Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission — Competitive European regions through research and innovation COM(2007) 474 final
Date: 2008-04-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU employment policy, EU research policy, competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, innovation, knowledge economy, research and development

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/1

III

(Preparatory Acts)

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

444th PLENARY SESSION, HELD ON 22 AND 23 APRIL 2008

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission — Competitive European regions through research and innovation’

COM(2007) 474 final

(2008/C 211/01)

On 16 August 2007, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission — Competitive European Regions through Research and Innovation — A
contribution to more growth and more and better jobs.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 April 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 444th plenary session, held on 22 and 23 April 2008, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 130 votes in favour with 2 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

sectors play their full part in nurturing creativity and innova-
tion, especially at regional and local level. This especially applies
to those specific regions — Euregios — where neighbours and
partners are networked in areas that transcend national borders.

to the
The Committee can only give firm support
1.1
Commission's
this takes into
initiative to the degree that
account not only the problems of demand, but also — and
primarily — supply-side optimisation, avoiding failures and red
tape.

the Lisbon Strategy is essential

The Committee is convinced that

1.2
the promotion of
initiatives at local and regional level and the capacity to network
them in furtherance of
for
combined research and development efforts that are successful
in setting up and developing innovative businesses throughout
to involving
the Union. Above all, however,
in
level
economic and social players operating at
working towards the shared goals of more and better jobs, in a
context of overall sustainable and competitive development.

is essential

territorial

it

that

The Committee thinks

1.4
the competitiveness of
Europe's regions and their development in economic, social and
employment terms must be pursued more pro-actively and with
more coordination than at present. This will make it easier to
get the best possible tangible results in pursuit of the Lisbon
Strategy goals.

1.5
The Committee concurs unreservedly with the Commis-
sion's diagnosis of shortcomings in the joint and coordinated
use of the Community instruments, but expresses its regret that
more than ten years later this crucial issue is still approached in
terms of analysis rather than getting to the nub of the problem,
which is to develop new simultaneous engineering capacities (1)
of various types across both Community and European action.

1.3
The Committee reiterates the importance of the knowl-
edge triangle (education, research and innovation), which plays a
critical role in promoting growth and jobs. For this reason, it is
urgent to step up reforms, promote excellence in higher educa-
tion and in partnerships between universities, research centres
and companies and ensure that all education and training

1.6
The Committee considers that action on the demand side
is needed, but is not sufficient in itself. In its view, we must
move on from declaring the need for regions to be more
focused and achieve:

(1) As the term is used in Commission documents, i.e. to mean simulta-

neous planning.

C 211/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

— a territorial strategy for research and technological and inno-

2. Background

vation development;

— specific considerations regarding crossborder cooperation

(Euregio);

— a coordinated use of Community instruments;

2.1
The European regions of knowledge are contending with
numerous elements of change that constitute both challenges
and opportunities and influence their capacity to achieve the
goals of the revised Lisbon Strategy.

— more information on opportunities available at national and

European level;

2.2

These elements of change include:

— and a major reduction in red tape.

1.7
In the Committee's view, far-reaching action should be
taken on the supply side to ensure a consistent framework that
provides easy access to all available instruments. The aim is to
overcome legal obstacles and the time-lag between initiating and
actually delivering financial support, in order to make Europe's
regions more competitive.

The Committee considers it vital that a European Prac-

1.8
tical Guide be compiled which furnishes an overview of:

— types of Community and pan-European actions available;

— differences in eligibility and evaluation criteria;

— external

factors: more intense globalisation,
the emer-
gence of areas of the continent with very dynamic growth,
much higher energy and raw materials prices, unforeseen
scientific and technological developments, the internationa-
lisation of
innovation, climate change issues and often
unmanaged or unmanageable migratory pressures;

— internal

factors: population ageing, protection of

the
environment and quality of life, obsolescence of production
and services, public sector modernisation, growing interac-
tion between new emerging kinds of knowledge and avail-
able human resources, capacity for cultural growth and
creativity, and development of common territorial
infra-
structure, both physical and intangible.

