Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the response to the report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities and to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility’ COM(2011) 52 final
Date: 2011-05-04
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, financing








C_2011218EN.01008701.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/87





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the response to the report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities and to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility’
COM(2011) 52 final
2011/C 218/16
Rapporteur-General: Gerd WOLF

On 9 February 2011, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Response to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities and to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility

COM(2011) 52 final.
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 14 March 2011.
Given the urgent nature of the work (Rules 20 and 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure), the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Wolf as rapporteur-general at its 471st plenary session, held on 4 and 5 May 2011 (meeting of 4 May), and adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to one with three abstentions.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The Committee welcomes the report of the Expert Group and fully supports its recommendations; it also supports the Commission's response to the report, set out in the communication, on which it expresses specific views.
1.2   With reference also to the report of the Expert Group, the Committee recommends in particular that:






—


the budget for supporting research and innovation be increased to a proportion of the overall budget which definitely reflects the stated importance and weight of this area in the 2020 strategy,










—


support be concentrated on those tasks, the success of which depends on trans-national cooperation,










—


collaborative research be retained and strengthened,










—


major infrastructures be included in support,










—


greater emphasis be given to ‘key enabling technologies’, without which we can neither meet the challenge of global competition nor address the major societal themes,










—


greater participation of hitherto under-represented Member States be facilitated through improved connections between the Structural Funds and the Framework Programme,










—


at least 20 % of the overall programme budget should be available for R&D governed by the European Research Council,










—


administrative procedures be radically simplified and consideration given to a moratorium on new instruments.




1.3   The Committee appeals to the Member States to definitely fulfil their ‘3 % obligation’ and to clearly exceed this goal if economically possible.
1.4   With regard to the terminology used for the three research categories in the report of the Expert Group, the Committee has reservations about the concept ‘science for science’. Instead it suggests using the concept ‘science for knowledge’.
1.5   The Committee welcomes the Commission's opinion on the Expert Group’s report on the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF). It agrees with the assessment in the Expert Group’s report and believes that the RSFF is a very helpful financial instrument that encourages innovation.
2.   Commission communication

2.1   In accordance with decisions of the European Parliament and the Council, an interim evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme (1) was carried out by a group of external experts. The report contained ten very clear and worthwhile recommendations. The Commission has now published a communication on the report and its recommendations in which it also responds to the recommendations set out in the interim evaluation.
This Committee opinion comments on the communication and thus also on the report of the Expert Group and its recommendations.
2.2   In its communication the Commission focuses in particular on the following recommendations of the report of the Expert Group:






1)


To advance the European Research Area (ERA) and Innovation Union objectives, integrating the research base.










2)


To develop and implement high quality research infrastructures.










3)


The level of funding should, at least, be maintained.










4)


A well-articulated innovation strategy is needed.










5)


Simplification needs a quantum leap.










6)


The mix of funding measures in FP7 and successor programmes should strike a different balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches to research.










7)


A moratorium on new instruments should be considered.










8)


Further steps to increase female participation in FP7 should be taken in its remaining years.










9)


To pave the way for increased participation from Member States that are under-represented through improved connections between the Structural Funds and the FP.










10)


Opening of the FP7 to international cooperation.




2.3   The Commission on the whole endorses these recommendations of the report of the Expert Group and it undertakes to give them due consideration in the next Framework Programme. The Commission does, however, add a few, rather minor changes of emphasis and explanations or interpretations.
3.   General comments

