EN Official Journal of the European Union C 115/20

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

(2006/C 115/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (COM(2005) 119 final) — 2005/0043 (COD) — 2005/0044 (CNS);

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission: Building the ERA of knowledge for growth (COM (2005) 118 final);

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 31 March 2005 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 19 May 2005 to instruct the Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Decision of the 2000 Lisbon European Council to adopt the concept of a European Research Area (ERA), thereby laying the foundation for common science and technology policy across the European Union;

Having regard to the Decision of the March 2002 Barcelona European Council by which the European Union set itself the objective of increasing the European research effort to 3 % of the European Union's GDP by 2010;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission: A European initiative for growth — Investing in networks and knowledge for growth and employment — final report to the European Council (COM(2003) 690 final);

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission: Science and technology, the key to Europe's future — guidelines for future European policy to support research in Europe (COM(2004) 353 final) and its opinion on the subject (CdR 194/2004 fin) (1);

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission responding to the observations and recommendations of the high-level Panel of independent experts concerning the new instruments of the Sixth Framework Programme (COM(2004) 574 final);

Having regard to the Communication to the Spring European Council: Working together for growth and jobs — a new start for the Lisbon Strategy (COM(2005) 24 final);

Having regard to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) (COM(2005) 121 final — 2005/0050 (COD));

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission: Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy (COM(2005) 152 final) and its opinion on the subject (CdR 154/2005 fin);

Having regard to the report of the High-level Expert Panel chaired by professor Ramon Marimon Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI (21 June 2004);

Having regard to the opinion (CdR 155/2005 rev. 2) adopted on 22 September by its Commission for Culture and Education (rapporteur: Mr Lars Nordström, Regional Councillor, Region of Västra Götaland (SE/ALDE);

Whereas:

1. the overarching objectives set out in the Commission proposal are crucial for the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. Raising European investment in research to 3 % of EU GDP, with two-thirds of this coming from the private sector and all of it geared to research and development promoting knowledge-based societies and economies in Europe, is an ambitious target that can only be met through joint efforts and coordinated action by the EU and Member States;

2. research, innovation and lifelong learning are key to European growth and competitiveness;

3. the need to double Union research funding in the period 2007–2013 is in line with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the accession of ten new Member States in 2004. It is in the interest of the whole of Europe that the proposal be implemented, even if changes are made to other parts of the budget plans for 2007–2013;

4. the high degree of continuity between the current Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) and the forthcoming Seventh Framework Programme. The proposal also includes new elements, such as the European Research Council and Joint Technology Initiatives;

5. although the measures contained in the Commission proposal are not cohesion instruments as such, they will undoubtedly have an impact on cohesion in Europe;

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 62nd plenary session, held on 16-17 November 2005 (meeting of 16 November):

The Committee of the Regions' views

1. General comments

The Committee of the Regions

1.1 welcomes the fact that the political context and objectives of this proposal are set out in a separate communication Building the ERA of knowledge for growth, which was presented at the same time by the Commission;

1.2 believes that, in the main, the Commission's proposal is good in that it has a high degree of continuity with the current Framework Programme. Local and regional authorities and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are given better opportunities to participate, although FP7 instruments continue to favour ‘large initiatives’;

1.3 in view of the relaunch of the Lisbon agenda, stresses the importance of reaching an agreement on the financial perspectives that allows the necessary financing for the 7th Framework Programme as proposed by the Commission;

1.4 welcomes the measures aimed at administrative, financial and legal simplification, which are described in the Working Document on implementation accompanying the proposal, and would particularly highlight the need for simplification at all stages of the application procedure, contractual negotiations and implementation;

1.5 notes that the Commission has taken into account the views expressed by many of the interested parties in a broad consultation and that the proposal is built on an in-depth impact assessment based on evaluations and inputs from the interested parties;

1.6 agrees that knowledge is at the core of the Lisbon Strategy and that the components of the ‘Triangle of knowledge’ are innovation, education and research; would particularly stress that the quest for quality and excellence lies at the heart of research policy. In this way, knowledge can be produced which promotes sustainable economic growth, employment and social cohesion;

1.7 endorses the Programme's overarching objectives and the division of the Seventh Framework Programme into four specific programmes — Cooperation, Ideas, People and Capacities — corresponding to the four major objectives of European research policy;

