EU2020: Competitiveness, innovation and digital single market

A while ago I wrote a series of blog posts about the controversies regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA):

IPR trade protection: ACTA controversy


Innovation and competitiveness

Then, I turned to innovation, competitiveness and information society issues in line with the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EU2020).

Part of the series followed competitiveness reforms in Denmark, in an attempt to see how the EU countries can learn from each other:

A Digital Agenda for Sweden

EU2020 growth reforms Denmark: Policy outcomes

EU2020 and WEF: Competitiveness

EU2020: Learning from the best

Productive and sustainable Denmark

Denmark: Competitiveness challenges

EU2020: Denmark aims for high employment

EU2020: Research and development quality in Denmark

EU2020: Innovation Union evaluates RDI in Denmark


Digital Single Market

The EU2020 growth strategy, its flagship initiative A Digital Agenda for Europe and the reform package known as the Single Market Act all contribute towards what could become the Digital Single Market.

Earlier blog posts offer background to a new series about politics and law in the digital world, but this is only the beginning:

EU Digital Single Market

EU-kuuleminen televisiosta ja elokuvasta digimaailmassa



Ralf Grahn

EU2020: Innovation Union evaluates RDI in Denmark

Innovation Union (with key documents), which was launched a year ago, is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The web pages are excellent. You can follow @innovationunion on Twitter and like Innovation Union on Facebook.

Through Eur-Lex you can find the communication in 22 official EU languages; the English pdf version:

Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union; Brussels, 6.10.2010 COM(2010) 546 final (43 pages)

The communication was accompanied by the longer Commission staff working document:

A RATIONALE FOR ACTION; Brussels, 6.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1161 final (103 pages)


Innovation Union Competitiveness Report 2011

The Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has just published a hefty report on where the European Union and its member states stand with regard to reseaarch, development and innovation:

Innovation Union Competitiveness Report – 2011 edition


Denmark RDI

The blog post EU2020: Research and development quality in Denmark told us that the country already invested more than 3 per cent of GDP in RDI activities. The then Danish government was more interested in improving the output from the efforts.

There are Country Profile pages for 33 countries, the 27 EU member states plus Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.

The country profile for knowledge-intensive Denmark shows that although the target of 3 per cent had already been reached, on current trends the country could attain 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2020.

Besides a general assessment of strengths and weaknesses, much of the information on the eight pages relates to Danish participation in the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), managed by CORDIS – the Community Research and Development Information Service.

However, should we look for outside comparative evaluations in order to get a rounded view of innovation in Denmark?



Ralf Grahn

EU2020: Research and development quality in Denmark

In the blog post EU2020: Denmark aims for high employment we saw that a high employment rate (75 per cent) is a headline target of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, but new reform efforts are needed to put the European Union as a whole on track.

Although somewhat dented during the crisis years, Denmark had 76.1 per cent of 20-64 year old employed, so the National Reform Programme (NRP) 2011 promises continued reforms in order to reach an employment rate of 80 per cent by 2020.

We return to the English version of the Danish Government's NRP in in order to see the plans concerning research and development:

Denmark's National Reform Programme (May 2011; 67 pages)


Research and development quality

For the EU as a whole, the EU2020 strategy aims at a quantitative target – 3 per cent of GDP – for research and development (R&D) and innovation activities by 2020, including both private and public investment.

Admittedly, this quantitative input measure is a bit primitive, but better than nothing. The European Union as a whole needs to catch up with the most innovative countries, states (USA) and regions in the world.

According to Eurostat, in 2009 the EU-27 R&D investment was just 2.01 per cent of GDP, but Denmark on 3.02 per cent had already reached the EU2020 target, third behind Finland (3.96%) and Sweden (3.62%).

The Danish research, development and innovation (RDI) strategy does not aim to throw more into the input basket, but it is focused on increasing the effectiveness of productivity in the field of research (NRP page 19).

The NRP Box 2.2 on page 20 presents new initiatives in the areas of research, development and innovation.