3.1   The Committee recognises that the report of the Expert Group and the Commission's response to this in its communication form the basis for the Green Paper (2) in which the Commission sets out the principles for future support for research and innovation. As a consequence, these two documents are more important than a normal mid-term review.
3.2   The Committee is very pleased to note that most of the recommendations of the report of the Expert Group referred to above (point 2.2) largely coincide with the statements and recommendations made by the Committee in earlier opinions.
3.3   The Committee responds to the Commission's comments on some of the recommendations of the report of the Expert Group as follows:
3.3.1   To advance the European Research Area (ERA) and Innovation Union objectives, integrating the research base.
The Committee wholeheartedly supports the recommendation of the report of the Expert Group that EU support should concentrate on areas, where a critical mass is vital and where the success depends on trans-national cooperation. In the Committee's view this applies in particular to the successful collaborative research, which plays a key, decisive and integrating role and should be retained and developed.
3.3.2   To develop and implement high quality research infrastructures.
The Committee fully agrees, as already expressed in previous opinions. Since major infrastructures generally exceed the capacity of individual Member States to fund and utilise them, they fulfil the condition set out under point 3.3.1 and thus should receive reliable support from the Commission during their construction and operation phases.
3.3.3   The level of funding should, at least, be maintained.

Whereas the report of the Expert Group states that: ‘The percentage of the total EU budget that FP7 will have when it ends should be regarded as a minimum’, which the Committee considers to be the minimum position still worth supporting, the Commission in its communication displays an even more defensive attitude. The Committee is extremely concerned about this tendency; it contradicts all previous political statements and objectives connected with the EU 2020 strategy. The Committee therefore urges the Commission and all relevant political decision-makers to give research and innovation definitely the required status and weight within the EU budget and the EU 2020 strategy.
3.3.4   A well-articulated innovation strategy is needed.

The Committee fully agrees and refers to its opinions INT/545 (3) and INT/571. Innovations lead to progress, growth, prosperity, social security, international competitiveness and employment. They require and reinforce a social climate of confidence and self-belief that can generate further progress and a constructive dynamic with which to take on global competition. To flourish, they need a European approach and a European single market, in which the European Research Area with a powerful R&D Framework Programme plays a key role.
3.3.5   Simplification needs a quantum leap.
The Committee fully agrees and refers to its opinion (4) on that subject (even if the quantum leap metaphor is a misinterpretation of the relevant concept in physics). The increasing number of diverse projects and tools which often follow very different rules and procedures have created a key problem for EU research funding. This complexity is further aggravated by, in some cases, widely differing sets of rules in the individual Member States and their national funding providers. Therefore, a radical simplification is needed, including acceptance of Member States' usual accounting practices.
3.3.6   The mix of funding measures in FP7 and successor programmes should strike a different balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches to research.
Correct, if this means that bottom-up approaches should be given greater weight. While top-down approaches result from a strategic perspective of the leading stakeholders based on the state of present knowledge, bottom-up approaches use the creative potential of scientists and engineers working directly on the objects to be investigated or improved. Even where major social issues like health, climate and energy, or where key enabling technologies are concerned, more emphasis should be placed on bottom-up ideas and proposals emerging from the broad knowledge community rather than only on directives from above. ‘Innovation policy should be targeted at organisational and employee-driven innovations in the workplace (5)’.
3.3.7   A moratorium on new instruments should be considered.
Correct, as already expressed in a number of Committee opinions which address the problem of the increasing proliferation of instruments; this refers also directly to point 3.3.5. If the clear statements in the report of the Expert Group (6) are not considered sufficient, an analysis of support instruments should be carried out in cooperation with a broad range of users in order to establish which instruments have been successful and to eliminate or scale down the less useful instruments.
3.3.8   Further steps to increase female participation in FP7 should be taken in its remaining years.
Correct: to begin with, this requires encouraging more women to study science and technology. Then it also applies to the general gender issue of women in professional positions. Concerning careers in R&D, a specific issue is to provide sufficient dual career possibilities (7) which are particularly important in view of the required mobility of researchers.
3.3.9   To pave the way for increased participation from Member States that are under-represented through improved connections between the Structural Funds and the FP.
Correct: see also the Committee opinion on the Green Paper. The Committee supports the statement made in the Commission Green Paper (8) that: ‘In the long term, world class excellence can only thrive in a system in which all researchers across the EU are provided with the means to develop into excellence and eventually compete for the top spots. This requires Member States to pursue ambitious modernisation agendas for their public research base and sustain public funding. EU funding, also through the Cohesion policy Funds, should assist to build up excellence where and as appropriate’.
3.3.10   Opening of the FP7 to international cooperation.
Correct: the Committee has also already expressed its support for this important move (9). International cooperation has a favourable impact on scientific and technical progress but also on understanding between nations. It should be recognised that much has already been achieved in this area. However, the success of international cooperation also depends on the attractiveness of the European Research Area and on the performance of European universities and research institutes.
3.4   The Committee welcomes the Commission's opinion on the Expert Group's report on the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF). It agrees with the assessment in the Expert Group's report and believes that the RSFF is a very helpful financial instrument that encourages innovation. It would also refer here to its calls for risk capital, particularly for business start-ups, such as in point 4.8 of its opinion on the Innovation Union (10).
4.   Specific comments

