SEC(2007) 412

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the GREEN PAPER

The European Research Area: New Perspectives

{COM(2007) 161 final}

Table of Contents |

Page N° |

List of tables and figures | 3 |

List of acronyms | 4 |

Executive summary | 8 |

Introduction | 12 |

Chapter 1: What was originally intended– Building the European Research Area | 13 |

1.1 The making of a concept: How the European Research Area came to be | 13 |

1.2 The evolution of a concept: Drivers of the ERA objectives between 2000 and 2006 | 14 |

1.3 Highlights | 18 |

Chapter 2: What has been done | 20 |

2.1 Stocktaking of ERA actions at EU level | 20 |

2.1.1 Introduction |

2.1.2 Main actions, results and limitations |

2.1.3 Appraisal |

2.1.4 Highlights |

2.2 Stock taking of national policies contribution to the ERA | 34 |

2.2.1 Evolutions of national policy mixes for R&D |

2.2.2 The ERA dimension in national R&D policies |

2.2.3 Progress towards developing coherent European research policies |

2.2.4 Highlights |

Chapter 3: Where are we now? | 44 |

3.1 European Research: New context and new challenges | 44 |

3.1.1 Some major changes in and outside Europe since Jan. 2000 |

3.1.2 European research in a new context |

3.1.3 Highlights |

3.2 European Research: Shifting roles of actors and stakeholders | 49 |

3.2.1 Research Institutions |

3.2.2 Private research |

3.2.3 Human resources |

3.2.4 Stakeholder's roles and interactions |

3.2.5 Highlights |

3.3 European research: Efforts and performances | 75 |

3.3.1 R&D expenditure and financing |

3.3.2 Performance |

3.3.3 ERA and the implications for evidence-based monitoring and evaluation |

3.3.4 Highlights |

Annex | 97 |

List of tables and figures

Table | 1.1 | Overview of EC Initiatives related to ERA |

Figure | 2.1 | R&D Intensity (Gross domestic expenditure on R& D (GERD) as % of GDP |

Table | 3.1 | Key data on the higher education sector |

Table | 3.2 | Funding structure of a number of RTO's |

Table | 3.3 | Business R&D expenditure by size class in million euro and as a % of total, EU and selected countries |

Table | 3.4 | High-tech sectors in the EU Member States — 2003 |

Table | 3.5 | University –industry knowledge transfer – a comparison between the US and EU |

Table | 3.6 | Venture Capital (VC) investment in technology – US and EU (2003) |

Table | 3.7 | Technology Balance of Payments per country |

Figure | 3.1 | R& D Intensity in the EU-25, US, Japan and China 1995 – 2005 |

Figure | 3.2 | Gap in R&D Expenditure (GERD) between EU-27 and US, and EU -27 and Asian economies – in constant terms (millions PPS at 2002 prices) – 1995 – 2004 |

Figure | 3.3 | R&D expenditure flows between EU-15 and US, 1997 and 2003 (PPP$) |

Figure | 3.4 | R&D Expenditure Flows between EU-15 and Japan, 1997 and 2003 |

Figure | 3.5 | R&D performed abroad by majority-owned foreign affiliates of US parent companies, 1994-2001 ($ million current) |

Figure | 3.6 | Share of GERD financed by business – EU-27, EU-25, US, Japan – 1995, 2000, 2004 |

Figure | 3.7 | GDP and GERD financed by business enterprise in the EU-25 and the US: real growth per annum 1998-2005 |

Figure | 3.8 | Public versus private funding of R&D (GERD funded by government and by industry as % of GDP), 2005 |

Figure | 3.9 | Field-normalised citation impact score per scientific discipline: The EU-25 versus the US, 2002-2004 |

Figure | 3.10 | Contribution to the 10% most cited scientific publications, 2001-2004 |

Figure | 3.11 | World shares of triadic patents |

Figure | 3.12 | World shares of high tech patents (EPO applications) |

Figure | 3.13 | Biotech patent applications (EPO applications) |

Figure | 3.14 | EU-25 innovation gap towards the US and Japan (JP) |

Figure | 3.15 | Export of high tech products: World market share 1999-2005 |

Figure | 3.16 | High-tech trade balance (€ billions) 1999-2005 |

Figure | 3.17 | Export of high-tech products 1999-2005, computers and office machinery |

Figure | 3.18 | Export of high-tech products: 1999 – 2005: Electronics and telecom |

Figure | 3.19 | Export of high-tech products 1999-2005: Pharmaceuticals |

Figure | 3.20 | Architecture of distributed strategic intelligence in European Research Area |

List of Acronyms

AC | Associated Countries |

ACP-EU | Africa Carribean Pacific – European Union |

AIDS | Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome |

ALCUE | Latin America and the Caribbean and EU - bi regional dialogues |

Article 169 | Art. 169 of the EU Treaty enables the EU to participate as an equal partner in R&D programmes conducted by several MS, combining various national and regional programmes into a single joint programme. |

ASIF | Report published by the University of Manchester in 2002, assessing the socio-economic implications of the Framework Programme |

ASTP | Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals |

ATP | Advanced Technology Platform |

AUTM | Association of University Technology Managers: a nonprofit association of technology managers and business executives who manage intellectual property. |

BERD | Business Expenditure on R&D |

CCCTB | Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base |

CEEC | Central and Eastern European Countries |

CENIT | Spanish National Strategic Consortia for Technical Research |

CERN | l'Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire. |

CIP | Competitiveness and Innovation programme |

CIPAST | Citizens Participation in Science and Technology |

CLEPA | European Association of Automotive Suppliers |

COST | European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research |

CREST | The Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) advises the Research Council and the European Commission on issues of European RTD policy. |

CRP's | Cooperative Research Processes |

CSO | Civil Society Organisation |

DEISA | Launched in 2005, it is a grid of 11 of the most important national supercomputers and is linked to the USA supercomputing infrastructure (TeraGrid) |

DG BUDG | European Commission Directorate General for Budget |

DG MARKT | European Commission Directorate General Internal Market and Services |

DRM | Digital rights management |

EARTO | European Association of Research and Technology Organisations |

EDCTP | European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnerships |

EFDA | European Fusion Development Agreement |

EFMN | Monitoring system on foresight in Europe |

EFSRI | The European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures |

EGEEII | Enabling Grids for E-Science is the world's largest production grid infrastructure addressing 10 different areas of science, linking 50 research organisations, having started its second two-year phase in 2006. |

EHEA | European Higher Education Area |

EIB | European Investment Bank |

EIF | European Investment Fund |

EIMS | Evaluation Information Management Systems |

EIROforum | EIROforum is a collaboration between seven European intergovernmental scientific research organisations to pursue joint initiatives, combine resources, and share best practices |

EMBL | Euorpean Molecular Biology Laboratory |

EMBO | European Molecular Biology Organization |

Enwise | Expert Group (Enlarge Women In Science to East) |

EPLA | European Patent Litigation Agreement |

EPO | European Patent Office |

ERA | European Research Area |

ERA-MORE | Pan-European Researchers Mobility Portal and the European Network of Mobility Centres |

ERA-NET | European Research Area Network |

ESA | European Space Agency |

ESF | European Science Foundation |

ESFRI | European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures, involving Member States and the Commission |

ESO | European Southern Observatory |

ESRF | European synchrotron radiation facility |

ETAN | Experts Working Group on Women and Science, |

ETF Start up facility | The European Technology Facility Startup Facility aims to provide risk capital to innovative SMEs through investment in relevant specialised venture capital funds. ETF Startup will reinforce the existing facilities by targeting a segment of the venture capital market with a higher inherent investment risk, notably innovative SME's at establishment and early stages |

ETP | European Technology Platforms |

EU | European Union |

EU/MS | European Union/Member States |

EUA | European University Association |

EUREC | European Network of Research Ethics Committees |

EUREKA | A pan-European network for market-oriented, industrial R&D |

EuroHORCs | European Heads of Research Councils |

EUROSTARS | To support R&D performing entrepreneurs, by offering funding for their research activities, enabling them to compete internationally and become leaders in their sectors. |

EUROSTAT | European Community Statistics Office - gathers and analyse figures from the different European statistics offices in order to provide comparable and harmonised data to the European Institutions so they can define, implement and analyse Community policies. |

FDI | Foreign Direct Investment |

FEAST initiative | Initiative Forum on European-Australian Science & Technology Cooperation |

FFG | 'Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft' responsible for Austrian Thematic programmes |

FP6 | 6th Framework Programme |

FP7 | 7th Framework Programme |

FTE | Full time equivalent |

GAP | Gender Action Plan FP6 inititative to promote gender equality |

GBOARD | Government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D |

GDP | Gross domestic product |

GDR | German Democratic Republic |

GÉANT2 | A pan-European communication infrastructure for the research and education community, launched in September 2004, is the first network in the world to run at 10 Gb/s. |

GERD | Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D |

HERD | Higher education research and development |

HIV | Human immuno deficiency virus |

i2010 | Commission's policy to encourage knowledge and innovation to boost growth and create more better quality jobs, under the Lisbon strategy |

