Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Institute of Technology COM(2006) 604 final/2 — 2006/0197 (COD)
Date: 2007-03-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU office or agency, EU research policy, innovation, legal status, powers of the institutions (EU), research and development, research body, technology park

C 161/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Institute of Technology

COM(2006) 604 final/2 — 2006/0197 (COD)

(2007/C 161/06)

On 20 December 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 157(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Committee instructed the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption to prepare its
work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Pezzini
as rapporteur-general at its 434th plenary session, held on 14-15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March), and
adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to two with one abstention.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

Top performances in the scientific and technical field,
1.1
and their conversion into a competitive, economic force, are
essential preconditions for safeguarding our future, for example
with regard to nanotechnology, information society, energy and
climate issues, preserving and improving our current global
position, and developing rather than jeopardising the European
social model.

The Committee has always welcomed any initiative

1.2
aimed at:

— increasing the innovative capacity of the Community and

the Member States;

— promoting an integrated approach to the knowledge

triangle (1);

— consolidating links between academia and business;

— supporting all efforts to promote research and innovation;

— extending public-private partnerships in RTD;

— increasing SMEs' access to new skills.

The Committee strongly and wholeheartedly supports
1.3
the idea of creating an instrument such as the European Institute
of Technology (EIT) with a view to contributing to the develop-
ment of quality education, innovation and research by encoura-
ging cooperation and integration between European centres of
excellences in the field of industry, universities and science.

1.4
The Committee stresses the importance of developing
the EIT proposal consistently with its legal basis, aimed in par-
ticular at ‘speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural
changes, encouraging an environment favourable to initiative
and to the development of undertakings throughout the Com-
munity, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings,
encouraging an environment favourable to cooperation between

undertakings, and fostering better exploitation of the industrial
potential of policies of innovation, research and technological
development’ (2).

However, the Committee believes that, if this new inte-
1.5
is to
grated knowledge, research and innovation instrument
succeed, it must be able to differentiate itself and stand out from
other, existing integrated Community instruments such as the
European Technology Platforms,
Joint Technology Initiatives,
European Networks of Excellence, Integrated Projects, and Euro-
pean advanced masters schemes (3).

The Committee is aware that it would be inappropriate
1.6
to make simplistic comparisons between the future EIT and an
institute such as MIT in the United States, given that the latter
was never a federal excellence project but rather a top-level
university characterised by the presence of the ‘MIT Corpora-
tion’, supported by an investment management company. Yet
the success of institutions like the MIT shows that excellence is
the result of an evolutionary process based on the right princi-
ples and on sufficient support.

1.7
However, the Committee believes that if the future EIT
wants to become a global performer and a world class player
symbolising the harnessing of European excellence, it needs to
go beyond merely integrating resources.

1.8
To this end, not only must its design, structure and form
fully and coherently meet the objectives set out in the Treaty,
which form its fundamental legal basis; they must also serve to
develop a science- and technology-oriented culture of compe-
tence and excellence which attracts the best students and shapes
the best scientists and engineers. This is a prerequisite for the
creation of new knowledge and continuous innovation.

(2) See Article 157 of the EC Treaty, which forms the legal basis of the

Commission proposal.

(1) Attaining knowledge through research, passing it on through educa-

(3) See,

for example, EMM Nano offered under Erasmus Mundus,

tion, and applying it through innovation.

www.emm-nano.org

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/29

1.9
The Committee also believes that it is important not to
stop at the idea of an internationally prestigious knowledge flag-
ship (4), but it needs the stamina of all engaged players to
develop a signature of outstanding results characterising the
individual Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) to
seek to bring about concrete results that impact on the market:

— in terms of transforming knowledge and research findings

into real market innovations;

— thanks to the creation of new businesses at the forefront of

competitiveness;

— attracting and creating experts of international standing;

— promoting new, stable, skilled jobs.

1.10
designed and set up in such a way as to:

The structure and form of

the Institute should be

interaction between the Institute itself and its branches, i.e. the
Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs).

1.12.1
This could also take place through major public
events organised by the EIT system and aimed at establishing a
single brand of excellence with a network structure that draws
in and passes on knowledge and innovation in a decentralised
manner.

