BELGIAN POSITION PAPER ON FUTURE EU PROGRAMMES FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Transcription

1 BELGIAN POSITION PAPER ON FUTURE EU PROGRAMMES FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

2 May 2011 This Belgian position paper is a publication of the Belgian Commission for International Scientific Cooperation(CIS), and the Interministerial Economic Commission (IEC-CEI) where all the national and regional authorities competent in the fields of science, technology and innovation, are represented. Responsible publisher Dirk Van Melkebeke, secretary-general Department of Economy, Science and Innovation info@ewi.vlaanderen.be Contact CIS secretariat POD Wetenschapsbeleid / SPP Politique scientifique Louizalaan 231 Avenue louise B-1050 Brussels Tel. +32 (0) Fax +32 (0) neli@belspo.be web Contact IEC-CEI secretariat FOD Economie, KMO, Middenstand en Energie / SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie Vooruitgangsstraat 50 Rue du Progrès B-1210 Brussels Tel. +32 (0) and +32 (0) Fax +32 (0) cei.iec@economie.fgov.be web

3 Summary The Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation should focus on coherence and effectiveness in bridging research and innovation in the new context of the EU-2020 strategy. Merging the European programmes for research and innovation should lead to enhanced coordination between both fields and to finding solutions for the complex challenges of our era. A good balance between top-down and bottom-up governance principles should be used to stimulate excellent research that is socially relevant and supportive of economic competitiveness. Priorities for Belgium are: 1. Important principles Research excellence should remain one of the main evaluation criteria for the research part of the CSF. When looking to enhance the commercialisation possibilities of research results, one should take care to avoid a linear vision on research and innovation. The cooperation programme as it exists in FP7 should be maintained and further extended. The budget should be in accordance with the challenges and ambitions of the EU 2020 strategy. Innovation initiatives should not only concern technological innovation, but all forms of applying research results with the aim to improve quality of life in general. Governance should be multilevel and transversal, taking fully into account the subsidiarity principle. 2. Thematic issues Research priorities within the next framework programme should be identified within the framework of the grand societal challenges, while still leaving sufficient room for the creativity of the researchers to detect new avenues and solutions for novel challenges. The research priorities should allow for a multidisciplinary approach, a combination of large and small projects, the participation of different types of actors, top-down and bottom-up research. The thematic pillar, whereby also the impact of innovative applications is a selection criterion, should be complemented by an important programme for curiosity-driven research similar to the current ERC programme. This programme should aim at promoting excellent, world-class, frontier research with excellence as its sole selection criterion. 3. The link between the national and regional research and innovation policies The aimed convergence of European, national and regional science politics should go hand in hand with a clear distribution of labour between the CSF, on one hand, and the national/regional research and innovation policies on the other hand. The commission should support the MS and Regions to assess and develop strategies to identify complementarities and synergies and to boost cross-border cooperation. Part of the European budget to fund cross-border cooperation (e.g., JPIs, JTIs, art. 185, ) could be earmarked for supporting those partners from academia and research institutes that do not have sufficient regional or national funding to take part in these projects that are based on the creation of a common pot. Evaluation and priority setting across all European Research Infrastructures is crucial in a period of stringent financial constraints. Complementarity, prioritisation, and efficiency should 3

4 be driving the European Research Infrastructure policy. 4. The link between research and innovation The CSF needs to integrate innovation horizontally while also re-establishing a vertical R&D programme to boost the innovation capacity of less research-intensive Small and Medium Enterprises, and this in cooperation with knowledge-based institutions such as R&D practitioners. The CSF Innovation programme also ought to feature an innovative procurement instrument to ensure that breakthroughs be quickly brought to the market. Belgium pleads for an integrated portfolio of support measures available to the innovation actors, ranging from research to demonstration and extending into the market. Integration of standardisation in this portfolio is an effective channel for the dissemination and exploitation of research and innovation results and facilitates the introduction of innovation into the market. The European instruments should be complementary to the national and/or regional instruments, since the needs of many SMEs are best served through support provided at the regional level. 5. Instruments in the future programmes All instruments and programmes ought to be based on the rationale of international competition, clearly demonstrating added value compared to the instruments deployed within the Member States. Funding programmes must be designed and implemented to enhance the leverage effect and to respond to the needs of all actors involved in the innovation process. The creation of new instruments should be restricted to what is really needed and should only occur after streamlining and improving existing instruments with the aim of simplification. Simplification was one of the major issues addressed during the Belgian presidency. The administrative burden related to detailed cost reporting and financial control and the related error rates could be drastically reduced by gradually introducing result/output-based funding where possible and useful. Harmonized participation rules should guarantee easy access of smaller countries or regions to all European R&D cooperation instruments. The conditional European topping up should facilitate participation of all Members States and associated countries. Belgium pleads for a successor to the successful Cooperation Programme that is the core of the activities of FP7, with the largest part of the budget, which should also be the case in any future programme. The unique character of the ERC approach has to be retained, and also the principle of freedom of research and the 'Principal Investigator' as a decisive factor for the research theme. 6. Governance in the future framework programme Belgium values the role of programme committees in overseeing the research programmes and designing the work programmes in cooperation with the Commission. Belgium also greatly values the preparatory work of the E.C. with respect to its designing work programmes, although the transparency of this process should be increased by, for instance, introducing greater insight into the composition of expert groups and a clearly reasoned motivation of their advice. The quality of the services offered by NCPs should be improved by enhancing the transnational interaction within the NCP system. This can be obtained by a more horizontal 4

5 instead of the present vertical or thematic project-based approach, and by putting more emphasis on networking instead of on training. ERAC should be the body in charge of monitoring besides the European Research Area and the Innovation Union, also the CSF and this in close interaction with, amongst others, the EPG and the Digital Agenda for Europe High Level Group. Belgium is also favouring the integrating of the present ERAC GPC and ERAC SFIC configurations in ERAC. 5

6 6

7 Table of contents 1. Introduction State of the Art of the ERA: the Belgian Presidency Progress Report Context of this position paper Important principles Thematic issues The link between national and European research and innovation policy The link between research and innovation Instruments in the future programmes Governance in the future framework programme