ICT | Information Communication Technology |

IISER | Integrated Information System on European Researchers |

ILL | Institut Laue-Langevin is an international research centre at the leading edge of neutron science and technology. |

INCO | Specific International Scientific Cooperation Activities: Mutually beneficial international cooperation activities between the Community and its Member States and INCO target countries and other third countries |

IPR | Intellectual Property Rights |

IP's | Intellectual Properties |

IPTS | The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) is one of the seven scientific institutes of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) |

IRIM | Industrial Research Investment Monitoring |

IST | Information Society Technologies |

IST | Innovation, Science & Technology |

IT | Information Technology |

ITER | International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor |

JRC | Joint Research Centre |

JTG | Joint Technology Group |

JTI | Joint Technology Initiative |

KLASTRY | Czech Republic National Cluster Strategy |

KT | Knowledge Transfer |

LERU | League of European Research Universities |

M€ | Million Euros |

MDG's | Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 |

MEDA | MEDA Euro-Mediterannean cooperation Programme for cooperation and free exchange of goods |

MNE's | Multi National Enterprises |

MS | Member States |

NEC | National Ethics Councils |

NEC Forum | Forum of National Ethics Councils |

NIS | New Independent States |

NoE | Networks of Excellence |

OECD | Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development |

OMC | Open method of coordination' introduced by the European Council of Lisbon in 2000. Designed to help MS progress jointly in the refoms needed to achieve the Lisbon goals. |

PhD | Doctor of Philosophy |

PPP | Purchasing power parities, according to OECD data |

PPP | Public-private partnership |

PRO's | Public Research Organisations |

ProTon | ProTon public research organisation technology transfer offices |

PVA's | Patentverwertungsagenturen – Patent exploitation agencies |

R&D | Research and development |

R&D&I | Research, development and innovation |

REC | Research Ethics Committees |

RPF | Cypriot Framework programme Thematic actions |

RTD | Research and technological development |

RTO | Research and Technology Organisation |

S&E | Science and Engineering |

S&T | Science and Technology |

SCAR | Scientific Committee on Agricultural Research |

SCI | Science Citation Index |

SI | Strategic Intelligence |

SINAPSE | SINAPSE is a web communication platform, being developed by the Commission, in order to promote a more efficient use of scientific information and expertise in support of policy making. |

SME | Small and medium sized enterprises |

SPLT | Substantive Patent Law Treaty being drafted by the WIPO on Intellectual property rights. |

SRA | Strategic Research Agenda |

SSP | Scientific Support for Policy |

STOA | Scientific Technology Options Assessment – Assessment of Science & Technology policy options for the European Parliament |

TBP | Technology Balance of Payments |

TIP | Technology Implementation Plans |

TP | Technology platform |

Triadic patents | A set of patents filed at the EPO, JPO, and USPTO to protect the same invention - often considered high quality patents -to be exploited globally |

TT | Technology Transfer |

TTO's | Technology Transfer Offices |

UBR | University based research |

UK | United Kingdom |

Umbrellas | Thematic networks to generate smaller EUREKA projects |

UN | United Nations |

UNICE | Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe, renamed BUSINESSEUROPE |

US | United States (of America) |

VC | Venture Capital |

WIPO | World Intellectual Property Organization |

WSSD | World Summit on Sustainable Development |

Executive summary

This document provides supporting material for the Green Paper on the European Research Area (ERA). It outlines the history and evolution of the ERA initiative, takes stock of actions implemented so far at EU and national level, and examines where Europe is situated in relation to the original ERA objectives.

Context and evolution

Since the launch of ERA, the context has evolved considerably and a number of trends already apparent in 2000 have further intensified:

- Globalisation has accelerated, with knowledge production and R&D acting as key components of this new global dynamic.

- Awareness has grown of various socio-economic challenges – such as increased socio-economic disparities within the EU, climate change, ageing, and risks of infectious diseases – and there is a consensus that more and stronger concerted action is needed at EU and global level, notably in science and technology.

- The European research landscape has evolved in the last few years, notably with the launching of new measures such as the European Research Council and the European Institute of Technology, but also through various ERA specific measures, as well as the wider diversity of scientific cultures that have come with the expanded EU.

Within this changing context, the ERA concept itself has also been subject to gradual changes. Its initial focus was on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of fragmented research efforts and systems in Europe, and how to get a better return on investment. Gradually, its scope was broadened to include the need for more public and private investment in research, and later to encompass the necessity for improving coherence and synergies between research and other EU policies in order to achieve the renewed Lisbon strategy.

What has been done to build ERA

In the last few years, and particularly with the measures implemented in the 6th Framework Programme, ERA has been transformed from a theoretical concept to a practical policy approach embodying many different dimensions. However, even though the policy context has evolved, the original ERA objectives as defined at the beginning of the millennium are still valid. The core objectives – how to overcome Europe's S&T weaknesses and fragmentation, and achieve a coherent and effective European research policy – are still at the heart of the ERA concept.

ERA concerns both the Community and the Member States (including their regions) and the response has been significant at both levels. At EU level a number of actions have been launched since 2000 in support of ERA, notably through the 6th Framework Programme. Progress on some of these actions has been good though somewhat restrained at times, while for others it has been more limited, pointing to the limits of what can be achieved at Community level alone.

- One of the notable developments has been the ERA-NET instrument which has made a start at addressing the inefficiency and fragmentation inherent in a system comprising numerous research funding schemes, spread across policy levels. Though the interest it provoked suggests that it responded to existing needs, the volume of funding involved in the resulting joint activities is still marginal. Moreover, national and regional programme 'owners' are reluctant to restructure their programmes in a way which would enable the development of genuine joint programmes.

- Another area where good progress has been made is research infrastructures. A first major milestone was reached with the adoption of the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) Roadmap. However, the Roadmap will only be a success if the proposed projects are realised. For this to happen there is still a long way to go: New approaches are required - new legal, institutional and financial tools need to be developed.

- In the area of international cooperation, ITER[1] has been a very visible success, and has demonstrated that Europe has the will and the capacity for leadership to address global challenges with partners around the world. However, while Europe is increasingly engaged in global science, research and infrastructure initiatives, these initiatives are far from systematic and often poorly coordinated with those of the Member States.

- Despite the success of important measures aimed at better exploiting human resources (such as the Marie Curie scheme, the European Charter for Researchers and the scientific visa package), Europe still lacks an open, competitive and attractive labour market for researchers. Some bright researchers and S&T graduates are still leaving Europe, others do not enter a research career in Europe or exit early, others miss opportunities to move into positions where their capacities could be better used and developed.

- Another problematic area is private investment in research. Although efforts have been made to improve framework conditions and stimulate investment, Europe's business-funded research intensity has not increased since 2000 according to the latest data, and the gap between the EU and its major competitor has not been reduced.

At national level too, Member States have been involved in implementing actions which can help achieve ERA, for example:

- In recent years, Member State's strategies and policies for stimulating R&D activity have evolved considerably towards richer and more complex mixes of measures, tailored to the particular situation of the Member State in question. However, it still remains to be seen whether the pace of national policy reform will be sufficient to address the challenges at hand.

- Some convergence in national policy making is materialising, driven in part by discussion and interaction between Member States and the Community level, such as through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC - launched in the context of the 3% Action Plan and overseen by CREST since 2003) or as a follow-up to Commission Communications.

- Trans-national and international cooperation are elements of most Member State research policies but, with some exceptions, still remain marginal in regard to the overall policy mix. In general, there is little evidence that national policy makers have taken ownership of the ERA concept, or have advanced far in their practical reflections on how national policy can contribute to constructing ERA, by building policy coherence across borders and across policy levels.

Thus, progress at national level has also been mixed.

Where are we now?

The mixed progress to date on ERA, combined with the new global context for science and technology, mean that research actors are now facing a series of important challenges.

Universities, at the intersection of the ERA and European Higher Education Area, play a prominent role in knowledge production and dissemination. Universities across the EU employ about 37% of researchers, compared to around 15% in the US and 26% in Japan. However, evidence suggests that modernisation involving, for example, increased autonomy and institutional accountability, more structured links with non university partners, etc, may help to boost their capacity to generate high standards, cutting-edge research and act as powerful catalysts for innovation. Research and technology organisations play a key role in the European research landscape, as they exert an impact not only regarding R&D per se but also on education, training and innovation, and are therefore contributing significantly to enhance Europe's competitiveness.

Researchers are a vital asset. The business sector in Europe currently employs fewer researchers than it does in other regions of the world – around 50% of its researchers work in the business sector, compared with nearly 70% in Japan and 80% in the US. Europe would do well to retain more of its scientists while also attracting top scientists from abroad. Networking EU researchers abroad could be a useful step to keep them in touch with developments in Europe, and make their return more likely. In this regard, enhanced inter-sectoral mobility, in terms of two-way flows between private and public sector, would also be welcome.

As for the private sector, the EU still lags behind the US and Japan in terms of business R&D spending. The percentage of R&D funded by business was 55% for EU-27 in 2004, compared with 64% in the US and 75% in Japan. Thus, there is further room for improving the framework conditions for research, for example, by making the IPR system more cost-effective and legally certain, and by governments better organising the procurement of R&D services to steer private research into responding to future public needs and decrease time-to-market for innovative products.

