WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/00 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme.
C 330 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 (2000/C 330 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/00 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme (26 January 2000) The effectiveness of predecessors of the Fifth Framework programme has never been examined in depth. Input data have been analysed and an overview of successful projects has been given. However, there has been no study of the benefits to society. The Netherlands Central Planning Office (CPB) recently proposed a simple method of research (in working document 111 of July 1999). This involves examining to what extent research proposals which did not qualify for cofinancing under the Fifth Framework programme have nevertheless been implemented. The objective of the Fifth Framework programme is to promote research which economic operators would not carry out entirely on their own. If the projects rejected have in fact been fully implemented, that would indicate that the Fifth Framework programme is missing the mark. 1. Is the Commission aware of the research method developed by the CPB? Does it consider that this method can provide an indication of the effectiveness of the Fifth 2. Framework programme? 3. If not, why not?, If so, does it intend to apply this method? Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission (3 March 2000) The Commission is aware of the methodology proposed by the Nederlandse Centraal Planbureau 1. (NCP). 2. In the light of its own series of studies on the issue, the Commission is of the view that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the framework programme is a complex task and that there is no single measure of its global impact. The method proposed by NCP is but one of many which might be considered in this regard. It has the drawback of being based only on rejected projects and of taking the view that the role of the framework programme is simply to support research which would otherwise not take place. that derives from the application of The value of Community support to projects should be explored by assessing not only whether the project would have been carried out in the absence of funding, but also by whether public support improved the way in which the project is done, for example making it better, larger, faster or more collaborative. Moreover, the reasons for financing a project should be judged against its European added value (EAV), a concept the subsidiarity principle. Criteria used to evaluate programmes are also related to this Community added valueí that covers notably the establishment of a ácritical massí through the combination of resources available at national level, the contribution to the implementation of Community policies and the solving of problems arising at Community level. In order to assess the effectiveness of the framework programme it is therefore important not only to consider isolated projects but also to assess, as a whole, the projects financed under a programme. This takes into account the fact that the impact of programmes is more than the sum of the projectsí impact. For these reasons, the effectiveness of the framework and specific programmes cannot fully rely on the analysis of rejected projects that by definition are not supposed to comply with Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes objectives. 3. The importance of putting a strong emphasis on European added value has been confirmed by the group of outstanding experts in the field of research programme evaluation assembled by the Commission last year to examine the issue of measurement of RTD results and impact. The report of the group 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/85 Options and limits for assessing the socio-economic impact of European RTD programmesí is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliamentís Secretariat. The recommendations of the experts group are currently being considered in the context of the monitoring and evaluation of the framework programme. (2000/C 330 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0110/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Decentralisation of air communications (26 January 2000) As part of the plans announced by the Member of the Commission responsible for transport in relation to the Europeanisation of European air space, and in the light of the chaotic experience of recent years, will the Commission encourage the decentralisation of air communications through the development of alternative international airports such as that at Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, Spain, thus avoiding the congestion caused by the irrational concentration of flights in Madrid, where the central government intends to focus yet more airport investment on the construction of new runways and even a new airport? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (8 March 2000) Existing Community legislation on intra-Community air transport implies that air carriers take the decisions on their network structure including frequency of flights and localisation of connecting points on the basis of their own commercial considerations taking into account factors such as airport charges, availability of slots and size of the markets to be served. In relation to flights to and from third country destinations, however, most of the bilateral air services agreements concluded individually by Member States include rules which restrict the capacity of regional airports to attract additional traffic. The Commission is of the opinion that direct public intervention in the commercial decisionmaking of air carriers on the location of operations should be limited to specific situations such as safeguarding public service operations or distribution of traffic within an airport system on the basis of specific rules established by Community legislation. More general interventions aimed at steering traffic from one airport to another are incompatible with the rules and the goals of air transport liberalisation. Notwithstanding these general principles the Commission is currently examining whether increasing concentration of air transport operations towards few hub airports could be eased by appropriate support measures for enhancing the role of regional airports (secondary hubs) in the overall airport system. It intends to present the outcome of this examination in 2001. In addition, the Commission will continue and strengthen its efforts to conclude air transport agreements for the Community as a whole with third countries that would improve the possibility of regional airports to attract additional traffic. (2000/C 330 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Environmental deterioration of the river Tea in Galicia (26 January 2000) Ecological organisations have complained that the river Tea, which flows through south-western Galicia is suffering serious environmental damage due to work linked to land and joins the river Miæo,