Position paper of the Greek government concerning the 5th Community Research Framework Programme
Funding & Management Procedures
Concerning the collaboration with EUREKA, any direct funding of EUREKA projects by Community funds should be avoided as being contrary to the principles of both EUREKA (which is an industry led, close to the market activity) and to Community rules for public funds allocation which should follow open calls and transparent selection procedures. Funding of EUREKA projects should be possible through the normal Community channels following submission and evaluation of proposals.
The same is valid for other proposed schemes. In general, direct allocation of public funding to particular interests will lead to less transparent and more doubtful procedures.The overall management and fund distribution of the Framework Programme should maintain its European character and avoid becoming a redistribution of member countries contributions managed by national bodies. In general, funding procedures should maintain their open, accesible - to - all - character, the management of these funds being carried out by appropriate management committees that also provide the necessary technical expertise to particular subject areas.
The evaluation procedure should become more uniform in the different specific programmes and special attention should be paid to avoid the eliminations of technically well-evaluated proposals on the basis of occasionally, somewhat unclear strategic evaluation arguments.The period the proposal selection and up to the signing of the contract should be shortened. This requires a better functioning and flexibility of the Commission's internal procedures.Formulation of Priorities
Following the general views concerning the structure and procedures of the 5th F.P., a process for establishing the appropriate priorities in the different general areas should be followed.
This process should include suggestions from programme committees on the basis of past achievements and new prospects including international comparisons as well as the results and suggestions of the evaluation process.
Priority should be given to technology development in promising areas on the basis of appropriate expertise and reliable international comparisons on the state of the art and on the feasibility and relevance of proposed activities.Click here to return to the first section of the Position Paper Click here to view the previous section of the Position paper
Last Updated: 21-02-1997