WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/03 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Higher education lagging behind.
Date: 2003-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, economic policy, education budget, higher education, international competition, knowledge economy, research budget

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/233

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

As shown in the table attached to the answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2386/03 (1),
funding was indeed provided for two Italian projects under the health promotion programme in the period
1996-2002:

(cid:1) EUR 92 387,00 to the interuniversity Experimental Centre for Health Education for the project ‘The
contribution of Southern European Countries in the elaboration of a European multilingual thesaurus
for Health Promotion and Education’, in 1996;

(cid:1) EUR 364 945,91 to the IRCCS Burlo Garofolo for the project ‘Breastfeeding Promotion in Europe’, in

2002.

Fifteen out of the 78 projects submitted under this programme in 2002 were Italian (In all, 18 projects
were approved.).

Following calls for proposals, projects are selected solely on the basis of project quality, in accordance with
strict criteria set out in the calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Nationality plays no part in the project evaluation.

However, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to two points:

(cid:1) the coordinators for the above two projects were of Italian nationality. However, since most of the
projects selected were Community-wide, it is very likely that some of the partners in other projects
under the programme were Italian, though the Commission does not have details of the funding
allocated to all partners in all projects;

(cid:1) during the planning period 1996-2002, the Commission funded some 104 other public health
in addition to the two projects under the health promotion

projects with Italian coordinators,
programme as mentioned above:

(cid:1) four projects under the programme ‘Health monitoring (1998-2002)’;

(cid:1) four projects under ‘Injury prevention (1999-2002)’;

(cid:1) 33 projects under ‘AIDS and communicable diseases (1996-2002)’;

(cid:1) 44 projects under ‘Cancer (1996-2002)’;

(cid:1) four projects under ‘Rare diseases (2000-2002)’;

(cid:1) three projects under ‘Pollution related diseases (1999-2002)’;

(cid:1) 12 projects under ‘Drug prevention (1996-2002)’.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 259.

(2004/C 65 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Higher education lagging behind

In recent years, the difficulties encountered in ensuring that the stability and growth pact is respected have
become very obvious. The major European political and economic guidelines have failed as far as growth
is concerned.

C 65 E/234

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

What is more serious, however, is that the EU is not laying the foundations for tomorrow’s growth: we are
collectively lagging behind in higher education, research and innovation to an alarming degree. While the
Americans devote 3 % of their GDP to higher education, Europeans allocate only 1,4 %. While the USA
spends 2,8 % of its national revenue on research, the EU spends only 1,9 %, and all the indications are that
for each euro spent, we get a less-effective return. While the Americans are engaged on building a
‘knowledge economy’, we content ourselves with hoping for future success. The immediate prospects are
therefore not, as the heads of state proclaimed at Lisbon in spring 2000, of a Europe bouncing back, but a
Europe falling even more behind, on a par with its growth.

Does the Commission intend to present a fresh action plan to reverse these negative trends?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns regarding the Union’s investment deficits in
both higher education and research and innovation but does not believe it can safely be concluded that the
European Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG) have failed as far as growth is concerned.

Various recent Commission Communications (1) have expressed the Commission’s concerns regarding the
inadequate levels of expenditure on education and research in Europe. They show that while the USA is
in these fields, the gap is mainly due to under-
investing significantly more heavily (as % of GDP)
investment by the private sector in Europe. They conclude that public expenditure in these fields needs to
be increased selectively and made more efficient, but also that a regulatory environment more favourable
to private investment needs be established.

These Communications also emphasise the risks inherent in this situation and point out that the Member
States are responsible for avoiding situations of under-funding which could jeopardise the quality and
relevance of their own education and research systems and the attainment of the Union’s internal goals
and its international competitiveness. However, despite recognising these risks it should not be forgotten
that the medium-term growth prospects are favourable,
in particular thanks to the macro-economic
strategy reflected in the BEPG.

The Commission is aware of the need for reforms and for bolder investment in order to remedy this
situation and will continue with its efforts to motivate Member States in this direction. It has already
proposed an action plan (2) to increase investment in research and development and to reach the target of
3 % of GDP fixed by the Barcelona European Council by 2010. More recently, it has proposed a set of
measures to boost growth through investment in networks and knowledge. Nor will it shirk from pointing
(notably in the report due to be presented to the Spring 2004 European Council on the
out
implementation of the ‘Programme of work on the objectives of education and training systems’ (3)) the
need to invest more and better in higher education. Greater emphasis is being placed on mobilising the
Structural Funds and EIB Funds (in particular via the Innovation 2010 initiative) towards the Lisbon
objectives, and the future generation of Community programmes should also evolve in this direction.

In the Spring of 2004 the Commission will be publishing its conclusions drawn from the responses to its
Communication ‘The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge’. At this stage,
it is not yet
possible to say whether these will take the form of a specific action plan or a reinforcement of the various
convergent actions mentioned above.

(1) Towards a European research area, COM(2000) 6 final; More research for Europe/Towards 3 % of GDP,
COM(2002) 499 final; The European research area: providing new momentum, COM(2002) 565 final; Investing
efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe, COM(2002) 779 final; The role of the universities in
the Europe of knowledge, COM(2003) 58 final.
Investing in research: an action plan for Europe, COM(2003) 226 of 30 April 2003.

(2)
(3) Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, OJ C 142,

14.6.2002.