1.8 welcomes the focus of the Cooperation programme on a few thematic areas for all types of transnational cooperation, ranging from collaborative projects and networks to the coordination of research programmes in the following thematic areas: a) Health b) Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology c) Information and Communication Technologies d) Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies e) Energy f) Environment (including Climate Change) g) Transport (including Aeronautics) h) Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities i) Security and Space;

1.9 has high hopes for the Ideas programme , which provides for the creation of an autonomous European Research Council (ERC) to support investigator-driven ‘frontier-research’ carried out by individual teams competing in all scientific and technological fields; would stress the importance of an independent ERC and the need for results from research funded via the ERC to be disseminated systematically in full cooperation with local and regional authorities. The idea of a European Research Council should be developed to have close contacts with local and regional administration and the CoR;

1.10 welcomes the fact that the People programme provides for increased support for the training and career development of researchers, with a focus on skills and career development and stronger links with national systems;

1.11 as regards the C apacities programme , recalls the specific needs for cooperation between the Framework Programme and the Structural Funds in order to enhance research, training and innovation capacity in Europe in the context of support for research infrastructures, research for the benefit of SMEs, regional research-driven clusters, unlocking research potential in the EU's ‘convergence’ regions, ‘science in society’ issues and ‘horizontal’ activities in the field of international cooperation;

1.12 Europe must strive for the best integration of the new Member States. Inclusion in all EU policies and instruments is a prerequisite for effectively tapping the significant human and economic potential of these countries to build a more competitive and cohesive Europe, enjoying sustained development. The Framework Programmes should help accelerate the process of integration.

2. Cooperation programme

2.1 The issue of knowledge transfer and dissemination is crucial. The current Framework Programme contains mechanisms for this purpose but does knowledge transfer and dissemination take place effectively and systematically? What results have been achieved to date? Little is known about this because there is no clear requirement for follow-up. One way to remedy this would be for approved projects to be given an explicit responsibility for devising and implementing knowledge transfer strategies. The Commission should monitor these in order to determine the results achieved.

2.2 Information and communication technologies (ICT) are of key importance to all aspects of industry, business, the services sector, science and technology, including security and defence. Compared to Japan and the USA in particular, Europe has considerable ground to make up, not least in view of the need for supercomputers in many important fields, such as climate, security and materials research and the synthesis of new medicines.

2.3 As regards the ecological dimension of sustainable development, the Committee of the Regions wishes to draw attention to the importance of the natural environment as a resource and an area for research in fields such as bio-energy and biofuels, plant genomics, wood technology, sustainable forestry, mining technology, waste technology and tourism.

2.4 The CoR reiterates its strong satisfaction at the re-incorporation of the important energy sub-programme into FP7. However, even though energy research is also a very high priority for Euratom FP7, even greater emphasis on this vital subject is necessary. Energy is the key resource of a competitive economy, but, as is well known, Europe is worryingly dependent on energy imports.

2.5 This should be complemented by a focus on the social dimension and here the Committee of the Regions would particularly highlight integration issues as a key overarching theme. Examples of important research questions in this context are how integration policy is implemented and monitored in Member States; what targets and indicators are employed; how tax policy affects integration efforts (in many Member States taxes are raised at national level but the local and regional level has to bear a major part of the costs resulting from exclusion, etc.). Other important questions relate to democratic aspects of integration efforts, such as the effects of the formal right to vote or differences in the approach to integration policy at different levels in society. Another set of questions relates to refugees and discrimination in the labour market.

2.6 The CoR welcomes the beginning of the construction of the Galileo project; besides being of great value in terms of innovation, the technological solutions employed here and especially their application are, in the Committee's view, what makes this project truly multi-disciplinary and cross-functional.

2.7 The Committee of the Regions believes that research on broad issues relating to public health, health care and social services should be included in the thematic research priorities of pan-European interest. Other issues also need to be addressed, including various aspects of public health, such as, for example, measures to tackle the harmful consequences of alcohol and tobacco use. Knowledge of the extent and effects of alcohol and tobacco-related problems is important, both in the short and long term.

2.8 Moreover, research on many aspects of urban development, in addition to environmental concerns, needs to be taken into account. Such research could, for example, cover not only issues relating to transport, urban planning and water and waste management, cultural heritage and tourism but also integration and governance. These issues were included in the Fifth Framework Programme but are missing from the Sixth Framework Programme. A broader approach to urban development is therefore called for in the Seventh Framework Programme.

