30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/27

—

suggests that the EIT governance structures are developed to balance the need for independence for the EIT for its day to day running, with the need for Member States and the EU Institutions to have the ability to safeguard the interests of the EU, for example through a quinquennial review by a Member State panel;

—

regrets that the proposal puts forward inadequate fresh funding for the research community. It insists that the existing EU funding streams for research are not top sliced but instead additional private sector contributions are specified and ensured by clear mechanisms. The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KIC) should be encouraged to become financially sustainable over time and also have their budget regularly reviewed against their performance;

—

recommends that in its initial stages, the EIT does not award its own degrees, rather develops a brand or label that is awarded by KIC partner universities;

—

recommends that the selection of KIC partnerships should take account of both their excellence and also demonstrated potential for excellence in education, research and innovation. It calls on the European Commission to specify how these criteria will be measured;

—

recommends to instruct the EIT to give a high rating to KIC applications that have strong partnerships with structured research communities and engagement with their regional and local authorities/bodies. SMEs should explicitly be listed as potential partner organisations.

1.

Positive steps forward have been taken with the Commission's second Communication and the proposal for a regulation on the subject of the creation of a European Institute of Technology;

2.

Although it is not possible that all research institutes in the EU will participate directly in the EIT, the aspiration of all to become part of it through a Knowledge and Innovation Community will change the research environment for the better through the strengthening of the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation;

3.

The improvement of the knowledge triangle, and in particular the development of strong partnerships between business and research, will make a significant contribution to the improvement of the EU's competitiveness;

4.

Balanced regional development can be enhanced if the EIT's Knowledge and Innovation Communities, which will centre around the best teams working with businesses, work together in synergy with regional and local economic development bodies;

1.1

welcomes this second Communication as a positive contribution to the debate on the establishment of a European Institute of Technology (EIT) and as a contribution to delivering Lisbon;

1.2

welcomes the balanced approach taken by the Commission in the preparation of the legislative proposal including the change of title for ‘Knowledge Communities’ to ‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’ (KIC) and it is pleased to note that local and regional authorities are included as potential KIC ‘partner organisations’, but has concerns with some of the detail;

1.3

supports the initiative which is designed to strengthen the relations between the three pillars of the knowledge triangle — education, research and innovation — and the proposal to address the recognised innovation gap in Europe;

1.4

re-states the view that successful research and innovation models cannot be copied at will and instead the EU should look at building upon successful models of best practice of strong relations between research, innovation and education in the EU;

1.5

recognises the importance of the EIT bringing on board all of the key stakeholders in the knowledge triangle, top research teams, industry and public authorities. A two tier system should be avoided at all costs;

1.6

acknowledges that some issues surrounding elements of the proposal still remain problematic;

1.7

regrets that the new legislative proposal puts forward inadequate fresh funding for the research community and that the proposal does not contain clear mechanisms for ensuring private sector financing;

1.8

insists that the existing funding streams for research (FP& CIP) are not top sliced but instead additional private sector contributions are specified;

1.9

underlines that the influence of local and regional authorities on the conditions that create interaction which leads to innovation is crucial;

1.10

reminds the Commission of the important role of local and regional authorities, particularly their economic partnerships, in setting down the conditions for interaction between the 3 parts of the knowledge triangle, such as stimulating cluster development, providing the infrastructure for incubators, stimulating investment from industry, etc;

1.11

further reminds the Commission that regional and local authorities are best placed to encourage SMEs to work within a research partnership and also to promote industry-university partnerships which are likely to thrive in the regional/local environment taking into account existing and future circumstances, policies, push and pull factors, etc;

1.12

further emphasises that the main focus of the EIT should be on innovation, knowledge transfer and applied research projects.

2.1

recommends that the EIT combines the strengths of both the EU's globally recognised excellent universities and their research teams and bodies, as well as the best teams from other universities and research bodies across the EU with potential to be excellent;

2.2

therefore urges the Commission to work with the universities and research bodies that have had a strong experience of the knowledge triangle in action. If the EIT fails to engage with Europe's top ranking universities and research bodies, then this will impact upon how it is viewed globally;

2.3

insists that the creation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities be a bottom up approach, initially selecting existing excellent examples of research/business collaboration;

2.4

is pleased to note that the selection process for Knowledge and Innovation Communities be open, allowing research teams with potential to aspire to the EIT. All universities and research bodies, both large and small, should feel that if the right structures, partnerships and policies are put in place that their best teams could eventually actively participate in the EIT. However, it regrets that the related key-criterion of ‘excellence in education and research’ does not refer specifically to potential excellence too and calls on the Commission to specify how the two criteria will be measured;

2.5

suggests that a way to reinforce the relationship between the research and private sector in a Knowledge and Innovation Communities could be to encourage/incentivise the KICs to become financially sustainable over time and calls for the legislative proposal to include this approach within its provisions;

2.6

opposes the Commission's proposal for the EIT to award its own degrees and recommends on the subject of degrees that in its initial stages, the EIT not issue its own degrees, rather that the EIT develop a brand or label that is awarded by a KIC partner university. Otherwise an EIT degree risks alienating leading universities;

2.7

suggests that in the initial years of the EIT it should restrict itself to branding a masters programme containing specific elements such as industry placements, interdisciplinarity, entrepreneurship training, etc;

2.8

insists on appropriate private-sector representation on the governing board, which rightly should have the autonomy to set the EIT's strategic agenda;

2.9

suggests that the EIT governance structures are developed to balance the need for independence for the EIT for its day to day running, with the need for Member States and the EU Institutions to have the ability to safeguard the interests of the EU, for example through a quinquennial review by a Member State panel;

2.10

calls on the Commission, when selecting KICs, to instruct the governing board in its guidelines to give a high rating to KIC applications from partnerships which involve regional or local authorities and have structured research communities involving scientific and technological cooperation between universities, research bodies and companies with medium- and long-term research planning;

2.11

reminds the Commission of the decisive cluster forming role which regions and local authorities play through their policies and investment into the infrastructure, that leads to strong university-industry collaboration;

2.12

suggests that as a means of judging the success of the EIT, the governing board be set targets by which its strategic direction be measured. Measurements of success could include indicators that evaluate the EIT's ability to offer concrete ‘marketable’ solutions to problems faced by SMEs, businesses and industry;

2.13

urges the Commission to avoid any dilution of the focus on the establishment of the European Research Council as the prime driver of fundamental research as a result of the strong and positive momentum behind the establishment of the EIT. As much as possible the governing board of the EIT should establish strong links with the ERC and establish structures to ensure complementarities and avoid silo working and duplication;

2.14

suggests that the EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities be set up gradually, learning from each experience, and adapting the structures as appropriate each time new KICs are formed, and is pleased that the Commission proposes a scenario of 6 KICs by 2013;

2.15

considers the following areas to be of key importance for establishing and managing of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities:

2.16

recommends that the staffing question be dealt with in a flexible way to ensure the engagement of the best teams of researchers in the EIT. Dual affiliation is felt to be a positive step forward in the question of staffing;

2.17

suggests that as a means of engaging top ranking teams of researchers and establishing a sense of commitment to the EIT, the KICs employ staff for a set percentage of their time. Maximum and minimum levels can be set on a case by case basis and adapted over the course of a KIC's duration;

2.18

urges the Commission in the preparation of its legislative proposal on the EIT to emphasise the important role of local and regional bodies which will provide essential support for KICs in particular and bridging the gaps in the knowledge triangle in general.