Annual Growth Survey

The European Commission presented its guidance for the final versions of the National Reform Programmes in its communication:

Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU's comprehensive response to the crisis; Brussels, 12.1.2010 COM(2011) 11 final

The AGS made a few general points about research, development, innovation and competitiveness during tough times:

All Member States, especially those in excessive deficit procedure, should keep public expenditure growth firmly below the rate of medium term trend GDP growth, while prioritising sustainable growth friendly expenditure in areas such as research and innovation, education and energy (page 4).

Member States should simplify their regimes for the recognition of professional qualifications to facilitate the free circulation of citizens, workers and researchers (page 7).

To remain competitive in a globalised economy Member States must urgently begin the deep structural reforms needed to enhance the excellence of our research and our capacity to innovate, turning ideas into products and services that meet the demand of high-growth markets, taking advantage of the technological capabilities of our industry and helping SMEs to grow and internationalise (page 7).

In addition to budget priorities, the Danish government and the Commission point towards quality consciousness and RDI excellence in order to enhance competitiveness of European businesses.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020: Learning from the best

After the series about the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), I reported the publication of a new Digital Agenda for Sweden and then took a first look at policy outcomes in Denmark in the light of the competitiveness, growth and employment aims of the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020). Next we looked at the twelve pillars of competitiveness wisdom, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).


Learning from the best

We have just scratched the surface of the comparative report on productivity and growth potential globally:

Klaus Schwab (Editor): The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 (World Economic Forum WEF; 527 pages)

Those who are interested in EU2020-related economic reform issues at national or EU level notice that among the 142 countries and territories ranked, the two top positions go to countries outside the European Union.

Switzerland remains the WEF World Champion, most notably with regard to innovation, technological readiness and labour market efficiency, but also due to its strong showing in practically every category (page 11 summary).

Singapore advanced to second place due to its excellent institutions, as well as its efficient goods, labour and financial markets (page 11-12 summary).

The following top ten emerged from the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2011-2012 rankings (page 15):

1. Switzerland
2. Singapore
3. Sweden
4. Finland
5. United States
6. Germany
7. Netherlands
8. Denmark
9. Japan
10. United Kingdom

Instructive summaries follow for the individual countries.

ITIF

Between 2005 and 2011 the United States has declined from first to fifth position, but let us remember the big differences between the states. When the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation ITIF benchmarked innovation and competitiveness in the European Union and the United States, it found many worrying signs for both.

However, ITIF also found that Massachusetts and eight other states are on the top of the world:

Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, and New Hampshire are more innovative than any nation in the world. Only Finland breaks into the top 10. In other words, nine states lead all nations in the world in terms of innovation-based competitiveness. If it were a nation, Massachusetts would lead the world by a large margin, scoring 18 points above California and 38 points higher than Finland. Massachusetts has set itself apart in several indicators, as the only state or country to have business R&D investment levels over 5 percent of domestic product, over 0.5 percent of domestic product in venture capital, and over two-thirds of its college aged population having a college degree. But even the ninth most innovative state, New Hampshire, leads the EU-25 on all measures but venture capital and broadband.

***

For those who work to turn their national reform programme (NRP) or the EU2020 aims into real progress, learning from the best is essential. The WEF top ten and the nine most competitive and innovative US states are among the places to look.



Ralf Grahn

USA and EU falling behind in innovation and competitiveness

We have seen that the European trade associations for businesses offering ICT goods and services want pan-European regulation. The industry players have lined up behind the Digital Agenda, including the Digital Single Market, expecting the politicians to play their part for a competitive Europe.

The dual ambitions of the European Commission to focus on promoting sustainable public finances and contributing to growth-enhancing economic reforms according to the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) are, in my view, remarkably well in line with what European business leaders and policy shapers are calling for.

But the European Union needs much more: full scale support from politicians at all levels.


ITIF

Again, Twitter acted as the news medium, alerting me to the ITIF benchmarking report about innovation and competitiveness. (Sadly, I am not able to give credit to the individual tweeter, since I forgot to note the tweet, which already seems to have disappeared.)

