Irish Position Paper for the Negotiations on the 7th. Framework Programme Office of Science & Technology Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment January 2005 foreword
Download 51.3 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Irish Position Paper for the Negotiations
- 7 . Policy-Oriented Research
Irish Position Paper for the Negotiations on the 7th. Framework Programme Office of Science & Technology Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment January 2005 FOREWORD This paper provides Ireland’s reaction to the communication issued by the European Commission in June 2004 on “future EU policy to support research”. This communication represented the first step in planning for the Seventh EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7), which will come into play in 2007 following on from the current programme (FP6), which runs from 2002 to 2006. To assist in preparing this Irish position paper, the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (ICSTI) was requested by the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to undertake a national consultation process. The European Commission has yet to produce its formal detailed proposals for FP7 and consequently the consultation process focused on certain “high-level” issues relating to the structure of the next Framework Programme, including, the new initiatives that the Commission is proposing to adopt as part of FP7. This position paper has also drawn on and taken account of the Conclusions adopted at various European Councils and Research Councils during the past year.The OST also acknowledges the important input of Forfas, the Inter-Departmental Committee on Science and Technology and the Chief Science Adviser in the development of this paper.
1. Introduction The EU Framework Programmes have been an important element in the development of R&D in Ireland over the last two decades, particularly in R&D performed in the higher education sector. In addition to its direct financial contribution, these programmes offer valuable opportunities to Irish companies, research bodies and higher education institutes to participate in high-quality research in collaboration with their European counterparts. They have contributed to the creation of a well-qualified, technologically aware workforce, capable of attracting leading edge technology-based companies to Ireland. In the context of the Lisbon agenda to improve European competitiveness and the Barcelona 3% R&D target for Europe1, Ireland has placed R&D at the heart of its economic development strategy. In this regard, Ireland considers that the Framework Programme has a key role in promoting the international competitiveness of European industry and increasing Europe’s attractiveness as a location for the best researchers to live and work and for industry to do research. The Commission’s orientations for the future research Framework Programme (FP7), which imply a significant expansion of the EU research budget from 2007, have considerable potential to complement Ireland’s policy objectives in this area. In accordance with the current National Development Plan (2000 – 2006), investment in the sector is increasing five-fold to €2.48 bn. compared with the previous period. In addition, Ireland’s Action Plan for Promoting Investment in R&D, published in August 2004, sets an ambitious target of 2.5% spend of GNP by 2010, relative to the current level of 1.4% and makes a range of high level recommendations in pursuit of this. By building core R&D capabilities, Ireland is also improving its ability to respond to opportunities at European and international level. It is envisaged that Ireland’s performance at European level will grow strongly as a result of its enhanced capability nationally. 2. Main Principles Of Ireland’s Position.
3. The Six Proposed pillars of FP7. The Commission’s communication outlines six major objectives of future European policy to support research. Ireland’s views on these objectives are outlined below: 3. 1. Trans-National Collaborative Research Trans-national collaborative research in thematic priority areas achieves its objectives of fostering linkages between European researchers in academia and in industry, increasing knowledge flows and improving the quality of research across Europe. Collaborative research in thematic areas should remain as the dominant pillar in the Framework Programme and should account for no less than two-thirds of the Framework Programme budget, even in the event of a doubling of this budget. The recommendations of the “Marimon Panel” are strongly endorsed by Ireland and, in particular, the call for a re-balancing in favour of “traditional instruments” such as STREPs (Specific Targeted Research Projects) and Collective and Cooperative Research/ CRAFT. While the identification of thematic priorities and proposed changes from FP6 priorities will be the focus of a future communication from the Commission, in general terms, Ireland supports a measure of continuity between the thematic priorities of FP6 and FP7 which should be adapted to current needs and experience. In this regard, Ireland attaches particular priority to the continuation, in a prominent position, of the thematic priorities of Information and Communication Technologies and Biotechnology / Life Sciences. In addition, at this point, Ireland would highlight two further priority fields:
3. 2. Researcher Mobility and Training The Marie Curie Fellowships and other initiatives in the area of researcher mobility and training are a valuable part of the Framework Programme. The experience in Ireland is that enterprises, large and small, derive benefit from Marie Curie Fellowships and other placements and have fewer complaints about bureaucracy and administrative issues as compared with other aspects of the Framework Programme. Given their focus on trans-national mobility, they clearly complement rather than substitute national actions so they score highly on the test of European “value added”. They also speak directly to the Barcelona 3% target which, if it is to be achieved, will require an additional 700,000 trained researchers in Europe by 2010. However, if this target is to be achieved, then the key issue of the attractiveness of researcher positions in Europe must be addressed head on. Ireland considers that one of the main reasons why many of the “top brains” do not enter science, and in particular research careers, relates to the perception of a vague and weak career structure for researchers. This pillar of the Framework Programme must extend beyond the key target of mobility and embrace the concept of stimulating and developing researchers’ careers. A major component of such an approach would be to target industry involvement at the outset. Therefore, Ireland believes that in planning the HRM programme and Marie Curie actions in FP7 two overriding principles should be applied:
