Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/25 |

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The European Research Area — New Perspectives’

(2007/C 305/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | highlights that the process of the creation of the European Research Area needs to be intensified, if the aim of making Europe the leading knowledge society and the most dynamic economy is to be achieved; regions, through supportive programming, structural and legislative framework conditions in the context of their research policies, make a significant contribution to the creation of a vibrant European Research Area; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | supports the idea of coordination of regional, national and EU research programmes and priorities; however, bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, emphasises the responsibility of Member States and regional and local authorities for science and research, and continues to reject centralised research planned at European level; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | considers progress in the mobility of scientists, including necessary adjustments in the areas of residence law and pensions, along with supporting family-friendly measures, to be especially important to the development of a European Research Area; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | emphasises the need to create standards and protection rights for intellectual property; the development of a European charter for the handling of intellectual property from public research and higher education institutes could make a significant contribution to shaping the European Research Area and to promoting cooperation networks; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | encourages universities and colleges to explore new avenues of cooperation between public institution and the private sector, for example through joint public and private innovation funds. Universities and colleges must be seen and supported as drivers of innovation in their regions. |

Reference documents

Green Paper on the European Research Area — New Perspectives

COM(2007) 161 final

Communication on Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation — Implementing the Lisbon agenda

COM(2007) 182 final

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Rapporteur | : | Michael SCHROEREN (DE/EPP), Member of the North Rhine-Westphalia Landtag |

Policy recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | highlights the great significance of the creation of a European Research Area for Europe's economic and social development and ability to innovate, for the achievement of the Lisbon goals, for the sustainable and balanced growth and success of Europe's regions, and for improving its citizens' quality of life; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | agrees that, since the decision by the Lisbon European Council of March 2000 to create a European Research Area, significant measures have been launched to make it a reality; however, this process needs to be intensified if the aim of making Europe the leading knowledge society and the most dynamic economy is to be achieved; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | therefore welcomes the Commission's initiative in launching, with the Green Paper, an assessment of the progress, successes and failures on the road to the European Research Area since it was set up in 2000 and discussing new ideas taking into account new developments; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | considers progress in the mobility of scientists, including necessary adjustments in the areas of residence law and pensions, along with supporting family-friendly measures, to be especially important to the development of a European Research Area. Furthermore, better coordination and cooperation among Member States and the regions with regard to research programmes may lead to synergies and thus to added value for the European Research Area. This will strengthen Europe's competitiveness on the worldwide knowledge market. In this context, improved knowledge transfer, inter alia through cooperation in innovation clusters, is urgently needed. The EU's funding programmes, in particular FP8 for research, technological development and demonstration, should be expanded and targeted accordingly, and the latter should be linked even more closely than hitherto with the European Structural Funds; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | highlights the significance of the regions, which, through supportive programming, structural and legislative framework conditions in the context of their research policies, make a significant contribution to creating European added value in the field of research and to the creation of a living European research area. The EU should only legislate where this appears indispensable to the creation of a European Research Area and where coordinating measures, inter alia under the open method of coordination, are not sufficient. Beyond this, the Committee continues to reject any centralised planning at European level; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 6. | would draw attention to the major importance of cities and regions in developing innovative environments. Their policies have a substantial impact both on establishing the European research area in terms of the mobility of scientists — only versatile, tolerant and innovative environments attract scientists — and as centres of development for research infrastructure. Relevant here are local innovation policies, technology centres, business incubators, science parks and venture capital; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 7. | believes that a perspective that is generally absent from the ERA Green Paper is that close cooperation between publicly funded research and other society players also applies to local and regional authorities. Industry, which is mentioned with reference to certain situations, is not the only one concerned. In many Member States the local and regional level is responsible for important areas of public welfare services. Closer cooperation between academia and public players is important and there is a great need for ‘social innovations’, not least in order to meet the major challenges facing society and, in so doing, help to achieve the Lisbon Strategy; |