The potential for strengthening the interactions between the various research stakeholders remains quite high in Europe. The landscape is rather complex, with research being carried out in industry, universities and other public research centres, and transferred to potential users in a number of ways, including licensing and the creation of spin-offs by universities. R&D sponsors have an increasingly important role. Cross-border interactions clearly need to be promoted, as well as measures to enhance the co-production and transfer of knowledge.

Regarding overall performance of the European research system, there is still much to do. Not much progress has been made towards the EU R&D investment target of 3% of GDP (two thirds of which to come from private sources) since this objective was set in 2002. The deficit in R&D intensity of the EU versus the US has not been reduced - on the contrary - and China will have probably caught up with the EU-27 by 2009 in terms of its share of GDP devoted to R&D. Comparing absolute amounts of R&D spending between world-regions of similar size shows that the absolute R&D expenditure gap between the EU and the US has not been reduced (standing at € 76 billion), while a similar gap is emerging with several dynamic Asian economies (China, Japan, South-Korea, Taiwan and Singapore).[2] In addition, substantial amounts of R&D spending are flowing out of Europe. As a result, the EU's share in world R&D expenditure is under pressure.

While the EU is nominally the world's largest producer of peer reviewed scientific articles, this is not the case when one adjusts for size and input. Moreover, recent evidence on citation impact and highly-cited publications shows that Europe's scientific impact still lags significantly behind that of the US in 35 out of 37 scientific sub-fields, and that it has not been improving in this regard since the mid nineties. Europe's performance in terms of patenting and high technology trade is fairly stable. Europe still has a lower percentage of high tech products in its exports - 18% versus 27% for the US and 22% for Japan. The 2006 European Innovation Scoreboard provides a broader assessment of innovative performance, and indicates that there is still a gap between Europe and the US and Japan, although there are signs that it is closing.

Thus far, ERA has proven itself to be a powerful mobilising concept, bringing several important achievements and developments in the European research landscape. However, seven years on, the many challenges faced by EU research actors and the problems of EU science and technology performance indicate that ERA has yet to achieve its full potential. Doing so now will help Europe tackle many significant challenges it faces and to which research can help to provide solutions.

Introduction

This document is a Working Paper of the Services accompanying the Green Paper on the European Research Area (ERA). It brings together a number of elements supporting the issues raised in the Green Paper, and highlights various facts in order to facilitate the debate. While research and innovation policies are closely linked and interdependent and need to be implemented coherently as part of a wider set of policy instruments, the focus of this document is on European research performance.

The document is structured into three chapters. In order to answer the question 'what needs to be done?' Chapter 1 takes the reader back to the context in which ERA was launched and the objectives defined for ERA at the beginning of the millennium.[3] It describes how several years of implementing ERA have transformed it from a theoretical concept to a practical policy from which lessons can be learnt. The paper also describes how at the same time, the overall policy context has evolved, concluding that the three objectives defined for ERA in 2002 are still valid.[4]

Chapter 2 goes on to look at 'what has been done' so far to achieve these three objectives by presenting a stock-taking of the actions implemented in support of ERA. It outlines the actions that have been undertaken at EU level, at Member State level and at international level, and provides a factual description of what has been done so far identifying where difficulties lie.

The diagnosis 'where we are now' treated in Chapter 3 , attempts to describe the new context of European research seven years after the ERA Communication, and to analyse how various aspects of the European research system are performing on the basis of facts and figures. Three aspects are highlighted: the new global context in which ERA must be achieved; the shifting roles of actors and stakeholders involved in European research and the implications for ERA; and finally, Europe's progress in terms of research effort and performance as related to some of the key objectives of ERA.

This Working Paper of the Services is not intended to be exhaustive in its analysis, but - as a companion to the Green Paper - it aims to help spark the debate by presenting factual analyses which should be taken into account when designing new policy actions or adapting existing measures.

Despite the widespread popularity of the ERA concept, there is clearly a need to further deepen the analysis of the performance of the national and European research systems and to assess the implications of the issues and challenges that emerge for ERA. The distribution of, and access to, strategic intelligence among the key policy actors within the European Research Area will be an important tool to satisfy this need, alongside a stronger involvement of the academic community in the conceptualisation of ERA.

Chapter 1: What was originally intended – Building the European Research Area

This Chapter recalls the context in which the European Research Area (ERA) was launched and the objectives defined. While implementing ERA, the policy context has evolved over the past seven years and different dimensions have come to the forefront. Before outlining the policy actions shaping ERA in the past years in chapter 2, this chapter will take the reader back to the launch of ERA in 2000 in order to make the context and objectives understood.

1.1. The making of a concept: How the European Research Area came to be

Since 2000, the European Research Area has become the mantra for European and Member State research policies. The underlying idea of ERA was not new.[5] The European Research Area idea is a rediscovery of a concept dating back to the 1970s. It was reanimated several times, but was never actually implemented. ERA, as perceived since the 1970s, is a vision about coordinating national research activities and policies and creating an internal market for research with the free circulation of researchers, ideas and technology. However, it was only in 2000 that the concept was put on the political agenda and gained visibility. The Commission Communication 'Towards a European Research Area' generated the necessary momentum while the political context played a major role, creating a threefold awareness: firstly of the major challenges facing Europe, secondly of the potential of science and technology (S&T) to deliver solutions to these challenges and, finally, of the weaknesses of the European S&T system which needed to be overcome to realise this potential.[6] The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 recognised ERA as an objective of the EU and paved the way for its implementation.

The political context in 2000 was favourable to the realisation of ERA

In 2000, the economic and political context was favourable to the identification of ERA as a shared objective. At both academic and political level, awareness grew that Europe was facing significant economic, social and environmental challenges. Despite the optimism shared at the Lisbon European Council meeting in 2000, economic growth was slow, and Europe's competitive position was feeble. Not enough jobs were being created, and too few of them were highly skilled. Substantial regional diversity and inequality characterised the European Union, despite the general perception of a higher quality of life compared to many other world regions. First signs of the long-announced demographic challenge were emerging: birth rates were lower and the population was ageing.[7] Awareness was rising that the health-risks to from serious diseases (such as cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS etc.), was putting pressure on health care systems. Furthermore, there was rising awareness that the environment was being degraded – climate change, loss of biodiversity and water pollution were issues of major concern to European citizens and policy makers.

This diagnosis of the condition of Europe came along with another belief. It was around the turn of the century that a new policy context emerged, based on the conviction that the key to facing these challenges consisted of making the transition to a knowledge-based economy, notably through more and better investment in the knowledge triangle of research, education and innovation. Society held high expectations for research as more and better research and development (R&D) appeared capable of improving economic performance, promoting employment, improving public health, tackling demographic, cohesion and environmental challenges, and so on.

At the Lisbon Summit in 2000, Europe formulated its response to the economic and social challenges. Reflecting the concerns of its citizens, political leaders set an ambitious long-term agenda for change. The European Research Area became a 'key component of the Lisbon strategy.'[8] The ERA objectives related to the 'coordination and better integration of research activities at national and European level, non-bureaucratic approach of instruments and means, patent protection'. The new ERA as defined in Lisbon had its roots in the wider spectrum of Community policies. The comprehensive Lisbon goals emphasised the key role of the transition to a knowledge-based economy by securing sustainable growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Research and innovation were expected to play a major role in this endeavour.

1.2. The evolution of a concept: Drivers of the ERA objectives between 2000 and 2006

This section gives an overview of the main Commission policy documents on ERA between 2000 and 2006: the Communication 'Towards a European Research Area' the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006), the Communication 'The ERA: Providing New Momentum'[9] and the Communication 'Building the ERA of Knowledge for Growth'. [10],[11],[12]

Identifying the weaknesses of research in Europe

In its Communication of 2000, the Commission analysed the condition of research in Europe.[13] It concluded that it did not perform too well. A number of factors prevented Europe from achieving its full potential. As long as these factors were not adequately addressed, the part that science and technology (S&T) could play in addressing the challenges would remain limited. The Commission identified three major weaknesses:

- Insufficient funding: As far as overall research and development (R&D) expenditure was concerned, the EU seriously lagged behind the US in absolute terms, and behind both the US and Japan in terms of R&D intensity. In addition, R&D intensity was not increasing in the EU, while the US, Japan, and a number of newly emerging, mainly Asian competitors were seeing their figures rising. The share of R&D financed by industry was considered too small.

- The lack of an environment which stimulates research and exploitation of results: The EU research framework conditions (e.g. fiscal incentives for research, intellectual property protection, venture capital availability, market policy, competition policy, etc.) were sub-optimal and not conducive to sufficient research or to its exploitation via new products, processes and services of new knowledge.[14]

- The fragmentation of research activities and the dispersal of resources: research and innovation policies were pursued largely independently – at national, EU and regional levels – leading to a governance failure characterised by poor integration and coordination between these different levels and sub-optimal allocation of resources. Furthermore, national activities were governed by 15 (and then 25) varying legislative, regulatory and financial structures, with little or no coordination between them.