— whether procedures and management run concurrently or

not;

— and whether possible interventions are compatible and

complementary.

2.3
The Committee has expressed its views on these issues a
number of times, both in specific contexts and in the broad
context of the evolution of the Lisbon Strategy and Community
policies on research and innovation,
the environment and
education and training.

1.9
The Committee also maintains that specific and precise
Community action can no longer be postponed if new simulta-
neous engineering capacities of various types of action are to be
achieved and resources are to be maximised and concentrated in
the regions.

2.4
In particular, the Committee has emphasised the need to
‘enable the whole EU area to adjust to the challenges of the
knowledge-based economy and thus help all regions to take
account of the Lisbon objectives’ (3).

As

it has

stated in a previous opinion (2),

1.10
the
Committee thinks there is an urgent need, therefore, to address
the problems of plurality of governance levels and the fragmen-
tation of interventions needed for a competitive relaunch of
Europe's regions. In this connection it proposes instigating a
new initiative — entitled JASMINE: Joint Assistance Supporting
Multiprojects for Innovation Networking in Europe — to tackle
the present institutional gaps on both the demand and supply
sides and to cut red tape significantly.

The Committee has further asserted that:

2.5
‘The new
configuration of competitive models on the global market is
imposing major changes. The new integrated platforms and
networks must address themes relating to research and innova-
tion, the management of new human resources, promotion and
marketing, finance and credit,
logistics and market and client
service management’ (4).

1.11
The aim of JASMINE should be to enable the various
players involved in a network decision-making process to
behave in a more informed and coordinated way within a single
coherent regional planning framework.

(2) See opinion (rapporteur Mr Wolf — OJ C 44/1 of 16.2.2008),
point 1.14: ‘The Committee recommends that clear and comprehen-
sible rules be developed to manage the wide range of Community
instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D. This includes a
summary list (and instructions for use) of all instruments and measures
available to the Commission for promoting and coordinating R&D
objectives …’.

The Committee reiterates its conviction that the promo-
2.6
level and the capacity to network
tion of initiatives at local
them in furtherance of
the Lisbon Strategy are essential to
encourage the setting-up of innovative businesses in a context
of sustainable and competitive development. This especially
applies to those specific regions — Euregios — where neigh-
bours and partners are networked in areas that
transcend
national borders. In its opinion on the Green Paper on The
European Research Area:

(3) See opinion (rapporteur Mr Malosse — OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004, page 88).
(4) See opinion OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005, page 1.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/3

2.7
In its opinion on the Green Paper on The European
Research Area: New perspectives, the Committee recommended
that ‘the European Research Area should be complemented by a
European Knowledge Area designed to create a European knowl-
edge-based society’ and pointed out that ‘[c]oordination [was]
also needed from the Commission to create effective leadership
and advisory structures and to ensure that work […] [was] well
organised’ (5).

2.11
On the supply side, difficulties in achieving a leverage
effect and a coordinated use of funding instruments available for
achieving these goals stem from the inherent nature of
the
instruments themselves, namely:

— the different managerial and procedural emphases

that

govern them;

Finally, the Committee has underscored the importance
2.8
of the knowledge triangle (education, research and innovation),
which plays a critical role in promoting growth and jobs. For
this reason, it is important to step up reforms, promote excel-
lence in higher education and in partnerships between universi-
ties, research centres and companies and ensure that all educa-
tion and training sectors play their full part in nurturing crea-
tivity and innovation, especially at regional and local level.

that

The Committee thinks

2.9
the competitiveness of
Europe's regions and their development in economic, social and
employment terms must be pursued more pro-actively and with
more coordination: the Commission must try to get beyond the
obstacles presented by various
legal bases and procedural
criteria. The aim must be to make the best use for the taxpayer
of various Community budget instruments in order to maximise
tangible results in pursuit of the Lisbon Strategy goals. These
results should be in areas such as the effectiveness of
joint
access, coordination, and synergies and synchronisation of avail-
able interventions at Community and pan-European level. They
should achieve the critical mass needed to generate a multiplier
effect.