2.9 The Committee of the Regions believes that the interaction between research and practice is an important area for research. A major challenge for both the public and the private sector is the ability to translate research-based knowledge into practice, for example in order to revamp the welfare system. In theory this applies to all research areas but perhaps above all to new knowledge in the service sectors. Thus more research needs to done into the practical application of research results. Examples of the kind of questions such research could address are: developing methodology on the use of research results; obstacles to change; reasons why some improvement strategies work and others do not; how to promote change through learning; how to involve colleagues; how to use proposal systems to develop a creative climate, etc. Hence there is a need for European research policy to highlight the fact that the interaction between research and practice is a field of research which can promote innovation or development. The EU should recognise this and support the establishment of this type of research in the service sectors.

2.10 On the one hand, there is a need for national research programmes on various aspects of demographic change, including ageing, and it is important to improve the coordination of such programmes at European level. The Committee believes that instruments for programme coordination could be developed through interregional cooperation projects under the ERA-NET scheme with an eye to future cooperation in accordance with Article 169. On the other hand, support for research on demographic ageing should be given a significant boost through the Seventh Framework Programme itself. Potentially relevant issues relating to ‘active ageing’ are addressed in the Commission communication Increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market. However, active ageing involves much more than this; for example, there is a need to develop knowledge on healthy ageing people and how older people are and can become an asset to society. There is a diversity of cultural differences and experiences among Member States as regards attitudes towards demographic change, and this could serve as a basis for addressing a range of research issues from an inter-disciplinary perspective. Besides the implications of an insufficient birth rate, emigration and dramatic population shrinkage, this includes research on ageing which assesses the requirements as regards health care, social services and self-care. Though coordination between national and European programmes is mentioned in the Cooperation programme, the Committee feels that it should be enhanced. The concept of ageing incorporates social, economic and cultural aspects. The development of social solutions and adaptation strategies in response to demographic change is one of the main political challenges facing us over the next few years, particularly at regional level. Therefore it is also important that the local and regional level play a major role in designing national programmes.

2.11 The Committee of the Regions feels that the links between research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business have become unclear with the division of measures between the Framework Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP). There is a danger here that project ideas on the borderline between these key areas, which are crucial for growth and job creation, could be overlooked or become caught up in excessive red tape or, in the worst case, that potential applicants might be deterred from applying at all, which is something Europe simply cannot afford. It is of the utmost importance that the Commission as a whole work to ensure that administrative boundaries between different DGs and programmes do not hold back good projects.

2.12 Because of the responsibility they bear for key sectors of society, local and regional authorities could usefully become involved in Technology Platforms (TPs). In formulating research strategies for new TPs from the perspective of people's needs and in developing relevant platforms already in operation, local and regional authorities have a natural place in the cooperation between academia, the business community and the public sector which TPs require. Some TPs could take on board the development of local and regional activities. TPs are long-term initiatives, but they are built on long-established technology fields rather than citizens' basic needs.

2.13 Given the importance of towns and cities and local and regional authorities in promoting economic and social development for their citizens and local area, they must be fully involved in innovation and continuous learning programmes, both in terms of their role as catalysts for promoting partnerships that can offer widespread access to funding, and of their role in boosting innovation and research in their local area.

2.14 The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that several Member States within, for example, the Council and the European Parliament have put forward the idea of incorporating ‘socially motivated research platforms’ (SMRP) as part of the Seventh Framework Programme. SMRPs should be considered as a complement to Technology Platforms which are based on the premise that societal needs should act as a driving force for determining long-term research strategies drawn up by key players such as public authorities and research centres (universities and institutes) but, where appropriate, by the business sector as well. Europe needs new knowledge in order to be able to better understand and address problems caused by challenges in the social sphere relating to, for example, intercultural and ethnic differences, demographic factors and environmental changes, including climate change. The aim of SMRPs is to bring together European stakeholders to further knowledge on major long-term social challenges facing Europe. Key stakeholder groups include, of course, the ‘end-users’ of knowledge, who are often local and regional authorities.

