EIT debate moves from 'whether' to 'how' at public hearing
'How?' was the focus of an open hearing on the proposed European Institute for Technology (EIT) in the European Parliament on 2 May. Joining the hearing at the end, European Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth, Ján Figel' applauded this shift away from 'whether', and said that he is hoping for a common orientation agreement on the EIT within the Council in June. The EIT was first proposed by the European Commission in 2005. Discussions, a second communication and a consultation followed, before an official proposal was presented by Commission President José Manuel Barroso in October 2006. The proposal foresees a combined bottom-up/top-down structure with a network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) involving universities, research organisations and businesses. Overall priorities would be set by a governing board. All speakers at the Parliament hearing agreed that action is needed to address Europe's innovation gap. Most agreed that at least part of the solution could be the EIT. Speakers addressed the financial arrangements for supporting the EIT, the structure of the institute, avoiding overlap with other initiatives, and the extent to which the KICs should have autonomy. 'The EIT is often criticised for not being THE answer to Europe's innovation problems. More and more people are realising that there is no ONE answer. The EIT can be part of the solution,' said Christopher Hull, Deputy Secretary General of the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO). Mr Hull dismissed concerns by other speakers over a possible overlap between the EIT and other initiatives already in place to support innovation in Europe, such as the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7), the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) and European Technology Platforms (ETPs) within FP7, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), and the Lifelong Learning programme. 'There will be overlap but that is not a problem. On the contrary, it's essential,' said Mr Hull. Questions were also raised over whether putting money aside for the EIT will result in less financial support for other EU programmes and projects. The Commission proposal sees funding for the EIT coming from three separate sources: the EU budget, section 1A (€308 million); through winning funding from existing EU programmes, such as FP7, CIP and the Structural Funds (€1.5 billion); and from the Member States, the private sector and loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) (€527 million). Nina Skottová of the European Parliament's Budgets Committee pointed out that taking €308 million from section 1A of the EU budget will cut the reserve in 1A by 25%, reducing the funds available for other initiatives. She also pointed out that awarding money to the EIT from programmes such as the Structural Funds will result in less money for other projects. Ms Skottová emphasised that her approach to the EIT is positive, and that her opinion is intended to help the Commission address any weaknesses in the financing. This concern was echoed by Willi Fuchs, President of the European Federation of National Engineering Associations (FEANI): 'We fear that existing structures will find it difficult to exist when they are all competing for the same money,' he said. He did however add that FEANI supports the development of an EIT, as long as duplication is avoided. David White, Director for 'lifelong learning: education and training policies' in the Commission's Education and Culture DG, sought to reassure those with financing concerns. The figure €308 million taken from section 1A of the EU budget was dictated by how much the Commission could find, how much would be needed in order to make the EIT credible, and what the money would be used for. Referring to the possibility of KICs applying for funding from other EU programmes, Mr White said: 'Let me make one thing clear: there is no earmarking, not a single euro, from the Framework Programme or the Structural Funds for EIT projects.' The KICs would be expected to compete for funding along with other networks, and if they were unsuccessful, their excellence would be questioned. Also, while it is true that money awarded to the KICs from FP7 or the Structural Funds cannot be used for other projects, if the KICs are working towards the same goals as these other programmes, 'then that's not bad', said Mr White. Money was also addressed by Kari Raivio, Chair of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). He argued that the Commission's assessment of the current situation in Europe is 'overly pessimistic', and shaped by a comparison with the federal US. In terms of influential research articles, Europe outdoes the US, while European universities have a strong presence in the top 100 of universities and European PhDs are in high demand in the US. 'If the intention is to close the innovation gap, it might be an idea to look at the reason for US dominance,' said Mr Raivio. The real difference is money. While investment in research as a percentage of GDP is similar in the EU and US, the US obviously has a much larger GDP, and this makes all the difference, Mr Raivio told the hearing. The US spends USD 300 billion annually on research. Europe's biggest spender is Germany, with USD 60 billion, followed by France and the UK on USD 40 billion each. The amount spent per student is twice as high in the US as in Europe, Mr Raivio added. What Europe needs is more research and innovation investment, and the projected EIT budget 'does not raise high hopes' said Mr Raivio. His calculations suggest that each KIC would receive around €900 million per annum. 'This does not represent a decisive boost, and there is no evidence of business interest. [...] There is no evidence that it will close the funding gap, let alone the innovation gap,' he maintained. Some speakers and questions addressed the KICs legal status. Rapporteur Erna Hennicot-Schoepges was particularly interested in hearing what sort of set-up the panel would support. Ms Hennicot-Schoepges is responsible for drafting a report presenting the views of the Culture and Education Committee. Erich Hödl, Vice-President of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, spoke in favour of the creation of private legal entities, arguing that industry would be more likely to collaborate with such a body. He also claimed that public institutions tend not to be very flexible. Giving the Commission view, Mr White also supported the establishment of some sort of legal status for the KICs, saying that this would be necessary for them to enter into some sort of contractual arrangement with the EIT. Chair of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) Horst Soboll spoke very much in favour of the EIT, seeing it as a means to address Europe's innovation weaknesses, and underlined the need to create an EIT 'brand'. 'Psychology matters', he told the hearing. For this reason, the EIT should comprise more than a loose network, and should be able to award diplomas. The establishment of an EIT diploma has been discussed frequently since the EIT proposal was put on the table. Some, like Dr Soboll, believe that it is necessary for the reputation of the institute. Others believe that degrees should be left to Europe's established universities and institutes. The Commissioner assured the hearing that concerns over this and other aspects of the EIT had been heard by the Commission, and taken seriously. The section on degrees and diplomas is being revised in the compromise text: The substance has not changed, said Mr Figel', but the Commission has clarified that only recognised institutes will be able to award EIT diplomas. All speakers at the hearing saw the virtue of supporting innovation through regional networks. 'We can't predict innovation, but we do know that it's local and tends to happen in clusters,' said Mr White. Exactly how these clusters will look will become clearer over the next few months. One thing is already clear - the Commission and the innovation community are already looking beyond 2013 - the date when the first round of financing would come to an end. 'The objective is to create something that continues beyond 2013. Nobody would invest significantly, seriously, in a short-term exercise,' said Mr Figel'.