In relation to the mobility of scientists

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 8. | agrees that the mobility of scientists across institutions, sectors and countries is of great significance to the further development and passing on of knowledge, and should therefore become a natural and integral part of today's CVs and careers; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 9. | shares the view that at present, the mobility of scientists is often hindered by an inadequate legislative and institutional framework, as well as by poor working conditions and obstacles to careers; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 10. | emphasises the importance of training scientists in different parts of the European Union, including the new Member States. Training scientists throughout the Union will guarantee more equal opportunities, also in terms of access to training, thus ensuring that Europe's talent potential is optimised to the benefit of the whole Union. This perspective highlights the importance of funding for universities and research institutes as well as of EU and national funding instruments, and measures by local and regional authorities; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 11. | encourages local and regional authorities to take such measures as are in their power to improve mobility in all areas, in particular between academia and industry. Close pan-European cooperation between businesses, universities and colleges, and research institutes, involving political actors and administrations at local, regional and national level, is very important in this context. The proportion of women in academic careers must be steadily increased. In this context, flexible careers and working time arrangements, arrangements for transferability of pension rights, childcare services that are fit for purpose and other supporting family-friendly measures (e.g. assistance in getting spouses' and partners' careers off the ground) are of the utmost importance; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 12. | stresses the need to attract excellent academics from outside Europe and therefore emphasises the importance of EU mobility programmes such as the Marie Curie programme and measures that have been taken in some regions to support returning academics; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 13. | with this in mind, supports in principle the need for greater opening up of regional and national R & D programmes. However, there is a need for clarification as to how this is done in practice; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 14. | highlights the role of the EU in supporting better coordination of efforts by national bodies to promote mobility, by using the open method of coordination to create transparency and highlight examples of best practice from the regions; |

In relation to the creation of excellent research infrastructure

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 15. | restates its belief in the need to create modern and efficient European research infrastructure, in particular through the creation of modern virtual networks and knowledge databases. It also supports the view that, in addition to European resources, regional, national and private funding needs to be attracted for this purpose. In this context, achieving the target of 3 % of GDP, two-thirds of which is to come from the private sector, is of decisive importance; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 16. | reiterates its view that, in order to guarantee the international competitiveness of the European Research Area, impetus needs to be given to the networking and further development of existing research institutes. The European Structural Funds could make a significant contribution to the funding and establishment of new research infrastructure. In addition, efforts towards closer links with the RFP should be made. This aspect and/or the role of the Structural Funds in establishing a European Research Area so far receives too little attention in the Green Paper; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 17. | calls for the issue of implementing and financing the European Roadmap published by the European Strategy Forum (ESFRI) to be discussed as an important milestone in the creation of a European Research Area. In doing so, clear and transparent decision-making processes and the criterion of excellence should be at the forefront; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 18. | therefore welcomes the efforts being made in various regions to facilitate more private involvement by giving universities and colleges greater autonomy. It expressly encourages them to explore new avenues of cooperation between public institution and the private sector, for example through joint public and private innovation funds, which could be trailblazing examples of sustainable use and safeguarding of public money. Colleges must, more than has hitherto been the case, be seen and supported as drivers of innovation in their regions, and be involved in the relevant discussions at regional, national and European level; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 19. | believes that better coordination of public and private R&D activities, as well as those of the EU Member States, is needed and that the open method of coordination is an appropriate means of achieving synergies in this area; |

In relation to strengthening research institutes and driving them towards excellence

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 20. | emphasises the significance of colleges and non-university research institutes for fundamental and applied research as drivers of development of culture, the economy, and society as a whole in their regions and in supra-regional contexts. With this in mind, the Committee advocates a wide-ranging interpretation of the concept of innovation, going beyond a purely economic meaning; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 21. | stresses the importance of cross-border cooperation of colleges and research institutes with non-university partners in industry and commerce, government, culture and other sections of society; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 22. | supports efforts towards the creation of virtual skills centres and, in this context, draws attention to the efforts of regions to support the cooperation of stakeholders in clusters, including virtual ones; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 23. | welcomes the activities of the EU to strengthen these measures through appropriate funding programmes, or actions as part of those programmes — for example under the seventh EU framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration — and calls for the relevant programmes to be further developed in a targeted fashion, with the aim of stronger cooperation of the above-mentioned institutions and stakeholders so as to achieve the necessary critical mass and the creation of excellent, internationally visible clusters; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 24. | notes that as the aim is to achieve critical mass at the level of research institutes, this critical mass depends on the subject of study, the research area and the participants. A ‘one size fits all’ approach should not be applied to all research areas or all forms of support; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 25. | welcomes the objective put forward in the Green Paper of finding an appropriate balance between institutional and competitive funding. In line with its previously expressed views, the Committee of the Regions calls for the debate about the appropriate balance between institutional and competitive funding to continue. How this balance is struck is very important to the dynamics of the system; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 26. | is inclined, as it has pointed out previously, to have more faith in scientists and their teams selecting interesting and useful areas of research and in voluntary (bottom-up) networking than in processes managed heavily from above and the ritualised cooperation that these entail; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 27. | at the same time, stresses the need to ensure not only the promotion of excellence and high achievement, but also good education and training for the people in every region as the foundation for individual and collective prosperity and for the ability of regions to innovate; |