2.15 The concept of SMRPs springs in large part from the initiatives of social stakeholders and their need for new knowledge based on frontier research in various sectors of society. It is also derives from the fact that these stakeholders take an active part in identifying and framing the problems and issues to be studied. Moreover, social stakeholders take active responsibility for the dissemination and take-up of new knowledge, which, of course, is more likely to happen when they themselves play a major role in formulating the problems. SMRPs should therefore be seen as a complement to TPs, where industry is the driving force. Industrial players may be closely involved in SMRPs, depending on the subject at hand, even though other players are expected to be the main protagonists. The concept of SMRPs includes inter-disciplinary research, reflecting the complexity of human and social problems. Such problems are best understood by examining them from several different scientific perspectives. Extensive transnational cooperation to advance knowledge and expand the opportunities for social innovation is an essential element of SMRPs.

2.16 Of the various subjects and themes mentioned in the discussion on SMRPs, the Committee of the Regions would single out here the following potential topics: the changing demographic landscape in Europe (ageing population); Europe and integration/migration; and sustainable development from an environmental perspective. All the Member States face the challenges of an ageing population, with its implications for health care services, social services (e.g. eHealth, healthy ageing, secure housing), pension schemes, longer working lives, etc. Although this demographic challenge is often portrayed as a problem, it also creates many opportunities. An ageing population represents a vast knowledge resource based on accumulated skills and experience and many elderly people are also well-informed and demanding customers/consumers/patients, which calls for innovative solutions to various issues. How can we best harness and develop a person's resources over the course of his lifetime to the benefit of the individual and society as a whole? The theme Integration/migration could include, for example, questions relating to integration in the world of work, discrimination, etc. The theme Sustainable development — the environment might cover, for example, spatial issues in Europe: the town as a driving force, with an emphasis on the interaction between town and countryside; environmental pollution and its impact on the landscape, with an emphasis on the interaction between towns and rural areas in the regions; Europe's responsibility for global sustainable development, with an emphasis on the interaction between the global and European contexts.

3. Ideas programme

3.1 It is crucial that the European Research Council possess a high degree of integrity, under the direction of independent and qualitative researchers. Its work must be characterised by simple procedures for handling applications and a clear understanding as to who sets priorities.

3.2 Results from research funded via the European Research Council under the Ideas programme should be systematically disseminated in an appropriate way to researchers active in other European regions. This funding should be provided under the measures for promoting researchers' mobility or through direct support from the ERC. In the latter case, a smaller proportion of the total funding for approved projects should be earmarked for this purpose.

4. People programme

4.1 In order for Europe to be able to recruit a sufficient number of researchers it is important to make it easier for women to work in research environments and here both policy measures and changes in attitudes in the business sector and the academic world could be important factors. The Marie Curie Actions should be strengthened so as to stimulate the interest of young people still in secondary education and to put the focus on the role and place of women in science and research with the aim of reducing the under-representation of women.

4.2 The Committee would point out that many other measures are probably needed to enable Europe to attract leading research groups. Real career development opportunities in Europe are hindered by geographical, legal, administrative and cultural factors. Possible initiatives for promoting the further development of career opportunities include comparisons of career ladders, salaries and social benefits. Another way might be to promote jobs which offer employees the opportunity to combine research with their work.

4.3 The Committee considers that ‘lifelong learning’ should be seen as a resource for growth in Europe, i.e. a means of achieving Europe's research objectives. The Committee welcomes the fact that this point is taken up again in the Commission proposal and believes that it is important that players at regional as well as national and Community level are involved in advancing work in this area. Here the Committee would also draw attention to the Mutual Learning Platforms initiative launched by DG Research, DG Enterprise and the Committee of the Regions. It is designed to help decision-makers at regional level by developing specific tools for mutual learning, such as regional foresight activities, regional benchmarking and regional profiles.

4.4 The Committee believes that the Commission should ensure that the development of researchers' careers at European level covers all EU Member States as well as those parts of the public sector which fall under the remit of local and regional authorities.

4.5 The Committee would also emphasise that support is needed for measures designed to promote the emergence of a new generation of researchers who can work in universities, industry and the public sector. For example, doctoral programmes need to be developed which enable postgraduate students to be involved in both industrial and public sector activities during their study period. Research students must be also trained and equipped to work outside the academic world.

5. Capacities programme

The Committee of the Regions welcomes this part of the Framework Programme. All of the six activities under this programme are important but the Committee would particularly highlight the following.

5.1 The Regions of Knowledge initiative is highly commendable as, among other things, it highlights the regions' increased significance for innovation and growth. The importance of the knowledge-intensive regions for overall economic growth in Europe cannot be overemphasised; they are the cornerstones of countries' economies.

