Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/1 |

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Local and Regional Dimension of the Horizon 2020 Programme and the New Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

(2017/C 342/01)

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| |  |  | | --- | --- | | Rapporteur: | Christophe Clergeau (FR/PES), Member of the Pays-de-la-Loire Regional Council | |

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR)

A)   EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (R&I): AN AMBITION THAT NEEDS TO BE STEPPED UP BEYOND THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Reaffirming the position of the framework programme in implementing the European Research Area and the Europe 2020 objectives

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 1. | welcomes the great success of European research policy as implemented through the successive framework programmes up to Horizon 2020 (H2020), the largest integrated research programme in the world, based on scientific excellence and the acceleration of innovation; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 2. | notes that H2020 is the main support tool for developing research and innovation in Europe within the overarching Europe 2020 strategy and for implementing the European Research Area (ERA); |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 3. | reaffirms the relevance of the Europe 2020 strategy, which proposes a consolidated ‘knowledge triangle’ approach (research — education — innovation), with the change in the learning approach and the goal of raising the level of training for all remaining essential, and promoting university-business cooperation; also recommends seeking greater coordination and complementarity with the Erasmus+ and Interreg programmes, including Interreg Europe, which is devoted to interregional cooperation; emphasises that the implementation of the ERA must be pursued and requires that a number of goals be met, of which scientific excellence is a vital and indispensable, but not exclusive, strand; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 4. | underlines the continued relevance of the ERA objectives and the benefit of still seeking to achieve them, particularly in respect of transnational cooperation, knowledge mobility, a single labour market for researchers and innovators, gender equality, and access to information and science; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 5. | suggests, in order to develop support for the project to build a knowledge society in Europe, that European talent be identified and researchers’ careers monitored; European pathways for researchers should be established, enabling them to access programmes to support their research career in periods of transition; the involvement of researchers in the business environment should be promoted; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 6. | refuses to limit the budget debate solely to the framework programme: depending on the valuation method, the share of cohesion policy devoted to research and innovation varies between EUR 43 and EUR 110 billion, not including the major contributions from other sectoral policies and the Juncker Plan; |

For a return to innovation and research as a budgetary and policy priority

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 7. | calls for a return to innovation and research as one of the top priorities in the debate on the future of Europe and the priorities set out in the Rome Declaration[(1)](#ntr1-C_2017342EN.01000101-E0001), for the horizontal governance of research, innovation and training issues within the EU to be strengthened, and for the EU’s overall fiscal effort in the area of R&I to be stepped up across each of these policies, within the current and the next MFF. In this overall context, and in line with the European Parliament’s draft report[(2)](#ntr2-C_2017342EN.01000101-E0002) and the report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes (Lamy Report)[(3)](#ntr3-C_2017342EN.01000101-E0003), the budget for the framework programme should be considerably increased to at least maintain the growth momentum of the current framework programme[(4)](#ntr4-C_2017342EN.01000101-E0004). In any event, the necessary promotion of R&I must not undermine the importance of cohesion policy, which remains the EU’s key financing tool for achieving economic and social cohesion and convergence between its cities and regions. The full potential of cohesion and R & D policy measures will need to be harnessed and combined in order to boost regional development; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 8. | calls for a new collective ambition that focuses not only on scientific excellence in Europe but also on scientific excellence and the innovation capacity of Europe as a whole, by tapping into the full potential of all its cities and regions, helping to strengthen their capacities and promoting open and collaborative innovation; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 9. | believes such an ambition is particularly necessary in the context of a globalisation process whose effects are not yet contained, above all at local and regional level, and where research and innovation can offer resilience, high added value and long-term competitiveness; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 10. | aims to promote a holistic approach to European, national and regional funding without which this ambition and the debate on the EU budget would be meaningless; points out the importance of the target of spending 3 % of GDP on public and private R&I that was set for all Member States by the Europe 2020 strategy, which has been stagnating at 2,03 % since 2015 and undermined, among other things, by the decrease in appropriations in many Member States; to that end, considers it essential to continue strengthening R&I systems, taking account of the circumstances in each country and region, by improving the coordination of policies at European level and promoting the necessary reforms at national and regional level, including through the European Semester and the smart specialisation strategies; |

