Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The Regional Dimension of the European Research Area"
Date: 2002-05-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU aid, EU regional policy, EU research policy, innovation, region, regional cooperation

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions on The Regional Dimension of the European Research Area’

(2002/C 278/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The Regional Dimension of the
European Research Area (COM(2001) 549 final);

having regard to the decision of the Commission of 3 October 2001 to consult it, under the first
paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the communication;

having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 12 June 2001 to instruct Commission 1 for Regional Policy,
Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-border and Inter-regional Cooperation to draw
up the opinion,

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (1) on
5 March 2002 (CdR 442/2001 rev. 2) (rapporteur: Mr Müller, Prime Minister of the Saarland, D/EPP),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 44th plenary session of 15 and 16 May 2002 (meeting
of 16 May).

The Committee of the Regions

Construction of a knowledge-based society in Europe

1.
welcomes the fact that the Commission envisages the
regional support and innovative actions having a significant
influence on the shaping of European research capacity. The
Commission’s intention of increasing efficiency by exploiting
synergies between the Member States’ research policies and of
promoting cooperation with the regions is wholeheartedly

welcomed. It is important to point out, however, that any
existing synergies or tie-ins between research policies are
derived both from the policies implemented by the Member
States and by those regions which have competence in this
area. As the Committee of the Regions has stated in a number
of opinions, this is an important task when promoting research
and innovation in Europe. The activities aimed at increased
cooperation and the development of synergies in the field of
research and innovation which the regions have been con-
ducting for some time must be continued in the framework of
the underlying development process.

( 1) The commissions and their remits were restructured on 6 February

2002.

2.
continues to support the Commission’s intention of
using the Sixth Framework Programme to work towards the
development of a European research area committed to
strengthening the Community’s competitiveness.

C 278/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

3.
points out that scientific excellence must continue to be
the decisive criterion in selecting projects for support (e.g.
projects supported under the Sixth Framework Programme);
the Structural Funds continue to have their uses in relation to
less favoured regions (e.g. outlying regions) and should be used
to build scientific infrastructure.

Internet). Value can be added only by the application of
knowledge. The important thing is therefore not so much to
have a knowledge advantage but rather to have a lead in the
use of knowledge. And here man’s social behaviour and
creativity are just as important as knowledge, and these too
must be encouraged.

supports the decision on the targeting of economic
4.
development through systemic mobilisation of all resources
available, but points out that it is particularly important to
establish specific targets, in cooperation with the regions, in
order to make the European economy competitive against the
background of the growth, competitiveness and employment
goals. By setting objectives, synergies will be achieved and
economic strength focused, but this must not be done in such
a way as to restrict the powers of the regions enshrined in the
Treaty. The objectives must be specific and achievable. Goals
such as ‘making Europe Number 1 in ten years time’ are too
simplistic and unsophisticated and need to be fleshed out in
detail in partnership and dialogue with the regions. The actions
and tasks falling to the EU on the one hand and the regions on
the other must be spelt out.

5.
shares the Commission’s view that the European regions
have very different profiles in terms of their human resources
and technological capacity and are therefore likely to integrate
in different ways. A uniform development model would
therefore be doomed to failure.
It is regrettable that the
communication does not lay down or present any criteria for
differentiated development models. A two-way exchange on
(socio-economic) conditions in the regions would be a good
thing, providing an input for policy.

6.
highlights once again the Commission’s statement on
the ‘self-organising capacity of regions’ as a ‘growth factor’
with the proviso that ‘some general development principles’
should be adhered to. It is a great pity that the communication
does not spell these out, but at the same time it should be
pointed out that in the past many regions have helped shape
their research and innovation policy. In drawing up its research
proposals the Commission should therefore respond to the
regions’ commitment by taking still greater account of regional
interests and giving them more effective political weight.

Gearing of research policy to local and regional conditions

8.
supports the objective of territorialisation, as long as this
is understood to mean that at both national and European
level, research initiatives and synergies are geared to take
account of the socio-economic realities and specific features of
the regions and their needs. The Committee would oppose it,
however, in the light of subsidiarity and the regions’ research
responsibilities, if it were to be understood to mean research
and support for research being centralised or ‘planned’ at
European level. It remains unclear how, in the process of
reallocating powers between the Community, the Member
States and the regions, a viable legal basis is to be established
for involving the regions in the coordination of research
policy. The Commission could draw up a plan to focus its
regional policy on the competent levels of government. This
should be combined with greater political involvement of the
regions in the preparation and implementation of research
activities at Community level.