— their size (i.e., territorial or transnational);

— the specific nature of the goals they pursue;

— different legal bases;

— and the allocation of decision-making and managerial

responsibility to different bodies and organisations.

2.12

On the demand side, regions often:

— lack a clear, defined and shared vision of a regional strategy
for research and technical and innovation development;

— experience information and communication difficulties;

— lack sufficient capacity to manage complex projects span-

ning different levels and with different goals;

— have underdeveloped clusters and district networks;

— have underdeveloped professional, technical and organisa-
tional capacities needed to fully capitalise on innovation
strategy.

Shortcomings must be addressed by making technical
to all Community

and coordination available

2.13
assistance
programmes from the outset.

According to the renewed Lisbon Agenda's integrated
2.10
guidelines for growth and jobs, cohesion policy has three stra-
tegic priorities (6):

— improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and
cities (science cities) (7)by improving accessibility, ensuring
adequate quality and level of services, and preserving the
environment;

— encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship and the growth of
the knowledge economy by research and innovative applica-
tions, including new information and communication tech-
nologies; and

— creating more and better jobs by attracting more people into
employment or entrepreneurial activity,
improving adapt-
ability of workers and enterprises and increasing investment
in human capital.

(5) See opinion OJ C 44 of 16.2.2008, page 1.
(6) Council decision of 6.10.2006.
(7) See also the Science Cities initiative

wxw.sciencecities.eu.

2.14
The commendable synergy initiatives in various struc-
tural programmes and instruments for the 2007-2013 period
would appear to be a prerequisite — albeit not the only one —
for getting the best concrete results from them.

2.15
The Committee has expressed its support for Commis-
sion initiatives such as JEREMIE and has proposed a JEREMIE
Focal Point
to act as a coordination and information unit
between the various actions, pointing out the lack of ‘a project
capable of coordinating and fine-tuning the many loan instru-
ments currently in existence’ (8).

The Committee

2.16
fully supports and concurs with
Commissioner Hübner's statements on JASPERS, JEREMIE and
JESSICA (9), which ‘have created new dynamics and expectations
for investment, growth and jobs in the Member States and
regions, as well among the social partners across all the regions
of the European Union’.

(8) See opinion OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006.
(9) JEREMIE: Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises;
JESSICA: Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City
Areas; JASPERS: Joint Assistance in Supporting Projects in European
Regions.

C 211/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

2.17
The Committee maintains that the guidelines adopted
by the European Union committee for scientific and technical
research (CREST) (10) and published in September 2007 are
though they are
important
confined to the interaction between the Framework Programme
for research and development and the new Structural Funds.

in showing the way forward,

3. The Commission proposal

The Commission proposal makes clear

the possible
3.1
synergies that already exist
in the funding instruments of
European research, innovation and cohesion policies. These are
available to stakeholders in order to make Europe's regions
more competitive, depending on their capacity to absorb them.

The principal instruments for action spotlighted are the
3.2
Seventh Framework Programme for research and development,
the
Framework
Programme (CIP) and the new focuses of the Structural and
Cohesion Funds.

new Competitiveness

Innovation

and

3.3
The Commission makes it clear that it has worked with a
number of advisory coordination groups, which have recom-
mended:

— the development, as part of their RTDI strategy, of a specific
framework

strategy
the
programme and of cohesion policy programmes;

coordinated use of

the

for

opportunities for research institutions,
ments provided by national and regional mechanisms.

including the arrange-

4. General comments

4.1
The Committee concurs unreservedly with the Commis-
sion's diagnosis of shortcomings in the joint and coordinated
use of the Community instruments it mentions;
it does not,
however, endorse the treatment prescribed, which it thinks is
not enough to achieve the goals of the Community policies,
above all regarding research, innovation and training.

The Committee agrees with the Commission (11)

4.2
that
the renewed Partnership for
to the realisation of
‘[c]entral
Growth and Jobs is the effort
to promote the knowledge
economy, in particular through research, technological develop-
ment and innovation’, but believes that this partnership is the
joint responsibility of all parties concerned, at Community level
no less than at national, regional and local levels.

