Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission 'The European Research Area: Providing New Momentum Strengthening - Reorienting - Opening up new perspectives'"

(COM(2002) 565 final)

(2003/C 95/13)

On 17 October 2002 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 January 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 397th plenary session on 26 and 27 February 2003 (meeting of 26 February) the European Economic and Committee adopted the following opinion by 72 votes to 7 with 4 abstentions.

1. Summary

- The Committee welcomes the Commission Communication in principle and supports its aims.

- The Committee once again emphasises the importance of a European research area. It appreciates the progress already made towards this aim and towards an internal market for research.

- In general the Committee also endorses the specific measures proposed.

- However, the Committee recommends adapting new measures on research promotion, coordination, networking or integration, and their timing, to the delicate operating conditions of top-quality science and research.

- The Committee stresses the fundamental importance of adequate mobility for scientists and researchers in terms of spreading information and acting as a catalyst for networks; accordingly it supports the Commission proposals. It recommends that in support measures and rules the costs associated with mobility be taken into account and compensated for, to ensure that no disadvantages arise, and that sufficient incentives are provided.

- The Committee strongly supports the creation of a European Community Patent.

- As regards the coordination of the Member States' research policies aimed at by the Commission, the Committee recommends a differentiated approach. It supports all measures which encourage coordination by the research institutes themselves and their participants, including European-level coordination. Coordination by the Commission itself, bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, should concentrate on and confine itself to those thematic aims and organisational needs (large apparatus, infrastructure) for which such coordination going beyond the individual Member States is really useful or necessary.

- In this context, the Committee supports the Commission's efforts to create a European scientific infrastructure including the necessary large apparatus.

- The Committee supports the Commission's intention to provide more funding from the Regional Fund, as a matter of priority, for promotion of scientific and technological cooperation between regions at different stages of technological development.

- On the important subject of science and society, the Committee refers readers to its recently issued opinion.

- The Committee is drawing up an opinion on the subject of boosting private investment in research.

2. Background

2.1. The European Research Area initiative and proposed measures for its implementation were put forward by the Commission in early 2000(1), and were confirmed and endorsed as early as March 2000 by the Lisbon European Council. Further developments of this initiative followed in the Commission's proposal on the Sixth Framework Programme(2) and in the proposals(3) on the participation rules.

2.2. The Committee issued detailed opinions on these proposals(4). In them it firmly supported the creation of a European Research Area and emphasised the fundamental importance of science, research and development as the basis and engine of prosperity and competitiveness. The Committee also pointed out that most scientific and technological achievements up to now have been the product of a common European cultural effort, which brings out the historical importance of the European Research Area and which contributes substantially to European integration.

2.3. The Committee also analysed the details of the Commission proposals mentioned above, expressed specific reservations and issued practical recommendations for changes and further development. The main aim was to ensure optimal operational conditions for successful research and development, and balanced support for the three pillars - fundamental research, applied research, and development - in the context of their interaction and interdependence. Some of these earlier recommendations and comments by the Committee are also relevant to the present Commission Communication and are given further consideration below.

3. The present Commission Communication

3.1. As the starting point of its Communication, the Commission notes that its earlier initiatives and measures have contributed to a change in the research policy landscape in Europe. In the Member States people have become aware of the European dimension of research; those active in and responsible for research in Europe have come closer together, and new cooperation initiatives have been created; in this context, it has been possible to give the new research framework programme a radically new form and to adopt it. However, despite the progress in these areas, the Commission maintains that adequate cooperation with the Member States is still lacking. This restricts the scope of the measures undertaken and casts doubt upon the creation of an internal market for research.

3.2. On the basis of an assessment of the measures taken so far, the Commission Communication aims to highlight further necessary measures designed to give the project a new impetus.