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation ITIF, based in Washington DC (USA), published The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU and U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness, which found both dark clouds over all and bright spots with regard to nine of the the United States of America (introduction):

… the 2011 report finds that America has made little or no progress since 1999. Of the 44 countries and regions surveyed, the United States still ranks fourth behind Singapore, Finland and Sweden. But this is down from the number one position in 2000. Of greater concern, however, is the fact that the U.S. continues to rank at the bottom – second only to Italy – on progress in improving its innovation capacity and competitiveness over the last decade. But the updated report contains encouraging news for some individual states. Measured against the foreign countries and regions, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, and New Hampshire would all be ranked number one in innovation-based competitiveness if they were their own countries.

Great for Finland and Sweden, but only if we do not count the nine top US states, more innovative than any nation in the world.

If the USA ranked a (disappointing) fourth, what should we say about the EU, where the fifteen old member states (EU-15) remain stuck in eighteenth place, with the ten new member states (EU-10) still further behind, in position 27?

The rate of progress for the US and the EU can only be described as dismal. Both continue to lose ground in the the ”great game” of the 21st century, the global innovation race.

Besides the good marks for Finland and Sweden, the best news from Europe is that five Central European countries – Cyprus, Slovenia, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Latvia – are in the top ten regarding the speed of long term progress between 1999 and 2011, although the recent depression has sapped strength.

The study offers practical advice for the USA and for Europe. Both must push back innovation mercantilism and improve their policies on innovation, productivity and competitiveness.

Europe needs to fully embrace innovation, including the ”creative destruction” so alien to many of its protectionist politicians.

America is described as ”torpid”, sleepwalking to decline without decisive and proactive public action to shape and to act on an national innovation strategy.

This century is not going to be Atlantic, if the US and Europe remain in the slow lane.

You can study the full report:

Robert D. Atkinson and Scott M. Andes, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation: The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU & U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness (July 2011, 42 pages)

***

We need the humility to learn and the courage to act, in both Europe and the United States.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. SFGate tells us that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has unveiled An Economic Growth and Competitivenss Agenda for California, in Silicon Valley. The plan is available here.

Hungarian EU Council presidency: Innovation (Future Perfect)

Third time lucky? Our third informal ministerial ”competitiveness” meeting arranged by the Hungarian EU Council presidency seems to unearth a rich vein of precious ore, especially for those who are interested in research, development and innovation (RDI).


Europe 2020 growth strategy

Competitiveness in and of Europe depends on growth-enhancing reforms in line with the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (although we still hope for updates) and the relaunch of the Single Market (link to all Single Market Act SMA language versions).


Informal Council meetings

Therefore, we looked at how the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union communicated on relevant informal meetings of the Council. First, we searched for the press releases related to the 16 to 18 January 2011 meeting of employment ministers (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affaris EPSCO). Then, we found richer and better structured pickings from the gathering of ministers for transport (Transport, Telecommunications and Energy TTE) on 7 and 8 February 2011.


Competitiveness Council

Our third informal meeting brings us into contact with the Competitiveness Council (internal market, industry, research and space). As usual, the related press releases on the Consilium website contain official Council conclusions.


Hungarian EU Council presidency

If we use the search functions on the Hungarian presidency page News and events, filtering down between 11 and 13 April 2011, as well as the Council formation Competitiveness (COMP), we find some interesting items.


Innovation (RDI)

The press release 'Ministerial debate on innovation reform' gives us an account of efforts to intensify European efforts in the areas of research, development and innovation (RDI), including the need to simplify the European research framework programme(s). The new member states in Central Europe lag far behind as recipients of EU research funding.

In the margin of the web page, we find a number of helpful links to additional resources, reminding us of the well structured and high quality web communications of the Swedish EU Council presidency in 2009.


