Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070925.33.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, it is good to be here again. I would like to thank the honourable Member for the question concerning the funding for research. Her question refers clearly in the first instance to research funded by the European Union and in my answer I shall deal with these aspects. However, the need for increased investment in research at national as well as European level, private even more than public, is central to achieving the Lisbon goals. At the same time we have to make sure that this money is well spent to ensure the maximum effect.
The question is essentially in four parts and I shall reply to each of them in turn. At the same time, we must bear in mind that it is still very early to draw definitive conclusions and lessons from the sixth and seventh framework programmes. But before turning to the four aspects of the honourable Member’s question, I should like to recall that European Union cohesion policy, especially the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, also makes an important contribution to the development of the European research area. The Commission estimates that cohesion policy support for research and innovation will more than triple in the programming period 2007-2013 compared to 2000-2006.
Turning to the first element of the question, what are the sectors of research that the Commission considers to be lagging behind in funding provisions under the plans 2007-2013? The Commission believes that it has a good balance between the more top-down thematic areas in the programme and other, more bottom-up activities in framework programmes, such as frontier research and fellowships. It would not be appropriate to single out specific areas in particular need of funding. The closer you look at our 10 thematic priorities, the clearer it is that we need more funding and more research in practically all of them. But, to give you an example, I could mention the research infrastructures of pan-European interest, for which the final budget in Framework Programme 7 is much less than the Commission had originally proposed. This is an important area where we have real added value in Europe. We are seeking to combine funding from many sources, especially from national and regional sources and the European Investment Bank. It is also evident, following the first call for proposals of the European Research Council, that we are faced with serious oversubscription. We have received many more excellent proposals for fundamental frontier research than we have money to fund.
Looking at thematically orientated research, we can clearly see the need to better support research areas such as energy and climate change. Here, Member States can help not only by increasing investment in research but also by exploring ways of combining research efforts rather than allowing them to remain fragmented. This is also one of the areas which we advocated in our Green Paper on the European Research Area.
Turning to the general criteria, the thematic priorities for funding are set out in the Cooperation Specific Programme. These research areas are the ones which will be supported through calls for proposals during the 2007-2013 period. Our proposal was made after an extensive consultation with stakeholders during 2004, including a web-based consultation on the cooperation themes as well as input from industrial stakeholders through the European Technology Platforms. It was also based on an extensive ex-ante impact assessment. Results from ex-post evaluation and monitoring exercises also form an important element in determining the priorities for research funding. This learning from past experience was indeed a key element in defining the priorities in the Framework Programme, as you suggest in the third part of your question to which now I turn.
You asked how assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of the research that was funded under the sixth framework programme influenced the selection of new research projects. Here we have to distinguish two different ways of making that link. First, at the more detailed, operational level, we should note that the several thousand FP6 projects are monitored by the Commission services. These colleagues are in frequent contact with the research community and their up-to-date insight into the progress achieved within this project is an important element in preparing the Framework Programme 7 work programmes. But, in the second place, at a more global level, in 2008 the Commission will organise the ex-post evaluation of FP6. This assessment of the overall impact of the different research activities will be carried out by high-level experts. The results of this FP6 ex-post evaluation will be a major input in the forthcoming mid-term review of FP7 in the year 2010.
Finally, turning to the last part of the question, when considering the priorities for funding in each research sector, the topics to be funded are specified in the annual work programmes and the call for proposals. Each year, we undertake consultation with the right variety of stakeholders in drawing up the work programmes. We also call on the assistance of external advisory groups, key specialists in the area, who provide input on ensuring that the work programmes contain the most essential areas of research, taking into account ongoing projects that have been funded in previous calls for proposals. Once the individual proposals have been received in response to the calls, they are evaluated by expert peer reviews using a standard set of evaluation criteria. The proposals funded are those which receive the highest overall mark for the call or part of the call they address.
In conclusion, I believe that it is fair to say that for research funded through Community instruments we have a transparent system which allocates funding to the most relevant areas and also ensures it is then awarded to the best proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples