COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 27 October /05 COMPET 227 RECH 200 ENER 160 ENV 497 TELECOM 117 ECO 123 CODEC 954

Transcription

1 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 27 October /05 COMPET 227 RECH 200 ER 160 V 497 TELECOM 117 ECO 123 CODEC 954 NOTE from : the Presidency to : Coreper/Council Cion.prop. 8081/05 COMPET 67 RECH 79 ER 55 V 164 TELECOM 27 ECO 124 CODEC 264 COM(2005) 121 final Subject : Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme ( ) - Progress Report Competitiveness Council, 28/29 November 2005 SUMMARY This progress report: Clarifies the relationship between CIP and FP7 Clarifies the relationship between CIP and the structural funds Clarifies the role of eco-innovation in CIP Sets out principles for the management of CIP Clarifies the articulation of the horizontal instruments in CIP Sets out principles for the evaluation of CIP Ministers are invited to endorse the approach to these issues set out in the report to enable this to be reflected in the textual amendments to be made during the Austrian Presidency /05 THB/coc 1

2 I. INTRODUCTION The 2003 Spring European Council called for an integrated strategy for competitiveness to be developed by the Commission, reviewing on a regular basis both horizontal and sectoral issues 1. In March 2005, the European Council endorsed this idea, calling for the new Community Competitiveness and Innovation Programme to lend the necessary impetus to innovation throughout the European Union by establishing a new mechanism for financing innovative SMEs with a high growth potential, by streamlining and strengthening the technical support network for innovation in undertakings, and by supporting the development of regional centres and European networks for innovation. On 15 April 2005, the Commission submitted its proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) ( ) 2. The proposal brings together several existing specific programmes into a single framework with three pillars: the Entrepreneurship and Innovation sub-programme, the ICT Policy Support sub-programme, and the Intelligent Energy Europe sub-programme. On 18 April 2005, Commission Vice President VERHEUG presented the proposal to the Competitiveness Council. On 10 May 2005, the Competitiveness Council, after a preliminary exchange of views, identified a number of horizontal issues requiring clarification and stated its intention to return to these issues at a forthcoming meeting. II. STATE OF PLAY Based on the Commission proposal and the analysis of the Commission s impact assessment 3, the Competitiveness and Growth Working Party has completed a first read through of the text and resolved some of the key horizontal questions identified by Competitiveness ministers on 10 May Doc.8410/03, 21. Doc. 8081/05 COMPET 67 RECH 79 ER 55 V 164 TELECOM 27 ECO 124 CODEC 264 Doc. 8081/05 ADD /05 THB/coc 2

3 The Presidency invites Ministers to endorse the approach to these horizontal issues as set out below. All delegations have a reservation on the text as currently proposed, including the horizontal issues in this progress report, in particular with respect to the overall budget (4,2 bn over seven years). Detailed discussions on the text will take place during the Austrian Presidency based on the progress stated in this paper. A. Complementarity between FP 7 and CIP 1. General complementarity between FP7 and CIP: while the Research Framework Programme deals with research, technological development and demonstration, CIP deals with innovation (which includes non-technological as well as technological innovation) that has moved beyond the final demonstration phase and is ready for market replication (testing of innovations for application in markets across the EU). It also covers the market replication of existing technologies that are to be utilized in a new innovative way. However, in certain circumstances, pilot projects for technological demonstration will be covered by both programmes. This will occur only when certain technological solutions (for example technical standards in the ICT field) have to be validated during the market replication phase of an otherwise already demonstrated technology. It is recommended therefore that the full complementarity between FP7 and CIP should be articulated clearly in recital 6. This must also be supported by a vademecum for the user and information events, to be developed by the Commission after the adoption of CIP. This will increase user-friendliness for all elements of CIP. 2. Promotion of FP7 to SMEs by CIP: The whole of the cooperation chapter of FP7 is open to SME participation. In addition, the FP7 proposal includes specific measures to support research for the benefit of SMEs and SME associations. CIP, for its part, will provide an increased amount of tailored, user friendly information on all opportunities SMEs have for participating in FP7. This will be available via a pan-european decentralised network that will build (largely but not exclusively) on the Euro-Info Centres (EICs) and Innovation Relay Centres (IRCs) and offer three different types of services ( modules ) for business and innovation support including the promotion of FP7 to SMEs (Article 20 and Annex III) /05 THB/coc 3

4 This network will formally bring together services currently available from IRCs and EICs - the Commission will ensure a smooth phasing-in of this new CIP architecture. Network partners unable to offer all three modules will be under an obligation to refer clients to centres with the specific know-how they are lacking. This will ensure a one-stop-shop service for customers. National Contact Points, set up in accordance with existing FP6 requirements, which currently promote the Framework Programme to SMEs, will be able to apply to become a network partner under CIP. National Contact Points providing thematic (specialist technical) support to SMEs will continue under FP7. The supply of core information needed by the network and other central support services will be managed by the Commission. In this context the question of the CIP/Eureka interface was raised with regard to providing SMEs with information on participation in EUREKA projects. Despite EUREKA being outside direct Community competence, the Commission has stated it is prepared to provide general information and encourage networking where appropriate, as part of the one stop shop service. It is underlined that the key factor for SMEs seeking funding in FP7 and CIP is to have as much administrative simplification as possible. It is regarded as essential that, as far as CIP is concerned, the pan European network is user friendly and its operating modalities are clear. 3. Complementarity between CIP financial instruments and the FP7 risk-sharing facility: the FP7 risk-sharing facility is essentially oriented towards large Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), while the target group for the CIP financial instruments are SMEs (the traditional variety, as well as start-ups and those with a high growth and innovation potential). Pre-seed financing is dealt with by FP7 as it is about activities that are not yet mature enough for enterprises to bring them to the market place. 4. Dissemination of knowledge: responsibility for implementation and dissemination of technology remains with FP7, including support for both the creation of regional RTD-driven clusters and the mobility of researchers between regions and sectors. CIP will support the networking of clusters active in one or several economic sectors, establish the pan-european network for business and innovation support services, and horizontal activities to support innovation in enterprises and innovation policy making (fostering IPR management in enterprises, innovation trend charts etc.) /05 THB/coc 4

5 5. Project selection: Projects selected for support from CIP should be selected on their own merits. No special advantages should be given to technologies resulting from FP7 projects or other European initiatives. B. Complementarity between CIP and the structural funds 1. While Member States are encouraged to use the structural funds for Lisbon-related purposes, there can be no overlap with the activities supported by CIP: Article 53 of the proposed Structural Fund Regulation rules out any double-funding for one and the same eligible cost from the Structural Funds and Community instruments. Nevertheless, Structural Funds and Community instruments, like CIP, can achieve synergies by intervening in different cost elements and/or stages of one and the same initiative. C. Role of eco-innovation and environmental technologies and their place and management in the CIP proposal 1. While certain delegations would prefer a separate specific sub-programme for eco-innovation within CIP, with a clearly defined budget and separate management committee, the majority of delegations can support the integration of eco-innovation across the programme, subject to the visibility, specificity and commitment to support eco-innovation being sufficiently improved and adequate financial support. 2. The Presidency considers that these concerns could be addressed as follows: (i) a new footnote should be added to the legal text of Article 2 i (b), defining the term ecoinnovation (as understood by the Council conclusions of 14 October 2004) as follows: Eco-innovation is any form of innovation leading to significant and demonstrable progress towards the goal of environmentally sustainable development, through reducing negative impacts on the environment or achieving a more efficient and responsible use of resources, including energy. Eco-innovation is a progressive concept: the CIP programme must remain responsive to changes /05 THB/coc 5

6 (ii) In Annex I, the words up to could be eliminated, retaining 520 million euros as the indicative budgetary allocation for eco-efficient innovation. This amount would need to be re-examined in the light of the results of the ongoing budgetary discussions. (iii) The profile of eco- innovation should be raised in the text of Article 13. This could be achieved either through improvements to Article 13 or through the creation of a new chapter on eco-innovation to show how it will operate across CIP, including the actions to be supported. A corresponding, distinct eco-efficient innovation part could be established in the annual work programmes once CIP is implemented. D. Management and implementation structure 1. Concerns have been raised that the proposed management structure does not provide a means for the development of the work programme(s) and ongoing actions to be closely coordinated. The Presidency suggests that the definitive management structure of CIP will need to be agreed once the overall budget to the programme is known. However, the following general principles should underpin any agreement on the management structure: - the need for a clear mechanism to ensure full co-ordination and co-operation across the whole of CIP and at all stages (work programme development, management and evaluation) and in the running of the committees; - the need for clarity about the way CIP will be implemented: the scope of the work programmes and the role and responsibilities of the executive agency; - the need for clarity on the role of eco-innovation within CIP (see part C above); - the need for clarity about how horizontal instruments will function across CIP (see part E below). - the cost-effectiveness of the structure would be an important, but not an exclusive criterion in the choices to be made. 2. Use of agency/ies: the decision to outsource and of the implementation actions in CIP will be decided once a final CIP budget is known and a management structure agreed. The decision will be based on a cost effectiveness analysis /05 THB/coc 6

7 E. Horizontal instruments 1. The Toolbox of instruments in CIP: the detailed explanations of the instruments in CIP are set out in the individual subprogrammes of the CIP proposal. This could lead to confusion about the application and use of individual instruments under CIP. Whilst Article 6(2) stipulates that all horizontal instruments may be used in all parts of the framework programme if the work programme so provides, it is considered necessary to bring further clarity to the application of this Article. There was broad support for pulling together all horizontal instruments into a new separate chapter. It is recommended that Article 6(2) be redrafted to provide improved readability and visibility to the fact that it applies across the whole of the programme. It is recommended that a new separate chapter should be included setting out all horizontal instruments. F. Evaluation of CIP 1. Definition of indicators and measurable objectives: Appropriate evaluation criteria and methodology will be required to ensure that CIP is effective at all stages. The Commission has agreed that for evaluations to be successful a clear set of measurable objectives is required. However, it is more appropriate to fix the list of indicators in the work programmes, since indicators might evolve over time, and should therefore be adjusted from time to time. 2. Proportionality: only activities with a relatively large budget can achieve measurable quantitative effects on competitiveness, growth and jobs. Therefore, only a qualitative assessment would be possible to evaluate smaller activities /05 THB/coc 7