3.3. The following aspects are addressed, and corresponding proposals are made:

- benchmarking of research policies;

- mapping of scientific and technological excellence;

- mobility of researchers;

- research infrastructures;

- networking of national research programmes;

- boosting private investment in research;

- intellectual property;

- a trans-European electronic network for research;

- the international dimension of the European Research Area;

- the regional dimension of the European Research Area;

- issues relating to science and society;

- creating the conditions for genuine coordination of research policies;

- making greater use of legal instruments;

- optimising the impact of European cooperation initiatives;

- fully involving the candidate countries.

4. General comments

4.1. The Committee welcomes the present Commission Communication in principle and supports its aims. Once again it stresses the importance of a European Research Area. Except where otherwise stated below, the Committee also endorses the individual measures proposed.

4.1.1. The Committee takes the view that the Commission underestimates the remarkable progress already made if it regards the creation of an internal market for research as generally in doubt. The Committee endorses and strongly supports the aim of creating an internal market for research and of encouraging and promoting cutting-edge research throughout Europe. However, this aim can be achieved only through a longer-term development process on a commensurate timescale. This applies both to the clarification of questions of responsibility and to interaction and division of labour - and thus the application and interpretation of the subsidiarity principle - between the Commission and the governments of the Member States, as well as to the necessary adaptation process to be followed by individual research institutes and their players (see also the Appendix on this question).

4.1.2. There is of course still much to do and to improve; and the Committee will deal with some of these points under point 5 below.

4.1.3. It is particularly important to maintain the necessary political impetus, in order to develop further and complete the set of rules for the Community internal market in general. At the same time the related measures also lay the foundation on which the European Research Area and the internal market for research can be further developed and organised.

4.1.4. It must, however, also be borne in mind that to achieve competence, efficiency or even a leading position in a particular scientific area, the persons and groups involved in research and development must first undertake a demanding period of training usually lasting several years. In addition, high-quality technical equipment must often first be set up and a stimulating environment - research structures - created. This is a valuable and expensive investment in human capital and in research infrastructure.

4.1.4.1. Good and successful research cannot therefore be switched on and off, redirected or subjected to new support instruments or rules at the whim of economic cycles or current political trends, but requires sufficient continuity and reliability(5). This also applies to the timescale for the implementation of the new measures and procedures which it is hoped and expected that the Commission will produce. Otherwise there is even a risk that essentially sensible measures prepared by the Commission with good intentions could encounter animosity and resistance on the part of the institutions and players concerned.

4.1.4.2. In this connection the Committee is pleased to note that the Commission has followed (unfortunately only in part) its earlier recommendation, that the calls for tenders should offer the instruments proposed by the Commission for the Sixth Framework Programme together with those already introduced by the Fifth Framework Programme. It would also be desirable in a call for tenders for a special research package not to specify the instrument available for it, but to allow applicants scope for initiative and freedom of choice, to select whichever is the most suitable instrument in their view.

4.2. The Committee has already issued a very detailed opinion on the extremely wide-ranging set of questions relating to science and society(6), the points made in which are still valid, e.g. in relation to the issues addressed here by the Commission. Some of them are briefly recapitulated below with reference to current questions.

4.2.1. Priority should be given to the economic, political, social and cultural environment in which creativity and inventiveness can best develop, and to making it possible to attract the best scientists and engineers to the European Research Area and keep them there. This should involve measures to maintain or create optimum operating conditions for good science, such as:

- strengthening the interplay between fundamental research and applied research/development in a diverse, multi-polar scientific system;

- guaranteeing researcher independence and scientific freedom, with respect for ethical concerns and the law;

- protecting and strengthening - within the framework of policy directives - the scientific community's autonomy and its right to run its own affairs;

- studying the impact, administrative burden and effectiveness of the various application and approval procedures;

- taking account of the diverse range of social aims and interests;

- also fostering and being open to knowledge in which "society" currently has no interest.

4.2.2. Science and research depend on competition for the best ideas, procedures and findings, on independent confirmation (or disproving) - i.e. "certification" - of new findings, and on their dissemination, deepening and extension. Even duplication of research contributes to scientific knowledge and progress.