Innovation and success are the result of a delicate
1.12.2
balance between goal-oriented procedures
and individual
freedom to develop new ideas and concepts to be carried into
the test-area of competition. Compliance with standardised EU
quality assurance requirements must underpin research, knowl-
edge and innovation initiatives throughout the EIT network.
Without market-driven interaction between research, innovation
and industry, public-funded research will have only a limited
impact on the economy.

— address the needs of European business and employment,
strengthening efforts towards a knowledge-based society;

— be in tune with the economic and social dimension of the

Community model;

— have a strong international flavour so as to be able to attract

researchers and businesses from all over the world.

1.13
The system for selecting networks of businesses, labora-
tories and universities as candidates for becoming KICs should,
in the Committee's view, work on the bottom-up principle and
be based on clear and transparent criteria including professional
success and excellence, skill and experience in transferring tech-
nologies, especially to SMEs.

1.10.1
consideration.

The joint undertaking formula could be given due

At the same time, at least the initial success of the EIT
1.11
will heavily depend on sufficient funding by the Community
and Member States, which, however, should not be diverted
from the other adopted programmes for research and innova-
tion.

The Committee believes that a number of factors will
1.11.1
become increasingly important in the future EIT:
firstly, the
mechanisms for encouraging patents and the arrangements for
managing intellectual property; and secondly, the ability to find
sources of private financing, as these will need to play a much
greater role than Community funds if resources are not to be
diverted from other programmes, especially those for research
and innovation.

1.11.2
As regards financial resources, the Committee thinks
that provision needs to be made for initial funding from the
Community, which could come from additional resources under
the Mid-term review of
Seventh RTD Framework
the
Programme, while a substantial part should come on a pro-rata
basis from the Member States. Moreover, the possibility of acti-
vating EIB actions for
innovation networks and university
research should not be overlooked.

1.12
Just as important, in the Committee's view, are the skills
the Institute will be able to develop in the knowledge, innova-
tion and research market so as to ensure gradually increasing

(4) COM(2006) 77 final, 22 February 2006.

In any case, the new KIC status should not be granted
1.13.1
indefinitely, but rather be subject
to periodic assessment of
quality and of measurable results, notwithstanding the need for
an appropriate build-up period.

The Committee also believes that the EIT system should
1.14
aim — where appropriate — to incorporate selected centres of
excellence that already exist in the EU, but avoid becoming a
bureaucratic support superstructure for the centres of excellence
that already exist in the EU; for this very reason, it should focus
more on the industrial component and that of interdisciplinary
research, both within its statutory bodies and in the selection
bodies.

1.14.1 With this in mind, it would be appropriate to set up
an EIT Investment Management Company, which would provide
for a more innovative approach that could help redress the
shortcomings that have so often been a feature of relations
between industry, academia and research.

Finally,

the Committee believes that more clarity is
1.15
needed as regards the definition and awarding of EIT degrees by
the KIC networks and the EIT itself. At least for a sufficiently
extended initial period, awarding degrees should remain the
prerogative but also the responsibility of those universities and/
the
or
Member States which are selected as partners within the indivi-
dual KICs, their degrees being enhanced, once minimum condi-
tions are fulfilled, by the EIT label.

technical universities

technology) of

(institutes of

C 161/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

1.16
The Committee feels that the awarding of the EIT label
to KIC network degrees should be subject to the following
conditions: that the studies and research have been carried out
in at least three different institutes in three Member States (to
give the degree a interdisciplinary European flavour), that they
must have displayed sufficient impact potential in terms of inno-
vation, and, lastly, that they are endorsed by the central EIT.

to the Lisbon Strategy (8), it upheld the need to create a Common
European Area of Knowledge, based on intensified cooperation
in learning, innovation and research policies. Moreover, in this
opinion the Committee called upon businesses, financial institu-
tions and private foundations to shoulder their responsibilities
and invest more
in the knowledge-based economy, also
supporting European public-private partnership (PPP) agree-
ments.

in the Commission proposal

As regards the EIT Statutes, the Committee believes that
1.17
the Administrative/Governing
it would be appropriate for
Board (5) provided for
to be
supported by a Monitoring Committee made up of representa-
tives of the Member States and chaired by a Commission repre-
sentative, an Executive Committee made up of two representa-
tives each of industry, research centres and universities respec-
tively and headed by the Chairperson of the Governing Board, a
Director and a Rector.

2. Introduction

2.1
The mid-term report submitted to the European Council
in Spring 2005 entitled Working together for growth and jobs: A
new start for the Lisbon Strategy (6) defined fundamental principles
for reinvigorating the Strategy, i.e. focused actions, broad owner-
ship of the goals and clearly-defined levels of responsibility.

2.5
In the United States of America, the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology — MIT — set up in Boston in 1861, now
has approximately 10 000 students and a teaching body of
around 10 000 people working in a high-quality multi-disci-
plinary system,
law, architecture, engi-
techniques, mathematics, physics and
neering, management
biology. The MIT costs over USD 1 000 million per year, but in
the ‘Shanghai Listing’, which enumerates the best universities in
the world (9), it ranks fifth.

including economics,

2.6
As regards Europe, by 2010 the Bologna process goals
should have been achieved. The Bologna process is the initiative
launched by the European Union in 1999 to harmonise the
various higher education systems in Europe, with the aim of
creating a European Higher Education Area and promoting the
European higher education system internationally. The following
objectives were set:

— adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable

degrees;

2.2
The elements supplementing the Lisbon Strategy included
spreading knowledge through high-quality education systems. In
the Union must ensure that our universities can
particular,
compete with the best in the world. However, this requires the
completion of the European Higher Education Area, which will
make it easier to build and disseminate knowledge throughout
the EU.

— convergence of education systems, to be based on three
main cycles (bachelor's degree, master's degree, doctorate);

— consolidation of the credits system, based on the ECTS (10),
under which credits can be obtained from different faculties;

2.3
To this end, the Commission stated its intention to moot
the creation of a European Institute of Technology, and its
commitment
to enabling European universities to compete
internationally, as ‘existing approaches to financing, governance
and quality are proving inadequate to meet the challenge of
what has become a global market for academics, students and
knowledge itself’.

2.4
The Committee has commented several times on the
issue (7). In its exploratory opinion on The road to the European
knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society

(5) See footnote 28.
(6) COM(2005) 24 final, 2.2.2005.
(7) (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005), rapporteurs Mr Ehnmark, Mr Vever and
Mr Simpson; (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005) rapporteur Mr Koryfidis; CESE
135/2005 (OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005), rapporteur Mr Greif; (OJ C 221 of
8.9.2005), rapporteur Mr Koryfidis.

— promotion of mobility (for students, teachers, researchers
and administrative and technical staff), along with removal
of the remaining obstacles to free movement;

(8) OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, rapporteurs Mr Olsson, Ms Belabed and

Mr van Iersel.

(9) Cf. the 2005 Shanghai Listing of the top 50 universities. Only four EU
universities are in the top 30: 1 Harvard University USA, 2 Cambridge
University UK, 3 Stanford University USA, 4 University of California
— Berkeley USA, 5 Massachusetts Inst. Tech. (MIT) USA, 6 California
Inst. Tech. USA, 7 Columbia University USA, 8 Princeton University
USA, 9 University of Chicago USA, 10 Oxford University UK, 11 Yale
University USA, 12 Cornell University USA, 13 University of California
— San Diego USA, 14 University of California — Los Angeles USA,
15 University of Pennsylvania USA, 16 University of Wisconsin —
Madison USA, 17 University of Washington — Seattle USA, 18 Univer-
sity of California — San Francisco USA, 19 Johns Hopkins University
USA, 20 Tokyo University Asia/Pac, 21 University of Michigan — Ann
Arbor USA, 22 Kyoto University Asia/Pac, 23 Imperial College
London UK, 24 University of Toronto Canada, 25 University of Illinois
— Urbana Champaign USA, 26 University College London UK,
27 Swiss Fed. Inst. Tech. — Zurich Switzerland, 28 Washington Univer-
sity — St. Louis USA, 29 New York University USA, 30 Rockefeller
University USA.

