actions 'Systems and services for citizens' and 'New methods of work and electronic trading' are inadequate. Here, a clear explanation of the objectives being pursued is required. There is also a risk that too many market-related applications will be encouraged, hampering the development of a forward-looking approach to the information, communications and network technologies which are fundamental prerequisites for international competition. A balanced relationship must be established in this sphere.

Particular attention should be paid to the key action 'Multimedia content': although the need for and importance of lifelong learning has already been recognized, not least in terms of its role in safeguarding employment, steps must also be taken to ensure that the requisite, user-friendly instruments which the ICTs could provide are developed. In this connection, the development and validation of multimedia pilot services for general and vocational training and the development of software for multimedia learning programmes are particularly important.

As far as the management of this programme is concerned, the question arises as to which directorate-general should implement the programme? As a matter of principle, the directorate-general responsible for telecommunications policy should also manage the ICT research programme.

The programme 'Promoting competitive and sustainable growth' should support the development of the knowledge and technologies needed to design procedures and to produce sophisticated and environmentally friendly products. As already stated, the key actions under this programme cover a broad range of areas and some of them (Action I) are technology- rather than problem-oriented. Here, more precise definitions of the objectives to be achieved are required. The topic for Action VI of this programme 'The city of tomorrow' is too broad in its scope, embracing whole groups of problems and covering a corresponding range of different research fields, raising doubts as to whether the objectives of focusing and an integrated approach - which were after all supposed to be characteristics of the key actions - can be achieved.

The first key action, whose aim is to enhance competitiveness and develop 'clean' products and procedures, is particularly important. The estimated turnover on the European market in industrial goods and services is ECU 4500 billion and European industry is facing increasing competition from providers outside the Community.

Particular attention must also be paid to the key action 'Sustainable mobility and intermodality'. The intelligent management of increasing traffic volumes is a special challenge, in view of both the enormous economic losses and the environmental problems caused by shortcomings in the use and development of technological and organizational tools (management systems, satellite navigation, etc.).

Consideration should be given to hiving off the key action on energy research and splitting it up into sections dealing with renewable energy sources, energy saving and the 'clean' use of fossil energies (not least with a view to the phasing-in of the research activities under the ECSC Treaty). In this connection, the particular importance of renewable energy sources cannot be gainsaid.

In recent months Parliament has adopted two resolutions dealing with these issues (Mombaur and Rothe reports).

In this connection, improved coordination, and possibly also the joint administration of the research and demonstration section in a 'non-nuclear energy sources' programme, are important.