4.2.3. Thus it is necessary to facilitate and foster diverse, interdisciplinary research approaches, assessment procedures and research structures, in order to stimulate and utilise the resulting competition for the best ideas and findings.

4.2.4. A key principle of any research policy should therefore be to adopt a "bottom-up" approach as often as possible and a "top-down" approach only as often as necessary. Similarly, there should be as much decentralisation as possible and only as much centralisation as required. In the EESC's view, this principle does not run counter to the objectives of the European Research Area, but means that - depending on the aims in each case - the Commission and its research policy should also delegate responsibilities and the powers of decision and initiative etc to the greatest possible extent.

4.3. Boosting private investment in research is the subject of a Commission Communication(7) on which the Committee made its own recommendations, in a separate opinion endorsing the Commission proposals in principle. This subject will therefore not be dealt with further here.

5. Specific comments

5.1. Mobility

It is people who are responsible for knowledge transfer, contacts and networking. That is why mobility is the key to the organisation of the European Research Area. In this connection the Committee would also refer to its earlier opinion(8).

5.1.1. The question of mobility for scientists and technicians, however, covers a variety of aspects or categories, such as:

- reciprocal mobility between the academic world and industry;

- mobility between the Member States of the EU;

- mobility between the EU and non-member countries;

- promotion of the return to the EU of researchers in non-member countries;

- promotion of mobility through financial incentives/grants e.g. by the Commission;

- the obstacles to mobility (for the various categories mentioned above) and ways of overcoming them.

Some of these categories are dealt with in the Commission Communication. In particular, measures to improve incentives and provide better information for potential candidates are proposed. The Committee fully supports these proposals.

5.1.2. In addition to the obstacles to mobility mentioned by the Commission, the Committee would point out the following further problems hindering the desired mobility of scientists and engineers:

- the effects on the cohesion of families or family partnerships. This involves finding solutions consistent with the career aspirations of family partners and the schooling needs of children. This is in fact an important aspect of family policy;

- the costs involved in moving or buying/selling a house, which can be considerable (estate agent, taxes, legal fees, renovation etc.). Here too solutions must be found, so that those concerned are not disadvantaged, and no insuperable obstacles to mobility therefore arise;

- the inadequate compatibility and transferability of social security entitlements and insurance at present (eligibility requirements/qualification periods for pensions, invalidity benefits, sickness insurance etc.).

5.1.3. The problems mentioned under 5.1.2, however, have implications not only for scientists' mobility, but also for other occupational groups and hence the entire internal market. This makes it all the more urgent to solve them.

5.1.4. However, in order to facilitate and encourage the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the research and development programme, and to overcome the obstacles to this which persist, there is also a need for adequate incentives and instruments to promote the mobility of highly-skilled people. This need and the specific set of problems connected with it have already been fully explained in the earlier Opinion(9) on the European Research Area.

5.2. Intellectual property rights

The Committee supports the Commission in its ongoing efforts - so far, alas, not particularly successful, because of resistance from the Member States - to create a European Community Patent. It recommends once again that the procedures required to establish and operate a European Community Patent system be made simpler, shorter and cheaper, as this would have an enormous economic impact. It would refer to its earlier views on this question, particularly regarding language arrangements, the role of national patent offices and legal protection for them. A grace period, which does not jeopardise the novelty of the patent, should also be introduced (as in the USA), so that findings published in advance by an inventor are not excluded from patenting from the start.

5.3. Research policy coordination

In the Commission's view, coordination of individual states' research policies is a key task of the European Research Area.

5.3.1. The Committee supports those Commission measures which encourage and promote coordination(10) of research policy and projects at European level by the Member States themselves and by the institutions and players responsible for research and development.

5.3.2. Top-down coordination by the Commission itself, however, should concentrate on and be confined to those thematic aims and equipment needs (large apparatus, infrastructure) for which such coordination, going beyond the individual Member States, is really useful or necessary.