(10) European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/31

— promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance;

2.10
nesses seem to have four main causes (16):

The European university educational system's weak-

— promotion of an essential European dimension in higher
education,
cooperation between
universities and other higher-education institutions, mobility,
integrated programmes, training and research.

concerning syllabuses,

— excessive uniformity:

insufficient flexibility and diversity

to meet new requirements;

On 26 September 2006,

2.7
the European Parliament
adopted a resolution on the creation of a European qualifica-
tions framework (11), taking into account the Bologna process
and the 2002 Copenhagen process and based on facilitating
enhanced European cooperation in the field of vocational educa-
tion and training, with a number of specific goals (12).

2.8
In 2005, the Commission published the second report
on Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and
training (13). This stressed, inter alia, the difficulty of raising the
number of graduates in Europe, the need to update and supple-
ment knowledge, skills and qualifications throughout working
life through advanced lifelong learning systems and, lastly, the
need to increase public investment in higher education and
training, supplementing it with private investment, and to train
enough high-calibre, highly-skilled academic and teaching staff
to replace older workers (around 1 000 000 people between
2005 and 2015).

2.9
In 2006, an OECD survey was carried out from the
demand perspective (14). Entitled the Programme for Interna-
tional Student Assessment
it provides a general
framework of students' characteristics, attitudes and ability to
use the knowledge they have acquired.

(PISA) (15),

(11) European Parliament resolution on the creation of a European qualifi-

cations framework of 26.9.06 (2006/2002/INI).

(12) Copenhagen process goals:

— a single framework for transparency of competences and qualifi-
cations (European CV, certificates, diplomas, Europass-Training
brand etc.);

— a system of credit transfer for vocational education and training,

similar to the ECTS in higher education;

— common criteria and principles for quality in vocational educa-
tion and training, structured around a core of common criteria
and principles for quality which could serve as a basis for Euro-
pean-level initiatives such as quality guidelines and checklists for
education and training;

for

— common principles

the validation of non-formal and
informal learning, in particular to ensure greater compatibility
between approaches in different countries and at different levels;
— a European dimension of information guidance and counselling
services, giving citizens improved access to lifelong learning.

(13) SEC(2005) 419 of 22.3.2005 — Commission staff working paper:
Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training,
2005 Report.

(14) On 2 October 2006 the OECD published the 2009-2015
programme framework, which incorporates three new areas of
research:
1) the measurement of

learning progress over

time and the

comparison of progress across countries;

2) the relationship between aspects of

instruction and learning

outcomes;

3) the assessment of ICT competences, as well as the use of tech-
nology as a means to capture a broader range of assessment
tasks.

(15) PISA, Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: a frame-

work for PISA 2006, OECD 11.9.2006.

— insularity: all too often, universities are in an ivory tower,

with inadequate links to business and society;

— over-regulation: all too often, universities cannot modernise

due to national regulations;

— under-funding: with both research and education-and-
training spending lagging behind its competitors, the EU
would have to spend EUR 150 billion per annum to bridge
the gap — i.e. more than the entire Community budget (17).

2.11
The main general problems which could be resolved by
creating a European Institute of Technology (EIT) are as follows:

— low levels of investment in higher education and R&D and
lack of concentration of investment in communities of excel-
lence which can compete internationally;

— inadequate tools and conversion of knowledge and R&D
into competitive economic activities and jobs,

outputs
compared with the EU's major competitors;

— models of governance

and organisation of European
research and higher education bodies which are not innova-
tive enough and often inflexible and over-regulated;

— lack of an integrated approach to the ‘education/research/

innovation’ triangle;

— insufficient ability to attract and retain the best teachers and

students.

2.12
In its resolution on the 2007 annual budget, while the
European Parliament welcomed the idea of strengthening the
capacities of the knowledge triangle (education, research and
innovation) and reinforcing the links among them, it was scep-
tical regarding the setting-up of a new European Institute of
Technology, which it believed ‘may undermine or overlap on
existing structures and may therefore not be the most effective
use of funds in this context’ (18).