9.
shares the Commission’s view that local responses should
be coherent with an inter-regional approach but would like to
suggest that the measures should be based on a joint analysis
of the territory in question and jointly established objectives
with significant input from the regions.

considers that the development and shaping of regional
10.
approaches to support for research and innovation should be
consistent with the principle of regional partnership, initiative
and responsibility. Regional
research joint ventures and
alliances should receive special financial support from the
European Union. They too should be able to avail themselves
of the new instruments under the sixth RTD framework
programme.

Promotion and transfer of knowledge rather than just
provision of capital

7.
would like to discuss further the idea of the establishment
of a knowledge economy. The Committee would like to make
it clear that knowledge alone cannot be a basis for economic
innovation. Knowledge is easily accessible to all (e.g. via the

11.
doubts whether ‘upgrading knowledge’ and ‘increasing
technology diffusion’ will encourage regional development
without the provision of capital. The promotion of knowledge
transfer is an important component of research support. The

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/3

communication leaves it open as to whether the Commission
will make additional resources available specifically for this
purpose. The regions feel that this needs to be done if the
Commission’s objectives are to be met. Stress should once
again be placed on the decisive cluster-forming role which the
regions play with regard to the training of young scientists in
universities, the maintenance and development of public and
private-sector research institutions and the shaping of regional
research policy and conditions for SMEs.

account of the importance of research and development policy
in less favoured regions. At the same time, however, the
Committee of the Regions would like to point out that many
regions are already pursuing their own research strategies and
programmes — with or without active EU support — and that
these are also highly relevant to a joint research and innovation
policy.

Research governance in the regions

stresses that some regions have already been helping to
12.
shape their own research and innovation policies.
is
important that all regions are able to conduct their policy in
this area responsibly in future.

It

13.
would like to make it clear that successful research
and innovation models cannot be copied at will. Only by
establishing new methods and fields of research,
taking
account of structural conditions (although naturally also
looking closely at existing successful models), will disadvan-
taged regions have the opportunity to share in the success of
‘best-practice regions’. One way of doing this is to occupy
niches by switching from traditional to new, interdisciplinary
fields of research.

Maintaining trans-regional research support

14.
agrees with the Commission that the distinct character
of Community trans-regional research activities should be
maintained in terms both of their specific European added-
value and of their complementarity. Of particular interest are
joint ventures between partners from regions with widely
divergent positions.

advocates integration of

15.
the applicant countries of
central and eastern Europe into European research support,
particularly by supporting the establishment and development
of inter-regional research joint ventures with the applicant
countries. Such measures will promote cohesion.

17.
points out that European regions are divided for the
purposes of European structural policy into eligible and
ineligible areas on the basis of objective indicators.
In
implementing structural support the EU has hitherto respected
the subsidiarity principle to a great extent. The European
Commission has rightly recognised that the regions are better
placed than higher levels of government to monitor the
development of firms and research institutions.

18.
points to the outstanding importance of structural
support in enabling less favoured regions to catch up. Structur-
is, however, more regionally orientated than
al support
research support.
In the light of this the communication
should make a clear distinction between the functions of EU
structural support and EU research policy; and here it should
be borne in mind that not only the Objective 1 areas
referred to in the communication are disadvantaged, but also
Objective 2 areas undergoing a difficult process of structural
change. The communication should therefore be more precise
with regard to these regions, with an explicit mention of
Objective 2 regions. At all events a precise analysis is needed
to establish the actual causes of structural weakness, together
with the resulting action tailored to individual cases.

19.
advocates collaboration between the two areas of
policy. The existing demarcation in terms of policy content and
funding should be maintained in order to ensure transparent
implementation. The proposal that potential synergies be
sought is welcomed; exemplary synergies have already been
achieved in some countries through the establishment of
science centres.

Linking structural policy and research policy

16.
acknowledges, from the point of view of the Objective 1
and 2 regions, that the European Commission takes special

20.
advocates commitment to the outermost regions in
order to support their development. These regions should of
course also, in accordance with the powers assigned to them
under the EC Treaty, decide freely whether, and in what way,
they wish to be involved in EU research and innovation policy.
The Committee feels that assigning specific research fields is
not the right way to achieve the Commission’s objectives.

C 278/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

The role of the ‘innovative actions’

supports the proposed innovative actions aimed at

25.
promoting incubators for new firms, spin-offs and start-ups.

21.
supports the Commission’s efforts to establish or
strengthen cooperation networks. These networks should not,
however, take the form of transfers of individual researchers.
In many areas they could be organised with equal effectiveness
with a view to the sharing of electronic and information-
technology platforms, and to an increasing extent as public-
private partnerships, in this way leading to an exchange of
staff or knowledge.