4.3
The Committee sees a need to go beyond the develop-
ment of a territorial strategy of technological and innovation
research and development and in addition make use of:

— foresight and SWOT analysis instruments (12) to identify the

strategic opportunities of regions;

— pertinent capacity-building and professional training actions;

— increased attractiveness of working in research and develop-
ment to avert a brain drain both within the EU and towards
the rest of the world;

— using network exchanges and links to improve strategic

— exchange of experts and of experience in innovation;

governance of RTDI;

— effective synergies to consolidate and improve RTDI capaci-
ties, the cultivation of excellence, attention to SMEs, and
establishing cooperation at European and international level
and harnessing the results;

— improving

communication and collaboration between

national and regional operators and with beneficiaries;

— support for the development and coordination of knowl-

edge-based industrial districts;

— the European Technology Platforms and the Joint European

initiatives;

— Community instruments in a coordinated way, with the
creation of interactive systems to inform participating opera-
tors of the opportunities available to them;

— using initiatives of the dedicated ‘Capacities’ programme of
the Seventh Framework Programme for coordinated actions;

— opportunities for communication and pooling of experience,

especially between SMEs.

— strengthening synergies, together with the Member States,
between the cohesion policy and the 7th RTD framework
programme.

The Commission calls on the Member States to improve
3.4
the options for the coordinated development and use of Com-
munity instruments and to create systems to inform partici-
pating operators of the opportunities available to them. In order
to encourage coordinated access to funding, it also undertakes
to publish a practical guide by the end of 2007 on the funding

(10) CREST Guidelines — 1.6.2007.

In the Committee's view, far-reaching action should be
4.4
taken on the supply side to ensure an easily accessible frame-
work for all the instruments available for the competitive devel-
opment of Europe's
should be
compatible with the aims of a ‘socially responsible region’,
involve the social partners, chambers of commerce, academia
and organised civil society, and be based on a strategy of
European industrial policy (13) that is sustainable in terms of
both production and consumption.

regions. This development

(11) See COM(2007) 474 final.
(12) SWOT: Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Analysis.

(13) COM(2007) 374 final of 4.7.2007.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/5

competitive

4.5 Moreover, while instruments are listed which help boost
growth, create more and better jobs and make Europe's regions
more
the
Committee finds the list incomplete, since it does not mention
all the relevant Community intervention instruments and omits
the coordination opportunities and requirements of available
pan-European and international instruments.

through research and innovation,

The Communication omits to mention, or mentions only

4.6
in passing (14), possibilities of intervention such as:

4.7 Moreover,
the pan-European,
there is no mention of
non-Community, programmes and initiatives that nevertheless
promote innovation in the EU, such as:

— the Eureka initiative, a pan-European network for market-
oriented industrial R&D organisations with which the
Commission has concluded a cooperation agreement and
which assists the competitiveness of European companies by
creating links and networks of innovation in thirty-six coun-
tries;

— the European Investment Bank, with its wealth of opportu-

nities;

— the Eurostars programme,

the joint EC-Eureka initiative
based on a Europe-wide scheme to support SMEs in devel-
oping new market products and services;

— the Innovation 2010 Initiative (i2i);

— the collaborative initiatives undertaken at European and
Community level, such as the European R&D Infrastructures
(ESFRI) and the European Technology Platforms;

— facilities for human resources in science and technology and
EIBURS (EIB University Research Sponsorship Programme);

— STAREBEI (STAges de REcherche BEI) and BEI University

Networks;

— the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD), which has concluded a partnership agreement with
the Commission designed to facilitate the planning of large
projects
co-financed by the Cohesion Fund and the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), especially in
the new Member States, in the period 2007-2013;

— the LEED/OECD (Local Economic and Employment Develop-
ment) programme, which identifies, analyses and dissemi-
nates innovative ideas for local development and seeks —
sometimes in collaboration with the European Commission
— to improve the governance of SMEs;

— regional and local funding for R&D and innovation;