In relation to a democratic and effective transfer of knowledge

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 28. | agrees with the analysis concerning the great significance of digital media for a democratic and effective cross-border transfer of knowledge and scientific discoveries, inter alia to inform policymaking, and also supports the transfer of knowledge via international networking; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 29. | emphasises, particularly against the background of international cooperation, the need to create standards and protection rights for intellectual property. The absence of such standards and protection would be a serious impediment to confidence in interinstitutional and cross-border cooperation, for example in clusters and centres of excellence; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 30. | reiterates its view that, with this in mind, the systematic development and implementation of European and international standards should be promoted and should be supported by the publication of examples of best practice, in particular in the transfer of knowledge between industry and public-sector research. In this context, the development of a European charter for the handling of intellectual property from public research and higher education institutes could make a significant contribution to shaping the European Research Area and to promoting cooperation networks; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 31. | stresses that provision must be made for the inclusion and involvement of the regions and SMEs even in large EU cooperation projects such as the European Technology Institute; |

In relation to the coordination of research programmes and priorities

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 32. | supports the idea of coordination of regional and national research programmes and priorities with a view to a European Research Area and research market and with the aim of better coordination of individual countries' research activities and greater focus on the shared aim of creating a European Research Area. However, bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, the Committee emphasises the responsibility of Member States and regional and local authorities for science and research, and continues to reject centralised research planned at European level; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 33. | reiterates its view that providing local and regional authorities with a research-friendly framework could make a significant contribution to the creation of a European research area and of research that is coordinated inter alia in terms of its content. This happens through EU funding programmes such as the seventh EU framework programme for research, but considerable progress in this area could also be made by means of appropriately agreed and structured programmes that allowed for synergies between the Structural Funds and research funding; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 34. | recognises that research and innovation models that are successful in one region cannot simply be copied and transferred to other regions or political entities. However, if proper account is taken of the respective structural, social and cultural circumstances, they can serve as examples for the development of appropriate models in other regions, including disadvantaged ones; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 35. | agrees that the ERA Net programme for coordinating regional and European research programmes has demonstrated its value and should be developed further; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 36. | points out that EU benchmarking will only be accepted in the regions if it takes into account each region's specific conditions for, stages of and requirements for development. If benchmarking in the EU is to be successful, indicators and investigation methods must be developed that allow a proper comparison between regions and lead to meaningful results. The involvement of the regions in this development process is an essential prerequisite for the future success of any benchmarking exercise; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 37. | regrets the fact that the ERA Green Paper does not address ‘social platforms’, which are a genuine innovation in that they try to formulate and implement strategic research efforts around major challenges facing European society, e.g. the environment, ageing population and integration. The socio-economic sciences and humanities section of the December 2006 cooperation work programme does, however, mention social platforms for cities and social cohesion, which is to be welcomed. It is, however, important that the Commission should continue to develop this innovative approach to the research issues of tomorrow, as it is already doing through discussions between scientists, public players, businesses and civil society, etc.; |

In relation to the openness of the European Research Area to the rest of the world

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 38. | supports the idea that science and research are international in nature and emphasises the need for cooperation that goes beyond the EU, and for exchange of knowledge and scientists; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 39. | welcomes the activities of Member States aimed at improving such international cooperation by creating helpful framework conditions such as appropriate modernisation of immigration law, and calls for close cooperation among Member States in this area; |

Next steps:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 40. | welcomes the European Commission's initiative in launching a comprehensive public debate involving the Committee of the Regions, during which the proposed priority topics and measures for the creation of a European Research Area taking into account the subsidiarity principle that applies in the area of research need to be fleshed out. |

Brussels, 11 October 2007.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

---

[Top](#document1)