Clarifying the debate on synergies with other EU policies

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 11. | considers it necessary to clarify the debate on synergies and proposes five operational principles that could be shared between the EU, the Member States, the regions and cities:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | coherence principle: sharing governance and the choice of major objectives, strategies and flagship projects; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | compatibility principle: making it possible to pool and streamline resources simply and effectively by addressing the issue of State aid; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | complementarity principle: ensuring a clear distribution of roles and good continuity of action when funding different strands of projects, and ensuring they receive support both upstream (capacity-building, etc.) and downstream (making use of research results, marketing, etc.); |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | co-construction principle: establishing a coherent approach based on the idea that financing together means designing together and managing together; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | ecosystems principle: recognising the role of local collective initiatives; | |

B)   REVAMPING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME WHILE RETAINING ITS STRUCTURE

An open, collaborative programme for the benefit of all

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 12. | points out that the European added value of the framework programme is primarily based on its collective and collaborative dimension and on its contribution to creating a network of researchers and innovation ecosystems. This dimension should continue to take precedence over support for individual projects; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 13. | is concerned about the decline in the average success rate of the calls for proposals, which is lower than for the previous framework programme and seriously impedes its dissemination in cities and regions. The competition necessary in a drive for excellence should not lead to exclusion and excessive concentration; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 14. | believes it is vital to maintain the openness of the framework programme in order to ensure its availability right across Europe and its regions, as well as to its citizens; calls for greater innovation in the framework programme’s tools in order to combine excellence, inclusion and participation; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 15. | notes the importance of maintaining a balance between basic research and research closer to the market, but also between free research and research as a response to questions raised by society and economic operators, in order to target both incremental innovation as well as disruptive innovation, as both are capable of creating new business opportunities and jobs; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 16. | notes the primacy currently afforded to projects with high technology readiness levels (TRL), which prioritises incremental innovation by encouraging researchers to focus on mature ideas that can be brought to the market within a short time span; at the same time, argues that support for projects at lower TRLs is also important for bringing more innovation to the market; stresses the importance of disruptive innovations that are based on lower TRLs and enable new products and services to be released on the market quickly. In any event, helping SMEs access the market and creating sustainable jobs should be key priorities of innovation policy. This should be the role of a European Innovation Council; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 17. | calls for better account to be taken of all forms of excellence and innovation, and points out that non-technological innovation and social innovation create a need for new knowledge that can configure new areas of excellence; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 18. | calls for full recognition of social innovation, which means novel ideas (products, services and models) that make it possible to meet societal needs in the broad sense of the term; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 19. | emphasises that research and innovation is not targeted exclusively at companies but also concerns public policies, health, culture and community life, as well as the social economy and new economic models, which contribute to the creation of new partnerships, new activities and new social relationships. Therefore, the exploitation of innovation output should focus not only on the concept of a product with an economic value on the market but also on the concept of a service with a social value for citizens; |

A new approach to excellence

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 20. | highlights that the term excellence is used to refer to very different realities; suggests distinguishing between the following challenges which the framework programme must help address:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | scientific excellence, based on the principle of collaboration followed by that of competition; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the excellence of scientific and innovation projects, characterised by their impact and their contribution to knowledge transfer; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the excellence of innovation ecosystems and joint efforts between different operators; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the excellence of Europe as a whole and its overall capacity for innovation; | |

A new approach to the impact of projects

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 21. | when assessing the impact of projects, both in the ex-ante phase in the case of proposals and the ex-post phase in the case of approved projects, suggests taking the following into consideration:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the scientific impact, predominantly measured by citations; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the impact through the dissemination and ownership of the project results; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the impact through open and collaborative innovation and the development of new products and services, particularly by SMEs; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the impact on regional innovation ecosystems and their three pillars (research — education — innovation), and on cities and regions and their inhabitants, in particular on employment and well-being; | |