The idea of a European Research Area grew out of a need to deal with these science and technology (S&T) weaknesses. ERA was seen as a policy approach which would reinvigorate research by stimulating investment in science and technology. By developing a more dynamic configuration of European and national research programs and policies, it would be possible to progress towards a real European research policy.

The answer of ERA in 2000

The European Research Area was seen in 2000 as a powerful concept which, once implemented, would facilitate the progress towards a better organization of research activities and policies in Europe. To this end, the Commission defined a number of implementing measures in its Communication 'Towards a European Research Area' in 2000. According to the Communication, these were:[15]

- Networking of existing centres of excellence and creation of virtual centres.

- Definition of a European approach to research facilities.

- More co-ordinated implementation of national and European research programmes.

- Better use of instruments and resources to encourage investment in research and innovation.

- Establishment of a common system of scientific and technical reference for the implementation of policies.

- More abundant and more mobile human resources.

- Greater European cohesion in research based experience of knowledge transfer at regional and local levels.

- Bringing together scientific communities, companies and researchers of Western and Eastern Europe.

- Improving the attraction of Europe for researchers from the rest of the world.

- Promotion of common social and ethical values in scientific and technological matters.

A fully fledged concept in 2002

The subsequent Communication 'European Research Area: Providing New Momentum' of 2002 brought further clarity to the concept itself, and defined three strategic and interlinked objectives of ERA:[16]

- The creation of an 'internal market' for research – an area of free movement of knowledge, researchers and technology, which would contribute to an increasing co-operation, and would stimulate competition and a better allocation of the resources.

- A restructuring of the European research fabric; in particular by improved co-ordination of national research activities and policies.

- The development of a European research policy which would not only address the funding of the research activities, but also all relevant aspects of other EU and national policies.[17]

ERA thus focused on research policy and on its internal organisation. Although the ERA concept and objectives regrouped the importance of knowledge transfer and of some factors affecting the exploitation of research results, the need for a broad based policy approach seeking more coherence and synergy between research, innovation and education policies was recognized and addressed later.

At the operational level, the range of implementing measures set up already in 2000 was identified as necessary to achieve these strategic objectives. Since then, concrete actions have been undertaken and are still being pursued in nearly all areas, with different degrees of progress depending on the nature of the action, the lead-time involved and difficulties encountered.

The Commission proposal for the 6th Framework Programme (FP6), presented in 2001, was conceived as the main Community instrument to realise ERA and included new types of actions designed to have a structuring effect on national research efforts and systems. Building on the experience of the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes (FP6, FP7) includes the continuation of actions introduced in FP6 as well as new actions to further advance ERA objectives, notably by supporting larger scale integration of research efforts, and promoting excellence through competition.

ERA-related initiatives published after the launch of the ERA concept

After the two communications in 2000 and 2002 outlining the concept of ERA, a series of ERA-related communications were published dealing with the different dimensions of a European Research Area. One of these communications which dealt with the international dimension emphasised the fact that a European Research Area is not to be perceived as a closed system, but instead as an open one based on partnership and dialogue with researchers from all over the world, in coordination with and among the Member States. This includes the promotion of trans-regional scientific partnerships, mobility of scientists between Europe and third countries and establishing scientific and technological cooperation in order to contribute to fair and sustainable development and socio-economic progress for all partners.[18]

Another communication dealing with the regional dimension of ERA emphasised the need for research policy to involve Europe's regions more explicitly in the drive to create the knowledge-economy. Enhancing their capacity to develop a research and innovation agenda adapted to the specific needs of the region, means equipping them with the appropriate tools and strategies. That way, regions will be able to contribute to Europe's efforts for growth and competitiveness and contribute to strengthening the ERA fabric.[19]

The 2003 Communication dealing with the role of universities underlined the dramatic changes in role and nature and the implications for universities, including their changing contribution to society.[20] Related communications dealt with research as a profession, mobility of researchers, and the importance of basic research for Europe. [21],[22],[23]

Table 1.1: Overview of EC initiatives related to ERA

2000 |

Communication | 'Towards a European Research Area' | COM(2000)6 |

2001 |

Communication | 'A Mobility Strategy for the European Research Area' | COM(2001)331 |

Communication | 'The International Dimension of the European Research Area' | COM(2001)346 |

Communication | 'The Regional Dimension of the European Research Area' | COM(2001)549 |

2002 |

Decision | Decision of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) | Decision No 1513/2002/EC |

Communication | 'More Research for Europe: Towards 3% GDP' | COM(2002)499 |

Communication | 'The ERA: Providing New Momentum' | COM(2002)565 |

2003 |

Communication | 'The Role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge' | COM(2003)58 |

Communication | 'Investing in Research: An Action Plan for Europe' | COM(2003)226 |

Communication | 'Researchers in the European Research Area: One Profession, Multiple Careers' | COM(2003)436 |

2004 |

Communication | 'Europe and Basic Research' | COM(2004)9 |

2005 |

Communication | 'Building the ERA of Knowledge for Growth' | COM(2005)118 |

Communication | 'More Research and Innovation - Investing for Growth and Employment: A Common Approach' | COM(2005)488 |

Communication | 'i2010 – A European Information Society for Growth and Employment' | COM(2005)229 |

2006 |

Decision | Decision of the European Parliament and the Council Establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) | Decision No 1639/2006/EC |

Commission Proposal | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council Establishing the European Institute of Technology | COM(2006)604 |

Communication | 'The European Institute of Technology: Further Steps Towards its Creation' | COM(2006)276 |

Communication | 'Implementing the Renewed Partnership for Growth and Jobs - Developing a Knowledge Flagship: The European Institute of Technology' | COM(2006)77 |

Decision | Decision of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) 'Building the European Research Area of Knowledge for Growth' | Decision No 1982/2006/EC |

The need for increased investment in research was addressed in the 2002 Communication and the 2003 Action Plan.[24],[25] These communications both concluded that improving the effectiveness of the European research and development and innovation system should go hand in hand with addressing the EU's underinvestment in R&D. The target agreed upon during the Barcelona Summit in 2002, was 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) to be achieved by 2010, with an increased share of business funding that should reach two thirds of total R&D expenditure.[26]

The 2005 Communication entitled 'Building the ERA of Knowledge for Growth' and published together with the FP7 proposal, underlines thoroughly the need for cooperation between European policies so as to contribute to the Lisbon objectives and the renewed Lisbon strategy.[27] It is in this context that the concept of the 'knowledge triangle' is introduced.

1.3. Highlights

- Since its launch in 2000 the ERA concept has been subject to gradual changes.

- The initial focus of ERA was on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of research efforts and systems in Europe, whereby research was given a key role at the Lisbon European Council meeting to achieve the Lisbon Agenda by 2010.

- Gradually, the scope was extended to include the need for more public and private investment in research (which found its most prominent expression in the Barcelona objectives of 2002).[28]

- Finally, the 2005 ERA Communication emphasised the need for more coherence and synergies between research policies and the EU policies in order to achieve the renewed Lisbon strategy.[29] This was an explicit recognition that ERA is embedded into the concept of the knowledge triangle - in a context which obliges consideration of the broader impact of research (innovation, the internal market, financial markets, higher education systems, etc.) and not only the specific research outputs.

- Looking back, it can be said that several years of developing ERA have transformed it from a theoretical concept to a practical policy approach, embodying many different dimensions.

- At the same time, even though the policy context has evolved, the original ERA objectives – how to overcome Europe's S&T weaknesses and to achieve a coherent and effective European research policy – as defined at the beginning of the millennium are still valid.

The next chapter will take stock of the actions that have been undertaken at EU level, at Member State level and at international level, in order to achieve these objectives in the past years.

Chapter 2: What has been done

The aim of this chapter – a bridge between chapters 1 and 3 – is to provide an overview of European Research Area actions that have been taken between 2000 and 2007.

Even though the Framework Programme (FP) is crucial for the realisation of ERA, the scope of ERA goes way beyond the FP, and indeed beyond EU initiatives. Thus, actions that have to some extent contributed to ERA, can be identified in diverse quarters as shown below.

The chapter presents a stocktaking of progress towards achievement of the objectives outlined in both the original 2000 ERA communication and the 2001 communication on the international dimension of ERA. It also reports on the contributions of national policies to the strengthening of ERA.

This is the first time that a review of ERA actions has been produced. Such stocktaking is overdue and also difficult to undertake as FP6 (the 6th Framework Programme) is still in progress and many of its actions which support ERA development are still in their early stages. Furthermore, many of the initiatives taken at EU or national level do not have as a sole (or main) objective the furthering of the ERA.

2.1 Stocktaking of ERA actions at EU level

2.1.1 Introduction

The following stocktaking reviews the main actions undertaken at EU level since 2000 in support of ERA. It is not an exhaustive inventory but focuses on a selection of some of the most important ones. A more comprehensive overview is provided in the stocktaking table in annex.