In this context, Ireland considers that:
In light of the above, Ireland would support a doubling of the budget for this pillar and, at a minimum, its share of the overall Framework Programme budget should not fall below 10 per cent. 3. 3. Stimulating Excellence in Basic Research There is a clear challenge for Europe to enhance the levels of creativity and excellence in basic research in the context of global competition. This proposed new pillar in the Framework Programme would see the creation of a fund to support individual research teams to undertake basic research based on the scientific excellence of their projects (without any requirement for collaboration or any thematic constraints). The rationale for this initiative is that a pan-European competition will act to stimulate excellence in basic research in a manner that cannot be achieved by initiatives at Member State level alone. In overall terms Ireland is supportive of this new pillar. However, it must not be introduced at the expense of the existing pillars (trans-national collaborative research, mobility of researchers and SME-dedicated actions). Most importantly, projects must be selected solely on the basis of scientific excellence as identified by international peer review. Younger project teams should not be excluded from competitions organised under this pillar nor should there be a bias in favour of more highly resourced institutions per se. Ireland agrees with the Commission’s view that there is a case for externalised day-to-day management of this new initiative. While we look forward to detailed proposals from the Commission to support this case, we attach more importance to the need for agreement between Member States on the principles underpinning this initiative (e.g. basis for competition being scientific excellence of projects, administrative burden being kept to a minimum, coherence with national funding arrangements etc.) rather than the precise legal structure used to implement the initiative. 3. 4. Coordination of National Programmes Ireland supports the initiatives within FP6 which aim to bring about greater coordination of national research programmes (ERA-NETs) and we would endorse this type of networking activity and its continuation into FP7. The Commission communication mentions Article 169 of the Treaty which can be used to support initiatives between groups of Member States. Mention is also made of inter-governmental research organisations with the suggestion that Framework Programme funding could be used to directly support some of their activities. However, as there is a lack of detail in the Commission’s document, Ireland would suspend judgement (i.e. on the use of Article 169 to support larger initiatives, direct funding to inter-governmental research organisations) pending the publication of the Commission’s more detailed proposals. 3. 5. Industry-Led Technology Initiatives (Technology Platforms) Technology Platforms are an attempt to bring together companies, research institutions, financial institutions and regulatory authorities to map out research agendas for particular technology/sectoral areas. A number of these research agendas could become “Integrated Projects” within the collaborative research pillar of FP7. A certain number, because of their scale and/or complexity, may become “joint technology initiatives” which could be directly supported by the European Union. In principle, Ireland is supportive of technology platforms. Insofar as these platforms are attempting to increase the relevance of the Framework Programme to industry, they are well intentioned. There is a concern, however, that these platforms would not be genuinely open networks accessible to industry, large and small, across the Union. A perception exists that large companies in Europe will operate these technology platforms as “closed networks” with no real involvement of outsiders. Questions have been raised about the intellectual property developed in these networks and whether the results from EU-supported research will be disseminated outside of the “platform” membership. Ireland would share some of these concerns. The likelihood is that most technology platforms will be implemented via the collaborative research pillar and this gives further strength to the Irish position that at least two-thirds of the Framework Programme budget must be allocated to this pillar. 3. 6. Research Infrastructures of European Interest The Framework Programme currently supports European researchers in terms of access to existing specialist RTD infrastructures. The Commission’s communication speaks of extending EU competency by getting more involved in the construction of new infrastructures of European interest. The Commission is supporting the work of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) to develop roadmaps of infrastructure requirements in different scientific areas and has suggested that these roadmaps could be used to guide decision-making about infrastructures to be supported through the Framework Programme and/or other mechanisms. Ireland has concerns about Framework Programme budgets being diverted to the construction and development of infrastructures. The development of pan-European research infrastructures has, in the past, been progressed through multi-lateral actions by interested Member States and it is not clear why actions in this area should be part of the Framework Programme. The next few years should be used to see the ESFRI work through to proper completion and to undertake pilot actions and feasibility studies (with modest budgets) that would test the rationale for moving competency for this area from Member State level to EU level. In the absence of more detailed proposals from the Commission, Ireland would seek to have funding for access to existing infrastructures and the other endeavours that are part of FP6 continue into FP7. The emphasis in the Framework budget should remain on facilitating access to infrastructures. 