ITRE calls for renaming of EIT
The proposed European Institute of Technology (EIT) should be renamed to include 'innovation', reflecting its primary focus, the European Parliament's Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) has stated. MEPs in the committee also say that the institute should be established only after a pilot phase to test its feasibility, and after further discussions on the EIT's funding structure have taken place. The idea of establishing an EIT received strong backing from the ITRE committee, which adopted a first-reading report on 9 July. This follows an agreement by the Competitiveness Council in June on a 'general approach' to a draft regulation to establish the EIT. Like the Council, MEPs agreed that a number of areas of the EIT proposal needed fine-tuning. The first is on the institute's name, which MEPs said did not sufficiently reflect its primary focus, namely innovation. They decided therefore to rename the EIT the 'European Institute of Innovation and Technology'. 'Innovation is Europe's Achilles' heel. It should be our main objective to increase our innovation capacity. We need more innovation in Europe to remain globally competitive in the future and to guarantee growth in jobs. The EIT could help us to realise that goal,' said Reino Paasilinna, Finnish MEP and rapporteur. On the EIT's structure, committee members agreed with the idea of establishing two or three Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), which will address the EU priorities of renewable energy and climate change. An amendment to the proposal refers to this stage in the establishment of the EIT as the 'pilot phase'. MEPs also incorporated into the proposal the concept of a Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA). The SIA would identify the EIT's long-term strategic areas 'in fields of key potential economic and societal interest which are likely to generate the greatest innovation added value.' The EIT could select additional KICs after the adoption of its first SIA, which MEPs said should be ready for 2011 at the latest, and every seven years thereafter. Regarding the structure of the KICs, the committee underlined the need for these communities to be legally autonomous from the EIT in order to freely define their internal organisation and working methods. However, MEPs did have some thoughts on how these communities should be composed; every KIC should consist of at least three partner organisations, situated in at least two different participating states, and should include at least one higher education institution and one private company. Finally, on the EIT's funding, MEPs agreed with the Commission that €308.7 million should come from the Community budget, which is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority (Parliament and Council). They also proposed a number of additional sources for funds, including unspent funds that would otherwise be returned to Member States, or loans and contributions from the European Investment Bank (EIB). However, MEPs expressed concern over the Commission's suggestion of financing the EIT partly through instruments such as the Framework Programme for Research, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, or the Lifelong Learning Programme. They stressed that the funding of KICs should not jeopardise the funding of research projects. Furthermore, funds stemming from these programmes should not finance establishment and administration costs directly associated with the EIT or the KICs, but rather the mobility of researchers or research programmes. 'I hope Commission and Council will come up with a realistic solution for the budget soon. The Council has already expressed its wish to establish the EIT but before we can adopt the proposal in plenary, we have to make sure that there is a stable financing concept,' said Mr Paasilinna.