8 1. Introduction The discussion on the future of European Research and Innovation Programmes takes place in the context of the new financial perspectives and the further evolution in governance after the financial-economic crisis. This evolution is guided by the Lisbon Treaty and the new Competitiveness Pact, but its implementation will be to an important degree driven by societal challenges of the next multiannual programming period. Those challenges will affect research and innovation due to increased importance of multidisciplinary research (e.g., nano-bio- ), social innovation agenda, increased demand-side policies, and open innovation model. Therefore, this discussion on the future of EU research is an occasion to examine the design principles of a coherent framework programme for research and innovation in this coming period of transformation. Research and Innovation are governed by both the European Union and the Member States. In order to define the competence distribution, subsidiarity should remain a key principle. This subsidiarity principle clarifies that the European Union will address those issues that are community matters according to the Treaty, plus matters where collaboration generates win-win situations, whereas Member States are free to develop their own policy at the national and regional levels. In the perspective of the societal challenges, the added value from EU initiatives should be carefully examined. Considering the growing global competition, the scale of the societal challenges, and the need to boost the European Competitiveness, it is clear that an effective European research and innovation policy is a major requirement and that an optimal synergy between the different competence levels is more than necessary and particularly acute in times of budget constraints. Such policy alignment needs a more structured approach. Therefore, at the dawn of the third millennium, the European Commission launched the concept of the European Research Area (ERA). The idea behind the ERA is to enhance the coherence of European and national research policies and to strengthen Europe s identity as a single market based on knowledge, in which researchers, technology and knowledge can circulate freely, and regional and national research programmes and policies can be better synchronized to one another, by coordination at European level. After the relaunch of the ERA concept in 2006, it became institutionalized in the Lisbon Treaty of The implementation of the ERA is a complement to the multiannual framework programme for research and innovation. The Union shall have the objective of strengthening its scientific and technological bases by achieving a European research area in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely, and encouraging it to become more competitive, including in its industry, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of the Treaties. (art. 136); As a complement to the activities planned in the multiannual framework programme, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall establish the measures necessary for the implementation of the European Research Area. (art. 138) The ERA also became part of the overall EU 2020 Strategy in its Flagship for the Innovation Union. The EU 2020 strategy needs to correct the failure of the Lisbon Strategy to make the EU the most competitive knowledge-based economy by It s clear that research and innovation ought to be the core component of a new strategic approach towards this transformation. What role can a coherent EU framework programme play? How can it contribute to the ERA structuring, to an effective alignment of research and innovation policies, and become a structural component of a competitive European knowledge-based economy? 8

9 2. State of the Art of the ERA: the Belgian Presidency Progress Report A decade after the launch of the ERA and a couple of years into the implementation of the five ERA initiatives that were defined in 2008 (human resources, research programmes, research infrastructures, knowledge transfer and international science & technology cooperation), a progress report on ERA-related issues has been provided by the Belgian Presidency and has been presented to the Competitiveness Council in November The general message is that, although the ERA is still not yet implemented as such, significant progress has been made in all five initiatives. The Belgian Presidency has organised several events in order to take stock of the progress made on the various initiatives, and stakeholders have been consulted to deliver best practices. Proposals have been made to consider the future strengthening of the ERA and to prepare possible political decisions by the European Council concerning the ERA and the Innovation Union. That progress report could be taken into account by the Commission when preparing its Communication on Guidelines for future Research and Innovation Policy and for the preparation of the Eighth Framework Programme. Much progress has indeed been made over the past few years in collaboration initiatives. Besides the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, ten areas have been defined for the establishment of Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI). In order to facilitate their implementation, voluntary framework conditions were prepared and endorsed by the ERAC-GPC. Research Infrastructure policy has advanced considerably as well. Many steps have been taken in the implementation of the Roadmap that was first established in 2006 by the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, ESFRI (set up in 2002 following a Council decision). More than half of the projects of the Roadmap 2006 are under construction or moving towards implementation. The projects of the Update 2008 started setting up their Preparatory Phase Projects. The ERIC regulation should facilitate the establishment of pan-european facilities. With regard to researchers, an important step forward was made with the implementation of the European Partnership for Researchers. Working Groups in the Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility have tackled difficult issues such as working conditions, monitoring and indicators, training skills and industry-academia relations. Member States are in different stages of implementation of the partnership. More cooperation is still needed, however, to eliminate even more barriers to researcher mobility. Better structural indicators, an adequate professional/private life balance, and good social security arrangements, open recruitment, transparency, greater collaboration, and two-way-mobility between academia and industry, continuous profession development, and a clear career framework for researchers: all these aspects will require active consideration and follow-up during the coming years in order to increase the attractiveness of Europe for researchers. An ERA framework can contribute to the elimination of the persistent obstacles towards creating a genuine internal market for research. The Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and the Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations are being implemented. Several Member States have amended their legislation to that effect, issued guidelines, or taken action to disseminate the Recommendation among stakeholders. Others are planning to do so in the near future. Yet more work is needed to fully implement the Council Resolution on the management of Intellectual Property, both at the national and EU levels. The European Partnership for International S&T Cooperation is quickly taking shape. A more coordinated and more consistent approach in international S&T cooperation (amongst the Member States, on the one hand, and between Member States and the European Union, on the other) must be fostered, by means of shared information, pilot projects, and common agendas. Future work of the ERAC SFIC should take into account new ERA governance and developments within the context of the Innovation Union. Member States and the Commission should continue their efforts to identify ways and means to support the implementation of coordinated and pilot initiatives by the SFIC. In order to become a strong player on the global scale and to increase excellence in the current changing research landscape, European research needs to undergo a transformation. Even though it is important to give research organisations the autonomy to tackle the issues at stake in their own 9

10 way, it is clear that interrelated forces, such as integration (fully integrated ERA and European Higher Education Area for teaching, research, and human resources), competition, and specialisation in diversity, can help to mobilize the knowledge, talent, and energy needed to compete with the best in the world. The development of the ERA will benefit from user-friendly instruments, characterized by clear policy objectives and maximal administrative simplification. Synergies between the various existing instruments and new instruments should be sought and the rules should be harmonized as much as possible. We refer here to the ERAC working groups that will soon deliver detailed reports on these matters. Taking up the recommendations of these reports will be an important contribution to the conception of the coming European programmes for research and innovation. 10

11 3. Context of this position paper The year 2011 is crucial in the preparation of the new European Union programmes for research and innovation. The Heads of State have requested a proposal for the next financial framework, which is expected later this year. The negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament will take place in 2012 and The consultation on the Green Paper From challenges to opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding, has been another occasion to articulate the necessity of coherence and effectiveness in the new context of transformation in which challenges should become opportunities. The additionality of European programmes for research and innovation should be considered within the context of a need for a better multi-level coordination to find solutions for the complex challenges of our era. In such a decentralized decision context, it is important to establish the proper balance between top-down and bottom-up governance principles in order to create high quality research that is socially relevant and supportive of economic competitiveness. Likewise, the ERAC has in April introduced a series of discussions on different aspects of the new European programmes. New is the broadness of the discussion, which will no longer remain confined to themes, instruments, and simplification, but also treat a range of new discussion items connected with decisions and evolutions of the past few years, such as: the implementation of the Innovation Union (e.g., bridges will have to be built between research, innovation, and other relevant policies; should one merge FP and CIP or other innovation programmes?); the increasing attention to the knowledge triangle (cf. EIT) and to valorisation and knowledge transfer in general (see also the role of the JTIs and related initiatives); the further implementation of the ERA and the emphasis on the strengthened cooperation amongst Member States based on their own national and regional programmes and budgets (e.g., Joint Programming, ESFRI, mobility of researchers, earmarking of research and innovation in cohesion funds, ); the focus on the "Grand Challenges" of major societal importance not only for the EU but worldwide; the intention to strengthen the link between the structural funds and the framework programme towards the implementation of the Innovation Union; the success of ERC and the proper balance between fundamental and applied research funding; etc Last but not least, there is the issue of the ERA governance, which involves the role of ERAC and its working groups, of other high level advisory groups, of the programme committees,... In summary, the Belgian position paper discusses the following issues that Belgium considers important: horizontal issues; which thematic priorities should be dealt with; what is the link with the Grand Challenges defined in the Joint Programming initiatives; what is the relation between fundamental and applied research? the link between the national and regional research and innovation policies and the European policy in this respect (ERA; Joint Programming, ESFRI; mobility of researchers, ); 11