(16) See ‘Can Europe close the education gap?’ — Friends of Europe 27.9.2005.
(17) The 2006 EU Budget totalled EUR 121.2 billion: of this sum, EUR 7.9
billion were allocated to competitiveness, including EUR 0.7 billion for
education and training.

(18) EP resolution of 28.4.2006 on the 2007 budget: the Commission's
Annual Policy Strategy report (PE 371.730V03-00) (A6-0154/2006).

C 161/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

For

its part, however,

2.13
the European Council of
15-16 June 2006 stressed that ‘the European Institute for Tech-
nology (EIT), working with existing national institutions, will be
an important step towards filling the existing gap between
higher education, research and innovation together with other
actions that enhance networking and synergies between excel-
lent research and innovation communities in Europe’. It invited
the Commission to prepare ‘a formal proposal for its establish-
in November 2006 the
ment’. In response to this invitation,
Commission issued the proposal addressed by this opinion (19),
which follows on from its two previous Communications on
the matter (20).

2.13.1
confirmed the favourable attitude previously expressed.

Since then, the December 2006 European Council

3. The Commission proposal

The concept underlying the Commission's Proposal for a
3.1
regulation setting up the EIT is that the EIT can contribute to
industrial competitiveness, strengthening the Member States'
and the EU's innovation capacity. The proposal's goals are to:

senting the staff and students of the EIT and the KICs (see
below). Moreover, a supervisory Executive Committee, a
Director responsible for day-to-day management who is the
representative, and an Audit Committee are also
legal
provided for under
statutes, annexed to the
proposal.

the EIT's

— Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), based on a
network approach. KICs are consortia of partner organisa-
tions representing universities, research institutes and busi-
nesses, who form an integrated partnership in response to
invitations from the EIT to submit proposals. KICs' internal
to enable them to
organisation is highly autonomous
achieve the objectives set on a contractual basis with the
EIT.

The EIT's general budget for 2007-2013 is estimated at

3.3
about EUR 2 367,1 million, coming from:

a) External and internal sources, including Member States' and
regional and local authorities' contributions; private-sector
including
contributions (companies, venture capital, banks,
the EIB); resources resulting from its own activity (e.g. from
intellectual property rights); resources from the donations
and endowments that the EIT may accumulate;

— contribute to improving the competitiveness base of

the
Member States by involving partner organisations in inte-
grated innovation, research and education activities in line
with international standards;

b) Community sources: EC budget, from unallocated margins
(EUR 308.7 million), Structural Funds, 7th RTD Framework
Programme, the EU Lifelong Learning Programmes, the CIP
(Competitiveness and Innovation Programme).

— promote innovation through trans- and inter-disciplinary
strategic research and education in areas of key economic or
societal interest;

4. General comments

— build a ‘critical mass’ of human and physical resources in
these fields of knowledge, attracting and retaining private
sector investment in innovation, education, and R&D, as
well as students at master's level, doctoral candidates and
researchers;

— become a symbol of the integrated European Innovation,

Research and Education Area;

— become a reference for managing innovation and a model
for the modernisation of higher education and research
institutions in the EU;

— build a global reputation and provide an attractive environ-
ment for the best talents worldwide, remaining open to
partner organisations, students and researchers from outside
the Union.

The Commission proposes to give the EIT a two-level
3.2
integrated structure, which combines a bottom-up approach
with a top-down approach, as follows:

— the EIT itself, under the direction of a Governing Board. The
EIT, a legal entity, will be made up of the Governing Board,
assisted by a very small number (60 people) of scientific and
administrative staff. The Governing Board will be composed
of a group of 15 members representing enterprise and the
scientific community, and an additional four members repre-

4.1
The Committee has always welcomed moves to boost
the innovation capacity of the EU and the Member States, advo-
cating an integrated approach to the knowledge triangle, parti-
cularly linking the academic world and enterprise. It is firmly in
favour of ensuring better coordination of research, boosting
innovation and education in the EU, achieving a more effective
public-private partnership in the area of R&D and providing
better access for small and medium-sized businesses to new
skills (21).

However, the Committee cannot deviate from the three
the Lisbon

4.2
key principles underlying the reinvigoration of
Strategy:

— the need for strong support for the most focused European

initiatives;

— broad ownership of the goals;

— clear definition of levels of responsibility.