4.1   In this section of the opinion the Committee would like to address aspects which it feels do not receive adequate treatment in the Commission communication or where comments on the report of the Expert Group are needed.
4.2   Key enabling technologies

The Commission has already devoted a communication and the Committee has issued an opinion (11) on the importance for global competitiveness of a leading position in the development of key enabling technologies. The development and availability of key enabling technologies are a vital precondition for the European economy to face global competition and to solve the tasks posed by the grand societal challenges. However, the communication under discussion here does not give sufficient weight to this essential topic. The Committee therefore recommends explicitly that greater weight and visibility be given to this issue in the preparations for FP8.
4.3   European Research Council

The recommendations of the report of the Expert Group and the communication responding to them do not pay sufficient attention to the already visible success of the Ideas programme assessed and governed by the European Research Council or to the high standard of the work carried out in this connection. The Committee therefore reiterates its recommendation that 20 % of the total FP8 budget be assigned to this programme.
4.4   Terminology

The report of the Expert Group recommends the following programme structure with a view to tackling the major challenges:






—


Science for science - the researchers set the agenda










—


Science for competitiveness - industry sets the agenda










—


Science for society - civil society actors set the agenda.




The Committee finds these headings thorough and well chosen but is concerned that they might not sufficiently reflect the complex relationship between the bottom-up and top-down approaches or between basic and applied research. It refers in this connection to its opinion INT/571 and would merely stress that there is in fact no such thing as ‘science for science’ research, but only ‘science for knowledge’. The three categories listed in the report of the Expert Group are more concerned with the question of whether, or to what extent, the new knowledge expected to be generated by the research findings can automatically be regarded as relevant and usable in solving problems.
4.4.1   The Committee also refers to the statements made in its opinion INT/545 in connection with incremental and revolutionary innovations, from which it is clear that revolutionary, breakthrough innovations have not – or only rarely – in the past arisen from existing industries but have instead led to the creation of entirely new industries and sectors.
4.4.2   The Committee therefore recommends that this terminology, for all its pithiness, be reconsidered in order to prevent any risk of misunderstanding which could lead to wrong decisions and misallocation of resources.

Brussels, 4 May 2011.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON




(1)  Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations.

(2)  COM(2011) 48 final.

(3)  OJ C 132, 3.5.2011, p. 39 (Innovation Union).

(4)  e.g. OJ C 48, 15.2.2011, pp. 129-133.

(5)  OJ C 132, 3.5.2011, p. 22 –(Innovative workplaces), point 2.6.

(6)  See report of the Expert Group, point 4.3 onwards.

(7)  CESE 305/2004, in particular point 5.5.5.2, OJ C 110/3, 30.4.2004.

(8)  COM(2011) 52 final.

(9)  OJ C 306, 16.12.2009.

(10)  OJ C 132, 3.5.2011, p. 39 (Innovation Union).

(11)  OJ C 48, 15.2.2011, p. 112.