A new approach to the position of cities and regions within the framework programme

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 22. | suggests, in order to help promote excellence in all its forms, that cities and regions be given a greater role in the future framework programme:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | partners for the overall governance of R&I policy in Europe and for the framework programme; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | at the heart of the European excellence networks of hubs and innovation ecosystems; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | participants in projects with facilitated involvement; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | main actors involved in innovating, exploiting and disseminating the results of H2020; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | leading role in the ongoing dialogue between science and society. | |

Transforming societal challenges to enhance their relevance and impact

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 23. | calls for the introduction of two new societal challenges to develop excellent scientific output on major challenges for the future of European societies:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | tackling the challenges of the European skills agenda: life-long learning within the European social and performance-based model; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the territorial dynamic of value creation, innovation and employment, social links and sustainable development, including in connection with the demographic challenges facing the regions of the European Union; | |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 24. | calls for interdisciplinarity, the human and social sciences, and risk-taking to be given more emphasis in the context of societal challenges, in order to catalyse new ideas and solutions, particularly through the introduction of undefined calls for projects; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 25. | encourages the adoption of a new, complementary approach based on missions, in order to carry out exploratory work and large-scale projects, as well as on cross-cutting focuses, using the model of smart cities, environmental questions, or maritime and marine research questions; to this end, reiterates the Committee’s call for a target to be set, in the next framework programme, for 10 % of projects to have a significant impact on marine and maritime research[(5)](#ntr5-C_2017342EN.01000101-E0005); |

For means of participation that encourage a greater diversity of projects

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 26. | is surprised that many opportunities existing under the current rules are not sufficiently tapped and suggests several areas for improvement:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | wider, more open calls for proposals that allow new approaches to be put forward; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | greater interdisciplinarity when drafting calls for proposals in order to draw on the entire body of knowledge available, technological or otherwise; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | greater inclusion of the human and social sciences, which is currently lacking; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | greater bottom-up support for networks and initiatives; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | more clarity and accountability at all stages of the evaluation and selection of projects and allocation of funding, and in feedback, so that projects can be adjusted with a view to the next application succeeding; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | an incentive to include more new entrants in the calls for proposals aimed at first-time participants; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | increased and consistent use of ‘cascade funding’, which is a method of reaching people who are not well aware of the framework programme; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | introduction of simplified procedures aimed at cutting unnecessary red tape for end users; | |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 27. | calls on the Commission to present those elements of its assessment that justify the high level of funding for large enterprises under Horizon 2020 given that their R & D expenditure has increased only slightly, and consequently to propose changes for the next framework programme; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 28. | insists on the need to fund research activities with grants; deplores the trend towards replacing grants with loans but acknowledges that projects with high levels of technological maturity that are close to market activities should be able to avail of such loans, among other tools; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 29. | considers that the development of financial instruments to support the objectives of the framework programme is justified only if they can be used, in partnership with financial institutions, to hedge against high risks where there is market failure, based for example on the InnovFin model; regrets the current limited use of the Juncker Plan to protect against this type of risk; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 30. | draws attention to the need to improve the financing of innovation projects for SMEs, with the focus on Industry 4.0 programmes as a better way of structuring the EU industrial fabric, while also creating domestic demand for technology that promotes European development; |

C)   A FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME SUPPORTING R&I ROOTED IN ALL CITIES AND REGIONS

Promoting an excellence-based approach that is firmly rooted in the cities and regions

