Candidate countries want more involvement in FP6 preparations
More involvement and more support were the priorities of the EU pre-accession countries at a conference on the role of the candidate countries in EU research in Linköping, Sweden on 21 and 22 May. The conference was organised by the Swedish EU-R&D Council, a governmental organisation belonging to the Ministry of Education. Representatives working in the area of research policy in the candidate countries, the Member States and the European Commission presented their views on the future of research in Europe. Candidate country delegates also had the opportunity to explain to their counterparts in the Member States their own research policies and their experiences of EU involvement. All candidate country representatives expressed the desire to be very involved in the preparation on the next framework programme. State Undersecretary from the Slovenian Ministry of Education Science and Sport, Niko Herakovic, stressed that they would like to be involved in discussing specific measures as well as the instruments. This plea for more involvement was endorsed by Hendrik Tent, Deputy Director General of the Research DG, who urged the candidate countries to take maximum advantage of opportunities to get involved in committees, which, he said, would ensure that the candidate countries not only receive relevant and important information, but receive it in advance, thus making preparation possible. In response to a question concerning additional financial assistance for candidate countries, Mr Tent stated that the framework programme is 'not a cohesion instrument, it is based on actions and should be like that'. He added that money 'is only half of the story' and that more important is how many projects a country participates in. He highlighted the primacy of long term benefits over short term returns. Swedish Minister for Education and Science, Thomas Östros echoed the sentiments of Mr Tent, stating that the framework is a research programme and not a structural fund. The structural funds can however be used to open up possibilities, he said, by improving infrastructure. He added that domestic efforts are very important, and that the framework programmes should not become too large a part of domestic science policy. Dr Duscan Valachovic from the Ministry of Education in the Slovak Republic used his presentation to outline what he feels the candidate countries have to offer, what the current difficulties are and what is expected. The candidate countries can offer highly qualified research staff, existing networks, maximum support for cooperation at apolitical and institutional level and a real interest in full involvement at all levels, he said. All candidate countries have in fact already opened up their national programmes, making them closer to the European Research Area (ERA) objective than most EU Member States. Summarising the difficulties still experienced by all candidate countries, Dr Valachovic pointed to the state of the economy, low investment in research, a weak infrastructure and the low interest in and support from the industrial and entrepreneurial sector. Candidate countries however expect fair treatment at all levels, including preparation, participation and evaluation. They would also like assistance in overcoming the past and for all suggestions and decisions to be discussed and made in time for the countries to make necessary national changes, stated Dr Valachovic. Of those present, a few expressed concerns at the role of the candidate countries in the next framework programme. Slovenia's Dr Niko Herakovic said that his small country, with small research institutes and small companies will not be as successful as it has been once the new framework programme is introduced as he fears that it will be difficult to participate in large projects. Dr Tugrul Tankut from the Scientific Technical Research Council of Turkey pointed out that although Turkey is generally in favour of proposals, they had for years been preparing for participation in the Sixth Framework programme assuming that it would be the same as the current programme. In response to concerns, Hendrik Tent argued that integrated projects, one of the proposed new tools for the next framework programme will make it easier for candidate countries to participate, although he accepted that the candidate countries may not yet appreciate this. Several of the candidate country representatives used the opportunity to highlight how involvement with the EU's framework programmes has had an impact on national research policies. Rein Vaikmäe from the Ministry of Education in Estonia declared that experience of the EU projects has helped to shape the country's strategy. Previous to EU involvement, Estonia did not have a state research strategy. Instead, the Estonian Science Foundation financed research that it considered to be important. 'Estonia already feels a strong positive impact from the EU framework programmes,' he said. 'I know how much this adapted our mentality and our knowledge.' More specifically, he emphasised how involvement in the framework programmes has provided finance for the best Estonian research teams, opened up Estonian research to the European dimension and improved training and working conditions in Estonian universities and research institutes, making them more attractive for researchers. Mr Vaikmäe has high ambitions for his country. He showed that private investment into research has already increased and stated that in ten years time, investment will have risen to a level higher than the EU average, moving closer to Scandinavian investment figures. Despite clear optimism, several delegates did appeal for realism, including Mr Vaikmäe. 'We just don't have a strong private sector,' he said. He expects however that public funding will first increase and then 'the private sector will take over at least part of the load.' It is however unrealistic to think that it could do so in the next few years, he said.
Countries
Sweden