Under each heading, numbered (from 1 to 7) in accordance with the 2000 Communication and (heading 8) the 2001 Communication (on the international dimension of ERA), the first lines recall the objectives listed in the original Communications. The subsequent points constitute a short description of key actions with a first summary appreciation of results achieved and limitations encountered. Community actions addressing university-based research and stemming from the work started with the 2003 Communication "The role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge" (COM(2003)58) are also included (heading 9).

Pertaining to action taken at EU level, this stocktaking also covers coordination of actions by Member States and mutual learning processes. Other important actions undertaken by the Member States are analysed in section 2.2.

2.1.2 Main actions, results and limitations

1. A series of material resources and facilities optimised at European level

1.1. Networking of centres of excellence and creation of virtual centres

The objective as defined in the 2000 communication was:

- To contribute to reducing the fragmentation of the European research system by combining complementary expertises and attaining a critical mass of both financial and human resources.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- The Sixth Framework Programme introduced new instruments and aimed at achieving critical mass of research capacity (Networks of Excellence (NoE's)) or resources from various partners (Integrated Projects (IP's)).

- Though too early for a general assessment, many NoEs correspond to 'close cooperation', thus falling short of the expected research capacity 'integration'. The overall potential impact on de-fragmentation of IPs and NoEs is limited by the very small proportion of overall research they account for.

1.2. Definition of a European approach to research facilities

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To develop a European approach to infrastructures covering both the creation of new installations and the functioning of/access to existing ones.

- Concerning the creation of new installations, to make an accurate assessment of future needs to be addressed at European level.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- 'Integrated Infrastructures' under FP6 facilitated virtual integration of 248 facilities - 40% of all existing facilities of pan-European interest.

- The European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) adopted in 2006 the First Strategic Research Infrastructures Roadmap for Europe, which identifies 35 projects for new pan-European research infrastructures – an achievement which now needs to be acted upon.

- However, allocated FP7 resources severely limit Community support for the preparatory phase of Roadmap projects. FP7 forms of support do not correspond to infrastructure time-scales, flexibility needs and funding stability requirements. How to mobilise national, private and other sources of funding is a key question.

1.3. Maximising the potential offered by electronic networks

The objective as defined in the 2000 communication was:

- To encourage the use of electronic networks in the various fields of research, in view of increasing the productivity of European research and helping to structure collaboration on a continental scale.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- 'Communication Network Development' in FP6, gave rise to the pan-European launch and deployment of a series of e-Infrastructures for the research community (GÉANT, EGEE and DEISA).

- These initiatives were successful but limited budget resources hindered further deployment of grid infrastructures to many more scientific communities.

2. More consistent use of public instruments and resources

2.1. More co-ordinated implementation of national and European research programmes

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To implement the principle of reciprocal opening of national programmes to potential participants from other Member States.

- To put in place mechanisms for information exchange on existing national programmes.

- To encourage evaluation of national research activities by international panels.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- An important development under FP6 was the launch of the ERA-NET (European Research Area Network) (see also section 2.2.3 "Progress towards developing coherent European research policies") to aid national/regional managers increase mutual coherence and coordination of their respective research programmes – 30 joint calls for proposals were launched in 2006. The key to the ERA-NET is its 'bottom-up' approach, and 'variable geometry' - in terms of participating countries.

- Beyond 71 ERA-NET projects, a first pilot action under Article 169 of the EU Treaty (which covers EU participation in new integrated research programmes undertaken by several Member States) was launched - the European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP). However, the basic conditions for a successful use of the legal instrument were not met (due to difficulties with legal/administrative rules, Member State reluctance to fully integrate their national programmes and make long-term financial commitment) seriously limiting the integration achieved. New Art. 169 initiatives under preparation aim to overcome these difficulties.

- ERA-NET and Art. 169 have enabled Member States to see better the need for optimum coordination. But despite this, the importance of these schemes in terms of volume of research funding in the overall European landscape remains limited (projects launched by end 2007 will still represent only 0.8 % of overall ERA public investments in research) and major barriers persist: a lack of national/regional strategy to differentiate programmes to open up to trans-national cooperation/coordination, from those where national autonomy should prevail; very limited progress in reciprocal or unilateral opening-up of national programmes to non-national participants outside the above mentioned schemes (see section 2.2.2 "The ERA dimension of national R&D policies").

- Other relevant developments include:

- Technology Platforms, which bring together industrial stakeholders to define and implement Strategic Research Agendas in specific technological fields, have an increasing coordinating effect on programmes, with impacts at EU and national levels.

- In some sectors, co-ordination at a strategic level is ensured through specific fora (e.g. National IST RTD Directors forum[30], Standing Committee on Agricultural Research).

2.2. Closer relations between European organisations for science and technology cooperation

This subject is treated under Section 2.2.2 "The ERA dimension of national R&D policies".

3. More dynamic private investment (see also Chapter 3, section 3.2.2)

3.1. Better use of instruments of indirect support for research

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To encourage the exchange of information and spread of good practices on mechanisms aiming to stimulate private investment in research, particularly among small and medium sized enterprises (SME's), and innovation.

- To respect Community State aid rules where measures constitute State aid.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- R&D fiscal measures are more common in EU Member States now than in 2000. Best practices in fiscal measures to stimulate R&D were identified and shared among Member States in the framework of CREST (Scientific and Technical Research Committee) working groups. In 2006 the Commission adopted a Communication 'Towards a More Effective Use of Tax Incentives in Favour of R&D' with a staff working document offering guidance for the design and implementation of R&D tax incentives. Next steps will focus on the lack of consistent evaluation studies of national R&D tax incentives.

- On State aid issues, the adoption by the Commission in 2006 of a new Community Framework for State aid for R&D&I, is a key development.

3.2. Development of effective tools for the protection of intellectual property (IP)

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To adopt the European (Community) patent as soon as possible. It must be readily affordable and comparable in cost to a European patent covering a limited number of countries.

- To assess how the effects of disclosures prior to filing can be taken into account by European patent law (issue of 'grace period').

- To improve the relevance and consistency of the intellectual property arrangements used to implement public research programmes.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- There has been no major breakthrough in this area. IP protection remains too complicated and costly in Europe for patents and litigation. Community patent negotiations are stuck in Council. The March 2003 political agreement would only lead to 20-30% savings compared to the current European patent.

- In the context of an international harmonisation, at the end of 2002 the EU Member States agreed a common position on grace period based on a "safety net approach" and that was expressed at the 2003 WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patent. However, negotiation of the new international treaty (SPLT[31]) which would provide such international harmonisation has been also stuck since April 2006. Furthermore, parallel negations among industrialised countries (Group B+) go slowly.

- A new Commission communication on an 'EU patent strategy' is in preparation. It will encourage progress regarding the Community patent, and support the creation of a European patent judiciary hearing patent infringement and invalidity action.

3.3. Encouragement of risk capital investment and company start-ups

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To step up initiatives to provide innovative start-up companies with the technical support and expertise they need to develop.

- To encourage initiatives to bring scientists, industrialists and financiers at all levels into contact.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Three developments can be noted:

- Adoption by the Commission of Guidelines on State Aid for Risk Capital in 2001 and, following a review of the text, in 2006;

- Direct investment into venture capital funds targeting young innovative firms;

- Adoption of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) which includes increased Community support (managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF)) and awareness–raising actions targeted at potential recipient companies.

- Statistical comparisons with the US still paint a bleak picture for the EU where supply and demand side barriers hamper efficient deployment of risk capital and where the Single Market does not operate well - different regulatory and tax environments reinforce fragmentation and inhibit cross-border operations.

4. A Common system of scientific and technical reference for policy implementation

4.1. Development of the research needed for political decision-making

and

4.2. Establishment of a common system of scientific and technical references

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To systematically exploit the results of research undertaken as part of European programmes in support of the various Union policies and to better co-ordinate all the Union's research activities in this respect.

- To put in place a reliable system of validating knowledge and methods of analysis, control and certification and to network centres of excellence in Europe in the field concerned.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Of the numerous actions in this area, two key ones were:

- Adoption by the Commission in 2002 of guidelines and principles on the collection and use of expertise by the Commission services;

- Development of the SINAPSE[32] web communication platform.

- Diversity and inconsistencies in the systems of scientific advice provision in Europe remains a major challenge.

- Logistic support to scientific advice systems and activities via SINAPSE needs both time and resources to be fully developed. The resources dedicated to date have not been commensurate with the task.

5. More abundant and mobile human resources

5.1. Greater mobility of researchers in Europe,

5.2. Introduction of a European dimension into scientific careers

and

6.3. Making Europe attractive to researchers from the rest of the world

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To encourage and develop both geographical mobility (notably through proper valuation of experiences elsewhere in Europe in the frame of career assessment) and inter-sector mobility of researchers (i.e. between the academic world and the business world, as an instrument of technology transfer).

- To attract the best researchers from all over the world, as well as to encourage the return to Europe of researchers who have left Europe, in particular for the United States.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Two important achievements in this area were:

- The Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for their Recruitment - a landmark instrument for raising awareness and improving researcher career management;

- The adoption of the 'scientific visa' package (a Directive and two Recommendations on the admission and residence of third country nationals to carry out research in the EU October 2005).