12 the link between research and innovation (innovation union, innovation partnerships, JTIs, ); synergies through a coordinated approach between new and existing instruments of the community programmes (FP, CIP, structural funds, ), and relationship with simplification, project approach versus programme approach; what to do with the instruments of FP7?, ; governance and the role of the advisory bodies. 12

13 4. Important principles 4.1. General principle regarding the balance between research and innovation Belgium does not oppose any merging of CIP and Framework programmes that contributes to building bridges between research and innovation policies. Belgium insists, however, that research and innovation be accorded their own rights. Both - research and innovation - are equally important and research cannot be viewed as sole input into the innovation process, in as much as innovation can take place based on input other than research. Therefore, Belgium insists on the importance of retaining and maintaining in the research part of the future common strategic framework important resources devoted to the follow-up of the present cooperation programme. It also greatly values the excellent fundamental research conducted through the ERC. It would strongly oppose any reduction in both these budgets. Belgium would also like to recall the fact that parts of the actual CIP (linked to, for instance, entrepreneurship, etc.) do not have any relationship with research and stand on their own merits Research excellence Research excellence should be at the core of the new framework programme. Belgium therefore wishes to stress the importance of using excellence as the first evaluation criterion. Both types of research should be evaluated on the basis of independent peer review: fundamental research by a peer committee of scientists, valorisation-oriented research by a committee including entrepreneurs and potential users of research results Innovation Innovation does not only concern technological innovation, but encompasses all forms of application of research results with an aim to improve quality of life in general. It can also take place based on input other than research Competitiveness, SMEs and Market The European Innovation Policy will be a central factor in supporting the transition of European industry and has significant implications for industrial competitiveness. Based on the observation that SMEs occupy a predominant position within the European economic fabric, European innovation policy aimed at achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy Plan can succeed only if it allows for a broad adoption and implementation of innovation and eco-innovation practices within SMEs Governance: a multilevel and transversal approach More coordination between the different European policies and between European and national, regional, and local policies is needed, leading to more coherence in European and Member State research policies on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. Equally important is an appropriate allocation of tasks between the different levels (subsidiarity), with the European Commission undertaking a coordinating role, as well as bringing the European R&D and innovation instruments into line with the policy instruments of the Member States and regions. Full transparency of the EU budget allocations is essential, particularly when initiatives are supported outside of the framework programme. To achieve the integrated approach of R&D&I at European policy level, a revision of policy frameworks and financing tools based on a new vision is needed. This ought to go hand in hand with reform of the governance tools of research policies and innovation. Where appropriate (i.e., whenever innovation is primarily concerned), these reforms should be developed jointly by Industry and Research sections of the Council and all the stakeholders concerned (Commission, Committees, etc.). 13

14 4.6. Fair treatment of researchers Belgium wishes to make a strong case for treating all researchers involved in the financing framework according to the principles of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. We believe these two documents deserve to be respected in all projects funded by European resources Science in Society, Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities, and Sustainable Development facing the Grand Societal Challenges Within the logic of focusing on research to meet the Grand Societal Challenges, it is obvious that the Science in Society (SiS) programme ought to play an important role, both as a horizontal aspect throughout the framework programme and as a separate programme (vide infra). Interdisciplinary research should focus on the rapidly changing interaction between science (including applied science, technology and innovation) and society. Belgium specifically wants to emphasize the aspect incorporating the civil society and citizens input into the development of the EU RTD&I agendas and in the setting of priorities. This is indeed paramount in the democratic process: public engagement in science and technology will improve the innovative capacities and stimulate entrepreneurship. Assuming that Science in Society issues really ought to be addressed horizontally, these then should form an integral part of the evaluation criteria within the whole research and innovation programme. This means that the influence of science on society and the influence of society on science ought equally to be taken into account in a structured way Gender, Diversity and Competitiveness In FP7, actions towards implementing gender equality appear at different levels of the programme and involve the various actors at the programme and project level. Research teams are encouraged to integrate gender issues and to promote equality, starting at the proposal stage. Belgium is in favour of the continuation and further strengthening of the actions and recommends that gender issues still be considered explicitly at the proposal stage and evaluation stage. Reviewers should be trained in this aspect to ensure appropriate approaches to and integration of the gender issues within the projects. Belgium regrets that not enough resources and efforts are as yet provided for to promote gender issues in research. Gender training needs to be embedded in a more comprehensive gender mainstreaming strategy. Gender issues (women s participation and consideration of gender issues in the work itself) should therefore appear explicitly in the proposals with dedicated budget lines and also in the evaluation stage. Work Programmes should be made gender-sensitive (setting the research agenda, putting forward the gender aspects in relation to subjects and topics). It is absolutely paramount to further propagate the idea that gender-balanced teams (and more diverse teams in general) become more productive, efficient, and innovative, thus to play a crucial role in increasing competitiveness and stimulating entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship Sustainable Development Besides the development of disciplinary research, meeting the 'Grand Societal Challenges' requires support for the development of new research approaches capable of tackling the complexity of those challenges within the context of sustainable development. The research part of the CSF should continue supporting the aim of FP7 to contribute towards promoting growth, sustainable development, and environmental protection, which includes the problems of climate change and loss of biodiversity. This includes, on the one hand, the notion that sustainability is the cross-cutting paradigm throughout all themes and, on the other, that sustainability science - as an emerging discipline focusing on the search for solutions beyond the boundaries of the traditional discipline - is being enhanced. 14

15 4.10. Ethics Belgium is pleased with the publication of a European Textbook on Ethics in Research with its addendum in Although crucial, the scope of the textbook is limited to the ethics of scientific research involving human beings. Belgium pleads for the publication of similar documents relevant to other types of research. Belgium also strongly recommends both a clear reference to ethics in any and all calls where appropriate, and an increased effort to broaden the field of ethical issues within an autonomous SiS topic. 15