— public and private investments in R&D and innovation;

— the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), which has
a partnership agreement with the Commission and funds
social projects to improve economic and social cohesion
integration, environmental protection
and increase social
and the development of human capital in the regions;

— ICT and audiovisual services;

— the integrated Education & Training 2010 work programme,
comprising additional sectoral programmes covering lifelong
learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation (15), which
is an integral part of the knowledge triangle of education,
research and innovation;

— Community information society intervention instruments

with programmes within the i2010 initiative (16);

— the contribution of social dialogue to bolstering the knowl-

edge-based society;

— various Euregio activities and initiatives;

— and the science cities initiatives.

The Committee also sees a need, while respecting
4.8
Article 54(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, for
greater clarification of the difficulties and impediments to joint
and coordinated use of applicable instruments at national,
level and by individual operators (19), not
regional and local
only with regard to different legal bases, thematic specialisation,
geographical area and modes of implementation, but also in
terms of substantial, and sometimes fatal, differences, such as:

— enhancing lifelong and periodic education;

— whether or not projects are transnational;

— the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (17) aimed at
providing one-off targeted support to ease the reemploy-
ment of workers from branches or sectors suffering the
shock of serious economic upheaval (18).

(14) See SEC(2007) 1045 final of 16.8.2007.
(15) See COM(2007) 703 final of 12.11.2007.
(16) See COM(2007) 146 final.
(17) See COM(2006) 91 final.
(18) See opinion OJ C 318 of 23.12.2006.

(19) See opinion OJ C 44 of 16.2.2008, page 1, point 4.8: ‘Existing Com-
munity instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D objectives.
On the other hand, the Committee recommends that general, clear and
comprehensible rules should be developed to manage the wide range
of Community instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D. It
would be very helpful
the Commission listed and described
(i.e. provided comprehensible instructions for use for) all the instru-
ments and measures available to it for promoting and coordinating
R&D objectives. This would also show whether, among the growing
plethora of instruments, the purpose of each one is adequately defined
and the instruments properly separated, and whether they can be
easily understood by potential users and Commission staff or need to
be overhauled to make them clearer’.

if

C 211/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

— whether they start at the same time;

— whether funding is provided at the same time;

— whether projects run concurrently;

— the possibilities and capacities for breaking down a wide-
ranging territorial action project into a series of ‘subprojects’
to be carried out as required by individual Community, pan-
European and international programmes and instruments.

4.9
The Committee considers it vital that a European Prac-
tical Guide be compiled which furnishes an overview of types of
the various
Community and pan-European actions available,
evaluation criteria and whether possible interventions are
compatible and complementary.

4.10
The Committee reiterates the need for coordinated and
joint action ‘concerning the links between Community struc-
tural policies and the Union's research and innovation policies,
as the Committee has urged on several occasions’ and stresses
that ‘close coordination of these policies is essential in order to
achieve optimum levels of practical synergy and to enable the
needs of citizens, businesses and society to be fully met with the
overall objective of sustainable, smooth medium- to long-term
in keeping with the integrated RTD problem-solving
growth,
approach and with the key development factor of intangible
investment’ (20).

4.11
The Committee stresses the large number of Com-
munity policies that, alongside cohesion policy and research
policy, help to improve the competitiveness of Europe's regions,
and reiterates the need for an integrated and coordinated
approach which comprises:

— a sustainable industry policy, as highlighted by the Brussels
European Council
in December 2007, whereby ‘an inte-
grated approach to European Competitiveness should be
fostered by a sustainable industrial policy, combined with
innovation and skills, while developing its external dimen-
sion in order to ensure a level playing field’ (21);

— a reappraisal of the European single market policy to ensure
an innovation-friendly environment, protection of intellec-
tual property and collaboration between universities, busi-
nesses and research centres, as well as an enhanced policy of
legislative standardisation;

— a social and employment policy which provides for a struc-
shared flexicurity principles (22),
tured social dialogue,
support for active ageing and policies of active inclusion and
lifelong learning for all;

(20) See opinion OJ C 40 of 15.2.1999.
(21) Presidency Conclusions, Brussels European Council, 14 December

2007.

