52001AR0063

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Making a reality of The European Research Area: Guidelines for EU research activities (2002-2006)"

(2001/C 357/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Making a reality of The European Research Area: Guidelines for EU Research Activities (2002-2006) (COM(2000) 612 final);

having regard to the Commission Decision of 4 October 2000 to consult the Committee on the subject, in accordance with Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision taken by the COR president on 7 February 2001 to instruct Commission 5 - Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism - to draw up the opinion on the matter;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 63/2001 rev.) adopted by Commission 5 on 19 April 2001 [rapporteur: Mr Torchio (I/EPP)],

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 39th plenary session of 13 and 14 June 2001 (meeting of 13 June).

1. General comments

1.1. The document opens up a new horizon for scientific and technological activities and for research policy in the European Union.

1.2. Moreover, the Commission document aims to lay the foundations for a new contract between European citizens and human science and research, by putting research and its applications at the heart of civil society, and encouraging a policy debate which is increasingly necessary owing to its social impact.

1.3. More than 20 years ago voices were raised warning against Europe falling behind the United States in the major fields of the third industrial revolution. Europe is still suffering from serious structural weaknesses, having invested EUR 70 billion less than the United States in 1999, and spent a meagre 1,8 % of GDP on research, compared to 2,7 % for the United States and 3,1 % for Japan.

1.4. Europe is also lagging behind in terms of the number of research workers, patents and high technology exports per capita. The Commission therefore proposes giving a dynamic boost to public and private research, with closer coordination arrangements between Member States, and equipping citizens with the tools to develop knowledge in a spirit of renewed confidence in technological progress.

1.5. The Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000 endorsed the plan to create a European Research Area as a central component of the establishment of a European knowledge-based society. The Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the applicant countries welcomed the plan, as did the European Parliament in its Resolution of 18 May 2000. There have also been comments from several hundred companies, research bodies and from industry.

1.6. The globalisation of the economy and communications and the acceleration of scientific and technological progress and its many social implications make the European Research Area particularly necessary.

1.7. Achieving this common area will require a bold, decisive pooling of efforts by the European Union, the Member States and researchers, who must be guaranteed freedom of movement, including for knowledge and technology, to encompass scientific careers, social protection and intellectual property systems, and the provisions concerning transfers of knowledge and dissemination of results.

1.8. The Committee of the Regions is keen to know the results of the various analyses and proposals made by the evaluation panels which were established jointly by the Commission and the Member States.

1.9. In view of the above, support actions for EU research must be reviewed in order to reconcile the need for competitiveness with citizens' expectations, the need to promote excellence and guarantee balanced technological development, and finally the need to define, implement and follow up the EU's sectoral policies which, since the launch of intergovernmental scientific cooperation in the 1950s, have made a significant contribution to strengthening European research capabilities.

1.10. While the average 50000 partnership and cooperation links formed every year between 1995 and 1999 are doubtless a considerable achievement, the programmes were not dovetailed with those of the 15 Member States, which have continued to overlap in the absence of any real "control centre" founded on the principle of complementarity of EU and Member State actions, as provided for in the Treaty.

1.11. The Commission's mid-term review of the Fifth RTD Framework Programme, compiled in accordance with Article 6 of Decision 182/1999/EC and Decision 1999/64/Euratom, is a useful starting point for a more structured approach to identifying future projects, particularly for 2002-2006.

2. Assessment of the broad lines and objectives of research

2.1. If the EU is to achieve fully its research and technological development objectives as defined in the Treaty: "strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and encourage it to become more competitive at international level; promote the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other EU policies", it will have to act in the following areas:

- developing a more solid basis for scientific and social research by devoting more time to scientific and social subjects in the school curriculum;

- improving the performance of research through networking and coordinated implementation of national programmes and of the centres and areas of excellence in the public, university and private sectors, and by carrying out large-scale, targeted industrial research;

- boosting support to research for and in SMEs through the dissemination, transfer and take-up of knowledge and technologies, exploitation of the results of research, and setting up hi-tech businesses, via a policy favouring access, construction and financing of European research infrastructure and the development of large-capacity electronic networks;

- support for the development of a knowledge-based economy in the areas of science, technology and innovation, by increasing cross-border mobility, developing European careers, increasing the participation of women in research, making the scientific professions more attractive to young people and stepping up cooperation with third country researchers;

- establishing a new social contract founded on the precautionary and sustainable development principles, and taking account of the social and ethical implications of scientific and technological progress.