16 5. Thematic issues In keeping with the original aim of the Framework Programme, the centrepiece of the future EU programme ought to remain a Cooperation Programme Grand Challenges: standing strong together The future European R&D policy, involving the EU FP as the key instrument, needs to ensure that the resources available for innovation be significantly increased (the 3% objective). This will become possible by giving tangible expression to the ERA 2020 Vision's call to develop programmes and instruments capable of confronting the major societal challenges ("Grand Challenges") and the challenges of the business community within the context of the increased external competition. Grand Challenges is a new policy rationale for research and innovation policy. This rationale acknowledges the changes in the nature of innovation needed to meet these challenges, e.g., through open innovation and policy integration. That the truly universal challenges we face can only be tackled on a European, or even global, scale is by now generally acknowledged. Avoiding duplication and fragmentation, benefits of scale, better integration of policies will enable us to confront these global problems more efficiently and more effectively. Consequently, research priorities within the next framework programme should be identified within the context of the Grand Societal Challenges. Therefore, a thematic pillar in the new framework programme ought to draw explicit links to the EU 2020 s identified major challenges and the approach developed in the thematic areas. Sustainable development should hereby remain an overarching aim, as was the case in FP7. Challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and ecosystems and energy supply ought to be key research topics that need to be addressed in the coming years. A balanced approach between economic, environmental, and societal relevance in the near and more distant future should play a role when selecting research activities, independent of their nature. Frontier as well as applied research will be needed to achieve these objectives. Moreover, a focus of research on the "Grand Challenges" identified by the European authorities in cooperation with various governments, businesses and key social players can ensure greater consistency within the innovation objectives of the EU FP. The cooperation programme ought to be organized along the lines of these major societal challenges and be complementary to the JPI s (vide infra). To establish common road maps a permanent structure similar to the European Technology Partnerships might be useful to guide research and innovation programming in the identified domains. Therefore, a clear governance of the thematic prioritisation and the coordination efforts in the European Innovation Partnerships is a necessary condition for the new design of EU programmes according the challenges. These strategic partnerships should be supported with a common (interdisciplinary) strategic intelligence for trend watching. Member states can establish mirror groups with these European partnerships in order to better align national and European research strategies in the relevant domains. The appropriate research in support of innovation and the grand challenges takes various forms: apart from programmed research consideration, attention also has to be given to small-scale bottom-up research cooperation where the greatest potential for innovation often lies. Instruments and resources can also be used to transfer research findings to the market and society at a faster pace, although we need to keep a sense of proportion about how effective these instruments are likely to be Balance The challenges guiding the thematic programme ought to be defined in a sufficiently broad way so as to allow for a multidisciplinary approach, a combination of large and small projects, the participation of different types of actors (e.g., public, industrial, academic), top-down and bottom-up research. The research programme involving the Grand Challenges has to be based on multi-annual research agendas defined in close cooperation between businesses, the research community and groups of potential stakeholders, and users of research results. The future programmes have a modular and 16

17 flexible structure in terms of the description of the research schemes and the intended scale of the projects. The rules provide the opportunity for research projects in progress to be adapted substantially, or halted. Keeping that in mind, several equilibria should be incorporated in the framework programme: entire array of research types and actors; bottom-up versus top-down research; curiosity-driven research versus agenda-driven research Entire array of research types and actors As the Europe 2020 Strategy makes quite clear, the entire array of research is relevant for promoting innovation. Innovation should therefore be a horizontal issue throughout the entire programme, but this should not exclude adopting a dedicated innovation programme. The cooperation programme should position innovation as a cross-cutting issue in collaborative research. It should in any case help cross-fertilisation amongst different sectors and foster multidisciplinary research in areas where Europe maintains a strong position. All kinds of research, ranging from fundamental and theoretical to applied and market-led research, are vital for creating innovation. The EU FP's support of the different links in the knowledge-innovation chain involves relevant instruments tailored to the specific types of activities. Towards this end, it has to be decided in each case to what extent the relevant link in the knowledge-innovation chain is underpinned directly and fully via the EU Framework Programme resources (managed by an Agency or otherwise), or via the support instruments of the Member States, regions, public/public, public/private partnerships (PPPs) or inter-governmental organisations boosted with EU FP resources under specified conditions Bottom-up versus top-down research Any programmes created under the thematic umbrella have to offer balanced support for both bottomup research and programme top-down research. All programmes developed on the basis of the Grand Challenges, in the context of the programme component, should provide scope for new, promising (visionary) and/or high-risk research ( bottom-up ) by knowledge-based institutions and businesses. On the one hand, this research is a key link in the innovation chain while offering the necessary fertile ground for future applied research. On the other hand, it will be helpful to avoid "blind spots" in the top-down research agenda. It is, indeed, practically certain that the research agendas will fail to identify certain issues that will later on prove to be of paramount importance. These can only be detected by giving researchers the necessary freedom to build research projects based on their own knowledge and experience in the field. Besides, it should always be kept in mind that the search for knowledge for its own sake, i.e., for creating a better understanding of the world, without necessarily looking for practical applications is part of our culture (fundamental research). In view of the importance of new and high-risk research for the knowledge-innovation chain, an appropriate share of the budget ought to be provided under this heading. The Future and Emerging Technologies programme, applied under the EU FP 7, may be used as a template. The programme has to provide opportunities for both small and large-scale cooperation (comparable with the FET Flagship Initiatives). This bottom-up research component focuses on the importance of the innovative potential of small-scale research. The programme also ought to be based on straightforward application procedures. The actual cooperation in the thematic programme may be undertaken in various types of projects or forms of cooperation. The large and small-scale cooperation projects are effective in this respect. However, more formal forms of cooperation need to be developed among knowledge-based institutions by way of Joint Research Initiatives. 17

18 Curiosity-driven research versus agenda-driven research The thematic pillar of a new framework programme should remain the place for agenda-driven research. We should not forget, however, that a knowledge-based society cannot thrive merely on innovation and political strategies that are by nature based on a short to medium-term vision. Frontier research is the starting point and fertile ground for any subsequent links in the knowledge chain, hence a key component of the following European Framework Programme. Therefore, the thematic pillar ought to be complemented by an important programme for curiosity- driven research, like the current ERC programme aiming at promoting excellent world-class frontier research (vide supra/infra). ERC projects ought to be chosen solely on the basis of excellence, whereas the thematic section of the FP applies also the impact of innovative application options as a selection criterion, alongside research excellence. 18

19 6. The link between national and European research and innovation policy The European Research Area is clearly under way. It is also clear that societal challenges ought to be tackled together and Europe s competitiveness increased. It is obvious that the ERA initiatives can help to achieve this. However, even though much work has been done, the concrete outcome is not yet sufficiently visible. A great deal of progress has been achieved, but the fact that the same issues evident at the start of the ERA in 2000 still remain at the forefront of the policy debate shows that there is still a long way to go. The multiplication of initiatives and the fragmentation of efforts also tend to slow down the realisation of concrete results. Complementarity, priority setting, and efficiency should be at the core of European research policy. Better policy mixes are called for. Besides the efforts at European level, likewise stronger national strategies are needed, plus setting research and innovation as a priority and providing sufficient funds for the purpose. Moreover, Member States should learn from each other through the exchange of best practice and peer review. The ERAC has an important role to play here. All stakeholders, ranging from the European Council, the European Commission, and national and regional governments to enterprises, research organisations and researchers, should be involved in building a single knowledge-based economy and single market. Innovation, Standardisation, Education and Research should be closely interrelated and built on each other s strengths Smart Specialisation A structuring of the ERA according to the principle of smart specialisation could become also one of the guiding principles for the design of European programmes. Such programmes should encourage the consolidation, extension, and growth of world-class platforms for research and innovation with leading players from academia and industry, in close connection with regional and national clusters. They should offer a breeding ground for developing key strengths while, at the same time, connecting niches in order to reach the critical mass needed to become globally competitive. The Commission should support the MS to assess and develop Smart Specialisation strategies to identify complementarities with other regions. Smart Specialisation strategies at national and regional levels ought to develop these complementarities in an entrepreneurial discovery process of local strengths. European thematic R&D programmes should promote focus and division of labour amongst these platforms, thus contributing to common objectives and with a particular attention for market needs and scientific/industrial partnerships. Structural Funds could be a complementary way to ensure excellent knowledge potential in specific niches in peripheral regions. Smart Specialisation should not, however, be a top-down approach Joint programming Joint programming is a process within the competence of the Member States and regions but, as the engine behind the ERA, the European Commission has to play the role of arbitrator with the EU FP as its instrument. These initiatives should be established to strengthen the resources already allocated by the participating countries to the JPI topics. Care should be taken, however, not to endanger the existing research in the same fields in non-participating countries by no longer providing for support within the work programmes of the next framework programme. Such development might pose a threat of shifting from an open, competitive EU-wide process to a more national one. Unless JPI s call remains open to all EU Member States, the development of JPIs might drastically change both the EU research landscape and the national policies. Towards this end, the European Commission should also propose measures for allowing participation of smaller countries and regions that not always have access to adequate budgets or programmes to participate as full partners in JPIs. 19

