Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development and innovation (COM(98)0275 C4- 0491/98)
Date: 1999-02-25
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: innovation, research













EUR-Lex - 51999IP0027 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51999IP0027

Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development and innovation (COM(98)0275 C4- 0491/98)  


Official Journal C 153 , 01/06/1999 P. 0048 





A4-0027/99Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development and innovation (COM(98)0275 - C4-0491/98)The European Parliament,- having regard to the communication from the Commission (COM(98)0275 - C4-0491/98),- having regard to Articles 2 and 130a of the EC Treaty, which enshrine the priority objective of economic and social cohesion,- having regard to the EC Treaty, in particular Article 130b thereof, which refers to the need for an integrated approach to all the Union's policies and actions in order to serve the objective of cohesion, as well as Articles 130f to 130p, which refer in particular to the objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and promoting research activities,- having regard to the Commission's Green Paper and action plan for innovation (COM(96)0589),- having regard to the first three-yearly report from the Commission on economic and social cohesion (COM(96)0542),- having regard to the second Commission report on science and technology indicators for 1997,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy (A4-0027/99),A. whereas the technology gap between the Member States in terms of public expenditure per inhabitant (from 1 to 13) is more than twice as large as the gap in terms of income per inhabitant (from 1 to 5),B. whereas the gap found between the least favoured regions, the most developed regions and the few leading regions in the European Union is even more marked, with RTD expenditure per inhabitant ranging from 1 to 100 for Macedonia and Berlin, for example, while 20 regions out of 200 employ 68% of RTD personnel in the entire European Union,C. mindful of the marked regional imbalance in European competitiveness between the few highly advanced regions (North Brabant, Rhine Basin, Baden-Württemberg, Île de France, Rhône-Alpes) which absorb a very high share of appropriations under the framework programmes, and many technologically backward regions (such as Greece, with the exception of Attica, several Portuguese regions and the Italian region of Calabria), as well as the less favoured regions of the European Union (outermost and island regions) referred to in the Treaty of Amsterdam,D. whereas the share of Structural Fund appropriations set aside for research is still extremely low in the poorest regions, those covered by Objective 1 (5.37%), and in rural regions covered by Objective 5b (2.06%), even though the share of appropriations has risen from one programming period to the next; whereas, however, despite the progress achieved, appropriations under the third and fourth RTD framework programmes have to a large extent continued to benefit the most advanced regions,E. taking account of the analysis made by the Commission, which sets out three priorities for RTD and innovation in its communication, i.e.: promoting innovation, improving industrial cooperation through the creation of integrated networks and developing human resources; noting, however, that insufficient account has hitherto been taken of research and innovation as motors of economic and social cohesion,F. regretting the lack of a genuine Community policy on the cross-sector coordination of RTD policies at regional level, in industry and in support for SMEs,G. regretting the inadequacy of the proposals put forward by the Commission with regard to the development of human resources,H. whereas the dissemination of technological progress and innovation must become one of the priorities of regional development and economic and social cohesion policies in the future,I. whereas this is vital if the technological gap between regions of the European Union is not to become irremediably entrenched, and welcoming the success of regional innovation strategies, which provides an effective example of coordination in this area,J. whereas the simultaneous implementation of the fifth RTD framework programme and reform of the Structural Funds offers an opportunity to create a strong degree of synergy between research policy and regional policy, without prejudice to the establishment of a strong RTD policy and the continuation of financial support for programmes of proven effectiveness,K. whereas in the 21st century the conduct of basic research will take place largely through intercommunication procedures which will facilitate the activity of small research teams working in networks,L. stressing the fundamental role of SMEs in the economic and technological development of less favoured regions,M. whereas it is crucial for the development of less favoured regions that the European Union should commit itself to a policy which favours the innovative spirit in SMEs in these regions, as such SMEs are frequently far from having sufficient financial capacity to devote the necessary time and skills to this purpose,N. regretting the absence of effective and precise instruments for analysing RTD requirements in the less favoured regions,O. regretting, finally, that the Commission does not draw the full consequences from its observation that excellence in vocational training is of fundamental importance for cohesion in the area of research, technological development and innovation,P. regretting the lack of an equal opportunities dimension in research, technological development and innovation policy , as part of the mainstreaming process,1. Takes the view that technological development, competitiveness, living standards and sustainable development are very closely linked; considers it indisputable that technological development is a fundamental factor in the endogenous development of less favoured regions, by strengthening the use of local skills and the development of local natural and human resources, and in reducing regional disparities;2. Regrets that this Communication was published after the presentation of the Commission proposal for the fifth framework programme for research and development and that, consequently, it was not possible to take account of its conclusions in drafting the framework programme;3. Considers it indispensable that stronger coordination be established in pursuing the objectives of research, innovation and cohesion, whether in connection with research policy or with European regional planning policy;4. Considers that, in order to strengthen cohesion, RTD and innovation programmes should also be given support during the forthcoming programming phase of the Structural Funds and calls for an appreciable share of Structural Fund appropriations to be allocated to RTD and innovation;5. Hopes that, in order to participate in efforts towards cohesion in accordance with Article 130b of the EC Treaty, the forthcoming RTD programming phase will, inter alia, include provision for disseminating innovation in less favoured regions, as required also by the Treaty of Amsterdam;6. Calls on the Commission, when allocating certain types of funding to innovation under the RTD framework programme, to observe award criteria weighted towards the less favoured regions;7. Regrets that the Commission communication focuses almost entirely on promoting the integration of R& D and innovation in future structural programmes without paying due attention to specific measures to enhance the framework programme's obligatory contribution to the attainment of the objective of economic and social cohesion, and considers that the R& D framework programme could indeed contribute to a greater extent to economic and social cohesion;8. Considers it necessary to take account of the current capabilities and needs of less favoured regions in terms of R& D in establishing the substance