4. Increasing the Participation of SME’s in the Framework Programme Facilitating SME participation in the Framework Programme continues to present challenges at both EU level and at Member State level. A key point continuously emphasised is that different types of SMEs will have very different requirements and expectations from the programme. Despite on-going efforts by the Commission and by Member States, the view of SMEs and their representative organisations is that the Framework Programme remains largely inaccessible. Instruments need to be SME-friendly to ensure that SMEs can participate fully in the collaborative/thematic areas of the Programme and there is a need for a significant increase in the resources allocated to SME-specific actions (e.g. Collective and Cooperative Research/CRAFT). For a large number of SMEs facing technological challenges, but without internal R&D capability, Collective and Cooperative Research/CRAFT are considered useful. These initiatives have provided a successful introduction to the Framework Programme for many SMEs, and achieve their goals in terms of creating knowledge and fostering pan-European linkages. The fact that Collective and Cooperative Research/CRAFT facilitate a “bottom-up” approach as opposed to the “top-down” approach imposed in thematic priorities of FP6 is also seen as positive by SMEs. The main problem is over-subscription. It is Ireland’s view that there is a strong case for significantly increasing the budget for these initiatives in FP7. For SMEs with internal R&D capabilities, there are a number of routes into research collaboration in the thematic areas. In some thematic areas, there are special calls for SMEs (e.g. “IPs [Integrated Projects] for SMEs” and STREPS specifically targeted at SMEs). While these can work well and should be retained, there may be greater benefit accruing when SMEs participate as equal partners in mainstream calls (alongside research institutes, larger firms and other players). Balance is required in the use of SME-specific calls and SME involvement in general calls. SMEs in Ireland have expressed a clear preference for “traditional” instruments (including STREPs) and find it more difficult to participate in Integrated Projects. The implementation of the “Marimon Panel” recommendations should go some way towards addressing the issues raised by SMEs in respect of FP6. It is important that close attention is paid to the manner in which these recommendations are reflected in the design of FP7. There are also good opportunities for using different types of Marie Curie Fellowships to bring senior researchers to SMEs in order to stimulate research training within the company, particularly together with local universities. Increased focus should be placed on these simpler instruments as a pragmatic and effective way of increasing the research activities within the industry base in FP7. In addition, it is Ireland’s opinion that in order to better stimulate SME participation, more innovative, bottom-up and attractive funding mechanisms need to be introduced and there may be valuable lessons to be gained from other research programmes (e.g. SBIR in the US3). Member States and the European Commission must work together with industry at all levels to bring a greater level of creativity to the design of the Framework Programme. 5. Administration and Management of the Programme Issues relating to administration and management of the Framework Programme featured prominently in consultations with stakeholders. In general, the view of the Irish research community is that “bureaucracy levels” involving administration and management issues have been more of a problem with FP6 compared with previous rounds of the programme, particularly with regard to the reporting burden placed on participants. The issues of administration and management are closely bound up with the debate about instruments. There is a strong view among Framework Programme participants in Ireland that Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence require specialised management and that the allocations made for management time and resources are not sufficient to cover all of the work involved in managing these large and complex networks. The Irish research community agrees with the Commission’s proposal that collaborative research should remain under the direct control of the Commission and thinks that the same logic should apply in the area of researcher mobility and training (Marie Curie actions etc.). Day-to-day administrative aspects could be sub-contracted to outside organisations, but control and responsibility should be retained within the Commission. The following suggestions are also made:
Ireland would also like to see improvements in the availability of information and statistics about the implementation of the Framework Programme, including continuous data on the participation of each Member State. 6. Space and Security Research in FP7 In terms of space research, Ireland considers it important that any budget allocated from the Framework Programme budget be specifically dedicated to research activities rather than a more general space programme. Funding should be provided within respective application areas. In terms of security research, Ireland supports the proposal for a wide definition to be used to include “human aspects” such as the causes of conflict. The allocation of appropriate resources needs to be justified e.g. in terms of how it will reduce fragmentation, avoid duplication and increase European co-operation while maintaining its focus on internal security. Ireland’s view on the development and design of this type of research in FP7 will be influenced by initial experience with the Preparatory Action on Security Research. 7. Policy-Oriented ResearchIn terms of policy-oriented research, Ireland is of the view that research on policy issues (e.g. agriculture, transport, health, environment) may fit more appropriately with the thematic research priorities. There may be more advantages to aligning policy research with other research in thematic areas as compared with the grouping of all policy-oriented research in a separate strand. __________________________________ “Science and technology, the key to Europe’s future – Guidelines for future European Union policy to support research” COM(2004) 353 final. 1 High level objectives were agreed by the European Council in Lisbon in 2000, the objective being to make Europe “the world’s most competitive economy” by 2010. A specific target was agreed in Barcelona (2002) to bring Europe’s investment in research and development to 3 per cent of GDP by 2010 (from approximately 1.8 per cent at the time). 2 Financial Perspectives concern the overall EU budget for the period 2007 to 2013. 3 SBIR is the Small Business Innovation Research programme - a set-aside programme for small business concerns to engage in research and development that has the potential for commercialisation. Directory: pub -> era -> docs pub -> Acm word Template for sig site pub -> The german unification, 1815-1870 pub -> Baltic Olympiads in Informatics: Challenges for Training Together pub -> Preparation of Papers for ieee transactions on medical imaging pub -> Forthcoming meetings and conferences pub -> Asilomar Conference on Circuits, Systems & Computers, Pacific Grove, ca, November 1978, pp. 55 58 pub -> Forthcoming meetings and conferences pub -> Harmonised compatibility and sharing conditions for video pmse in the 7 9 ghz frequency band, taking into account radar use docs -> Turkish position paper on the 7th eu framework Program December 2004 Introduction Download 51.3 Kb. Share with your friends:
|