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 31. | notes that scientific excellence is embedded in innovation hubs and ecosystems. The majority of entities benefiting from Horizon 2020 (universities, research bodies, SMEs, civil society organisations) are solidly rooted in their cities and regions, whose assets contribute to the quality of science. This fact must be fully reflected in the framework programme; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 32. | points out that the territorial dimension must be taken into account as a matter of course when any policy is being framed, because smart specialisation strategies (RIS3) provide resources for science stakeholders and businesses, and create value for cities and regions, as well as for citizens; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 33. | points out that RIS3s have been adopted and developed by regions as a way of structuring investment in research and innovation to further economic growth, in tandem with other regions, and that coordinating regional and European investment on structural projects in relation to smart specialisation increases the impact of the framework programme and avoids financing projects that are not relevant to local circumstances; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 34. | emphasises that the framework programme must help to strengthen R&I capacity in cities and regions so that they are helped to climb the ‘stairway to excellence’, e.g. in smart specialisation, and to promote the ability of all regions to take part in H2020 by contributing high-quality projects; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 35. | notes the importance of cities as innovation hubs that play a key role in producing excellence; also notes that if science is too concentrated in innovation hubs, this may undermine the search for spillover effects on the economy and society, and points to the need to develop pockets of excellence away from the main centres; points to the crucial role played by regional policy in this area; |

Forming a new alliance between EU research policy and the cities and regions

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 36. | advocates a new partnership for R&I excellence in Europe — between the EU, the Member States, cities and regions — based on enhanced multilevel governance, compliance with the subsidiarity principle, a shared open innovation culture and development of grassroots initiatives in a bottom-up approach; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 37. | would like the framework programme to do more to strengthen regional innovation hubs and ecosystems, with more support for technology transfer networks, and for a new ‘territorial connections’ action to be set up to recognise and fund regional excellence networks through the framework programme, along the lines of the Vanguard Initiative; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 38. | calls for pioneering regions to form European consortia with a view to creating ground-breaking innovations throughout Europe. Identifying opportunities for collaboration, mapping parts of the value chain, and identifying key stakeholders and capabilities through smart specialisation are key steps in the process of creating EU added value; |

Bridging the innovation gap between regions and between Member States

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 39. | is disappointed that halfway through its term, Horizon 2020 is undermined by low participation among the EU-13 countries [(6)](#ntr6-C_2017342EN.01000101-E0006) , and points to the differences in participation at regional and local level. It is important to make the framework programme — and not just cohesion policy — work across all the Union’s cities and regions so as to support the best pioneers of excellence and ensure their access to European collaborative efforts; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 40. | would like the Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation in Horizon 2020 programme to be continued and broadened accordingly, and calls for a special approach in the case of regions in countries that are not eligible for the programme whose R&I is very underdeveloped, which means most of the outermost regions, without losing sight of excellence as a fundamental criterion; highlights the low share of H2020 resources mobilised for this programme (1 %), notes the absence of any significant change in access to the framework programme, and is surprised that the countries that are the major beneficiaries of H2020 are also the main beneficiaries of the Spreading Excellence programme; believes that this undermines the legitimacy of the framework programme, and calls for new initiatives; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 41. | recommends an integrated approach to the ‘stairway to excellence’, based on a coordination plan for each country and region so that action is taken on the necessary reforms, building centres of excellence that are open to all, combating the brain drain and participating fully in European research networks. This coordination plan would be co-financed through regional, national and European funding, including Horizon 2020 resources and the European Structural and Investment Funds; |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 42. | to this end, suggests that access to EU cooperation be stepped up:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | by boosting support for research and technological development infrastructure, and by creating more ERA Chairs to attract promising researchers and leading scientists; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | by strengthening incentives to accept new participants in projects submitted and opening up selected projects to new, complementary stakeholders; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | by increasing support to SMEs for the creation of RDI units and the recruitment of technology professionals and researchers by them; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | by increasing the support for the creation of internal structures by SMEs that enable them to participate in research and/or innovation networks; | |

