This paper concerns the response to the reports of the Expert Groups on the ex-post evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes.

To recall, the major objectives of the Sixth Research Framework Programmes (2002‑2006) and their Specific Programmes were to integrate strengthen and structure the European Research Area, with a budget of EUR 19.235 billion.

The Commission recently received the report of the Expert Group on the ex-post evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes. The aim of this Communication is to respond to the issues raised in the report in an open and transparent manner, outlining which actions the Commission intends to take or has already taken to alleviate the problem, but also discussing issues where no obvious or immediate solution exists. A number of the issues raised in the evaluation report cannot be addressed by the Commission alone but will need the engagement of a wider group of actors, including the Member States, the Council and the European Parliament working together.

Commission’s response to recommendations : the Commission:

notes that the preparation and design of the FP8 proposal will be preceded by extensive, open and transparent consultation with stakeholders. A detailed analysis of its rationale will be set out in the Impact Assessment accompanying the FP8 proposal; is in broad agreement with the need to better align and coordinate Community and national research efforts in order to strengthen and structure the ERA; acknowledges that, even though the term “third country” might have some disadvantages, it has not been an obstacle to more targeted and nuanced thinking on strategic research partnerships. To replace the term using further classification would not necessarily be in the interests of clarity or simplification; agrees with the need to provide a clearer focus to research collaboration with “third countries”; is very supportive of the need to see an increase in the level of funding going to research partnerships with developed countries; accepts that more attention may be necessary to ensure that the combination of instruments to promote frontier research, both by individual teams and cross-European partnerships, works effectively across the range of FP research; feels that the participation of SMEs in the Framework Programmes, including within the thematic priorities should be encouraged. The 15 % target is a reflection of the importance the co-legislators attached to the issue and was never intended to be an end in itself; will continue to support the activities in the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). This should be complemented by development of national roadmaps by Member States, and by increased coordination of research infrastructures at the global level; supports the need for a better gender balance amongst European researchers. However, it is cautious with the direction proposed by the Expert Group ((re)introducing specific gender equality actions after quality criteria as a condition of funding in large instruments); agrees with the need to attract young people to make a career in science and technology. Solutions will need to be found at Member States and Community level, involving actions from different policy fields and including a wide range of stakeholders; is aware of the importance of administration and simplification. A Commission Communication on simplification is planned for 2010, which would be the occasion for reflecting on these issues; recognises the need to undertake more research on the longer-term and structural impacts of the FP (on institutions, industry, Member States etc.) and has already taken steps to ensure such work is carried out.

This response to the FP6 evaluation is part of a renewed and strengthened commitment made by the Commission to report on the implementation, progress and achievements of the Framework Programmes. The FP6 ex post evaluation report and the Commission response will be key elements feeding into the FP7 interim evaluation. This will help to ensure not only better continuity and a deeper understanding of the issues being examined but also a stronger engagement between evaluation and processes for policy and decision making.

This paper concerns the ex-post evaluation of the ‘Information Society Technologies (IST)’ Thematic Priority in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (RTD).

It highlights the findings and recommendations of an evaluation of the ‘Information Society Technologies (IST)’ Thematic Priority in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (RTD), in the context of the i2010 Strategy . It sets out the Commission’s initial reactions and the measures already taken or planned. The evaluation, carried out from May 2007 to May 2008, responds to the requirements of the Financial Regulation, its Implementing Rules, and the provisions for evaluation for the Seventh Framework Programme.

The objectives of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) were to strengthen the European Research Area and the scientific and technological bases of European industry and encourage its international competitiveness, and to promote research activities in support of other EU policies.

In FP6, implemented from 2003 until 2006, the major investment was in a number of thematic priorities intended to focus and integrate Community research: EUR 3 984 million was invested in the ‘IST Thematic Priority’ and an additional EUR 216 million was invested in high-speed networks to connect research institutions in Europe with others in the world. The budget for the ‘Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) Theme under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) is EUR 9 050 million for the period 2007‑2013.

The key findings and recommendations from the evaluation report are as follows, inter alia:

efforts should be made to continue to consolidate public-private partnerships of a more permanent nature, such as JTIs, from the 7th Framework Programme; the effort to ensure that support for SMEs and for large firms is not “compartmentalised” into different measures or tools must continue; a platform should be created within the scope of the 7th Framework Programme for new and high-growth companies to meet venture capital investors; participation from both developing and industrialised non-European countries in projects should be encouraged; the e-infrastructures approach should be expanded to more application-oriented and user-oriented platforms in other sectors; accounting control in JTIs should be carried out by Member States and participating companies, with a minimum of intervention at the Community level; a more trust‑based approach towards participants should be developed at all stages; at the application stage, it is recommended to require shorter proposals with fewer details of work packages and a focus on the appropriateness of partnerships; at the evaluation of proposals stage, it is recommended: (i) that more complete and helpful feedback is made available to proposers whose ideas are not funded; (ii) to test a new approach whereby proposals are not fully evaluated initially (all applications passing a few basic checks should be given a small amount of "seed funding" for an exploratory phase); (iii) to explore expanding the two-step evaluation procedure from the Open part of the "future and emerging technology" area to other parts of the programme; it is recommended to: (i) optimise reporting and allow the participants to report when there is something to report; (ii) allow the refocusing of the research on different priorities if this becomes necessary during implementation; (iii) allow more flexibility in the composition of partnerships during the project; the Commission should take new initiatives to allow public authorities to procure the development of innovative goods and services; the European single market needs to be made more effective for business angels and venture capitalists, and European investment funds need to be more effectively utilised to pull through innovations from the Framework Programmes; there is a need for a more strategic approach to standardisation at the European level, when this cannot be left to market forces, focused on interoperability and development of standards; interconnection of large regional and national eInfrastructures should be further developed.

The Commission invites the European Parliament and the Council to take note of the findings and recommendations of the evaluation Panel, and to reflect on how best to take them forward. In particular, the Commission recognises that further reduction of red tape remains a significant challenge. It shares the Panel’s view of the need to develop a risk‑tolerant implementation of the rules on research funding. It believes that the European Parliament and the Council also have a role to play in enabling such a trust‑based environment, and invites them to take this into account in future discussions of the FP Rules of Participation and the Financial Regulation.

The Commission will consult on the findings and recommendations with the aim to increase flexibility, cut red tape and to respond to the call for a greater strategic impact from EU level research. To this end, the Commission is launching an on-line public consultation on broader and longer-term policy implications alongside the present evaluation report, the results of which will be summarised in a Communication on ICT research and innovation in early 2009.

The interim evaluation of ICT RTD in the FP7 will also allow the effectiveness of new measures to be assessed. It will be available in late 2009 as a basis for further reflection.