2.2. Implementation of the projects will have to take account of:

1) the continuity and coherence of EU scientific and technological cooperation, with better coordination of the activities of the various organisations and more systematic use of the potential for joint or converging measures;

2) full use of the potential of the regions by networking their capacities with regard to research, innovation and technology transfer, in the various sectors where they work jointly;

3) integration of the applicant countries and more especially of the whole world via cooperation enabling EU researchers and businessmen to access knowledge and technologies produced elsewhere in the world; and full mobilisation of EU capacities for the benefit of the international community in areas of excellence in which Europe has recognised expertise.

2.3. The Commission recommends framing measures to complement those of European international scientific cooperation structures and organisations of both a general (e.g. the European Science Foundation, COST and Eureka) and a specialised nature (e.g. ESA, EMBL, ESRF and CERN).

2.4. To these can be added the Structural Funds, regional initiatives and European Investment Bank initiatives, as well as the programmes for economic and technical assistance to northern, eastern and southern third countries, and instruments of international cooperation.

2.5. To justify public funding, research activity must generate "public benefit" in addition to the direct benefit of the researcher, with regard both to basic research and targeted research.

2.6. In order to implement public policies to boost European competitiveness, a public support level has to be fixed and defended, thus enabling companies to carry out risky or long-term research which is not immediately cost-effective.

2.7. Another novelty is the principle of "European added value" as a criterion for selecting priorities and themes for EU research.

2.8. In addition to the past list of criteria regarding the cost and scale of research above and beyond the possibilities of a single country, a critical mass of human and financial resources must be assembled by making economies of scale through research-focused economic cooperation.

Complementary expertise must be combined with interdisciplinary issues, and comparative studies carried out on a European scale, to establish links with EU priorities and interests in the various fields, from SMEs to the information society, agriculture, the environment, etc.

2.9. Priorities include:

- "post-genome" research and research into major diseases;

- nanotechnologies - an interdisciplinary research field;

- development of the information society, particularly in conjunction with the eEurope initiative;

- research and development work in the industrial sectors most at risk at European level;

- the aeronautical and space sectors;

- biodiversity, identification and protection of plant and animal genetic resources;

- traceability of substances in food and food safety.

2.10. Research for a sustainable development model will require selection policies and a check on whether any exclusion policies exist.

2.11. Priorities must be ranked in the light of the declared objectives, and combining measures of various kinds in several areas, such as the various forms of research activities, innovation, infrastructure, human resources, etc.

2.12. Alongside sector-specific intervention, funding must be provided to incorporate different projects in various sectors.

3. Analysis of past and current activities and recommendations

3.1. It is important to analyse the independent expert panel's opinion, and the ensuing Commission assessment.

3.2. A panel of 11 experts assessed the results of the programme implemented over the past five years:

- generally, it is necessary to place EU research projects in the context of a genuine European research policy. To this end, the Commission must facilitate the emergence of coherent policies, particularly looking ahead to enlargement;

- as far as the past is concerned, the experts noted the beneficial impact of concentrating the Framework Programme, which enabled "academic and industrial researchers to carry out applied work together". However, the Framework Programme's management structures and procedures must be reassessed.

3.3. As far as the future is concerned, the experts recommend:

- continuing to use the "key action" concept as a means of focusing the programmes;

- increasing the emphasis on research needed to achieve the objectives of EU policies;

- in addition to reinforcing the emphasis on excellence, offering the best European researchers a framework for "bolder, riskier" research;

- a shift towards greater flexibility in the use of the instruments provided for in the Treaty.

3.4. The mid-term review of the 5th Framework Programme enables the Commission to suggest major changes, both in terms of design and implementation.

3.5. New types of intervention and new guarantee and intervention mechanisms must be developed, and a stronger link must be established with national activities, by monitoring more closely the options offered by the Treaty.

