22.9.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/56

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Communication, noting that the idea of strategic programming of crossborder science and research is hugely important and pressing, especially for making swifter progress in core areas. The European strategic approach is based on the most valuable experience to date and develops it into a functioning system.

1.2

This calls for the implementation of a process led by the Member States to step up their cooperation in the R&D area in order to better confront major societal challenges of European or worldwide scale, where public research plays a key role. In view of this, the EESC also welcomes and supports the Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 2 December 2008 (1) on this subject and agrees with the statements made there.

1.3

The EESC is convinced of the need to create a basic strategic framework informed by the EU’s policy priorities. Implementing the proposed approach will require substantial political will above all else.

1.4

However, the EESC cautions against an unduly top-down approach. It is vital to employ a bottom-up approach in keeping with participants’ strategic interests and their ability to share their best science and research capacities.

1.5

At the same time, the Committee realises that such coordination is fraught with difficulty – frequently because of the special interests of some countries and political reluctance to share science and research capacity and, above all, knowledge.

1.6

The EESC agrees fully on the urgency of boosting financial and human resources in competing with the main economic rivals. On no account, however, should this rule out scientific cooperation with these countries and their research organisations (2).

1.7

The Committee also notes that applying Joint Programming to crossborder science and research will be immensely demanding, since it will require a shift in thinking towards greater openness and cooperation (3), which is more easily said than done.

1.8

Recognising and appreciating the broad spectrum of already existing cross-border co-operations and joint projects, and their excellent results, the Committee recommends that the relevant experience should be drawn from such programmes to be exploited in this new strategic programming concept. An appropriate lesson should be drawn also from failures while designing the Joint Research Programming processes.

1.9

Quicker and more effective application of new scientific knowledge will necessarily require appropriate private sector involvement in the whole process. The Committee also points out the difficulties involved in private sector involvement, especially regarding the use of outcomes, intellectual property issues and so on (4).

1.10

It is essential, in the EESC’s view, that very effective operational frameworks be devised and tested for such an important Community activity. These should encourage the Member States, and especially their scientific research capacities, to support and mobilise the necessary bottom-up approach and above all the necessary finances. Sufficient mobility of resources and a support framework that eliminates potential obstacles are core requirements.

1.11

Not only must these operational frameworks include possible secondary synergy effects, but any risks that might undermine the idea of joint European programming must be analysed in detail.

1.12

Consistent with this, the Committee has already endorsed the creation of a European research infrastructure (5) to bolster the entire joint planning objective and to help increase joint European added value. Now stressing the urgency of this, it calls on the Member States to lose no time in responding creatively to the Commission’s initiative.

1.13

The Committee welcomes the installation of the ‘High Level Group for Joint Programming’ to identify the themes for joint programming to be chosen, following broad public consultation of the different regional, national and European scientific communities, and of the private sector where appropriate. As a consequence of these activities, the Council, following a resulting proposal by the Commission, should be able to adopt joint programming initiatives no later than 2010.

2.1

Europe not only needs to invest more in research, but also needs to invest it to better effect, if it is to achieve its declared vision: a balanced and sustainable development. The Lisbon Strategy set as its most urgent objective the transition to a knowledge-based society – with science, technology and innovation at its heart – and called for more and better investment in research.

2.2

The new initiative it proposes – namely Joint Programming – marks a change in European research cooperation. Joint Programming offers a voluntary process for a revitalised partnership between the Member States based on clear principles and transparent high-level governance. It aims to increase the efficiency and impact of national public research funding in strategic areas. Joint programming targets public research programmes first and foremost, which means public-public cooperation. Nonetheless, industry – and other stakeholders – should play a role in the consultative process and in the implementation of specific Joint Programming Initiatives.

2.3

The Communication also responds to stakeholders’ demands for a voluntary, bottom-up approach combined with strategic European-level guidance and their rejection of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ method.

2.4

This Communication is one of the five policy initiatives planned by the Commission in 2008 as a follow-up to the Green Paper on ‘The European Research Area: New Perspectives’ (6). It relates in particular to the dimension ‘Optimising Research Programmes and Priorities’ and is a further step in the creation of a ‘fifth freedom’ by removing barriers to the free movement of knowledge.

2.5

Compared to its main partners, Europe is still under-investing in research, and R&D spending – by both the public and the private sector – has generally stagnated over the past decade. However, Europe should not only increase its spending quickly and substantially, but also find new and more innovative ways to use its scarce R&D resources more efficiently and effectively. To increase the societal returns and benefits from public R&D funds, Europe should also reinforce its capacity to transform research results into societal and economic benefits.

2.6

In recent years, Member States and the Community have taken many initiatives to boost the impact and efficiency of public research. Stakeholders have pointed to the lack of collaboration and coordination between national public R&D programmes as a weakness of the EU R&D system. However, despite efforts in recent years to address this problem, Europe’s research landscape remains compartmentalised.

2.7

Today, 85 % of public R&D is programmed, financed, monitored and evaluated at national level, with too little collaboration or coordination between countries. Less than 6 percent of total R&D investment and only 15 percent of European publicly financed civil R&D (of which 10 percent is accounted for by intergovernmental organisations and schemes, and 5 percent by the Framework Programme) is financed in a cross-border collaborative manner.