and budget of the fifth framework programme. The proportion of the budget earmarked by the fifth framework programme to R& D objectives geared to the needs and capabilities of these regions will constitute the best indicator of the commitment shown by Community R& D policy to the pursuit of economic and social cohesion;9. Calls for the establishment of selection criteria for project proposals favouring projects of high scientific value with a significant participation of groups and bodies from less favoured regions;10. Considers that specific measures need to be introduced and implemented on a wider scale to promote the participation of R& D enterprises and groups from less favoured regions in the fifth framework programme and to improve the socio-economic impact of the fifth framework programme in general and in those regions in particular. Other measures to stimulate technological development under the specific programmes of the fourth framework programme and other sound practices carried out in information and communication technology programmes (e.g. best practices, first user actions and technology trials) should be adapted and extended to cover the whole of the fifth framework programme as a means not only to improve the participation of groups and enterprises from less favoured regions but also in particular to turn R& D into innovation and tangible advantages for the citizens, thus improving the socio-economic impact of the framework programme as a whole;11. Considers that dissemination and assimilation of technology are activities which are particularly suited to the needs, capabilities and interests of less favoured regions and thus constitute an effective means to improve the technological capability and competitiveness of SMEs active in traditional economic sectors;12. Considers it necessary to attach a high priority to the development of demonstration projects and projects to disseminate best practice in less favoured regions and to the creation and development of technology-based enterprises in these regions especially in the field of sustainable development and environment-friendly production schemes;13. Takes the view that it is vital, owing to the interactive nature of innovation, to develop European industrial cooperation networks (information networks on new technologies, stepping-up of partnerships between the public and private sectors, the role of Euro-info centres and European innovation centres, BICs, etc.);14. Considers it vital that relevant regional technological strategies adapted to the needs of less favoured regions be adopted and that they should mobilise all the players involved in a close partnership (universities, research institutions, national, regional and local public authorities, groups of innovatory SMEs, etc.); calls for a comprehensive regional and local economic development strategy to be put in place for that purpose, which would include an effective policy on RTD and innovation, through coordination between the Member States and, where necessary, the competent regional authorities, particularly when drawing up regional programming plans;15. Considers that interregional and cross-border technological cooperation, particularly under the Interreg, PHARE, TACIS and Meda initiatives, is called upon to play a key role, and that it:- contributes to overcoming the isolation traditionally suffered by border regions,- links less favoured regions and centres of excellence within the European Union,- promotes cooperation with the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where the needs are significant, or cooperation between the European Union and the countries of the Mediterranean basin or, finally, cooperation between the outermost regions of the European Union and ACP countries,- promotes cooperation between island regions or between the latter and the mainland;16. Stresses that balanced participation by both sexes and the integrated combination of their different value systems in the fields of research and technological development may strengthen regional development, competitiveness and cohesion policy;17. Considers the development of human resources to be fundamental for the success of regional innovation strategies and notes in this connection the importance of SMEs gaining access to the technologies of the information society;18. Calls for the training and mobility of scientists and technologists between less and more prosperous regions to be improved;19. Notes that the objective of structural funds is to reduce the disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of less favoured regions. Fostering R& D at a Community level is unequivocally the responsibility of the framework programme. Pursuant to Article 130f of the EC Treaty, activities falling under the framework programmes cannot as such be charged to the Structural Funds. There may, of course, be complementary aspects and synergies which should be promoted;20. Notes that, traditionally, the Structural Funds have played a role in financing R& D infrastructure and that such investments have proved vital in improving the opportunities open to researchers from less favoured regions, in reducing their isolation and in preventing the exacerbation of existing disparities in the field of science and technology between the most and least prosperous regions;21. Notes that the financing by the Structural Funds of scientific research, technological development and innovation projects involving undertakings can serve as a suitable complement to investment in infrastructure to improve the impact of structural actions on the economic and social development of the least prosperous regions. This adds further to the arguments in favour of the support which structural policy deserves;22. Considers that the current 1% of total funding by the ERDF earmarked for innovative actions should be increased in view of the innovative nature of such actions and their resulting added European value;23. Considers the Commission proposal aimed at increasing the number of vocational training courses in centres of excellence to be quite inadequate; takes the view, nevertheless, that it is possible to promote innovation in the less favoured regions, i.e. the capacity to assimilate, produce and exploit technological innovations; considers that this requires greater awareness among SMEs, new funding mechanisms and a boost to local policies to improve quality;24. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish procedures for stimulating the supply of risk capital to SMEs in the less favoured regions referred to in the Treaty of Amsterdam in support of technological development; in this context, account should be taken of the fact that there is a considerable lack of private capital in the less favoured regions and that it, therefore, must be possible to channel resources other than purely private capital into relevant funds;25. Calls on the Commission to propose relevant procedures to evaluate the feasibility thresholds above which the spirit of innovation and competitiveness can be developed and to use evaluation criteria defined in agreement with the scientific and economic community and submitted to Parliament and the Council for a decision;26. Calls on the Commission to assess periodically and systematically - at the very least at the end of each framework programme and prior to the proposal for a new framework programme - progress achieved regarding the actual participation of groups from less favoured regions in the framework programme and regarding the benefits derived by socio-economic agents in these regions from the actions and results of the framework programme;27. Calls on the Commission (in particular DG XII and the Seville Institute for Prospective Technological Studies) to draw up precise indicators of the state of RTD and innovation applicable to the regions in order to improve the monitoring and assessment of the impact of structural interventions in this area;28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.