(22) As set out in point 16 of the Conclusions of the European Council of

13 and 14 March 2008 and in EESC opinions.

— a policy of sustainable development and consumption which
is committed to the research and application of clean and
innovative technologies and includes an integrated policy on
climate and energy, sustainable management of natural
resources and sustainable production and consumption.

4.12
views on the need to (23):

In this connection, the Committee reiterates its existing

— ‘formulate and adopt an overall Community strategy for
streamlining the relevant mechanisms of European policies,
in order — while respecting regional identities — to allow
Europe to speak with one voice from the point of view of
competitiveness and the sustainable and harmonious devel-
opment of the European system’;

— ‘identify integrated instruments
national innovation markets’;

[of]

local,

regional and

— ‘establish the levels of integration and their interaction, inter
alia in order to synchronise and ensure the compatibility of
the decision-making and implementation aspects of
the
structural cohesion policy and RTD/innovation policy. This
is vital in order that the policies be fully and effectively inte-
grated’;

— ‘identify new ways to combine the cohesion and RTDD
instruments, using simplified methods and procedures
which are, wherever possible, uniform and automatic. Full
advantage should be taken of the possibility allowed […] to
vary the levels of support for company RTD’;

— ‘set up systems

to control

and monitor

combined
RTDD/cohesion schemes in order to assess their effective-
ness in terms of the achievement of the declared objectives;
this could be done by using pre-established and harmonised
performance indicators, as well as benchmarking at regional
level’.

4.12.1
Community training programmes.

The Committee also recommends the integration of

4.13
The Committee expresses its regret that ten years later
this crucial issue is still approached in terms of analysis rather
than getting to the nub of the problem, which requires Com-
munity intervention to provide new ‘simultaneous engineering
capacities of various types of action (technological, demonstra-
tive,
innovative, dissemination, educational, financial, etc.) —
the aim being to boost employment and production at regional
level’ (24).

(23) See opinion OJ C 40 of 15.2.1999.
(24) See footnote 23.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/7

4.14
The Committee maintains that specific and precise
Community action can no longer be postponed if the risk of
losses in productivity and employment in Europe's regions is to
be averted.

— a horizontal policy network which involves public and
private entities in the regions, such as local governments,
business, banks, NGOs, interest groups and social dialogue
institutions (25);

5. The EESC proposal

The Jasmine (Joint Assistance Supporting Multiprojects for
Innovation Networking in Europe) initiative

5.1
The EESC advocates a voluntary instrument for simpli-
fying and removing bureaucratic, procedural and conceptual
obstacles to the joint use of pan-European, Community, national
and regional programmes in line with an accelerated develop-
ment of the European Research Area (ERA).

5.2
The Committee considers that the current priority is to
address problems relating to the plurality of governance levels
of the various available interventions to restart the competitive-
ness of Europe's regions. To this end, it proposes a new initiative
— Jasmine: Joint Assistance Supporting Multiprojects for Inno-
vation Networking in Europe — to tackle the present institu-
tional gaps, on both demand and supply sides, in interventions
to support innovation and research in the regions.

— the creation of a Jasmine Focal Point as a Community coor-
dination and information unit between the different levels
and different kinds of action — subject to different rules and
with different managerial responsibilities within and outside
the Commission's services — to maximise their results. It
could have its own website, for example, but should not be
unduly centralised (26);

— the creation of a Community Network of Jasmine Focal
Points in regions that so desire to ensure the overall coher-
ence of projects that are divided into several subprojects;
linkage between the territoriality and the transterritoriality
of the subprojects themselves; finding national and transna-
tional partners for multiproject proposals; ensuring that
projects start, receive funding and are implemented at the
same time; avoidance of duplication;