20 A challenge for joint programming initiatives is to guarantee the possibility for small countries to participate at all levels, from setting priorities to project participation. Overly complex financial and reporting rules also pose a risk to the efficiency and acceptance of joint programmes. Joint Programming, which rallies Member States around a common vision and agenda on how to address major challenges, increases impact as a result of building critical mass for research and technology development. For horizontal science fields, whose development influences numerous technology areas, to focus on global objectives is quite challenging; a long-term view and a co-defined strategy are essential. For that purpose, the funding mechanism through Article 185 is a powerful instrument: it allows the Commission to co-fund a joint programme of Member States, to co-define the overall strategy with the implementation body, the EU Parliament, and Council, but leaves the detailed strategy, planning and execution to the implementation body, which represents the expert community in the field. A successful example of large-scale approach beyond the scope of single institutes or countries is the EMRP Joint Research Programme. Joint Programming should not at any moment be implemented at the expense of existing European (FP) research funding. On the contrary, the goal of Joint Programming should be to make existing research in Member States more effective through better collaboration and coordination and by elaborating a long-term vision. This is a lesson learnt from the JPND pilot programme, where a decrease in funding of ND research was observed in FP7. A related issue is the selection of Joint Programming topics: programmes that address horizontal fields might be more suitable to common strategy and long-term vision. In narrow scientific domains where fast progress is needed, increasing funding by the classical collaborative projects could be more efficient Cross-Border Cooperation With the aim of stimulating cross-border cooperation, the Commission should also develop instruments for European funding of cross-border cooperation, which will be an easier goal than crossborder funding, as it does not require the creation of a common pot, neither real nor virtual. JTIs might, for instance, reserve part of the European budget to fund cross-border cooperation supporting those partners from academia and research institutes that do not have sufficient regional or national funding to take part in these projects. Private companies and knowledge-based institutions are faced with serious problems with respect to their participation in the existing public/private (and in some public/public) R&D initiatives. Questions about the participation of knowledge-based institutions are of particular concern, this in view of the type of co-funding required from the Member States and regions and its limitations. The EU FP should offer solutions in this respect as a result of providing European funding to allow cross-border cooperation between knowledge institutions, so that European funds can ensure participation of the best research groups in projects, wherever they may be in Europe. Such European funding can also be deployed in a comparable way for the EUREKA cluster programmes, although in a separate European Commission-managed portfolio Research Infrastructures Research Infrastructure (RI) policy is one of the pillars of the development of the European Research Area in terms of strategy, structuring, and cohesion. Remarkable progress has been achieved during the last years in the implementation of the ESFRI Roadmap. Moreover, the work done by ESFRI catalysed the definition of national strategic priorities and roadmaps. But it is definitely necessary to avoid duplication of efforts and to coordinate and rationalize the use of the facilities. Only by pooling, and integrating with, new resources can the EU acquire and operate RIs at world level and deliver the (open) access needed to ensure excellence. Evaluation and priority setting across all European RIs is now becoming a major challenge and even more crucial in a period of strict financial constraints. Complementarity, prioritisation, and efficiency are thus once again key words for Europe's RI policy. 20

21 6.5. Link with Innovation Union Belgium wants to refer to the Council s conclusions adopted by the Competitiveness Council on 25 November 2010 during its Presidency as a response to the Innovation Union, in which four priorities have been agreed upon that should be taken on board when defining the next programme: taking a strategic and integrated approach to innovation in Europe; creating the optimal conditions for a globally competitive innovation environment in Europe; maximizing the impact and efficiency of resources; improving governance and monitoring progress. 21

22 7. The link between research and innovation On the one hand, the EU is confronted with major societal challenges while, on the other, Europe can rely on an extensive knowledge base. But owing to unfavourable framework conditions, ideas are prevented from reaching practical application and the market, and from contributing to solutions to societal needs. Ensuring that research findings be channelled more seamlessly into societal and industrial applications is considered a key issue for tackling the Grand Challenges Research results as semi-finished products In general, research results cannot be applied as such: a research report can seldom be used as a production manual or a blueprint for any practical policy measure. Potential users of the research results, be they engineers, policy makers, medical personnel or others, need to absorb the contents of the results and build their conclusions for practical application upon them. This is a process of democratic appropriation of research results: society at large has to adopt and use them for its own needs and according to its own values and standards. As technological innovation is one of the important aims of the FP, particular attention ought to be given to the link between research and technological innovation, without falling into the trap of a linear vision on research and innovation, or limiting the notion of innovation only to the field of technology. Likewise, the merits that are specific to both research and innovation should not be denied either How can the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) contribute to this key issue? A CSF SME programme The future EU FP also needs to re-establish a horizontal R&D programme to boost the innovation capacity of less research-intensive Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and to do so in cooperation with knowledge-based institutions owing to their status as R&D practitioners. The regulatory requirements of the current Research for the benefit of SMEs programmes need to be adapted accordingly An innovation programme as part of the future CSF The future common framework for research and innovation funding should include an integrated portfolio of support measures available for innovation actors, from research to the demonstration phase to the launch of innovative products / services on the market. This portfolio should provide the possibility to cover all stages of the innovation process in a consistent and continuous way. In this context, it is essential that the existing financial instruments of the CIP be strengthened, with particular account taken of the needs of innovative SMEs with high growth potential that have significant needs for capital. SMEG (guarantees) is another important tool to promote as bank loans remain the primary source of financing for SMEs. Businesses require better support during the follow-up stage of R&D projects. The CSF Innovation programme ought to provide suitable instruments for technology validation and demonstration projects close to the market. The instruments need to provide a continuum of support in the innovation chain, so that consortia of projects, carried out under the Cooperation programme, can proceed smoothly toward the instruments of the innovation programme via a constantly accessible application procedure, without the need for a new, long assessment process. SMEs considered the engines of our economy are rooted into the market and play a pivotal role in developing novel products and services; they could constitute an ideal vehicle for these demonstration and validation projects. If the innovation cycle must be considered, and adequately covered by a range of tools, the new funding framework should not be based on a continuum of projects for access to different levels of intervention, meaning that interventions to support innovation, commercialisation... should not be subordinated to having received R&D support from the CSF in the early stages of their process. Access to various funding schemes ought to be independent. 22