- Practical-assistance tools for researchers have also been developed, e.g. the Pan-European Researchers Mobility Portal and the European Network of Mobility Centres (ERA-MORE).

- Overall achievements since 2000 remain marginal compared to the importance of what is at stake (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.3). The central issue remains employers' tendencies to recruit and promote researchers from their local environment without open and transparent procedures. Also, the regulatory frameworks in place fail to recognize researchers as a specific population with specific needs, and fail to eliminate regulatory obstacles to career development and mobility, e.g. in social security and taxation.

5.3. A greater place and role for women in research

and

5.4. Giving young people a taste for research and careers in science

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- In the area of gender balance, to stimulate exchanges of experience among the Member States and to develop a coherent approach towards promoting women in European funded research with the aim of significantly increasing the number of women involved in research.

- To study how the teaching of sciences in the Union can be improved at all levels of education, and to create conditions conducive to the sharing of experiences and good practices.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- In both areas, cross-country comparisons, identification/development of best practices and their dissemination have been carried out through many initiatives. The 'Gender Action Plan' (GAP) was a key FP6 initiative to promote gender equality within projects.

- Important bottlenecks persist:

- Mental barriers regarding gender balance: scientists often perceive that measures to increase the participation of women are not compatible with scientific excellence;

- In the area of sciences teaching, delays - or even blockages - in transferring innovative methods from the proof-of-concept stage to the classroom.

6. A dynamic European landscape, open and attractive to researchers and investment

6.1. A Greater role of the regions in the European research effort

and

6.2. Integration of the scientific communities of Western and Eastern Europe

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To negotiate on the structural assistance planned for the years 2000 to 2006 in order to examine how best to combine projects implemented within this framework with projects undertaken in the European programmes.

- To put in place the conditions for research policies adapted to the socio-economic context of a regional territory and to strengthen the role that regions can play in establishing a more dynamic ERA.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- € 10.6 billion of cohesion policy funding, notably from the European Regional Development Fund, is estimated to be used to support R&D and innovation in the 2000-2006 programming period. This investment plays a significant role in fostering research and innovation activity, particularly in the Community's less developed Member States and regions, especially when the national, regional and private co-financing leveraged by cohesion policy programmes is also taken into account. Cohesion policy programmes offer a platform for regional stakeholders to increase their capacity to undertake excellent research and exploit its results. They are the EU's main instrument for fostering research activity in less developed Member States and regions and thus help to address the lack of cohesion and S&T development gaps identified as a problem in the ERA Communication of 2000. The Community Strategic Guidelines on economic, social and territorial cohesion 2007-2013 give an even more prominent place to R&D and innovation as a driver of economic growth.

- The Commission has tried to create a framework for co-ordination of cohesion and research policy with the proposals for cohesion policy programmes and the 7th RTD Framework Programme for 2007-2013. However, the different levels of governance mean that national and regional stakeholders are in practice responsible for co-ordinated use of the two instruments and for co-ordination of projects. A report on "How to achieve better co-ordinated use of the EU Structural Funds and the 7th Research Framework Programme to support R&D" will be delivered in early 2007 in the framework of the CREST mutual learning process between Member States.

- Through its “innovative actions” programmes, cohesion policy has also supported the development of regional strategies in less favoured regions on the theme of knowledge-based technological innovation. Such strategies help regional stakeholders in less favoured regions to implement measures appropriate to their specific context.

- The regional dimension of the European research effort is also acknowledged in the RTD Framework Programme. Positive results of the 'Regions of Knowledge' initiative launched in 2003 to promote more and better investment in research through mutual learning, coordination and collaboration among regional players has led to an extended 'Regions of Knowledge' activity in FP7. In addition, the new FP7 'Research Potential' action will focus explicitly on strengthening research capacity in 'convergence regions' and 'outermost regions' in terms of physical and human capital.

6.3. Making Europe attractive to researchers from the rest of the world: See 5.1., 5.2

7. Area of shared values

7.1. Tackling science/society issues on a European scale

The objective as defined in the 2000 communication was:

- To encourage the development of new and sustained forms of dialogue between researchers and other social operators/civil society organisations, notably through the organisation of 'Citizens’ Conferences' at European level.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Initiatives in this field developed mainly on two fronts:

- Identification and dissemination of best practices (e.g. the Commission's 2001 Science and Society Action Plan, or the European platform of stakeholders and experts in participative techniques - (CIPAST) Citizens Participation in Science and Technology);

- Concrete implementation of participative techniques (e.g. two full-size 'Consensus Conferences', or a new FP7 instrument to support the participation of civil society organisations).

- Development in this area is still embryonic - e.g. the open-coordination process begun in 2001 has been far from successful, as no counterpart to the Commission's Science and Society activity exists in some Member States.

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were also:

- To develop more consistency in foresight exercises at national and European level and within the framework of the numerous existing networks.

- To establish a platform for exchange, to create points of synthesis and to align methodologies.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Progress has mainly been made on the identification and dissemination of best practices. For this purpose, an online guide has been developed to serve as a reference system for Foresight[33] (trans-national networks, mutual learning workshops for both policy-makers and foresight practitioners in Member States, development of tools, particularly for regions wishing to launch foresight initiatives). A monitoring system on foresight in Europe (EFMN), with a web portal ( www.efmn.info ) has also been set up. Exchange of knowledge and practice between Foresight practitioners and policy- makers was facilitated through several measures. [34]

- However, foresight has not yet reached a reasonable state of integration and coherence at EU level. Furthermore, direct impact of foresight on S&T decision making in the Member States and in the Commission cannot easily be identified – impact is mostly indirect.

7.2. Development of a shared vision of ethical issues in science and of technology

The objectives as defined in the 2000 communication were:

- To strengthen the links between the ethics committees established at national and European levels.

- To encourage the opening up of the various national committees to experts from other European countries in view of helping to make for mutual understanding of points of view and the development of harmonious approaches.

- To compare the rules in force and the criteria on ethics used in national and European research programmes with a view to alignment around shared principles and respect for differences in sensitivities and opinions.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Actions undertaken have helped to foster dialogue and learning especially for Member States with weak institutional infrastructure for addressing ethical issues. They included mapping of existing rules, exchange of information, experience and best practices in the form of both punctual (conferences, studies, workshops) and structural (creation of the National Ethics Councils (NEC) Forum in 2003, the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) in 2005 and an electronic database of opinions of national councils) initiatives.

- However, the objective of a 'shared vision of ethical issues' is clearly a remote one, as ethics is deeply embodied in national cultures, and on a number of issues opinions diverge significantly.

8. Develop an ambitious and extensive international S&T co-operation programme [35]

The objective as defined in the 2001 communication was:

- To open the European Research Area to the rest of the world.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- The EU has increasingly encouraged participation by third countries in its research programmes and concluded S&T agreements with many third countries.

- However, the impact of these agreements remains relatively limited, except when focussed on cooperation in specific areas (e.g. nanotechnologies with the US). S&T agreement reciprocity clauses give researchers on both sides access to each other's research funding. However, in the absence at present, of a mechanism to fund European participation, full use of reciprocity and real access for Europeans to third country research funds remains elusive.

The objectives as defined in the 2001 communication were also:

- To focus EU efforts on specific objectives

- To step up international 'technology watch' activities.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Research capabilities in partner regions have been strengthened via the Specific International Scientific Cooperation Activities (INCO) Programme, though at an insufficient level to have longer-term and larger-scale institutional effects. [36]

- No mechanism exists to determine horizontal international co-operation priorities across and between thematic areas of the Framework Programme.

- S&T co-operation actions by the Member States with third countries is un-coordinated, despite some first steps in this direction - e.g. some ERA-NETs (see point 2.1) focus on international co-operation of EU Member States with some regions; a CREST working group aims to produce an inventory of international S&T co-operation activities conducted by Member States.

- Technology platforms, with some exceptions such as the Global Animal Health technology platforms, have not considered international co-operation in great depth in their Strategic Research Agendas.

The objectives as defined in the 2001 communication were also:

- To align EU scientific co-operation policies with EU foreign policy and development aid programmes.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- Cross references are made to the importance of research actions in relevant EU external policy initiatives. However, ensuring coherence is dealt with on an ad hoc basis - no mechanism currently exists with which to maintain an overview and assessment of the coherence of potential external policy actions with international research co-operation.

The objectives as defined in the 2001 communication were also:

- To enlist EU scientific and technological capabilities to deal with world problems.

The main actions undertaken, results obtained and limitations encountered were as follows:

- The conclusion of the ITER agreement, which brings together the EU, Japan, China, India, Korea, Russia and the US, and which places Europe at the forefront of nuclear fusion research. Many examples of EU response to global problems can be found in the Framework Programme – e.g. in relation to health.

- However no mechanism outside the Framework programme exists to jointly identify which global issues are appropriate for an EU response or how such a response could be organised.