4.3
The Committee therefore believes that there needs to be
careful consideration of how the EIT initiative ties in with the
many other initiatives under way, which are based on various
other policies such as research, enterprise, regional development,
information society, education and culture.

(19) COM(2006) 604 final of 18.10.2006.
(20) COM(2006) 77 final of 22.2.2006 and COM(2006) 276 of 8.6.2006.

(21) OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, rapporteurs Mr Vever, Mr Ehnmark and

Mr Simpson.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/33

4.3.1
The Committee believes that in order for the future EIT
to become a point of reference and a symbol of European excel-
lence,
it needs to go beyond merely integrating resources.
Instead, it must be designed and structured so as to meet the
objectives set out in the Treaty, which form its fundamental
legal basis.

4.3.2
The Committee emphasises that a key to the success of
the future EIT will be its ability to market a single brand of
excellence with a network structure that draws in and passes on
knowledge and innovation in a decentralised manner.

4.4
The Committee agrees that the EIT's structure should be
as simple as possible, flexible and dynamic, so that it can cater
for new demands, and believes that the possibility of setting up
a joint undertaking should be explored (22). However, it stresses
that this structure must be oriented towards businesses and
employment and that it is essential for it to focus on its stated
primary objective, which is to convert R&D results into market
opportunities.

4.4.1
To this end, the selection criteria for the Governing
Bodies should be based not just on scientific excellence but on
ability to attract innovative capital, create start-ups, generate and
exploit patents and attract public/private financing, not
to
mention SMEs.

4.5
The Committee believes that this approach should be
reflected in the selection criteria for KICs, whose consortia must
in line with the priorities for the multi-annual
remain open,
Community programming for research and innovation, so as to
facilitate involvement of smaller businesses and bodies, ensuring
the greatest possible flexibility and minimum red tape.

4.5.1

The requirements for KICs need to be better defined:

— they must have a European dimension — incorporating new

bodies from at least three Member States;

— the level of expertise must reflect the level of excellence

required for the EIT itself;

— they must be sufficiently interdisciplinary; their membership
must strike the right balance between the three defining
elements of the research, knowledge and innovation triangle;

— the balance between the public and private components
must be respected;
the individual partners must have
demonstrated the capacity, over the previous five years, to
deliver excellence in the areas of
research, knowledge,
patents and technology transfer;

— a unified plan of joint activities must be submitted in a

programme covering at least five years.

(22) Cf. Article 171 of the Treaty.

4.6
In order to promote a European Area of Knowledge, as
part of the Lisbon strategy, it will be necessary to create incen-
tives to promote mobility between the various white-collar
professions and between the public and private sectors so as to
facilitate movement between the different senior and middle
management
jobs, between researchers and engineers, and
between the institutional and private sectors (23): mobility on a
European scale must be a key part of training, research and
technological applications programmes.

4.7
The Committee notes that initial funding for EIT activities
appears to be very limited, while it seems that future resources
will be directed towards conventional programmes (24) and draw
on the already depleted funds of the 2007-2013 budget in the
area of research, innovation and education. The EIT will thus be
tried and tested integrated-approach
competing with other
instruments
(Integrated Projects), NoEs
IPs
the
such as
(Networks of Excellence) and other more recent instruments
such as the JTIs (Joint Technology Initiatives) and the ETPs
(European Technology Platforms).

4.7.1
The funding provided for the Seventh RTD Framework
Programme, for the period 2007-2013, which represents about
5.8 % of the overall EU budget, is already inadequate to support
policies to incentivise research. Therefore, resources cannot be
diverted from this except through the normal tendering process,
in which the EIT and the KICs should be able to compete on a
level playing field with other participants.

least

the initial success of

4.7.2
At
the EIT will heavily
funding by the Community, which,
depend on sufficient
however, should not be diverted from the other programmes
adopted for research and innovation: indeed, the Commission's
estimates for the period 2007-2013 for the entire EIT system
seem to be too low while Community funds from budget
surplus are negligible. The Committee feels that one solution
might be a joint undertaking (under Article 171 of the Treaty),
where the Member States concerned participate directly (cf. the
formula used for the Galileo joint undertaking) (25).