23 Besides the areas where there is a linear relationship between research, demonstration projects and launching products / services on the market, it is essential to also consider the non-technological innovations and innovations in the services sector that do not follow such a linear course. The future CSF must also increase funding opportunities for these types of innovation. The European instruments, however, should not replace, but rather be complementary to, the national and/or regional instruments, since the needs of many SMEs are best served by means of support provided at the regional level (low threshold), eventually in a coordinated approach (cf. ERA-Nets). Beyond demonstration, take-up activities should benefit from a more integrated approach, including the financing of those activities with forms of support other than grants. Indeed, after the demonstration that a technology is suitable to satisfy the market needs, high investment costs are still necessary to incorporate a specific technology into a marketable product. Since it is close to the market, this stage is most likely undertaken by the SME alone, using financing instruments (e.g., in the context of EIB instruments and, in particular, a dedicated SME lending mechanism within an improved RSFF) rather than grants. EU instruments available at that stage should be geared to that objective Innovative procurement The CSF Innovation programme also ought to feature an innovative procurement instrument to mobilize the demand through a better coordinated or joint innovative procurement, in order to ensure that breakthroughs be quickly brought to the market. This instrument must be related to, and integrated into, initiatives taken within the frame of the European Commission Directorate-General for Industry's Lead market scheme. Belgium pleads for an integrated portfolio of support measures available to the innovation actors, ranging from research to demonstration and extending to the market. Integration of standardisation in this portfolio is an effective channel for the dissemination and exploitation of research and innovation results and facilitates the introduction of innovation into the market. This portfolio should offer the possibility to cover all stages of the innovation process in a coherent and continuous way. This should allow the innovation actors to have a better visibility/certainty on the opportunities to get support when they move from one stage of the innovation process to another Assessment of project proposals Scientific excellence as a key criterion should always form the basis of the assessment procedure applied to all programmes and instruments supported or co-funded by the resources of the EU FP for the purpose of carrying out research. In the case of initiatives not focused purely on research, the relevance of the scientific excellence criterion may vary according to the type of R&D activity being proposed and the position in the knowledge and innovation process, as compared with other criteria, such as the economic potential, or the societal impact, which should be an important evaluation criterion in those EU initiatives aimed at tackling societal challenges The CSF as an instrument to realize the Innovation Union In its EU 2020 strategy, the EC announced the launch, as part of the Innovation Union Flagship, of European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs). These EIPs aim to act across the whole research and innovation chain and support and ensure that innovative ideas be turned into products and services that create growth and jobs. They likewise tackle the societal challenges, with all due consideration for sustainability and environmental issues. Through the EIPs, all relevant actors at the EU, national, and regional levels will be brought together; CSF could be the instrument at European level to contribute to the implementation of the EIPs. The EIPs will form the framework for streamlining and coordinating the existing instruments at different levels, taking into account the subsidiarity principle. Of course, new EIPs must not be launched before the implementation of the pilot action on Active and Healthy Ageing has been evaluated thoroughly. The quick launch of multiple EIPs without definition of the framework conditions, as was the case with the selection of JPIs, ought to be avoided. 23

24 7.4. Synergy between instruments at European level and between European and regional levels The R&D policy and resources alone are obviously not enough to achieve the innovation objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Other flanking and support policies have to be implemented in relation to innovation. At European level, responsibility for the promotion of innovation and creating the innovation Union is shared amongst various European policy areas and their officials. The European authorities need to ensure more effective coordination and, to some extent, the inclusion of the innovation-related policies: R&D policy, industrial policy, education policy, economic and financial policy, regional policy and cohesion policy. This requires closer cooperation between the relevant European Commission directorates general. The acknowledgement of the important role that R&D plays in creating innovation has implications for the EU FP's aim in terms of innovation, as well as for the overall structure and the content of the instruments and programmes. EUREKA, as likewise individual projects such as the Cluster programmes, represents an attractive and flexible aid instrument for the business sector, as a follow-up to the EU FP cooperation programme, involving an appropriate commitment to research further along the innovation chain, closer to the market. This development has resulted in successful technological breakthroughs, while the business community is delighted with the system's flexibility and user-friendliness. An important factor is also the close involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in EUREKA projects. The complementary relationship required between the European R&D instruments and the Member States' instruments shows the need for continuing support for the EUROSTARS (EUREKA) programme. Another way to bridge the gap between publicly funded research and innovation and privately funded market uptake in the field of European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP) is via art Basic science, development, and market-uptake projects need to form a sequence in this particular field. Securing research funding on a long-term basis in a joint programme, together with long-term strategy and planning, can guarantee a smooth continuous flow along the entire innovation chain. 24

25 8. Instruments in the future programmes 8.1. Existing instruments vs. new ones The EU FP clearly needs to act as the driving force in further development of the European research area (ERA) and, more specifically, in the case of initiatives undertaken by the Member States and regions within the context of the ERA 2020 Vision. The European Commission (EC) should coordinate efforts in these initiatives to facilitate cross-border R&D cooperation of the Member States and regions, while the central European R&D (and the linked innovation obtaining) resources have to be deployed in order to strengthen and promote these initiatives and programmes. The European co-funding system needs to be subject to clear conditions, with European resources being pivotal for the necessary adjustment of the partnership initiatives created via the EU 2020 Strategy and, particularly, the Joint Programming and Research Infrastructures initiatives. It is necessary to ensure the open and inclusive character of these initiatives so as to guarantee the opportunity for small countries or regions to participate in setting priorities and taking part in projects. A certain number of instruments, sharing the same goals output-oriented, generating new knowledge and technologies, excellent results - coexist and are managed by different organisations that follow different rules and timetables, thus contributing, unfortunately, to the fragmentation of the ERA. There is a clear need to rationalize the landscape of funding programmes and to establish an even better coordination of instruments at European level. The instruments available to the EU FP and the Member States and regions should also reinforce and complement, rather than duplicate each other. There is, likewise, a need for a closer and complementary relationship between the objectives and instruments available to the EU FP and to inter-governmental organisations such as EUREKA. Specific instruments need to be better defined, such as the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). All instruments and programmes have to be based on the rationale of international competition, clearly demonstrating added value compared to the instruments being deployed at the Member States and regional levels. Funding programmes need be designed and implemented in a way that enhances the leverage effect and responds to the needs of all actors who are part of the overall innovation process. Furthermore, one ought to keep in mind that the current programmes that should be part of the future Common Framework have rather different budgetary dimensions (e.g., FP7 = 53.3 billion Euro and CIP = 3.6 billion Euro), which diminishes the leverage effect that could be expected. On the other hand, each of these programmes has different targets (researchers, research centres, multinational enterprises or SMEs ) with adapted procedures, and they follow complementary objectives. The creation of new instruments should be restricted to what is really needed and occurs only after streamlining and improving the existing instruments in order to avoid the further increase of complexity. New instruments should be defined only when there exists an important gap in realising the objectives of the Innovation Union. Against the background of the innovation objectives, specific EU CSF instruments have to be focused on the major societal challenges ("Grand Challenges"). Towards this end, there has to be a good mixture of both top-down (programmed) and bottom-up research. There has to be enough scope also for small-scale research. Harmonized participation should also guarantee easy access of smaller countries or regions to these European R&D cooperation instruments. The conditional European topping up should therefore facilitate participation of all Member States and associated countries in developing the ERA Collaborative Projects/Cooperation Programme The structure of the Cooperation Programme in 10 thematic areas with a top-down and project-based approach is now changing: one finds more science/researcher-driven topics in the WPs. In other words, the bottom-up approach is now becoming stronger, a trend that is supported by Belgium. 25