Future Perfect

We find a solid introductory presentation of RDI policies in the European Union:

Future Perfect – Discussion Paper for the Informal Meeting of Ministers of Research (Competitiveness Council); Budapest – Gödöllö, Hungary, 12 April 2011 (45 pages)

Future Perfect contains four interesting chapters on the RDI challenges facing Europe:

1. Introduction
2. Research, development and innovation in the EU
3. New directions for EU research, development and innovation funding
4. The contribution and potential of Hungarian innovation

The aims of the discussion paper are presented like this:

The purpose of this document is to set out an agenda for discussion and to provide an overview of the most recent offi cial papers and draft reports concerning the fi elds of research, development and innovation in the EU. The four themes which have been identifi ed are:

• Unleashing Innovation
• Addressing the Grand Challenges
• Strengthening Europe’s Science Base
• Spreading Excellence

Future Perfect is highly recommended as an overview for everyone engaged in RDI issues in Europe.

***

We return to the informal EU meeting(s) of research and industry ministers in future blog entries.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Spanish journalist Macarena Rodríguez writes one of the top Euroblogs: La Oreja de Europa. Follow her on Twitter as well @MacarenaRG.

Project Europe 2030 and Innovation Union

The future prosperity of EU citizens will be decided by our collective choices between reform or witnessing our decline. During the Lisbon strategy decade, we crawled in the slow lane. The new Europe 2020 strategy is now supposed to bring us jobs and growth, but without renewed resolve it will only become another pompous pipe dream.

The European Commission is preparing the flagship initiative Innovation Union, and the governments in the EU member states are drafting their first National Reform Programmes (NRPs) based on the Europe 2020 strategy.

Read on, if you want our leaders to deliver.



Council supportive



With China just ten years from closing the innovation gap with Europe on present trends, the Programme of the Belgian Presidency of the EU Council takes research, development and innovation seriously, at least verbally.

The research communities, innovation systems and other stakeholders have an opportunity to set Innovation Union and the other Europe 2020 flagship initiatives, as well as the first new generation National Reform Programmes on course for success.



Project Europe 2030



The Reflection Group chaired by Felipe González looked at strategic choices for the European Union in a long term perspective. Project Europe 2030 offers valuable ideas and suggestions to official drafters, research and development (R&D) communities and the wider public:



Report from the Reflection Group on the Future of the European Union "Project Europe 2030 - Challenges and Opportunities" (Council document 10559/1/10 REV 1)



Prosperity


The Reflection Group posed two fundamental questions to politicians and EU citizens (page 4):

Will the EU be able to maintain and increase its level of prosperity in this changing world? Will it be able to promote and defend Europe’s values and interests?

Human capital


The Project Europe 2030 report underlined the crucial importance of human capital and the need to catch up (page 7):

Human capital is the key strategic instrument for ensuring success in the global economy. And yet, Europe has lost considerable ground in the race to a knowledge economy. Catching up will require a coordinated effort. Member States must mobilise the resources they agreed to invest in R&D, with the help of the private sector, and reform all aspects of education, including professional training. The Union must also act through its own revised budgetary instruments, while making better use of the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. Finally, we need to consider the possibility of opening up new sources of revenue, for instance through the imposition of a carbon tax.

European Research Area

In a manner comprehensible for a wider public of informed citizens, under Growth through knowledge, the Reflection Group depicts the challenges for the European Research Area (ERA) and argues for increased R&D spending on the way towards Innovation Union (page 24 to 25):

Despite numerous calls for substantial increases in R&D spending, the last decade saw relatively little change – the EU’s expenditure remains at 1.8 per cent of GDP. A concerted effort is needed in Europe to reach the ‘Europe2020’ target of 3 per cent expenditure on R&D and the creation of an “Innovation Union”. This must include budgetary reallocations and greater private sector funding. EU centres for pre-competitive applied research should be developed (public-private partnerships between states, regions and private industry) together with increased support for investigator-driven free research through the European Research Council.

