Tal från invigningen av ERA-konferensen i Bryssel
Director general, Ladies and Gentlemen.
It is a great pleasure for me to address this event organised by the Commission, about half way into the Swedish Presidency. I hope for an open, focused and action-orientated discussion regarding the European Research Area.
Europe faces an important challenge. The global competition is growing. Emerging economies in Asia and Latin America are investing heavily in research and development. The EU’s GDP per capita remains at 70 percent of the US level and the R&D intensity hovering below two percent of EU’s combined GDP, compared to close to three percent for the US. Can we meet this challenge? If so, by what means?
In september, the think-tank Bruegel published a report directed to the new Commission, a collection of essays by Bruegel scholars on the key policy challenges and priorities the European Commission will face over the next five years. The economic crisis has drawn attention to a number of issues that must be addressed and the report makes a number of concrete and relevant recommendations for major economic fields, as well as for the Commission and EU as a whole.
The Bruegel report is one interesting contribution to the public debate. The report discusses for example the improvement of size, effectiveness and attractiveness of the research funding distributed under the EU Framework Programmes. Improvement should, according to the report, be accomplished by seeking to adopt key parts of the European Research Council (ERC) governance with improved transparency, a bottom-up approach, simpler and lighter administrative procedures and smaller set of more straightforward and independent funding channels.
The report also recommends new spending targets to be achieved by the EU, a knowledge spend on higher education and research of five percent of GDP to be achieved by 2014 and several measures in many political fields to create a single market for knowledge generation and dissemination.
*
The Swedish Presidency takes the challenge that Europe faces very seriously. Europe’s future wealth depends on how the challenge can be met. We have made a couple of priorities in the area of research: governance of the European Research Area, the knowledge triangle and the future of the framework programmes. Let me outline the three priorities:
Firstly, as regards development of the European Research Area, we want to focus on the catchwords: effectiveness and relevance. Increasing effectiveness is a matter of creating clearer governance of the ERA.
The European Union's budget must become more modern and future oriented. Investments in research have a much higher added value than agricultural subsidies. A shift is not just important for creating growth in Europe, it will also send the signal that Europe still stands for the classical strive for knowledge.
In times of crisis it is vital to remain farsighted and continue to invest in research. Clear quantitative targets are important to achieve that. Today’s research is tomorrow’s welfare.
But if Europe is to be strong in the field of research and innovation it is not just the amount of resources that are important. It is also of great importance how the resources available are used.
A higher degree of coordination is needed between what is done at EU level and what is done at national level, without on that account losing the necessary diversity of measures. Many of the measures, or instruments, as they can be called, are steered by national or regional conditions, which group is being targeted or the nature of the problems to be dealt with. This pluralism is a strength for research on our continent.
However, we still believe that better coordination of research at European level would increase the benefit of investments made. First and foremost, this entails increased shouldering of responsibility by the Member States.
The ERA must also focus more clearly on relevance. European citizens must perceive that research investments can make a difference in their lives and those of future generations. At the beginning of July the Presidency arranged a conference on the future of EU research. The conference, which was held in Lund in southern Sweden, resulted in a series of proposals collected in “The Lund Declaration”. In this, the conference emphasises that research at European level must be based more extensively on the major challenges we face, such as the climate threat, food and water security, access to sustainable energy, the ageing population and pandemics. We believe this is a way of increasing the relevance of the ERA.
The Lund Declaration also addresses the identification of priorities for European research. Up to now much of this has been left to the Commission. This is not acceptable. These processes must be made open and involve all parties concerned, both public and private actors.
When we discuss how the ERA can develop it is not only a matter of waiting for draft legislation from the Commission. It is also a matter of mobilising national and regional authorities, Community institutions and other actors as well as society as a whole in a partnership to develop the ERA. Their participation in the general debate on the design of such a partnership is important.
*
Secondly. Strengthening research is not sufficient to give the knowledge economy the boost it needs. The Swedish presidency has therefore also chosen to give priority to issues concerning the knowledge triangle – that is, the interaction between education, research and innovation. Each of these three parts of the triangle is important. We need to strengthen the links between the different parts, but we also need to strengthen each part in itself.
In Europe we are making large investments in research, but too few research findings are commercialised thereby generating the growth and benefits we want. To remedy this research paradox is of the utmost importance for our growth, welfare and prosperity. Research is of value per se, but it is also fundamentally important that breakthroughs in research are of benefit to society.
*
Thirdly. We want to start the debate on the next European framework programme for research. I believe that the next framework programme should have a new aim. Instead of being overly bureaucratic with a technical thematic structure – I believe it should be focused at achievements. We should use the European research programme to build knowledge to meet the grand challenges we face – climate change, water shortage, poverty, diseases.
This will not only help improve Europe's competitive advantage, I believe it will also make the framework programme easier to understand and more accepted. We need to simplify existing rules, but also to think innovatively and see solutions that go beyond the framework that exists today. For example, we must reduce the regulatory burden that researchers who request funds from the framework programmes are subjected to. Researchers should be experts at their field of science, not at filling out applications.
*
Let me end by saying a few words on a more general note. The new global landscape contains obstacles, but most of all opportunities for those who have the determination to seize them. Many European countries are now reforming their systems for research and innovation. Together, at the European level, we can strengthen our capacities even further. So my answer to the question whether Europe can meet the new challenges is: We have to. We can. And we will.
Thank you for your attention.