3.6. Finally, research must focus on a limited number of priorities set according to the changes which have occurred in various fields, and in particular the new virtual economy and food and industrial safety.

4. Specific recommendations

4.1. EU intervention amounted to an average EUR 700000 per project for the 4th Framework Programme, and EUR 1,7 million for the 5th Framework Programme.

4.2. This includes small-scale and short-duration projects (3 years on average) selected by the Commission following public calls for proposals. Other forms of intervention can be envisaged under this procedure, but they will have to be integrated and implemented in a perspective of closer partnership between the Member States and the EU:

- The Commission thus proposes moving from a system in which the EU has sole responsibility for funding individual projects, to a system of overall financing plans in which the EU contribution would represent only a part of the total cost.

- Moreover, intervention will have to span more than 4 years, based on forms of support mid-way between project aid and permanent "institutionalised" financing. It will thus be possible to expand certain schemes concerning mobility or infrastructure to a level making it possible to boost the impact of research and highlight national initiatives.

- Finally, use of "variable geometry" instruments mentioned in the Treaty but little exploited thus far, will provide a certain overall flexibility.

4.3. The various needs of public and private research, basic research, targeted research and industrial research will have to be taken into account, with a substantial increase in the scale of the projects financed by the EU, while streamlining administrative procedures.

4.4. Networking of National Research Programmes must be achieved on two levels: the first in the context of the "open method of coordination" advocated by the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, with the commitment to a mutual opening of national programmes; the second consisting of the coordinated implementation of national programmes by several Member States (Article 169 of the Treaty) and via joint or coordinated calls for proposals, with increased encouragement for supranational programmes which would also be open to associated countries.

4.5. The current framework for existing or planned interventions must not be compromised.

4.6. Networks of excellence will have to be established, especially for public and private university teams, with: long-term joint programmes of activities and, in any case, of a longer duration and greater magnitude than the current research projects; long-term staff exchanges; intensive use of computer tools and electronic networks, with interactive working methods.

4.7. Mechanisms for cooperation, co-management and co-responsibility need to be fleshed out in greater detail when drawing up research guidelines and coordinating the financing of specific regional programmes with the Framework Programme.

4.8. The large-scale targeted research projects vary in magnitude from several tens to several hundreds of millions of euros, and are to be carried out by consortia of companies, universities and research centres, on the basis of pre-established overall financing plans and transparent rules (involving a "peer-review").

4.8.1. A variable proportion of the total cost should be linked to the result in terms of technological achievements and economic and social impact.

4.8.2. Another option which should be mentioned is the "clustering" of separate components of a major project.

4.8.3. In the case of industrial research, the validation of various integrated technologies could give rise to "technological platforms", in the form of prototypes which could benefit from the support of the Eureka initiative.

4.9. With regard to research and innovation, "start ups" and SMEs, the focus should remain on regional and national efforts in support of research for and in SMEs, and on setting up technology companies, in accordance with the Commission Communication "Innovation in a knowledge-based society", which provides for "collective research" activities in the form of support for research carried out for the benefit of European industrial associations or groups of national associations, on themes of interest to SMEs in the Member States.

4.9.1. Similarly, "co-operative research" must not be neglected.

4.9.2. The Commission recommends stepping up technological and economic intelligence activities: collection, processing and dissemination of information of interest to SMEs, networks for research workers, entrepreneurs and financiers, as well as support for the creation of spin-offs from universities and of technological company "incubators".

4.9.3. In this respect, important financial synergies can be created between companies, industrial associations, the EIB and Eureka.

4.10. With regard to the research infrastructures, the European Union currently provides support for transnational access to certain Member State infrastructures which provide services on a European scale.

4.10.1. The Communication proposes covering a limited proportion of the development and construction costs by cofinancing feasibility studies in the case of new infrastructures of European interest. This could be done within the framework of a synergy combining funds of national and regional origin from the European Investment Bank, and the Structural Funds, etc., to support the development and use by the different scientific communities of high-speed and high-definition electronic networks.

4.11. Regarding human resources, a substantial increase in mobility grants is envisaged for researchers in the EU countries, applicant countries and third countries.