To this end, it will be crucial to simplify the procedures for accessing public funding, including EU funds. This would above all benefit small dynamic businesses, which are often the driving force for forward-looking innovations. Today, SMEs account for half of the EU's GDP although they benefit from only 15 per cent of R&D programmes. New forms of partnership are needed between researchers at publicly-financed universities and researchers at privately-financed companies to ensure a continuous pooling of knowledge throughout the process of research and innovation. In particular, more funding is needed for applied research that would benefit SMEs.

Excellence must be the main criterion for granting public aid both at national and EU levels. The role of the European Research Council must be expanded and strengthened, with funds allocated strictly on the basis of peer reviewed excellence, actual or potential. Likewise, the EU must encourage the development of “European poles of excellence” while ensuring that this process of concentration would not lead to the creation of “intellectual deserts”.

Last but not least, the European Research Area must become a reality – an area without borders where all scientific potential, wherever it is, can be fully tapped thanks to the free movement of researchers, ideas, technologies and capital. This process of “Europeanization” must itself be part of a more general openness to the world. Transfers of knowledge have now become the indispensable complement to the traditional drivers of globalisation based on material and capital flows.

The views of the Reflection Group are not new, but they are presented in a clear and convincing manner.



Regulatory framework for innovation

The Reflection Group states the need for dynamic Europe-wide markets in services in order to unleash innovation and creativity (page 25):

Europe often finds it difficult to translate scientific research into new products, new patents, new entrepreneurial activities and new jobs. A lack of competition in service markets inhibits innovation, raises costs and limits growth. Financial services, next generation digital services, energy solutions and services to promote health and learning have all huge potential. The EU is well placed to become a leader in the new service industries, but only if service providers are supported by a Europe-wide market and a new regulatory environment where innovation and creativity can actually flourish.

Free global markets that respect intellectual property rights are the essential breeding ground for innovation. It is therefore important that Europe remains committed to improving market access both inside and outside Europe, most effectively through the completion of the Single Market, both in regard to services and new technologies. At the same time, the EU must reform the rules on intellectual property, for instance through the creation of a straightforward European patent system that is affordable, quick and reasonable, and offers effective protection on a European scale.

In this context, it will equally be important to put in place the measures needed to reinforce risk capital markets and the availability of seed capital. In particular, SMEs – which are very often at the forefront of innovation – need more adequate support mechanisms, including access to risk capital, to help them compete in the global marketplace.

The creative economy will continue to evolve faster than the political processes intended to support or regulate it. Every day it reveals new horizons and revolutionary prospects. Flexibility and responsiveness must therefore be the backbone of any regulatory framework in this field. Facilitating a culture of risk-taking and entrepreneurship is even more important. Only this will allow the EU to fully reap the rewards of research and experimentation, and with it to create new jobs.

From words to action?

Half a century from the launch of the Common Market, the European Union is still struggling to achieve a functioning internal market (or Single Market) in services.

Just a few examples:



The general Services Directive is a complex and ill digested compromise between European ambitions and tribalist instincts. Many member states have been slow in putting the Services Directive 2006/123 into practice. (See information note 18 May 2010, document 9475/10.)



Businesses and consumers pay the price of fragmented digital markets, as shown by the 15th progress report. Splintered markets do not give birth to world class services at affordable prices.



The “straightforward” European patent system has resisted the efforts of several EU Council presidencies keen to act as midwives.


Project Europe 2030, by the Reflection Group, highlights important challenges and opportunities facing politicians, public officials, business leaders, unions and citizens. Innovation Union needs energetic support, decisive action and high quality communication.




Ralf Grahn

Europe 2020 strategy: Belgian EU Council presidency and Innovation Union

Yesterday we looked at the visible preparation and communication by the Commission services of the flagship initiative Innovation Union, in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth.



The central Europe 2020 website was (and still is) like an abandoned child rather than the promising heir to Europe’s ambitions. DG Enterprise and Industry may have done a lot of preparatory work last year, but has not taken care to inform stakeholders or the general public about ongoing preparation, if any.



On the other hand, DG Research has shown the way for other Commission services, EU institutions, Council presidencies and member states, by reaching out to stakeholders through interactive means.