26 Belgium pleads also for a successor to the successful Cooperation Programme that is the core of the activities of FP7 with the largest part of the budget, which should also be the case in the future programme. Belgium also agrees with the concept of a Common Strategic Framework as adopted by the Commission. In general, Collaborative Projects (CPs) have proven to be an effective tool in creating research partnerships inside and outside Europe. However, there is a need to adjust CPs to the requirements of both Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and Science in Society (SiS). This should include the possibility to have small and medium scale projects in both SSH and SiS. The wide range of possible sizes of a consortium guarantees a certain flexibility, which helps meet different types of research needs. At present, researchers in the SSH field are, in effect, not accorded enough opportunities to apply for funding. Note that the concept of High Impact Projects needs to be clarified further Science in Society Belgium wishes to stress the importance of maintaining a specific programme concerning Science in Society. To support excellence in research and to strengthen competitiveness and sustainable growth, the successor of the present Science in Society Programme should be tailored to meet the needs of the social dimension of ERA as identified by the Council communication in May Belgium believes that a transversal, structural dimension, as well as a functional, autonomous work programme for the Science in Society issues, is needed in the next framework programme. However, there are SiS issues that are best addressed through an autonomous support and coordination approach such as, for instance, social perceptions of science, science for social inclusiveness, science and citizenship Networks of Excellence The whole concept remains unclear and information is scarce. Therefore, Belgium is in favour of either suppressing the NoE schemes or thoroughly revising them in order to offer the appropriate budget to fund concrete projects and avoid spreading the budget over a large number of teams Coordination and Support Actions This instrument is particularly useful to further develop a Member States-driven ERA, despite a low budget. CSA needs to become one of the instruments in addition to ERANETs necessary to implement the CSF Joint Programming Initiatives Integrating Activities Integrating existing Research Infrastructures (RIs) is one of the key actions towards RIs under the FP7/Capacities Programme. Since 2007, this activity has been implemented via both a bottom-up and a targeted approach: bottom-up responds to the needs of the scientific community in all fields of science and technology; targeted responds to the strategic research needs of thematic priority areas and thereby strengthens the consistency of actions. The Integrating Activities instrument (a combination of Collaborative Projects and Coordination and Support Actions) comprises support to transnational access, networking, and joint research and development. All Calls for Proposals launched under FP7 were significantly overbooked and many excellent proposals were not funded due to a lack of resources. Ensuring continuity of EU support to existing and new networks of RIs under the CSF, with an increased budget, remains a key element of a coherent EU strategy for RIs. 26

27 8.7. European Research Council Frontier research is the starting point and fertile ground for any subsequent steps in the knowledge chain, and hence has to be a key component of the next European Framework Programme. The research community at large is positive about the modus operandi of the European Research Council (ERC) and its aim of promoting excellent world-class research. The ERC's status as the sole instrument covering European competition in frontier research makes it unique for providing European value-adding opportunities. Hence, the next EU FP should again earmark a significant and probably increasing level of resources for the ERC. The unique character of the ERC approach ought to be retained, as well as the Principle of Freedom of Research and the 'Principal Investigator', as a decisive factor for the research theme. In the light of this, ERC funding under the next EU FP should primarily be focused on grants for 'Starting Independent Researcher Grants' and 'Advanced Investigators Grants' (investigator-driven). The recent ERC decision to develop a new type of financial grant (Proof of Concept) is being given a cautious reception. The ERC and its instruments must keep an unambiguous and focused character so it can adopt a distinct profile clearly different from the other instruments in and outside the EU FP. Emphasis on excellence should continue to be the most fundamental focus and remain the sole selection criterion for ERC grants also in the future. However, Belgium pleads for improvements such as an appropriate funding for SSH, the creation of a young senior researchers scheme, the dissemination of good practices, the harmonized professional peer review, the growth of job offers (PIs team), and the stabilisation of careers 8.8. People In order to keep top talent from leaving Europe, research training and the mobility of researchers, which is the core of the Marie Curie Actions (MCA), has to be maintained and strengthened. Indeed, these grants have become prestigious distinctions and paradigms of best practices in research while contributing to the excellence and the attractiveness of European countries. It is essential to retain the People Programme in the Framework Programme. It must continue to fund professional research activity and should not become part of a general educational training scheme. The research training and mobility component calls for a strong complementary relationship to be developed with activities decided upon by the Member States and regions. The EU FP resources have to be harnessed to co-fund programmes of the Member States and regions focused on the mobility of initial and post-doctoral researchers, although this European co-funding should not replace wellestablished European programme research training and mobility. Also support for European policy actions for researchers (e.g., Euraxess network, reducing barriers to mobility, etc.) can be funded from the People Programme. Important principles are: a continued bottom-up approach, more resources for research training for young researchers (initial and early post-doctoral levels), openness to all fields of research and to interdisciplinarity, complementarity with collaborative research projects, cross-sectoral objectives with respect for the distinctiveness of all sectors involved in innovation. On a more operational level, the financial implementation of the Marie Curie actions deserves a thorough rethinking. Success rates should be maintained at a reasonable level Simplification The implementation of the Innovation Union ought not to lead to a more complicated R&I landscape. There is an urgent need to simplify the regulatory requirements in the entire application and management process for R&D projects relying on European resources. It is vital for businesses and knowledge-based institutions to be involved in the developments affecting the regulatory requirements streamlining process. The items referred to below are crucial as components of the simplification planned for the process of implementing the EU CSF programmes and instruments. 27

28 Harmonisation There is huge potential for simplification in a far-reaching harmonisation of the financial and participation rules governing programmes and instruments in the EU arsenal and the EU FP mechanisms (including JTI, art. 185, KICs ). The European R&D programmes' participation and cost management rules have to be streamlined to a great extent to ensure that both businesses and knowledge-based institutions avail themselves of the instruments so as to pool their R&D efforts in a European context Financial aspects. The Interest Bearing Bank Accounts ought to be abolished. An open debate on lump sums and resultbased approach should take place and involve all stakeholders. Different funding rates and indirect cost calculation models for different types of beneficiaries should be maintained, and universities and other research organisations that wish to move towards full-cost accounting supported. The acceptance of actual costs as eligible when registered in the official accounts of the beneficiary as compliant with national accounting and auditing standards ought to be implemented Submission of proposals The Research Participant Portal and other IT tools ought to be improved. The introduction of more calls offering a two-stage submission would be considered a major improvement in those cases where it proffers added value to the applicants Application of rules/evaluation/risks The EC needs to take further steps in order to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the rules and regulations throughout the whole project cycle by EC officers and should reconsider the personal liability of EC officers for the correct execution of projects. The quality of the evaluation has to be maintained and the time-to-grant be reduced further. The Commission Communication on the Tolerable Risk of Error, as well as the outcome of the actual level of error, needs to be adopted. Excessive control mechanisms should be softened in order to achieve a better risk/trust balance (e.g., the simplification of time-recording mechanisms) Project versus Programme approach FP7 witnessed a trend towards the intervention at programme level (Article 185, ERA-NET + and JTIs) in order to get a higher leverage for the invested funding. At the same time, the traditional project-level instruments in the form of 'Collaborative Projects' remain the main funding instruments in FP7. What is most important for the FP as a whole is to ensure a proper balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches. It will only succeed if it allows creativity and ingenuity to flourish at the project and researchers' levels. Belgium pleads for an extension of the FET scheme for all the themes of the Cooperation Programme. The move towards more bottom-up funding ought to continue, and Belgium supports the Commission proposal for further open, challenge-driven calls for proposals in the final years of FP7. Beyond this, the Innovation Union should also strengthen the role of the ERC, while at the same time aiming at a good balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches in the next FP. Bottom-up activities are to be encouraged but should be connected to CP in related themes in order to maximize the synergy between projects. This would cover the current FP programmes, the on-going work at the EIT, the 'university-industry' forum, and the 'knowledge alliances' (Innovation Union). 28

