ERA: An idea whose time has come
The European Research Area (ERA) is both required and achievable, a senior representative of the European Commission's Research DG reaffirmed to a gathering of representatives from national research agencies on 5 December. Richard Escritt, a Director from the Research Directorate General, recognised that there have been hesitations about the ERA but believed that this scepticism falls into two categories: is it necessary, and is it feasible? Comparisons between the EU and the USA mean that the answer to the first question 'has to be a clear yes', according to Mr. Escritt, who referred to the ERA as 'an idea whose time has come'. He added that there is evidence that progress is already being made and also that it is feasible. He noted that the Commission's ERA Communication already has the overall political endorsement and interest of the key players. The record to date is 'so far, so good'. The European Parliament recognises the importance of the challenge and seems likely to endorse the principal message that we need to take a fresh look at European research. Industry and academia have been generally supportive of the proposal, and the Council of Ministers, in its formal conclusion on 16 November gave a broad endorsement of the Commission's initiatives whilst offering encouragement to the Commission. The present condition of European research is a 'mosaic of altogether some 30 national policies' if those of the associated countries in Eurpe are also included, in addition to EU policy, said Mr. Escritt. The ERA is the best way to bring together these diverse components, underlining the need for an ERA. He compared the EU to the USA, where language, a common legal system and similar attitudes to a culture of innovation have facilitated American research. The obstacles to co-operation and co-ordination are fewer, this is what the ERA seeks to emulate. The idea of benchmarking and mapping of excellence also met some initial scepticism, which is 'certainly comprehensible' according to Mr. Escritt, who recognised that benchmarking implies a judgement, and there had been fears, now dispelled, that the Commission would interfere. But national responses have been positive, he said. In three meetings with representatives from Research Ministries, it has been agreed that the exercise is potentially useful and feasible if done systematically and openly. A set of indicators was also agreed, along with the possible development of new indicators. These comments were welcomed by Dr. Veli-Pekka Saarnivaara, Director General of the Finnish National Technology Agency, TEKES. He told CORDIS News that he was supportive of the Commission co-ordinating benchmarking, which, in his opinion, 'should be done in co-ordination with the OECD', as it is 'not wise to repeat what the OECD is already doing'. Mr. Escritt also highlighted that certain instruments need to be examined afresh in the Sixth Framework programme (FP6). These include: - Project to programme level approach - Longer term, more structural funding - Large-scale projects - Reinforcement of existing instruments (except mobility and infrastructure) - Variable geometry - Synergies with other instruments, for example, the Structural Funds and the European Investment Bank (EIB) - De-centralisation (except SME actions and fellowships). The concept of large-scale projects received a lot of attention from those listening to Mr. Escritt. When asked about the size of future large projects, he replied that whereas the budget for large projects under FP5 has been three to five million euros, the equivalent budget under FP6 would possibly be significantly more. He added that there is no need to be prejudiced against large projects, as they will not be imposed everywhere. But they will be a way of expressing concentration of effort, carried out in selected target areas, and their form will possibly be as a technology platform for industrial research activities, with the Commission providing a variable proportion of the total cost of projects. Possible priorities for the next Framework programme include - but these are just examples - post genomic and major illness research, nanotechnologies, information society, aeronautics and space, sustainable development, and research for policy making (research on the precautionary principle). Mr. Escritt expects the Commission's proposals to be announced in February or March 2001 and hopes the Framework programme and specific programmes will be adopted by mid-2002.