22.
welcomes the actions proposed in the communication
to improve and promote both the geographical and intersector-
al mobility of researchers, in particular through the creation of
mobility centres at a level close to the people and more
especially at regional level. In this connection the Committee
of the Regions also considers it necessary to design and
network dedicated, user-friendly databases and platforms in
order to promote the use of the most modern information and
communication technologies in the interests of the mobility
and transfer of knowledge. An example of this is the genomics
and proteomics databases used in biotechnology which are fed
with up-to-date research findings by scientists from all over
the world. In this way scientists can make their discoveries
available to their fellow-scientists, with physical location being
largely irrelevant. Gearing specialised collaborative projects to
knowledge transfer should be a further main objective of
support for innovation. This would help enable scientists in
different locations to work on the same subjects.

23.
supports the Commission in its intention of developing
support for research for and in SMEs, as well as a policy for
encouraging SMEs to participate in research activities linked to
the sixth framework programme. Accordingly, a special effort
must be made to ensure the full participation of SMEs in the
more large-scale instruments constituted by the integrated
projects and networks of excellence. In this connection the
CoR renews its call to the Commission to improve cooperation
between the relevant DGs and between the departments
dealing with SMEs and the national contact points. The
participation of SMEs could be further improved by encourag-
ing the transfer and adoption of knowledge and technologies,
as well as promoting the use of research findings by estab-
lishing and funding high-performance electronic networks and
making these available to research and innovation projects.

24.
welcomes the Commission’s intention of establishing
technological strategies in partnership and dialogue with the
regions. To this end the Commission could in particular
provide funding to less favoured regions.

26.
would like to see discussion between the competent
bodies aimed at simplifying the procedure for applying for EC
research support, which at present often acts as a barrier to
development. It has emerged from numerous discussions with
firms and universities that applications are rarely made for EC
support because even if the application is approved by the
Commission, the workload involved means that it is simply
not worthwhile. This is particularly regrettable in the case of
young, innovative firms which have to budget very carefully
for the use of their staff and whose financial resources are
very limited. One possible approach would be a two-stage
procedure (pre-screening) — during the first of which a
preliminary decision on the eligibility of a project for funding
would be taken in a reasonably unbureaucratic way; this would
be followed by a more detailed second stage. This would
obviate the need for new facilities to deal with applications
with their resultant costs.

Measures enabling the European Research Area regional
approach

supports the idea of the establishment and development
27.
of centres of excellence to act at regional, trans-regional and
international level.

28.
doubts, however, that centres of excellence will act as a
brake on the inter-regional brain drain. This depends on
economic and social factors as well as scientific ones and will
not be stopped by this measure alone.

Benchmarking as an objective

29.
points out that the benchmarking already carried out
by the Commission in certain areas — in relation to economic
experts and education — often meets with scepticism and
rejection. Meaningful
indicators and investigative methods
need to be developed, which make it possible to draw
comparisons between regions and which produce worthwhile
and useable results, with a view to successful EU benchmarking
in the regions. The instruments need to be selected in such a
way that the causes of the existing structural deficits can be
pinpointed, whilst keeping the workload to acceptable

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/5

proportions. It should again be stressed that less favoured
regions in particular will have opportunities only if they tap
new forms of innovation. Benchmarking based on experience
and best practice is not very helpful for these regions, as

outstanding examples (such as Martinsried) cannot be copied.
The regions must be involved in the development of appropri-
ate methods, tailored to their environment, drawing on their
experience and using comparable instruments.

Brussels, 16 May 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the
establishment of the Galileo Joint Undertaking’

(2002/C 278/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the Galileo Joint
Undertaking [COM(2001) 336 final — 2001/0136 (CNS)];

having regard to the decision of the Commission of 25 June 2001, under the first paragraph of Article 265
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the subject;

having regard to the decisions of its bureau of 12 June 2001 to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-
European Networks, Transport and the Information Society to draw up the relevant opinion, and of
6 February 2002 to instruct the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up the relevant
opinion;

having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Cologne European Council (3 and 4 June 1999) and
the Feira European Council (19 and 20 June 2000) with regard to Galileo;

having regard to the Council Resolution of 5 April 2001;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (1) on
5 March 2002 (CdR 380/2001 rev. 2) (rapporteur: Mr Tabakídis, EL-PES, Mayor of Agii Anargyri);

whereas the first contracts and feasibility studies were funded under the Fourth and Fifth R&D Framework
Programmes;

whereas the definition phase of Galileo was completed in April 2001, and the programme moved onto
the next stage, testing and confirming the validity of the working assumptions adopted, particularly those
regarding the architecture of the system;

whereas the definition phase will be followed by the system development phase involving production of
satellites and terrestrial components, satellites launchings, and installation of remaining equipment, so
that the system will be operational in 2008;

(1) New organisation of the commissions and their remits, 6 February 2002.