2.8

The issue is not that all research programming should be carried out in a collaborative manner and that purely national programming should be discontinued. It is rather that, in areas of strategic importance for the whole or a large part of Europe, the fragmentation of public research programming leads to sub-optimal returns and is costing Europe dearly, as well as preventing it from realising its declared societal objectives:

2.9

Some of Europe’s greatest scientific success stories have involved crossborder pooling of public R&D funds and, above all, the creation of joint scientific bodies (7). However, the impact of these joint initiatives could have been larger if there had been more overall strategic focus and sufficient political commitment, transparency and flexibility. Increasing these initiatives, and the overall size of FP7, makes little sense if the lack of joint strategic programming between Member States is not addressed.

2.10

Joint Programming is concerned with changing the structure of the European research landscape. It is a comprehensive, long-term and strategic process, whose aim is to boost Europe’s ability to address major economic and societal challenges such as the interrelated problems of climate and energy. Joint Programming is about achieving structuring effects in order to increase the efficiency and impact of public research funding. Joint Programming requires that Member States be prepared to move in the direction of the definition and implementation of common research agendas with multi-annual, commonly decided activities and funding mechanisms.

2.11

Joint Programming requires a new mindset in the Member States. Above all, it requires concrete commitments and actions by Member States and a rethinking and reorganisation of the way national research programmes are defined and implemented by refocusing them towards common objectives. That is why Joint Programming has to be a voluntary process based on the principle of variable geometry and open access.

2.12

Joint Programming does not involve Community funding a priori, though FP7 may act as a catalyst. It is first and foremost about Member States defining common strategies and putting together national resources At the same time, it does not rule out the possibility of complementary Community funding depending on the added value, European dimension and possible structuring impact of the initiatives concerned.

2.13

The Commission proposes a pragmatic methodology for achieving Joint Programming in a limited number of agreed areas. This methodology is based on experience with European Technology Platforms, but adapted to public research programmes. It involves different steps, in line with the life-cycle of research programmes, namely from programme definition via implementation to monitoring and evaluation.

2.14

Joint Programming could be made easier if a number of framework conditions are in place:

3.1

The EESC welcomes the Communication, noting that the idea of strategic programming of crossborder science and research is hugely important and pressing, especially for making swifter progress in core areas. In that sense, the EESC also welcomes and supports the Conclusions of the Competitive Council of December 2nd, 2008 to that issue and shares the statements made there.

3.2

The idea is also important because it includes within it an attempt to make the most of public funding through a coordination strategy for core research areas and to improve science and research capacities within Member States through broader international cooperation on jointly organised and conducted research projects.

3.3

The Committee welcomes the fact that an impact assessment was carried out which set out four alternatives from which a European strategic approach was chosen. Based on the most valuable experience to date, this will be developed into a functioning system in which the areas for Joint Programming will be identified by the Member States.

3.4

The Committee also welcomes the choice of energy technologies for the pilot coordination project and gave the new approach its full support in its opinion on the SET-Plan (8).

3.5

The EESC is convinced of the need to create a basic strategic framework informed by the EU’s policy priorities.

3.6

However, the EESC cautions against an unduly top-down approach. On the contrary, it notes that the international scientific networks we have today are made up of many research groups and partially supported by international agencies such as the IEA. With this in mind, it considers it vital to employ above all a bottom-up approach when involving the various parties in the relevant projects in keeping with their strategic interests and their ability to share their best science and research capacities. International conferences could serve as fora for this and be tasked with putting together appropriate proposals.

3.7

At the same time, the Committee points out that such coordination is fraught with difficulty – frequently because of the special interests of some countries and political reluctance to share science and research capacity and, above all, knowledge. Putting this idea into practice will thus be contingent upon openness and transparency.

3.8

Recognising and appreciating the broad spectrum of already existing cross-border co-operations and joint projects, and their excellent results the Committee recommends the relevant experience should be drawn from such programmes to be exploited in this new strategic programming concept. Appropriate lessons should be drawn also from failures while designing the Joint Research Programming processes.

3.9

The EESC entirely agrees that the concept must be implemented as a matter of urgency and that funding must be stepped up if the Community is to improve its position and, in turn, its economic competitiveness vis-à-vis its main rivals, the USA and Asia. On no account, however, should this rule out scientific cooperation with these countries and their research organisations (9).

3.10

The Committee also notes that applying Joint Programming to crossborder science and research will be immensely demanding, since it will require a shift in thinking towards greater openness and cooperation (10), which is more easily said than done.

3.11

Quicker and more effective application of new scientific knowledge, which is the ultimate aim of joint strategic programming and home-grown research solutions, will necessarily require appropriate private sector involvement in the whole process. The joint strategic programming concept enables just such participation. The Committee also points out the difficulties involved in private sector involvement, especially regarding the use of outcomes, intellectual property issues and so on (11).

3.12

The process of innovation – in other words, the appliance of scientific knowledge in practice – will be contingent upon widely differing local circumstances. These include existing infrastructure, availability of capital, tax levels and incentives for particular types of investment, as well as experience with similar types of investment mainly in industry. Even direct investment incentives, such as tax holidays, could be involved. Such things could raise difficulties in projects.

—

A Recommendation ‘on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations’, C(2008) 1329 of 10.4.2008;

—

A Communication on Better careers and more mobility: a European partnership for researchers, COM(2008) 317 of 23.5.2008.