If DG Research continues in the same spirit, it can foster informed debate with the research community and the wider public, as Linda Margaret noted in a comment.



Belgian presidency of the EU Council

It is time to turn to how the Council of the European Union prepares for and communicates the coming flagship initiative Innovation Union. Our natural starting point is the work programme for the second half of 2010.



The Programme of the Belgian Presidency of the EU Council presents the wider context (strategic framework) for the work during the coming six months. Here the programme states (page 5):

The EU 2020 strategy for employment and growth aspires to establish an intelligent, sustainable and inclusive economy. This assumes growth in employment, a greater mobilisation in support of innovation and education, as well as making ambitious commitments on climate issues and, lastly, a strengthening of social cohesion. The fulfilment of the major objectives defined by the European Council will underpin the socio-economic priorities of the Belgian Presidency's programme.

December European Council


On page 6, the Belgian presidency adds a note on industrial policy, as well as research and development:

The Belgian Presidency will also seek to lend momentum to a sustainable industrial policy, with the main aim of developing a green European economy, competitive at the global level. It will maintain an integrated approach, covering all facets of innovation and targeting the needs of businesses, in the main, and those of SMEs in particular.

Research, development and innovation will be the subject of in-depth discussions at the European Council in December 2010. As a priority, it must define guidelines for better coordination of Member States' policy in this area. The Belgian Presidency will focus on defining indicators to measure both the extent to which the crucial objective of 3% is being met, as well as the progress achieved through the creation of a European Research Area. Particular attention will be devoted to the free flow of knowledge within this European Research Area and to the simplification of Community programmes.

October European Council

In the operational part of the presidency programme, Belgium turns to the upcoming European Council meeting in October 2010 (page 12):

In accordance with the European Council’s decision of March 2010, the October European Council will focus its attention on research and development and specifically examine the resources required to increase Europe’s innovation potential and competitive capacity in light of the challenges it faces. The Belgian Presidency will ensure that the debate is properly prepared and monitored by all sittings of the Council concerned.

Are both the October and December European Council meetings going to be dedicated to the same subjects?



Intellectual property


Under Competitiveness, the Belgian presidency programme deals with the related area of intellectual property, where the tenor seems to be more supportive of the interests of rights holders and the US administration than of user industries, ordinary users and “digital natives” (page 21 to 22):

Intellectual property

Adequate protection of intellectual property has been identified in the Europe 2020 Strategy as one of the most significant obstacles to successful operation of the internal market. Appropriate innovation and protection of innovative ideas form a whole at a European level. Under the Belgian Presidency, the Council will continue its work on the resolution of questions which remain open, both for the EU patent and for the unified patent litigation system.

Regarding copyright, under the Belgian Presidency, the Commission’s legislative initiative on orphan works will be the subject of an initial policy debate at the Council. Taking into account the digital development of libraries such as Europeana and other private initiatives, the Council will seek to make the most of an opportunity for European legislation on the matter.

Among the various initiatives in progress concerning the respect of intellectual property rights, at both a European and an international level, the Belgian Presidency will give special priority to negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with a view to their conclusion before the end of 2010.

Industrial policy

Also related to innovation is the coming Europe 2020 flagship initiative for industrial policy (page 22):

The Belgian Presidency will promote the launch of “Industrial policy in the era of globalization” as a flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy, while ensuring the articulation of the horizontal approach and the dimensions associated with these sectors. In particular, this new industrial strategy seeks to ensure the development of a proactive consultation process concerning the transition of the European economy to a green economy which is competitive on the world stage, and to provide a response to the challenges and opportunities which this poses to European industry.

Innovation Union


The flagship initiative Innovation Union, including various aspects of research, development and innovation are dealt with at length in the Belgian presidency programme (from page 22 to 24):

Research, development and innovation will be highlighted as priorities during the second half of 2010 within the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy through the "Innovation Union" flagship initiative. In compliance with conclusions adopted by the European Council in March 2010, the Council must make a contribution on this subject in preparation for the European Council in December. The Belgian Presidency will focus on formulating guidelines, defining policy objectives and developing indicators which allow progress on the creation of a European Research Area (ERA) to be measured.