— the voluntary creation by regions of

Jasmine
Holding Funds, which should be given briefs defined in
advance by the Commission and be accredited by it on the
basis of cost effectiveness, efficiency, impartiality, equal treat-
ment and procedural transparency;

regional

Community

5.3
based
action
Networking, which could take the following forms:

should

be

on

Policy

— the launch of a Foresight Community action called
Competitive European Regions that will benefit from the
experience of DG Research and involve senior officials of all
the relevant Commission services, together with political
representatives of the regions and with the European Parlia-
ment,
the Regions and the European
the Committee of
Economic and Social Committee;

— the creation of a ‘Jasmine Community Initiative’ to flank
JASPERS, JEREMIE and JESSICA and develop technical assis-
tance actions focused not only on national, regional and
local authorities, but also on operators concerned, to make
coordination between Community, pan-European and
national interventions really effective and to meet the need
for simultaneous engineering between various types of inter-
vention;

— steps to enable the various players to act in a more informed
and coordinated way and be dependent on one another for
information, managerial capacities, competences and finan-
cial resources. This would enable multi-level governance
interventions to be launched at the same time within a
single coherent regional planning framework, whether this
involves Public/Private Partnership actions or national, Com-
munity and transnational actions;

— a vertical policy network which involves governance institu-
tions at various levels — international, Community, national
and regional — in well-defined and well-structured systems
of cooperation;

— the incorporation of specific benchmarking actions on the
‘success […] [of] new methods of governance based on
transparency, simplification of procedures and a genuine
partnership with the local and regional socio-economic
players (27)’;

local

— capacity-building action for

administrations

and
economic and social players, support for the development of
transnational networks for project partnerships, monitoring
of the synergies and synchronicities of projects, and support
for a transparent and interactive communication and infor-
mation strategy.

(25) See Regional Policy DG, EC, January 2003.
(26) See point 3.14 of opinion OJ C 44 of 16.2.2008, page 1:

‘The
Commission should certainly avoid the impression that its aim is to
introduce central management of European research; this would
further fuel the existing concern of the general public n the Member
States about excessive centralisation in Brussels’.

(27) See opinion OJ C 10/88 of 14.1.2004.

C 211/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

5.4
The new priorities of regional programmes, focused on
innovation, competitiveness and reciprocal learning throughout
active life, should make it possible to develop active policies to
reinforce and sustain the competitiveness of regions through the
funding of regional and interregional foresight exercises, clusters
and district networks that provide a strategic vision shared by
each region. This can serve as the basis for a technical support
action for the best combined use of the most suitable national,
Community and pan-European instruments and PPPs.

Jasmine could serve as a guarantee which would facilitate
5.5
the acceptance of
individual projects by reassuring various
funding bodies and programmes that they are a part or stage of
a larger project. This could be done on the basis of a Memor-
andum of Understanding or a cooperation agreement between
the European Commission and other Community and non-
Community bodies, or under the Commission's administrative
regulations when different services of the Commission itself are
responsible for individual programmes.

5.6
The aim of Jasmine is to facilitate the mobilisation of
financial resources covering different managerial responsibilities
and different tiers of governance (public or private) to achieve
an optimum critical mass of resources — thus increasing the
total leverage effect — in order to create a single multi-project

Brussels, 22 April 2008.

framework that fully meets a European region's shared strategic
vision of improving its strong points in technology and innova-
tion.

5.7
Jasmine should be based on the experiences of the Lead
Market Initiative, the European Technology Platforms and the
Joint Technology Initiatives and on the outcomes of ERANET
and ERANET PLUS, the Regions for Economic Change and PRO
INNO initiatives and JEREMIE, JASPERS and JESSICA (28).

5.8
Jasmine could maximise the innovation and research
efforts of the regions and the companies, human resources,
universities, research centres and administrations on which they
rest — through the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of
the European Institute of Technology (EIT),
It
should be remembered, however, that innovation is for the most
part a commercial activity that must be able to function in the
best possible operational environment, especially regarding the
tax burden on research, the treatment and protection of intellec-
tual property and the excellence of education and training struc-
tures which will generate more and better jobs.

for example.

Finally,

Jasmine could help to make the most of

5.9
the
distinctive advantages of the regions and to promote exchanges
on innovation and research.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(28) See footnote 9.