Toespraak Janez Potocnik over de Lissabon strategie (en) - Hoofdinhoud

SPEECH/07/274

Janez PotoÄnik

European Commissioner for Science and Research

Research and the structuring of the Lisbon vision

Conference: Coordinating Framework Programme and Structural Funds to support R&D

Brussels, 3 May 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It's a pleasure to be here today. I'd like to start by saying that I am pleased that Lisbon is such a beautiful, exciting city. Because it would have been a pity to spend the last seven years talking about a strategy that was born in a less attractive city.

And the EU's Lisbon strategy, like the city, has been full of surprises. I hope that the guidelines and recommendations presented here today can help us take a few steps closer to Lisbon.

The Lisbon Strategy is not just an idea, another policy or a wish list. Lisbon is a vision and Lisbon will happen. Because we do not have other choice. Of course, when it will happen is something we can still debate. We will create a modern, competitive knowledge society and it will rank among the best in the world. And the targets set for Lisbon were not a goal in themselves - they are merely a signpost to tell us how we are progressing.

The 3% target of R&D in GDP for example is important, but not as a fixed goal. It will show us that we have made the transition to putting research up the agenda - that people realise its importance when public and private budgets are decided.

But any country that believes Lisbon will happen without making changes is wrong. And so is anyone who thinks that once the 3% figure is reached, it's time to relax.

The open method of coordination on the 3% target for R&D in the EU's GDP has already made progress in helping coordinate research policy. Several EU countries have asked for their research policies to be peer reviewed and many others have testified to how much they have learned from other's practices and experiences.

But one of our problems remains too much division: division between public and private sectors, between national and European, between regions, between institutions and even within all of these.

This division extends to EU funds. But in fact, there is no good reason for any conflict. The Framework Programme requests complementarity with Cohesion Policy and the Structural Funds. And the Structural funds highlight the opportunities in the Framework Programme.

Cohesion Policy has already contributed to the development of research and development in the EU. Between 2000-2006, some €10.5 billion of Structural Funds was allocated to regions for research, technological development and infrastructure. They have played a role in strengthening the places where research takes place, the skills of the people who carry it out and linking with the businesses who can exploit it.

But the link between the Framework Programme and Cohesion Policy could and should still be stronger. The guidelines that will be discussed today provide some useful ways of explaining how to achieve this. They have been produced in the context of the pursuing the 3% objective by a CREST Working Group representing MS in partnership with the Commission. Our discussion today should contribute to improving the guidelines. They will be then discussed by CREST Group and the Commission will also use them later on in the Communication and the ensuing guidelines on the integrated use of the 7 th Framework Programme, Structural Funds and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

Why this interlinkage between the tree Funds and Programmes is so important? I see three clear reasons.

First, because it is in Europe's interest. All European leaders called for more progress in research and innovation at their Hampton Court meeting in 2005. Effective links between the biggest EU public funds can only help create this progress.

Second, because it is also in national and regional interests. EU countries have taken this on board. The National Reform Plans they submitted all emphasise the key role research and development will play in reaching the Lisbon targets.

And third, because this process is about more than just ensuring that Framework Programme and Cohesion Policy work together. It is part of a wider drive to develop a joined up approach to innovation. What we need now is regions, nations and the EU pooling together resources for better innovation.

This involves some difficult choices. We are all aware that some politicians can see more electoral value in building major infrastructure projects than less striking projects which improve human capital. We have to eliminate the false choice between these.

Major projects can be developed with better skilled people - and major industries that employ them can benefit more from better infrastructures.

So what is needed now?

One of our first actions must be to tackle outdated attitudes. There is a view that Structural Funds can only be dedicated to cohesion and Framework Programme Funds only to research excellence.

True, research funds are allocated on the basis of excellence. We only dedicate a small part to capacity building. But structural funds are pool for excellence. I can tell you as a Slovenian that research excellence has played a major role in my own country's cohesion policy.

Too many people have taken on board the message that Structural Funds and Framework Programmes cannot both be applied to the same activities in the same project. This is true - but the two funds can be applied to different stages of the same project, as long as the expenditure co-financed by one of the Funds do not receive assistance from the other.

And we should remember too the possibilities offered by other instruments, such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, or CIP. Let's not forget that it shares the same time span as the other two funds, from 2007-20013.

Although applying more than one of these funds to a project requires more coordination by its organisers, the benefits for the project, for us as the funding body, and for society as a whole, are considerable.

This highlights another major area which we need to improve: information and communication.

Within regions and countries, within the Framework Programme and Cohesion Policy, there have been major efforts to increase communication and information. But it is across and between these areas that more effort is needed. Again, these guidelines will help.

I would like to say a few words about the possible impact on regions of better linking of funds. These guidelines will be discussed in CREST at national level. But I think we should also ensure that we engage regional and local level input.

It is the local level which remains one of the most important to all of us. A US politician once said that 'all politics is local' and I haven't heard another politician disagree yet.

So I think we need to ensure that, although we have a lot of coordination at national and European level, we keep close contact with how this can translate into action 'on the ground'. The EU's new Framework Programme has enhanced its regional element, with a dedicated "regions of knowledge" programme and strong encouragement for regions to exploit their research and innovation potential.

I am looking forward to hearing some feedback from the regions not only on this issue but also in the present Green Paper public consultation on the development of the European Research Area.

***

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let's be honest: ensuring better joint use of Framework Programme and Cohesion Policy is not a new challenge. But I am optimistic that the guidelines we see here today show a new approach.

They give clear ways of linking up the two funds. They address the interest in this link from both the old and new EU Member States.

Today's guidelines are about clarification, recommendation and about filling gaps. There has not been enough coordination between two of the EU's biggest funds and we need to fill that information and knowledge gap. Without this coordination we help one of European research's biggest enemies: fragmentation and duplication. And this is an area which the Commission is determined to tackle.

The Commission already has an experience in this fight: initiatives like ERA-NET, the European Technology Platforms, the ESFRI Roadmap for research infrastructures, and many more are all about filling gaps and dropping duplication.

It's something we all need to do more with the enormous sums of money available in two of our biggest funds. These funds come from the people of Europe - and we do them a disservice if they are wasted simply because we have not provided sufficient coordination.

I welcome today's guidelines as a valuable tool in addressing this situation. And I hope that by doing so, our dream of Lisbon becomes a bit clearer and closer to reality.

Thank you.