29 There should be a better coordination between programme level funding through, for instance, JTIs and project level funding in FP7. Currently, they are in some cases (e.g., IMI and FP7 Health) acting autonomously New European Mechanisms for Financing Innovation The Innovation Union identified the access to financing of innovation as one of the main barriers to introducing ideas into the market. The capacity of our financial system to leverage investment for innovation is hampered by the widening and multiplication of the Valley of Death 1, because risks are becoming more and more difficult to manage. On the one hand, there is the increasing complexity of the technological, market, and societal challenges, while, on the other, there is an increasing fragmentation of value chains that insulates companies from their eco-systems, plus the pressure to favour short term horizons in our financial system. This growing gap between the potential returns of new challenging opportunities and the present (fragmented) risk management in financing mechanisms is inhibiting our capacity for strategic knowledge investments that spur the transformation of our economies. Therefore, the debate on the Common Strategic Framework for funding research and innovation has to involve the role of public support mechanisms to leverage private financing of breakthrough innovation from a new perspective. Considering the huge externalities and systemic complementarities that are linked to the breakthroughs leading to new energy systems, new mobility systems or health care systems, etc, there is a role for public funds to stimulate the construction of consortia that share risks and internalize spill-overs. These investment consortia originate from cluster networks and open innovation platforms that generate shared road maps for a long- term transformation trajectory. The consortia manage risks and reap profits through joint projects that leverage the continuous investments in the common knowledge base of dedicated clusters. However, there exists an underproduction of such consortia because of a first mover disadvantage in complex transformation trajectories. Public funds can lower this barrier by providing risk-sharing public capital in domains with great economic and societal added-value. This will be part of a policy mix aimed at increasing the attractiveness of regions to develop spearheads in selected domains. There is a role for a European financing support mechanism leveraging the efforts of regional funds to stimulate breakthrough innovation by consortia (Fund of Funds). This would be consistent with a more policy-led approach to innovation financing (in priority areas with important spill-overs). The type of consortia can range from joint R&D in platform technology for breakthroughs, development of new breakthrough ventures by non-core business in incumbents, joint demonstration projects, common test infrastructure, client-supplier alliances in testing grounds to prepare industrialisation and commercialisation. These are all projects with a commercial return, depending on the realisation of coinvestments in these structural innovation trajectories. The Common Strategic Framework has to include a European leverage for such investment needs. 1 See European three pillar bridge to pass across the Valley of Death in Mid-term working document of the High-level Expert Group on Key Enabling Technologies, 9 Feb

30 9. Governance in the future framework programme There are many aspects related to governance. In the first place, it relates to the role of the different committees involved in advising (identifying), implementing, overseeing, and updating the framework programme (in general, as well as on specific programme level). These will be addressed here. But there are, of course, other elements like evaluation (ex-ante and ex-post, at project or at programme level; impact assessment); forms of cooperation between various actors, committees, programmes; forms of cooperation between the different components of the knowledge triangle; forms of cooperation between EU research and national research; the role of procedures, etc. Several of these are addressed in other parts of this document. The transition towards the European Research Area is particularly important, since it adds to the complexity. For the time being, it is not clear at all for which areas or approaches research ought to be organised within a framework programme, and which areas tackled by joint programming or ERA nets. It is not clear either what the involvement of the E.C. and/or the relationship with the framework programme might be within these new forms of research cooperation. This makes the discussion on governance even more complicated. In this short chapter, we will basically synthesize the Belgian viewpoints regarding the role of the NCPs, the programme committees, and the advisory bodies Increase the input of national stakeholders in programme committees Belgium values the role of programme committees in overseeing the research programmes and designing the work programmes in cooperation with the commission. Belgium also greatly values the preparatory work of the E.C. with respect to the designing of work programmes.2 This process could, according to us, still be strengthened when transparency is increased: insight into the composition of expert groups and a clearly reasoned motivation of their advice will contribute to this. A reflexion is necessary on the way in which opinions of relevant players like industry and public sector research (universities and research institutes) could be better incorporated into the elaboration of specific work programmes. One way to accomplish this is via the national representatives in the different programme committees. However, this leaves the door open for national lobbying. Stakeholder consultation at EU-level (organised by the Commission) could also be envisaged; it makes sense to strengthen this type of consultation at the international level. Links between these programme committees and the national relevant bodies and international advisory bodies could be improved; maybe some new forms of cooperation should be studied. Therefore, the possibility should be provided for programme committee members to discuss work programmes with relevant national bodies and to seek advice whenever needed. In Belgium, this is often accomplished by way of dedicated consultation groups. These groups discuss the various agenda points and define the Belgian positions for the PC meetings. This is an ideal occasion to exchange information between the Programme Committee members and the NCPs, especially information on the Work Programmes and Calls for Proposals The role of National contact points In general, the NCPs are highly appreciated and very well implemented, even if the services they offer do differ from one country to another. The visibility of the NCPs has increased over the years. The skills and services they have developed are of a well-known quality. NCPs provide guidance on choosing the adequate thematic priorities and instruments; they help with proposal writing and with the management of the administrative procedures; partner search, etc. NCPs increase awareness of the 2 In the Environment programme, as well as in the KBBE, for example, the E.C. identifies the policy background (European Directives requiring scientific support), the international policy framework (UNFCCC, CBD,..), the international research framework (IGBP, WCRP, IPCC,...), draws lessons from experiences of networks of excellence, finished research projects, stakeholder groups (industry, ETPs) and advisory groups composed of scientists. 30

31 various EU funding possibilities offered to researchers. There are still many researchers insufficiently informed about FP7 (and CIP programmes), hence missing available opportunities. A way to improve and maintain the quality of services offered by NCPs is to enhance the transnational interaction within the NCP system. This can be achieved by a more horizontal instead of the present vertical or thematic project-based approach, and by putting more emphasis on networking instead of on training. With this approach, duplication of activities can be avoided. Regular and operational contacts established amongst all of the EU (and even non-eu) NCPs foster the exchange of information and the collaboration that may prove useful in, for example, helping a researcher to find a partner for a new proposal, disseminating expressions of interest to participate to a call, be aware of what other projects are in preparation,... The contacts with the EC project officers in these NCP networks are particularly helpful in providing the EC with feedback from the users in the field. The NCP networks can also collaborate with the Commission for the organisation of information days and brokerage events ERAC and other advisory bodies The overall monitoring of the common strategic framework should take place under the responsibility of ERAC (former CREST). ERAC is the body in charge of monitoring the European Research Area and also the Innovation Union in close interaction with, amongst others, the EPG and the Digital Agenda for Europe High Level Group. As such, it is the best suited institution to advise on the links between the initiatives for accomplishing ERA, on one hand, and the research needed in the framework programme, on the other. Secondly, ERAC ought to be retained as the body where discussions on the evaluation of the Framework Programme (or relevant parts of it) take place. Belgium is also in favour of integrating the present ERAC GPC and ERAC SFIC configurations into ERAC. 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36