4.11.1. The Communication also proposes setting up a grant system for the transfer of knowledge and technologies to SMEs, boosting the participation of women at all levels in scientific careers, and encouraging young people to take up scientific studies in a knowledge-based economy and with teams built around eminent scientists.

4.11.2. The relationship between science, society and citizens is very important. Research activities must take into account the social consequences of scientific and technological progress and can be grouped together under the following themes: support for policymaking and a European scientific reference system, research and the needs of society, dialogues between science and society, women and science, and ethics.

4.11.3. Project selection on the basis of public calls for proposals and evaluation by "peer-review" should be maintained. However, tenders and calls for proposals different from the traditional calls for proposals should also be envisaged.

4.11.4. The change of management is conducive to large-scale blocks of activities for the operation of the networks of excellence, large-scale targeted research projects, collective research projects for the benefit of SMEs, activities relating to research infrastructures carried out in the context of association agreements with the Community, mobility grants allocated through the host fellowship scheme, which should be entrusted to specialist Community public structures such as the "implementing agencies".

4.11.5. The Davignon Panel's evaluation of the Joint Research Centre's activities recommended focusing efforts on activities in scientific and technical support of the implementation of Community policies and European policymaking, especially where it can contribute the greatest possible added value.

4.12. The period between the submission of a project and the notification of approval must be reduced to a minimum.

4.13. One of the main obstacles to having an operational European research area is that patents in Europe, compared with the USA, mean a substantially higher financial outlay and/or a longer period of time before they are in force in the respective states. This is particularly due to the fact that there are different requirements in the individual states, one is dependent on the patent lawyer in the respective country and this involves translation costs.

4.14. CRAFT supports must be forced, the number of evaluation appointments must be doubled, access conditions must be relaxed and SMEs' share of self research must be substantially increased.

5. Conclusions

5.1.1. The action plan will have to take account of the proposals on the following themes: a European space strategy; benchmarking methodology and indicators; science, society and citizens; research infrastructures; mapping of excellence, and by June 2001, human resources and mobility; regional dimension; and opening up to the rest of the world.

5.1.2. With the 5th Framework Programme, the Commission intends to increase the size of projects significantly by raising the financial thresholds and introducing flat-rate, results-related financing.

5.1.3. In the short term, the "work programmes" of several research projects will be amended to encourage the various scientific communities to use large-capacity electronic networks, based on the "GRID" concept of high-performance distributed computing.

5.1.4. Several programmes plan to apply the "integrated project" concept, based on the "clustering" of research projects and training activities and fellowships, and to launch a small number of "integrated projects" on the theme of "genomics" as well as activities in the fields of nanotechnologies and action to combat major diseases.

5.1.5. In the medium term the Commission envisages networking centres of excellence, but only the next Framework Programme will make it possible for the objectives of the European Research Area to be fully reflected in EU activities.

5.1.6. The Committee of the Regions supports the Commission's broad drive to set a European value added on EU research investment.

5.1.7. In particular, overlapping of individual research on the same subject must be avoided, and the direct and potential results of research must be checked, especially as regards the practical activities of industrial companies and SMEs.

5.1.8. Recent European discussions in this area reaffirmed the need for an overall increase in resources earmarked for research, in order to avoid an increasingly worrying brain drain to the other side of the Atlantic.

5.1.9. In particular, genuine synergies must be promoted between the Member States, the associated countries and third countries, by guaranteeing researchers adequate pay and social security arrangements.

5.1.10. In this context, the role of the regions and local authorities is to act as specific go-between for their scientific and technological communities, and the national and European level, as part of a framework of co-funding of research innovation and promotion and bringing in new blood, especially younger academics, via transnational (including the USA) university exchanges.

5.1.11. The Committee of the Regions, which represents the interests of the regions and local authorities, wishes to ensure a level playing field for Europe, the United States and Japan.

5.1.12. The European research system is currently underfunded compared to that of our main competitors. This situation must be remedied, and there most be wider acceptance of checks on results. Human activity, business and the upcoming generations must also be offered concrete development prospects in the field of knowledge, new technologies and high-definition networks.

5.1.13. This broad focus on developing research will not only benefit local communities, it will also bring advantages in terms of combating disease and, more generally, of making the EU technologically independent of third countries.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert