Analysis of "FP 8 Positions"

Analysis of "FP 8 Positions" (3/2011) DISCLAIMER The analysis summarised in this document has been based on the respective message conveyed by the content of each of the position papers taken into account as submitted prior to end of February 2011 (see the full list of position papers analysed in the appendix). The analysis aims to indicate where convergence of major visions for the future Framework Programme appears to be expressed by a larger group of positions. Please note that the analysis is only a summary of positions made publicly available by the end of February 2011 and does in no way represent a joint position of the authoring offices/organisations nor does it necessarily reflect their opinions. There is no intention to artificially reinterpret expressed positions in order to create a different message. Readers who are interested in a more differentiated impression of the content of the various positions are kindly advised to refer to the original documents. The authors' team ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authoring offices wish to thank the following stagiaires for their valuable contribution to the analysis: Marianna Ronchini (ENEA liaison office), Gunnar Tan (European Liaison Offices for the German Research Organisations, KoWi), Monika Stach (SwissCore, Contact Office for European Research Innovation and Education). 1

Introduction During the public consultation on the future of European research and innovation funding the different stakeholder groups have shown their proactive interest proposing views and sometimes offering new ideas on what the next Framework Programme (FP) should look like. The papers selected in this document have been grouped as follows: national position papers of Member States; position papers of Associated countries; university sector; research funding and research performing organisations (also research councils, academies); industry sector; European Advisory Boards; regional position papers. The papers were summarised according to categories. These categories comprise: structure of FP 8; budget of FP 8; instruments in FP 8; Cooperation programme (incl. grand challenges, key enabling technologies, social sciences and humanities), researcher mobility/marie Curie, ERC; Capacities programme; innovation (e.g. CIP, EIT, ETP, JTI, PPP, EIP, Public Procurement); coordination of national programmes (e.g. Joint Programming Initiatives, ERA-Nets, Art. 185); simplification; international cooperation; structural funds; cohesion versus excellence; miscellaneous. The following summary gives an overview of the major lines of discussion (for a full documentation see the working document (Annex 1) as well as the list of papers analysed (Annex 2)). 1. Structure and Budget Regarding the structure of the future research FP there is a quite heterogeneous picture with several levels of details. Germany (DE) proposes a structure with six Specific Programmes, such as Development of the European Research Area (e.g., research infrastructure, science in society, international cooperation), a specific programme oriented at the major societal challenges (e.g. climate change, energy, health, ageing society), key technologies, frontier research (ERC), an Innovation programme including the EIT or the continuation of the Marie Curie programme. Following the recommendations of the FP 7 interim evaluation, Austria (AT) as well as e.g. the German Rectors Conference (HRK) and the Leibniz Association (WGL) are proposing a three pillars-structure with Knowledge for Society, Knowledge for Growth and Knowledge for Science. In the current debate the three pillar model has also been presented as possible structure by high representatives of DG Research. Under the title European Knowledge Framework (2014-2020) the three pillars proposed by AT do have similar rationales such as Grand Challenges, Competitiveness and frontier research. An equally detailed graphic representation is presented in the Spanish position paper (ES). Under a cross-cutting roof consisting of International Cooperation and Social Dimension & Social Responsibility the main funding elements are Frontier research, Mobility and Education/Training programmes which will go for excellence uptake in national and/or 2

regional finding programmes. The main part of this structure is the continuation of the Cooperation programme with different thematic areas, including SME specific measures (with a 15% budget target), serving in the direction of output oriented demonstration and market uptake. Other position papers, e.g. from the European University Association (EUA), from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), from Estonia (EE), from Norway (NO), from several expert groups on research, development and innovation policy (EURAB; inter alia European Research Area Board (ERAB) and the European Technology Platform Experts Group), from the League of European Research Universities (LERU) or from Turkey (TR) do not propose a structure for FP 8. Turkey, as well as some others of the above-mentioned also consider that "a large extent of continuity" would ease the process and note that there should not be too many changes between FP7 and the next FP. TR agrees on a thematic approach which is based on priorities and mentions for this structure some major titles: ERA Governance Perspectives, according to an "inclusive strategy for healthier development and implementation of Community research policy"; Tackling Societal Challenges, "to provide European level wise integration and coordination mechanisms for demand driven approaches"; Innovation Governance (Investing in Excellence & Capacity Building), "for boosting market orientation of excellent knowledge". However, position papers from Sweden (SE), Switzerland (CH) and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES) propose different and detailed structures, but along similar thematic and policy oriented lines. SE sees a strong interaction between the different Directorates-General (DG) of the Commission and presents a structure which consists of programmes for mobility, Research Infrastructures etc., interacting with DG Education and Culture. An innovation-oriented programme with Innovation, Demonstration, Deployment and SME should interact with DG Enterprise and DG Regio. In the heart of the structure the Grand Challenges translated into several thematic areas, the key enabling technologies, and Great Ideas /ERC are envisaged. Although a variety of models and structures is proposed, all in all it can be said that the position papers seem to follow a generalised wish for continuity rather than opting for fundamental deviations from the current structure of FP7 with some variations on the basis of the Europe 2020-Strategy and the EU s flagship initiatives. The different positions show a common acceptance of the EU s strategy to consider research and innovation efforts as primary instruments to tackle societal challenges. At its core, then next FP should support collaborative research in thematic areas such as in the current Cooperation programme, rather focused on defined societal challenges, as well as excellence-based frontier research and research into key technologies. The existing and successfully implemented programmes for mobility (Marie Curie Actions), research infrastructures and international cooperation 3

should be kept or strengthened. As a general wish, the research support structure should be adapted to the EU s objectives but in a simplified way. As far as budget questions are concerned, Germany refers to the difficult financial situation and warns that the future financial framework cannot go beyond the current financial framework". SE emphasizes that "the negotiations about the next financial framework must not be anticipated" and does not present any plans on how the FP8 budget might be distributed. Ireland (IE) says nothing on the size of the FP8 budget nor on a breakdown of funds. According to Estonia (EE), "the FP budget should be significantly increased by means of restructuring of the EU budget in line with the strategic goals of EU 2020", CH asks for consistency with the current FP7, whereas the balance between national and EU funding should be kept. Norway expresses its concern about any possible further increase in the budget of FP8 and proposes that the division of labor between the European and national funding levels should be defined first. Without giving a detailed opinion on what the size of the budget or its distribution should be, Turkey believes that an artificial allocation of the budget between an excessive number of instruments and objectives would compromise the ERA governance structure. For the Ideas programme the balance between applied and basic research should be kept and therefore the budget share should not be bigger than in FP7. However, there are some other positions such as from the European Research Advisors Boards (ERAB), the Danish Universities, LERU and the Flemish Council asking for a considerable increase of funds for FP8. ERAB for example states that the fact that in terms of research support Europe is far behind the US and Japan must be changed, and proposes that 12% of the EU budget should be spent on research. For the EUA "it is clear that FP8 and related EU instruments will need an increased budget". The Italian National Agency for New Technologies (ENEA) states that "possible new instruments or funding mechanisms should be financially covered by supplementary budgets avoiding the reduction of the FP budget". Compared to the views on the future FP8 structure the positions on the budget are more diverging. While some positions call for a substantial increase (e.g. FI, EE), others consider a budget at FP7 level as sufficient. In general, many position papers do not address the questions and focus more on the prioritization of budget lines for the different programmes and measures. 2. Simplification A vast majority of position papers stresses the urgent need for further simplification measures to be implemented in order to reduce the administrative burden for participants in FP8. A general demand is that the same rules should be applied coherently and consistently throughout all programmes and by all external agencies/bodies involved in programme management tasks. 4

Simplification should not only concern the governance level of FP8, but also the rules of participation as well as the financial rules. In line with the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft (HGF) position, stakeholders ask the Commission to thoroughly consider the potential implications of introducing special provisions for certain programmes or funding instruments that deviate from the general FP rules of participation. DE, AT, ES, EUA and many others note that trust should be the guiding principle and that the current emphasis on financial checks and audit certification should be abolished. Full costing and the acceptance of usual accounting practices are some of the ideas brought forward that would lead to reduced administrative burden. Many papers urge caution on the use of lump sum payments and in general on a move towards a result based approach where funding would depend on the delivery of predetermined outcomes of research projects. Among others, IE, ES and TEKES emphasise that the positive and negative aspects of devolving functions to external management agencies should be carefully considered by the Commission. The role of the programme committees as decisive part of a future governance structure is only commented on by a minority of position papers. Among those papers that specifically address the issue, all advocate for the programme committees role to be maintained (DE, ES and IE ) or reinforced (ES). It should be noted that only a minority of position papers does not address the issue of simplification of the FP. 3. Mobility and Career Development: Marie Curie Actions An overwhelming majority of the opinions emphasise the Marie Curie Actions' value for the career development of young researchers and call for their continuation in the next FP. Many stakeholders, however, put forward the need to better promote mobility between the academic and the industrial sector and bring the programme as a whole closer to industry needs. Specific suggestions are, among others, to support the development of entrepre-neurship skills among young researchers and a stronger involvement of business in curricula development and doctoral training. A number of stakeholders would also like to see an extension of COFUND-like schemes. However, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) states to observe the COFUND activities with constructive criticism. Several others propose to establish specific elements for career development also in other parts of the FP. There are moreover some calls for stronger synergies between the Marie Curie programme and the ERC as well as for closer links with collaborative research and the "Grand Challenges". Finally, several stakeholders also indicate the need for both funding mechanisms and research policy to contribute to improving the general conditions for researcher mobility and career development, e.g. in terms of employment conditions, social security or visa issues. 5

4. ERC The frontier research funding scheme implemented in FP7 by the European Research Council (ERC) is undisputed and its continuation is unanimously and strongly supported. All position papers underline the need to maintain and even strengthen its role in FP8. If the importance of the ERC is not called into question some positions such as from DE, the Danish universities and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) among others stress the need for a clear governance structure and reinforced scientific autonomy of the ERC. As a reference to the Europe 2020-Strategy some positions, e.g. from DE, SE and ES call for a stronger link to innovation and the involvement of the industry sector. Other position papers, e.g. from the WGL or the HGF propose an additional funding line for the support of excellent collaborative projects. 5. Capacities / Infrastructure The support to research infrastructures listed by ESFRI (European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructure) is considered as a major issue in the context of the next multiannual financial framework and the common strategic framework (CSF). Stakeholders argue in favor of a strong support to research infrastructures trough the FP and structural funds. Other funding resources should also be mobilised to implement the ESFRI roadmap. FP8 is seen as a relevant framework to support the preparation actions of infrastructure projects, trans-national access to infrastructures and networking between existing infrastructures. The importance to support trans-national access is highlighted by a number of stakeholders. Some of the stakeholders also call for support of the operational costs of large-scale research infrastructures trough the FP. It is suggested that member states should be encouraged to fund the building of new research infrastructures through structural funds. 6. Project selection criteria The majority of stakeholders acknowledges that the FP should contribute to the EU policy through excellence. That is why many positions from Member States and research organisations and universities state that scientific and technological excellence must remain the decisive criterion for selecting projects in all areas of FP8. There is no distinction between ERC and the rest of FP8: excellence should cover the whole FP. Some more technological oriented stakeholders are in favor of putting more emphasis on project impact. In this case, selection criteria should be adapted but excellence remains the number one priority. 6

7. Innovation It is a general opinion that the next FP must represent the essential basis for delivering the goals set out in the EC s Innovation Union Flagship Initiative. The whole innovation chain should be supported, from fundamental research to applied research, to the exploitation of results and the involvement of industry, especially those competitive sectors carried by key technologies. The majority of countries and stakeholders recognize the necessity to reduce the gap between creation of knowledge referring also to education institutions and especially universities - and society and the role played by SMEs as important innovation drivers. ERAB, for example, suggests an open collaboration, meaning a free environment in which knowledge, talent and services gather critical mass in a European wide patent system accompanied by favorable fiscal policies. Moreover, the innovative capacity of European industry has to be strengthened, especially through increased participation of SMEs in the FP (at least of 15% of the budget, according to DE and ES), who should be able to benefit from specific grants (IE). According to VINNOVA, the EUROSTARS model needs to be included in the next FP. Several position papers argue in favor of closer links between CIP and the FP (e.g. SE, TR, ENEA), some even propose to integrate CIP into the next FP (e.g. DE, CH, EARTO). Only ES clearly asks to keep CIP as a separate programme. Regarding the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), it is too early to evaluate the relevance of this kind of new EU instruments, but KICs show difficulty in starting research activity and formalizing partnerships among research institutes, universities and private partners. European Technology Platforms (ETPs) are considered in many papers and a harmonization of rules is welcomed. The issue of Joint Technology initiatives (JTIs) is controversial; not all stakeholders are convinced of their potential success. Some papers state that JTIs are too bureaucratic (DE, ES, CH, German Rector s Conference). In addition, several positions ask for transparent rules of participation in accordance with those of the FP. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) should remain in the FP according to most parties, but after a thorough evaluation. The European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) need to prove their added value comparing to the numerous existing instruments, even if they constitute a central element in tackling societal challenges (AT). Some stakeholders are quite critical of EIPs and suggest a proper review with the aim of avoiding over-complex meta-meta-structures (CH) or are doubtful about how they will relate to other instruments (EUA). Some parties (ERT and VINNOVA) believe that public procurement can promote innovation, especially in supporting SMEs. Regarding Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), more simplification is requested, in order to obtain a coherent set of rules. 7

8. Coordination of national programmes The connection between the process of joint programming and the FP needs to be reviewed and clarified by the Commission. A great majority of parties notes the importance of co-financing by EU and Member States referring to joint programmes. The ERA-Nets and the initiatives under article 185 are considered as efficient means, which have already proven their European added value and for this reason should be maintained in the next FP. Only ES believes that the instruments mentioned above should be replaced by Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs). 9. International Cooperation The position papers do not question International Cooperation, but call for clear definitions. It is necessary to re-examine the concept of third countries, with the aim to favour key partnerships. These will be selected according to their different potential. For instance, some parties would welcome a bigger consideration of BRIC countries. The integration of third countries into thematic programmes should occur only for specific purposes. International cooperation in the next FP for R&D should be based on a strategic approach and on mutual terms. 10. Structural Funds The positions of Member States differ with respect to the aims the structural funds should have. According to some stakeholders structural funds should strengthen the development of excellent research; for SE, on the other hand, the purpose is supporting the less advanced regions (cohesion target). Universities underline the role of the structural funds, in the regional economy for knowledge and technology transfer. LERU and ERAB argue that at least 30% of these funds should be dedicated to R&D projects in weakest, latecomer regions. Supporting research by these funds would also facilitate the implementation of industrial and social policies at regional level. Structural funds are expected to create an across-the-border environment based on the knowledge triangle of research/education/innovation. The synergies between structural funds and other programmes need to be reconsidered. IE recommends reinforced synergies also with CIP. For further information: http://www.bruxelles.enea.it/news/analysis.xls 8