On the basis of the Commission communication concerning the plan for research and innovation, the Belgian Presidency will favour an integrated approach covering multiple facets of innovation – technological, non-technological, and social – which promote its distribution throughout the economic fabric and which respond to the current challenges and the needs of businesses, particularly SMEs. In the context of the knowledge triangle, the role of clusters and the relationship between research centres, training and business will be examined.

In light of the development of the 8th Framework Programme, under the Belgian Presidency, the Council will conduct work relating to the simplification of administrative procedures and financial controls from the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development.

Throughout the Belgian Presidency, particular attention will be given to the development of the following three initiatives relating to free circulation of knowledge within the European Research Area:

• definition of framework conditions for the “joint-programming” initiative with social challenges as the priority;

• continuation of the execution of the European partnership for researchers, in particular to increase their mobility and improve their status;

• promotion of improved integration in universities and research institutes within the knowledge triangle.

Under the Belgian Presidency, the Council will work to develop the role of the regions in the development, implementation and monitoring of research and European Scientific Policy.

Under the Belgian Presidency, the Council will examine the contribution of R&D to a sustainable society through strategic bio-economy initiatives, the plan for the development of low carbon technologies, (SET Plan) and marine and maritime research.

The Council will continue the discussion on the ITER project and examine the possibility of extending the 7th Euratom Framework Programme (scheduled to end in 2011) so that it comes to an end at the same time as the 7th Research Framework Programme due to end in 2013.

In the space sector, the Presidency will seek to ensure progress is made in the definition of a European vision for space exploration in order to allow the European Union's flagship programmes for the space sector to operate sustainably as soon as possible. Finally, the implementation of competence in the space sector, accorded to the EU by the Treaty of Lisbon, will receive the undivided attention of the Belgian Presidency which will seek to bring together existing European expertise and infrastructures in the space sector, in particular those of the European Space Agency.

Innovation is mentioned in other contexts as well, such as health, transport and education.

Verbally, at least, the EU Council takes research, development and innovation seriously, as it should with China just ten years from closing the innovation gap.




Ralf Grahn

China closes the innovation gap in ten years (Innovation Union in Europe 2020 strategy)

With regard to innovation performance, China is showing a rapid rate of relative improvement, which points to a possible closing of the performance gap with the EU in the near future (10 years under a business-as-usual simple linear extrapolation), says an assessment by European Commission experts.



For an inspired tour of antiquated European mindsets versus real world challenges, you can read the blog post by Jason O’Mahony: As Europeans slowly shuffle off history’s pages...


Time for Europeans to wake up?



Innovation Union



The blog post Europe 2020 strategy: Flagship initiative Innovation Union presented the outline of coming action promised by the European Commission in the Europe 2020 communication COM(2010) 2020 final.



We find no updated information on the Commission’s central Europe 2020 web page yet, in general or with regard to the flagship initiative Innovation Union.



Commission Work Programme


Under the headline Advancing the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives, the Commission’s Work Programme (CWP) for 2010 promises (page 5):

Concrete steps will be taken in the coming months to flesh out the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives, in close cooperation with relevant Council formations and stakeholders. The Commission will set out its proposals by way of the following communications:

-----

– “A European plan for research and innovation” (strategic initiative 11): This "Innovation Union" flagship will set out priorities to improve framework conditions for Europe's research and its capacities for creativity and innovation, including eco-innovation. This will contribute to the planned autumn discussion of the European Council.