9. As regards Community actions addressing university-based research

Besides the areas addressed in the 2000 ERA Communication, there have also been Community actions addressing university-based research, stemming from the work started with the 2003 Communication "The role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge":

9.1 Concerning Member States:

With due consideration for the fact that the main actors are situated at national and regional levels or in the universities themselves, the EU is engaged in the coordination of actions with public authorities to support the Modernisation of European university-based research. This includes several domains such as:

- The granting of real autonomy and accountability to universities,

- The funding of university-based research more on the basis of academic and non-academic research outputs (industrial and/or international partnerships),

- The promotion of professional management in universities and the development of needed research management tools (such as transparent research accounting systems),

- The support of their innovation capacities.

9.2 Concerning universities:

Through European-wide stakeholders, the EU is also working with the institutions themselves to support the Modernisation of European university-based research on the above mentioned domains where work with the public authorities is being pursued.

Through an increased budget and a range of new actions, the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) represents a major new step in the Community policy to enhance university based research, including:

- Increased EU funding for research performed by higher education institutions from 50% to 75% of total eligible project costs and to allowing funding on the basis of full economic cost;

- The establishment of the European Research Council, supporting 'frontier' research and stimulating excellence through competition, will concentrate funding on top European performers. Universities will be able to receive up to 100% of eligible research costs;

- Enhanced support to the establishments of structured links between universities and non-academia, through several FP7 instruments: intersectoral mobility in Marie Curie actions, science shops, regions of knowledge; research driven clusters.

9.3 Concerning general support of policy in this domain:

Support to collecting and producing of data on research and education in universities

2.1.3 Appraisal

Two major conclusions can be drawn: 1) progress towards the objectives is varied, and 2) in areas where progress has been made, the impact on the European research system remains limited. In other words, progress so far constitutes only the first steps on the way to making ERA a reality.

One of the notable developments has been the launch of the ERA-NET scheme.[37] This has allowed managers of some national programmes to begin to make an important contribution to the building of ERA by looking at ways and taking action to reduce inefficiency and fragmentation inherent to a system made up of numerous national research funding schemes. The figures in the stocktaking quantifying the response thus far, suggest that ERA NET responds to a real need. In addition to ERA-NETs, other initiatives with an impact on fragmentation such as 'Article 169' initiatives, and European Technology Platforms continue to develop.

Another area where good progress has been made is research infrastructures. Pan-European infrastructures must play a key role in reinforcing overall European research capacity. A striking example of how more can be done is in the area of health research where the development of a pan-European network of bio-banks representing the diversity of the European population would provide vastly increased analytical power. In several research fields, the situation is simply that no single Member State can afford to develop the required infrastructures.

Building on the widespread consensus that emerged following the 2000 ERA Communication on the need to forge a more co-ordinated European approach to key research infrastructures, a first major milestone was reached with the adoption in 2006 of the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) Roadmap. But the Roadmap will only be a success if the proposed projects are built. For this to happen there is still a long way to go: New approaches are required - new legal, institutional and financial tools need to be developed.

In short, progress thus far in these two areas (coordination of national programmes and infrastructures), demonstrates that the initiatives corresponded to a demand – latent or explicit. But, above all, it underlines the need for new initiatives with more impact, especially at the strategic/governance level.

The same can be said in the areas of 'science & society', where participative techniques (for civil society to take an active part in policy-shaping and decision-shaping discussions concerning science) and strategic foresight need to be deployed in ERA at a higher scale. In the area of international cooperation, success stories such as ITER show that Europe has the will and the capacity for leadership to address global challenge with partners around the world. But, while Europe is increasingly engaged in global science, research and infrastructure initiatives, these initiatives are far from systematic and often poorly coordinated with those of the Member States.

In some other areas, despite the efforts made, progress achieved has been even more limited.

This is the case for instance for the labour market for researchers. Human resources in science and technology (S&T) are a key strength of Europe, where more S&T PhDs are produced than in the US. But, as Europe crucially lacks an open, competitive and attractive labour market for researchers, the exploitation of this strength is sub-optimal and Europe instead suffers from wasted resources: some bright researchers and S&T graduates leave, others do not enter a research career in Europe or exit early, others miss opportunities to move into positions where their capacities could be better used and developed. The instruments used up to now in these areas, and the up-take of specially-developed ones by Member States, are not commensurate with the importance of this challenge (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3).

A second problematic area is private investments in research. The latest statistics available do not show any increase whatsoever in business-funded research intensity of the EU compared to 2000. The gap between the EU and its major competitor has not reduced - in fact; quite the contrary (see Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1). Compared to what was announced in the 2000 ERA Communication, the range of actions related to the objective of stimulating private investments in research and development (R&D) was broadened considerably, in the wake of the Barcelona summit of 2002 and the 3% Action Plan. Of course, for many of these initiatives, it is too early to see their potential impact on the statistics. This is the case for the new impetus given by the re-launch of the Lisbon strategy in 2005, with, in particular, the many actions taken in the framework of the National Reform Programmes. If, on one hand, a lot depends on the implementation by the Member States of their National Reform Programmes, ERA-level actions also have a key role to play to achieve the Barcelona targets. In particular, the globalisation of R&D stresses the need to create European poles of excellence capable of attracting internationally mobile R&D private investments (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.1).

2.1.4 Highlights

- Actions undertaken at EU level since 2000 in support of ERA have delivered modest and varied progress with limited impact at the overall European research system level.

- Efforts to coordinate national programmes and infrastructures confirm that there is a demand (latent or explicit) but show that corresponding initiatives should have a higher ambition at the strategic/governance level.

- In some areas such as fostering greater researcher mobility and dynamic private investments, progress achieved has been even more limited.

2.2 Stocktaking of national policies contribution to the ERA

2.2.1. Evolution of national policy mixes for R&D

National policies for R&D over the past decade have evolved significantly towards more coherent, richer, but also more complex policy mixes. In their policies, Member States are increasingly taking a multi-annual and strategic approach to R&D, offering a stable and predictable environment to an endeavour which is inherently long term in nature. Moreover, although policy mixes are still largely geared towards R&D specific policy instruments, the attention has in recent years shifted towards broader approaches by including and integrating from other policy domains (such as e.g. innovation, education, fiscal, competition, IPR, …), having a direct or indirect impact on R&D activity.

Further strengthening of R&D policy as part of a reform agenda geared towards more growth and jobs has been achieved through the revision of the Lisbon strategy in 2005. Following that, all Member States have in their National Reform Programmes now established targets for R&D expenditure, tailored to their specific situations (see Figure 2.1), which, if they were met, would in 2010 lead to an EU R&D intensity of 2.6% gross domestic product (see section 3.3.1 on R&D expenditure and financing for a discussion on progress towards the 3% target). Recently, however, in the context of the Commission's Annual Progress Report on the revised Lisbon strategy, it was noted that, although several Member States have announced their intention to prioritise public R&D expenditures, several have not yet made the necessary budgetary commitments and that for some Member States further policy initiatives will be needed to advance significantly towards their R&D spending targets.[38]

R&D strategies

A large majority of Member States now have specific strategies in place for stimulating both the quantity and quality of R&D activity. Common elements of those strategies are their long term character and a strategic view based on identifying bottlenecks, formulating challenges and matching the portfolio of policy instruments to address those challenges.

The scope of Member State strategies varies, with some focussing on R&D (e.g. France: Pact for Research, Netherlands: Science Budget 2004 – Focus on excellence and greater value, Czech Republic: National Research and Development Policy of the Czech Republic for 2004-2008), others tackling R&D and broader innovation aspects in an integrated manner (e.g. UK: Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014, Ireland: Strategy for science, technology and innovation 2006-2013, Spain: Ingenio 2010, Sweden: Innovative Sweden – A strategy for growth through renewal) and a limited number that put R&D and innovation under an overarching umbrella (e.g. Denmark: Progress, Innovation and Cohesion: Strategy for Denmark in the Global Economy;).

In some Member States, due to specific divisions of competence between policy levels, strategies are primarily developed at the regional level (e.g. Belgium: Flanders in action. A socio-economic stimulus for Flanders). More in general, a large and increasing number of EU regions have now developed R&D strategies to complement national policies.

In their national policies, Member States generally recognise policy developments at the European level as factors that are to be taken into account in national policy making, with reference being made most often to the general objectives of the Lisbon strategy and the 3% objective.

Figure 2.1: R&D Intensity (Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) as % of GDP)

[pic] |

Notes: (1) Greece: 2003; Belgium, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Slovenia, UK: 2004. (2) Portugal: 2008; Ireland: 2013; UK; 2014. (3) Ireland: The target is 2.50% of gross national product in 2013.(4) EU-25: The EU-25 R&D intensity for 2005 was estimated by DG Research. EU-25: The EU-25 R&D intensity for 2010 results from the aggregation of the set targets set by the Member States (including estimated targets for Ireland, Portugal and the UK). (5) Member States have been ranked according to the current level of R&D intensity from left to the right. |

Source: Eurostat, Member States |

There are increasing indications that policy debates at Community level are having an effect on the way in which Member States are constructing their national policy mixes.[39] The overall view that emerges is that there is a degree of similarity and convergence appearing in national R&D policies throughout the EU in that Member State authorities have subscribed to a number of similar objectives and challenges, in line with the issues addressed in the revised Lisbon strategy's Integrated Guidelines, and are, explicitly or implicitly, taking guidance from discussions at the European level (such as through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) or through Commission Communications) or through the identification and transfer of good practices identified in other Member States.[40]

Public funding of research activity continues to be a dominant element of national policy mixes, though the evolution has been to move towards a wider range of funding schemes, going beyond the traditional elements of institutional funding of public research institutes and subsidies for project based research and now including e.g. loan and guarantee schemes, equity, fiscal incentives, and instruments such as procurement (of R&D services notably).