5.2 The Committee would like to see more links between framework programmes and the Structural Funds. There is an inherent tension between support for excellence and support for cohesion. This tension can be alleviated by encouraging the relevant parties in all the regions to work for excellence. The Committee of the Regions has initiated a study on regions' and local and regional authorities' structural capacity and motivation in respect of R&D, which addresses, inter alia, the connections between R&D, the Structural Funds and innovation issues.

5.3 The Committee of the Regions is aware of the debate under way in Europe on the Financial Perspectives. It is, however, of the utmost importance that this new initiative be maintained, should the budget be cut in relation to the current proposal. The proposed budget for this initiative is far too low — only about EUR 160 million (approx. 2 %) of the total for the Capacities programme (EUR 7.4 billion) — given the stated objectives of the proposal.

5.4 There is a lack of clear ambition as regards linking the efforts of learning centres to developing and promoting the commercialisation of R&D in collaboration with industry. This may be because the innovation sections have been removed and transferred to a specific framework programme for competitiveness and innovation, the CIP Programme. There are a number of uncertainties concerning the interfaces and links between these framework programmes, which the Commission should clarify. It is not certain that problems will arise but if they do the Commission will have to find a way of better coordinating different programmes. A case in point is the question of venture capital for Joint Technology Initiatives: will it be possible for a project to receive funding under the Seventh Framework Programme during the commercialisation phase or will funds have to be sought from the CIP Programme during this phase?

5.5 Furthermore, it should be recognised that research institutes act as a natural bridge for technology transfers and collaborative product development. Depending on the economic structure of a particular region, the need for specialisation can be great. In addition to noting the synergies with cohesion policy, the Commission should also underline the importance of EU instruments for the implementation of both national and regional innovation strategies.

5.6 The Committee of the Regions agrees with the Commission that there is vast Research potential to be unlocked in the EU's convergence regions, as defined in the context of the Structural Funds.

5.7 Sectors which are less research intensive but make an important contribution to European growth and the Lisbon process must not be forgotten. The current 6th Framework Programme is geared mainly towards research-intensive players. Providing financial support to less research-intensive players in order to enable them to exploit existing technologies would allow implementation of innovations that would otherwise not be possible. Thus these players should be given a more prominent position in the research programmes.

5.8 The Committee welcomes the Science in Society action programme and stresses that it is a key component of the new Framework Programme.

6. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

6.1 believes that the social and ecological dimensions of sustainable development should be become a more integral part of all aspects of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development;

6.2 expects the Commission to take a proactive role and support the evolution of SMRPs in various ways along the lines of the approach adopted towards Technology Platforms. For example, in the initial phase, it could develop the concept of SMRPs, encourage the various stakeholders to unite behind a long-term vision and strategic research agenda, participate in platforms as an observer in an advisory and supportive capacity and ensure transparency and openness and the provision of relevant secretariat support. In so doing, the Commission would also help to increase the chances of successful implementation;

6.3 notes that representatives of the local and regional level are working actively to bring together the relevant players to develop the idea of SMRPs; would like to see the development of a dialogue between the Commission, the Parliament, the Council, national research funding agencies, local and regional authorities, researchers and other interested stakeholders, primarily around the theme of ‘an ageing population’;

6.4 feels that the Commission must ensure that no administrative problems arise in implementation as a result of the fact that the Framework Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) are run by different Directorates-General and, further, that it must clarify the interfaces between the two programmes;

6.5 stresses the importance of technological development within the 7th Framework Programme and of creating close synergies with the Framework Programme for Competitiveness and Innovation (CIP), in order to generate new business and jobs in knowledge-based enterprises throughout all European regions;

6.6 considers that there is a need to complement the thematic research priorities with broad issues relating to pubic health, health care and social services. In addition, there is a need for research on various aspects of urban development, not just those related to environmental concerns;

6.7 considering the role of SMEs as motors of the European economy, the CoR suggests that a balance between large initiatives and those for SMEs be sought in the 7th Framework Programme, for instance by increasing financing for the Regions of Knowledge initiative;

6.8 proposes that the Commission explore the possibility of identifying good examples of scientific cooperation between various stakeholders at local level. This could also take the form of a competition;

6.9 recommends that the Council and the Parliament adopt the Commission's proposal to set the budget for the Seventh Framework Programme at EUR 72 726 million.

Brussels, 16 November 2005. The President of the Committee of the Regions Peter STRAUB

(1) OJ C 71, 22.3.2005, p. 22.