D)   SUPPORTING JOINT AND SHARED INSTRUMENTS TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION

Networks of European stakeholders as sources of excellence and innovation

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 43. | underlines that in accordance with EU values cooperation within networks should come before competition within the framework programme, and draws attention to the importance of such networks as sources of projects and of excellence; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 44. | in this connection, highlights the relevance of the Regions of Knowledge programme included in the 7th Framework Programme, which allowed for meaningful interaction with regional policy by helping to initiate long-term cooperation between local knowledge triangle players, involve the private sector (including SMEs) in framework programme projects, support transnational cooperation between innovative ecosystems and integrate local and regional players into the ERA; |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 45. | calls for an ambitious policy to develop cooperation networks:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | between researchers, teams or laboratories, and between research infrastructures in order to frame research questions and propose calls for projects and projects; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | between hubs, pilot projects and demonstrators; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | between a wide variety of stakeholders, including cities and regions, and regional innovation hubs and ecosystems, in relation to RIS3; | |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 46. | points to the considerable potential for supporting these initiatives under Horizon 2020, and has concerns about their meagre resources and limited use; calls for coordination and support actions (CSAs) to be more intensively used, while encouraging better recognition of innovative initiatives implemented by cities and regions through the framework programme; also calls for support for interregional cooperation around the RIS3 to be strengthened, as part of both H2020 and cohesion policy; |

Expanding the co-construction of R&I programmes with the cities and regions

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 47. | notes that involvement of cities and regions in implementing Horizon 2020 has increased since the programme was launched, with more and more partner regions for the joint programming tools such as ERA-NET schemes, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Cofund actions, and public-private research and innovation partnerships such as the Clean Sky initiative; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 48. | is in favour of developing these co-constructed projects, and urges that the implementing rules be simplified and harmonised and that, for example, it be made easier for regions to take part in Joint Programming Initiatives (Article 185 TFEU), subject to the Member States’ agreement; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 49. | calls for further simplification of the handling of aid; continuation and extension of the centralisation of subsidies and aid via a single information portal; programme information, procedures and the participant portal’s aid management platform should be in all official EU languages, in order to facilitate participants’ access; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 50. | supports the mechanisms for granting an EU ‘top up’ to the framework programme in order to support local excellence initiatives that mobilise substantial and diversified funding; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 51. | believes that experience with the smart specialisation strategies and their implementation offers very useful feedback for steering H2020 and the future framework programme, and for framing the work programmes setting out the areas eligible for financing; calls on the authorities involved in this work to do more to include the local level in this process, in order to improve consistency with grassroots challenges; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 52. | considers it crucial that the various challenges of the Horizon 2020 programme take into account the socioeconomic impact on regions, starting with the design, planning and identification of areas for programme funding, so that their choice contributes effectively to improving the quality of life in all European regions; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 53. | suggests that all the provisions of the framework programme be reassessed in the light of the subsidiarity and complementarity principles so as to strengthen coordination between the various stakeholders in terms not just of co-financing but also of a reassignment of roles, focusing the activities of the framework programme on areas offering European added value; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 54. | recommends transforming the ‘seal of excellence’ granted to the best unsuccessful applications under the SME instrument, so that this becomes a real partnership facility piloted jointly by the EU and the regions to coordinate their activities as effectively as possible before and after the submission of applications. This principle applies to the other measures covered by the seal of excellence, such as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and European Research Council grants, and any other projects that help create synergies; |

Enhancing spillover effects, innovation and knowledge dissemination in partnership with the cities and regions