Fiscal incentives for R&D have been a subject of intense discussion at the European level. A CREST OMC expert group has addressed the issue and the Commission published a Communication on the subject in December 2006.[41],[42],[43] The number of Member States implementing some form of fiscal incentives for R&D has been rising continuously and now stands at 17, with others still holding the subject under consideration. In parallel, evidence is emerging that the generosity of fiscal incentives (as a tool for public financing of business R&D expenditure) has significantly increased since 2000.[44]

Trends in fiscal incentives for R&D

Public financial support to private investments in R&D comes in either of two forms:

- Direct funding of a part of the targeted expenditures (subsidy).

- Fiscal incentives allowing companies to reduce their tax payments.

Although the balance between both policy tools differs significantly between Member States, an analysis at EU level leads to some important findings:

- In the EU, the past 15 years, and in particular the past 5 years, witnessed a significant shift in balance from direct subsidies towards fiscal incentives.

- The increase in generosity of fiscal incentives after 2000 did not happen at the expense of direct subsidies.

- Even though there is no convergence towards one optimum level of fiscal treatment of R&D across EU countries, many national governments nevertheless have recognised the importance of fiscal incentives for R&D as a complement to direct subsidies.

- By 2006, the generosity of the R&D tax treatment in the EU had slightly exceeded that of the US, even though the US still provides higher direct subsidies for business R&D.

Public research organisations, mainly universities in many countries, are throughout the EU the main performers of basic research. The organisation of universities and the contribution they can make to the Lisbon goals has been the subject of two Communications by the Commission.[45],[46] Many Member States have in turn reconsidered the way in which their public research system is structured and are in this respect addressing similar issues such as giving more autonomy to public research organisations, a strengthening of the third mission of universities, strengthening the links between universities and the private sector or the organisation of funding, with competitive funding streams gaining importance.

Technology transfer from public research institutions to the private sector has been at the heart of the European policy debate for a number of years. It is one of the issues that have been discussed at length during the first and second OMC cycles and is a subject where the Commission has announced that it will provide its views and guidance in the near future. [47],[48] At the same time, Member States are closely scrutinising the way in which their public research efforts get transformed into economic and broader societal benefits.[49]

Although this is clearly an issue shared amongst all Member States, there is considerable variety in the way in which they address it through measures such as collaborative research programmes, networking and clustering schemes, measures to stimulate circulation of researchers between the public and private sectors, establishing technology transfer offices at universities or more recently the setting up of durable and long term public private partnerships.

Public-private partnerships for R&D

Whereas 'technology-push'-type policy measures were typically the instrument of choice in addressing the European innovation paradox, the establishment of public-private partnerships for R&D aims at creating a dynamic of open innovation in which the main rationale is two-way knowledge circulation and a matching of business needs and research expertise.

There is a wealth of policy measures in place across Member States to promote the building of long-lasting and strategic partnerships between the public and private sectors. Such partnerships can take a number of forms:

- Joint research centres, e.g. Austria: Christian Doppler Laboratories; Netherlands: Leading Technological Initiatives; Belgium: some of the Flemish' region's competence poles.

- Long term cooperation agreements having a sectoral or thematic focus, e.g. France: competitiveness poles; Belgium: competitiveness poles; Estonia: competence centre programme; Hungary: cooperative research centres; Ireland: centres for science, engineering and technology; Italy – Technological districts.

- Networking and clustering schemes, e.g. Czech Republic: national cluster strategy – KLASTRY, Denmark: High Tech networks, UK: Knowledge Transfer Networks.

- Large scale, long term collaborative R&D, e.g. France: Agency for Industrial Innovation, Spain: CENIT – National strategic consortia for technical research.

- The establishment of national technology platforms (along the model of the European Technology Platforms), e.g. national technological platforms in construction (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain), Poland: Polish Technology Platforms, UK: Innovation Platforms, Italy: national Technology Platforms.

Through the establishment of public-private partnerships, R&D policy makers are increasingly stimulating their public research organisations to take into account the strategic needs of the economy and at the same time are creating incentives within their businesses to articulate their needs and draw upon the public research base in support of their innovation processes.

Human resources and mobility actions have long been an important element of Community R&D policy and it is a policy area where the Commission has gone beyond funding by e.g. developing the Charter for researchers and the Code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers or by proposing a Council directive (alongside two Council recommendations) facilitating the entry of third country researchers into the EU.[50],[51] Member States are equally aware of the fact that a sufficient supply of qualified researchers is crucial for the development of their R&D systems. All Member States are taking action in this area by developing measures aimed at improving e.g. the attractiveness of research careers, stimulating the circulation of researchers between the public and private sectors or attracting foreign and expatriate researchers.

2.2.2. The ERA dimension in national R&D policies

It is undeniable that the introduction of the concept of a European Research Area in 2000, as the contribution of research policy to the broader Lisbon strategy, has been successful in putting research higher on the political agenda.

In contrast to this, however, ERA is only to a limited extent acknowledged as a factor in its own right and explicit mention of it is scarce, revealing a situation in which Member States contribute mainly towards developing the ERA by strengthening their national R&D capacity, the ultimate goal being a national system in itself excellent on an international scale. National strategies very rarely discuss the issue of national efforts towards common European goals and even if intra-European aspects are indicated (with mainly some of the smaller Member States developing their strategies in view of an overarching European perspective), they are most often only minor elements of the overall strategy.

Member States do recognise the importance of offering their researchers the possibility to engage in cross border collaborations and are therefore supportive of high levels of national participation in international R&D programmes. Frequent mention is made of the need to participate strongly in the Framework Programme and measures aimed at stimulating, directly (e.g. financial support for preparation applications, co-funding of successful participants) or indirectly (e.g. through strengthening centres of excellence, imitation of Framework Programme thematic priorities, establishment of national Technology Platforms or building critical mass), the participation of their own nationals in the Framework Programme are often noted.

Some Member States have gone one step further and have introduced the (partial) unilateral opening up of their national research systems as part of their overall strategy, inspired by the view that knowledge spill-over's from abroad can add to the existing R&D capacity, that this can increase its quality through increased competition or can give access to fields in which national capacity is limited. A study carried out on behalf of the European Commission made a number of interesting observations in this respect, leading to the conclusion that opening up is still a relatively minor part of national policy: [52]

- The funding of trans-national research projects is most commonly observed as an element of opening up. Although a majority (60%) of the programmes surveyed in the study reported having funded trans-national projects, the actual spend on trans-national activities remains marginal, the majority of programmes remaining below 5% of total budget.

- Only a small proportion (16%) of programmes report having contributed to multilateral programmes with a central budget.

- Around two thirds of surveyed programmes allow participation of non-resident researchers from other EU countries. Only 23%, however, have actually paid for the participation of foreign partners and an even smaller number (16%) state that foreign participation is actively encouraged.

Bi- and multilateral cooperation between Member States, driven in part by the ERA-NET (European Research Area Network) instrument which was introduced in FP6, are also apparent in many national policies, although more often than not cooperation is restricted to specific research domains or to specific projects, such as the construction of a joint research facility (e.g. Spain and Portugal committed to jointly construct an international centre of excellence in nanotechnology; the facility is planned to be operational in 2008 and will gather 200 researchers and 200 other staff members, operating a yearly budget of € 30 million). Strategic approaches to cooperation amongst groups of Member States are scarce, with some notable exceptions such as the Nordic Council of Ministers, the French-German or the Dutch-Belgian cooperation initiatives.

The case of the Nordic Council of Ministers

The Nordic Council of Ministers, established in 1971, is a forum for governmental cooperation between the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland including the autonomous territories Faroe Islands, Greenland and Aland). Cooperation extends across a wide range of policy areas, including research. The Nordic Research Board (NordForsk) was established in 2005 to coordinate Nordic research. Activities include the funding of research projects, grant schemes, Nordic Centres of Excellence and the coordination and planning of major infrastructure investments.

The intergovernmental organisations for European scientific and technological cooperation ESF (European Science Foundation), ESA (European Space Agency), EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organisation), EMBL (European Molecular Biology Laboratory), CERN ( l'Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire) , ESO (European Southern Observatory), ESRF (European Synchrotron Radiation Facility), ILL(Institut Laue-Langevin)[53], EUREKA,[54] and COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) have an important role to play in helping construct the ERA as they together represent some 9% of total public expenditure on R&D in Europe and offer European researchers both top notch research infrastructures and worthwhile instruments for trans-national networking and collaborat