-----

Source:



Commission Work Programme 2010: Time to act Brussels, Volume I; 31.3.2010 COM(2010) 135 final (13 pages)


In Annex I (Volume II) a Communication on a European Plan for Research and Innovation is promised during the third quarter of 2010 (page 3), in:




Commission Work Programme 2010 Time to act, Volume II Annexes; Brussels, 31.3.2010 COM(2010) 135 final (44 pages)



European plan for research and innovation assessed



The Impact Assessment Board (IAB) has published a so called Roadmap, a preliminary assessment of the Commission Work Programme initiative Research and Innovation Plan (10 pages). The Commission is expected to adopt the Communication on 7 September 2010.

The Roadmap describes the context, including the long term vision for the European Research Area (ERA).

The main problems are laid out in a matter-of-fact way, including the introductory quote of this blog post, which is found on page 2 of the Roadmap.

The Roadmap then presents the objectives of the Innovation Union initiative, the expected impacts of the European plan for research and innovation, evaluations of previous policies and accomplished impact assessment work, as well as plans for further impact assessment work.

The Roadmap is detailed and full of references to sources, in short, an excellent introduction to the state of research and innovation in Europe, and the need for energetic action.




Ralf Grahn

EU Law: Commission Annual RTD Report

Annually – although not at the beginning of each year – the Commission presents a report on research and technological development (RTD) activities to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Reports such as this can sound boring, but to students and other interested persons they are valuable resources. These reports offer both quick overviews and distilled knowledge about the policy area in question.

So, if research, technological development, innovation, the FP7 or the like is up your alley, read on.

***

Article 173 TEC


Article 173 (ex Article 130p) of the current Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) contains an obligation for the Commission to report on research and technological development (RTD) activities and dissemination of results during the previous year. The report shall include the work programme for the current year.

This report is supposed to be sent at the beginning of each year, to the European Parliament and the Council.

Here is Article 173 TEC, as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/123:


Article 173 TEC

At the beginning of each year the Commission shall send a report to the European Parliament and to the Council. The report shall include information on research and technological development activities and the dissemination of results during the previous year, and the work programme for the current year.


***


Original Lisbon Treaty (ToL)

Article 2, point 142 inserted a new Article 172a and point 143 amended Article 174 (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/86–87).

No specific amendment concerned Article 173 TEC.


***


Renumbering the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL)

(As we have noted earlier, the Table of equivalences of the original Treaty of Lisbon tells us that Title XVIII first became Title XVIII with the addition of space in the TFEU (ToL), and later renumbered Title XIX Research and technological development and space in the consolidated version.)

Article 173 TEC first became Article 173 TFEU (ToL), but was then renumbered Article 190 TFEU in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/217–218).


***


Lisbon Treaty consolidated

Article 190 TFEU

The Article was renumbered, but apart from that it is one of the fairly rare instance of a provision where not a single word is changed. Article 190 TFEU appears like this in the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/132):

(TITLE XIX
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE)


Article 190
(ex Article 173 TEC)

At the beginning of each year the Commission shall send a report to the European Parliament and to the Council. The report shall include information on research and technological development activities and the dissemination of results during the previous year, and the work programme for the current year.



***

Annual report

The beginning of the year must be given a liberal interpretation and, perhaps, be seen as unrealistic with regard to gathering and processing the data necessary for a meaningful retrospective report. Anyway, the latest annual RTD report based on Article 173 TEC was published 18 August 2008.

The latest Report from the Commission Annual Report on research and technological development activities of the European Union in 2007 (Brussels, 18.8.2008 COM(2008) 519 final), is available here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0519:FIN:EN:PDF

The eleven pages of Annual Report are a useful summary of policy initiatives concerning the European Research Area (ERA) and the first year of implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) as well as key findings on funding etc.

The Annual RTD Report was accompanied by a Staff Working Document:
Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Report from the Commission Annual Report on research and technological development activities of the European Union in 2007 (Brussels, 18.8.2008 SEC(2008) 2380 final). The 121 pages present a more detailed picture of individual research programmes and activities:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2380:FIN:EN:PDF


In the European Parliament the Industry, Research and Energy Committee is responsible for the evaluation. The Council reference to the documents is number 12554/08. No indications of follow-up have been indicated to date.


Ralf Grahn