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 55. | highlights the role of local authorities as test beds and early adopters via public procurement; calls for relaxation of the regulatory framework for these activities and simplification of the system for supporting innovative public procurement, which is currently underutilised and whose rules are not well enough understood by contracting authorities; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 56. | reiterates the importance of a 360o approach to innovation that is both incremental and disruptive, technological and non-technological, design- and user-led innovation, social innovation, and open and collaborative innovation; points out that locally established hubs and ecosystems are the main factors in innovation, transfer and value creation activities; calls on the Commission when setting up the European Innovation Council (EIC) to take into account the role played by local authorities in these matters and to involve them in future EIC tasks; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 57. | proposes introducing in the next framework programme a new structure for the SME instrument, whose programming and implementation conditions would involve local authorities upstream and downstream in order to gear it better to smart specialisation and local financing and to mitigate the discouragement effect associated with its very low success rate; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 58. | opposes any suggestion of transferring part of cohesion policy funding to measures under the framework programme in order to finance more projects automatically or to support these ‘excellent rejects’; wishes to defend the autonomy of regional authorities and to promote the proposed approach based on co-construction and the strengthening of complementarity and cooperation; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 59. | emphasises the need to consider spillover effects, and issues of dissemination and ownership of project results, from the moment projects are set up. The current impact of projects is limited in these respects, and EU and local programmes should therefore be developed specifically for these activities. Cities and regions should be more involved in using and disseminating the results of projects under the framework programme; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 60. | also supports the development of instruments designed to support the path of a proof of concept to the market, e.g. the Fast Track to Innovation pilot, or the organisation of new industrial sectors through the INNOSUP initiative and its cluster-facilitated projects for new industrial value chains, and would like these to be expanded; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 61. | a mix of support tools for clusters dedicated to groups of enterprises rather than to individual ones should be developed to enable cross-sector approaches and collaborative EU partnerships. Furthermore, the role that clusters can play as bridges between actors within regions and outside, as channels for business support to SMEs, should be reflected in EU policies; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 62. | calls on the Commission to assess the impact of the reforms introduced in 2013 to promote synergies between H2020 and the ESI Funds; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 63. | feels that there is not enough focus in the second pillar on emerging industries, and is concerned that inadequate support is being given to the networks of excellence of innovation hubs and ecosystems geared to industries of the future, such as the Vanguard Initiative. The persistent difficulty of financing industrial pilot projects and large-scale demonstrators is worrying, and the European Commission is urged to boost funding and consider new actions in this area without delay; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 64. | suggests creating a programme to support demonstration infrastructure in order to promote the networking of testing sites, demonstrators and pilot projects, based on the model for networking research infrastructure; |

Developing the relationship between science and society in cooperation with the cities and regions

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 65. | notes that, with the concept of progress currently being challenged and debated, the relationship between science and society must be at the heart of the debate on the future of European R&I, whether this concerns the areas of research focus, the conditions for carrying out projects, or the choices made regarding the development of new social and technical applications of science; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 66. | thus advocates promoting trust in both science and progress, while developing a sustainable development approach; will therefore defend the precautionary principle, which is a principle of prudence whereby action is taken in full awareness of risk; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 67. | highlights the major challenge that open science currently represents, through open access to research findings and publications, the availability of information to the general public that is both reliable and from different sources, and the debate with the public and stakeholders; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 68. | considers that between open science and objective-driven science there should be a space for dialogue between scientific and economic players, as well as civil society, to discuss and formulate new scientific questions together, while at the same time respecting each other’s independence; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 69. | stresses the urgent need to commend science, technology and all related professions, including those in industry, to young people and their families, with particular emphasis on encouraging women to embark on scientific and technological careers; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 70. | laments the lack of resources earmarked for the Science with and for society programme, its fragmentary nature and consequently limited impact, and calls for priority to be given to actions with European added value and with real cooperation between stakeholders, Member States, cities and regions; |

International dimension of the framework programme

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 71. | defends the principle of open science but wishes to preserve the specific nature of the framework programme, including in the context of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU; hopes that this withdrawal does not lead to a decrease in funding for the framework programme, while understanding that the issue will be dealt with as part of the comprehensive negotiations with the United Kingdom; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 72. | calls for a strengthening of international cooperation under the framework programme, including with associate partners and emerging countries, but also as part of neighbourhood policy or sea-basin strategies such as the one for the Mediterranean. |

Brussels, 12 July 2017.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Markku MARKKULA

---

[Top](#document1)