5.3.3. This is therefore a delicate question - one which needs to be handled in a flexible way, and one which touches on the key problem of subsidiarity. In this connection the Committee refers back to its first Opinion on the European Research Area(11), chapter 9 of which is entitled The European dimension: subsidiarity, concentration and diversity, competition and order. Because of the fundamental importance of this question, an extract from this chapter is appended (up to and including point 9.8.5); it supplements this opinion.

5.4. Infrastructure and large apparatus

5.4.1. A particularly important, indeed priority, subject in this connection is the very expensive infrastructure and large apparatus needed for cutting-edge research, the cost and utility of which usually exceed the possibilities and also the needs of individual Member States. Consideration of need, optimal location, new construction, use, development etc. would therefore appear to be a clear case of a common European task, to be promoted and then coordinated by the Commission. The large apparatus concerned would include accelerators, radiation and neutron sources, astronomical observation platforms and satellites, energy research testing plant (ITER), and testing plant for aviation and space travel. It follows naturally from this that the procedures, scientific work etc. needed for their operation must be influenced, coordinated and supported by the Commission (e.g. by promoting mobility). Thus the Committee fully supports the Commission's efforts in this field.

5.4.2. The Committee endorses the proposal to set up, in the European infrastructure forum, formal mechanisms for consulting and advising the Member States; it reserves the right to issue a specific opinion on the practical proposals to be put forward on this matter.

5.5. The regional dimension of the European Research Area

In the development of the European Research Area there are two approaches, each with its own assessment standard.

5.5.1. On the one hand there is the networked participation of the best researchers and research institutes in the various thematic, Europe-wide research and development programmes: this is carried out in accordance with the rules of the Framework Programme.

5.5.2. On the other hand there is the intention to promote scientific and technological cooperation between regions which are at different stages of technological development, and to involve more isolated regions in this as well.

The Committee welcomes and endorses the Commission's intention to support both the above objectives, not least through separate assistance programmes. While the pursuit of excellence, referred to in point 5.5.1, is the main task of the R & D Framework Programme, the regional aspect mentioned in point 5.5.2 should be covered primarily, and more than hitherto, by the Regional Fund.

Brussels, 26 February 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch

(1) COM(2000) 6 final.

(2) COM(2001) 94 final - 2001/0053 (COD) and 2001/0054 (CNS).

(3) COM(2001) 500 final as amended by COM(2001) 822 final - 2001/0202 (COD) and COM(2001) 823 final/2 - 2001/0327 (CNS).

(4) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000; OJ C 260, 17.9.2002; OJ C 241, 7.10.2002; OJ C 221, 7.8.2001 and OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(5) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, point 4.3.

(6) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, point 4.3.

(7) COM(2002) 499 final.

(8) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, point 8.

(9) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, points 7.7, 7.8, 8.2.2 and 11.7.5.

(10) Also called "open coordination" by the Commission.

(11) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received more than a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the discussions:

Point 5.3.1

Amend to read as follows:

"The Committee supports those Commission measures which encourage and promote coordination of research policy and projects at European level by the Member States and by the institutions and players responsible for research and development."

Reason

The idea of "self-coordination" is not comprehensible; if it is intended to imply a "bottom-up" process, that is inappropriate when talking of research policies and too limiting when talking of research programmes.

For the reasons already given in point 5.3.1 of the opinion, the suggested limitation of the Commission's action is not acceptable.

The reference to the EESC's earlier opinion on the European Research Area, already published in the Official Journal, is sufficient; there is no need to reproduce the opinion as an appendix, particularly as its content is not exactly the same as the text which it is proposed to delete (in the current points 5.3.2 and 5.3.3).

Results of voting

In favour: 20, against: 25, abstentions: 33.

Point 5.3.2

Amend to read as follows:

"The Commission should work in particular to achieve the objective of becoming the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010, laying down general objectives and guidelines at EU level, from which would follow specific objectives and policy measures on the part of each Member State."

Reason

See the reason given for the point 5.3.1 amendment.

Results of voting

In favour: 26, against: 45, abstentions: 7.