(23) (OJ C 110, 30.4.2004), rapporteur: Mr Wolf.
(24) It should be pointed out that no specific provision has been made for
the EIT in the new legislative proposals included in the negotiations on
the Inter-institutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary disci-
pline and sound financial management.

(25) The constituent bodies of the joint undertaking are as follows:

— Administrative Board: This

composed of

founder
is
members. Decisions are adopted by a simple majority except in
the case of major decisions, where a majority of 75 % of the
votes is required. The Administrative Board takes all strategic
decisions relating to planning, financial and budget matters. It
also nominates the Director of the joint undertaking;

the

— Executive Committee: This assists the Administrative Board and

the Director;

— Director: This is the chief executive responsible for the day-to-
day management of the joint undertaking and its legal represen-
tative. He/she directs the staff of the joint undertaking, updates
the programme development plan, draws up the annual
accounts and balance sheet and submits them to the Administra-
tive Board and draws up the annual report on the current status
of the programme and its financial situation.

C 161/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

4.7.3
In the Committee's view, the initial funding necessary
could come from additional resources under the Mid-term
review of the Seventh RTD Community Framework Programme;
these funds should be in addition to direct contributions from
Member States made on a pro-rata basis.

4.7.4
An additional source of funding could be EIB activities
under the Innovation 2010 Initiative (i2i) and the EIB action for
university research (26) and university networks.

4.8
Community R&D policy also needs more systematic
monitoring of all factors that limit the mobility of researchers,
which is currently hindered by the differences in arrangements
for recognising academic qualifications, as well as those for taxa-
tion, insurance and social security (27).

4.9
In the Committee's view, if the EIT aims to be a world-
class operator in its field capable of inspiring better performance
by other European actors and networks in the knowledge
triangle,
it will have to be able to attract substantial private
funding, which will, over time, have to become its main source
of finance.

A major factor here may be the solution found to intel-
4.10
lectual property protection issues, which may warrant further
clarification in the proposal, as do the issues relating to the defi-
nition and awarding of EIT degrees.

The Committee believes that more clarity is needed as
4.11
regards the definition and awarding of EIT degrees by the KIC
networks and the EIT itself.

4.11.1
For a sufficiently long initial period, awarding degrees
should remain the prerogative and responsibility of Member
States' universities and/or polytechnics which have been selected
as partners within each KIC. However, even in this initial period,
the awarding of degrees should comply with specific minimum
requirements.

4.11.2
elements:

The

requirements

could

include

the

following

Brussels, 14 March 2007.

— the studies and research must have been carried out in at
least three different institutes in three Member States, to give
the degree a European flavour;

— they must have displayed sufficient impact potential in terms
of innovation, and they must have been endorsed by the
central EIT.

4.12
As regards the EIT Statutes, the Committee believes that
there should be an Administrative Board, with the same
membership as that of the Governing Board provided for in the
Commission proposal — five representatives of business, five
representatives of public and private research centres and five
representatives of public and private universities, and an addi-
tional four members representing the staff and students of the
EIT and the KICs (28) — and chaired by a Commission represen-
tative. This would be supported by:

— a Monitoring Committee made up of representatives of
the Member States and chaired by a Commission represen-
tative;

— an Executive Committee made up of two representatives
of business, research centres and universities respectively
and chaired by the Chairperson of the Administrative Board;

— a Director and a Rector, appointed — and dismissed — by
the Administrative Board, after receiving the assent of the
Monitoring Committee.

4.12.1
If the joint undertaking formula is adopted for the
EIT, the administrative and scientific staff of the joint under-
taking should have fixed-term contracts based on the conditions
the European Com-
of employment of other
munity (29).

servants of

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(26) Cf. the Starebei and Eiburs programmes and EIB University Networks.
(27) See footnote 22.

(28) This makeup must also ensure adequate representation of the social

partners.

(29) Cf. Article 11 of the Statutes of the Galileo joint undertaking —
Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the
Galileo Joint Undertaking; OJ L 138 of 28.5.2002.