Final Report Summary - BE2010-CONFERENCE_JP (Joint programming two years on: First results and the way forward - Organisation of a Conference on Joint Programming under Belgian Presidency)
Executive summary:
The conference project initiated by Wallonia came within the scope of the Belgian Presidency of the council of the European Union (EU). It was based on the admission that misconceptions remained regarding the joint programming (JP) concept itself and regarding the role of various actors. Some degree of confusion existed especially between JP and other approaches such as European Research Area networks (ERA-NETS), art. 169, the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan etc.
Wallonia saw through the development of JP activities the opportunity to ensure the transition towards a knowledge based society, by increasing investments in research and improving their efficiency. However, funding for research was scattered. Only between 5 and 15% of public financing of research came from the EU, mainly through the Framework Programme (FP), while the largest share of public resources for research and innovation came from regional and national levels. This situation was clearly not ideal when addressing societal problems of strategic importance on a European scale.
Based on the conclusions of the European Council in December 2008, the trio Presidency of Spain, Belgium and Hungary in 2010 and 2011 explicitly intended to pay careful attention to the implementation of JP in the form of a primary list of themes and modalities over financial cross-border cooperation and coordination.
That is why Wallonia decided to implement a conference whose main concerns were:
1. to clarify the notion of JP. Despite of the high level group for JP (GPC) activities, meetings and communications from numerous actors on the topic, it was a recent concept
2. to make a first evaluation or appraisal over active JPIs to the end of 2010
3. to make a state of play regarding the implementation of the first initiatives and the way the different instruments were mobilised (national, regional, and inter-governmental programmes, ERA-NET) and the progress on the development of the framework conditions
4. to contribute to the GPC report. The conclusions were marked out to be used to feed the report that GPC had to present to the competitiveness council in December 2010 in order to formulate concrete recommendations for the development of the JP approach and to facilitate the implementation of JPI.
Wallonia and the project stakeholders made a considerable effort to continue the work begun by certain EU Member States (MS) in the field of scientific research and innovation on the development of a common agenda and framework conditions that favoured the emergence of coherent solutions to the problem of the compartmentalisation of the public funding of research and the existence of numerous areas of action.
A fact that could be acknowledged during the conference was that considerable investment came on the part of industrialists and company directors, who were increasingly demanding synergies between European entities. Those involved in research, meanwhile, wished to receive directives without delay so that they could tackle the social challenges and respond to what was an urgent situation. The year 2011 would see the launch of the first concrete actions. In view of this urgency, pilot projects would permit the testing of the efficiency of the initiatives and of the project governance structure. Eventually, calls for project proposals would be able to be launched on the basis of an already solid management structure. The pilot project relating to neurodegenerative diseases, particularly Alzheimer's, offered a good example of this shared determination to obtain rapid results. Other actions concerning food, agriculture and climate change were also on the drawing board.
In conclusion, JP would appear to present a coherent solution to Europe's challenges. The European Community (EC) was playing the key role of facilitator in order to maximise the actions of the MS and regions, who were the real spearheads of these initiatives.
The Presidency prepared draft council conclusions which were adopted on 25 and 26 November 2010.
Project context and objectives:
The situation pointed out by the Lisbon Strategy, i.e. the urgency to ensure the transition towards a knowledge based society, by increasing investments in research and improving their efficiency, was clearly not ideal when addressing societal problems of strategic importance on a European scale, such as climate change and natural resources. Indeed, funding for research was scattered. Only between 5 and 15% of public financing of research came from the EU, mainly through the FP, while the largest share of public resources for research and innovation came from regional and national levels. Consequent problems were alarming. Firstly, from a pan-European perspective, national research programmes might overlap each other. Secondly, the national and regional levels lacked the necessary scope needed considering the stakes at hand and did not allow to reach the necessary critical mass. Then, the researchers' mobility and the diffusion of research results were slowed down because of the lack of cross-border cooperation.
These issues were identified and taken into account into several key documents, at different levels:
1. on 15 July 2008 the European Commission (EC) adopted a communication on joint programming (JP) of public research programmes between EU MS, titled 'Towards JP in research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively'. This communication set out the concept and basis of the new approach and underlined the benefits of this new research cooperation mechanisms
2. through its conclusions regarding a common commitment of MS to fight neurodegenerative diseases, and in particular Alzheimer's disease, the council, on 26 September 2008, recommended the launch of a European initiative encompassing the MS, the EC and other interested parties. This initiative consisted in the first pilot JP initiative (JPI)
3. in its December 20081 conclusions, the competitiveness council recognised the increasing need of a new strategic approach in order to increase cooperation between MS and address the common societal challenges. This new approach should be led by the MS, with support of the EC. Through its conclusions, the competitiveness council also invited MS to collaborate in a dedicated configuration of the Scientific and Technical Research Committee's (CREST) GPC, responsible for identifying the possible themes for JP and initiating the consideration of issues during the development and implementation of joint programmes (framework conditions).
4. finally, the trio presidency Spain, Belgium and Hungary during 2010 and 2011 explicitly intends to pay careful attention to the implementation of JP in the form of a primary list of themes and modalities over financial cross-border cooperation and coordination.
JP represented therefore a key priority for Europe in the coming years. As stated in the commission communication, 'JP has the potential to become a mechanism that is at least as important as the FPs in the European research landscape and to actually change the way in which Europeans think about research'. The latest European Research Area (ERA) conference held in October 2009 made a first state of play regarding the approach on JP. This conference presented initial results regarding JP and highlighted the main challenges for the future. Evident progress was made by the GPC. A limited number of JP themes were identified. GPC identified new JP themes, besides the pilot initiative on neurodegenerative diseases (including Alzheimer):
1. agriculture, food security and climate change
2. cultural heritage and global change: A new challenge for Europe
3. a healthy diet for a healthy life.
GPC also started to develop the framework conditions with close involvement of the heads of the research councils (EuroHORCs). However in the end of 2010 some key challenges remained to be addressed for the coming years, for instance:
1. JP success depended on confidence and trust between MS and regions. To ensure optimal cooperation between stakeholders, suitable framework conditions should be developed, implemented and monitored in the different initiatives, while the concept, approach and mechanisms of JP should be clearly understood by all the stakeholders, at all levels
2. the identification and selection process of themes for JP should be reinforced and based on clear criteria in order to find the efficient balance between satisfaction of all the MS and the necessity to stay focussed on a limited number of themes
3. how to finance JPIs and what mechanisms and resources could be mobilised at all levels
4. how to harmonise priorities and timing of national and regional research programmes and joint programmes in order to ensure that joint programmes were real strategic research programmes with their own priorities and budget and not only a juxtaposition of objectives and financial resources from the participating MS and regions
5. presently, research priorities were decided by the MS representative within the GPC. What was expected tomorrow? How and when should other stakeholders be involved, such as enterprises and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)?
Facing these issues, Wallonia intended to organise the Conference under Belgian Presidency, on 18 and 19 October 2010. At that moment:
1. four JPIs were in progress since one year or more having achieved some first results and faced some obstacles
2. guidelines on framework conditions were in the process of being drafted, in preparation of a trail implementation within the existing JP initiatives
3. GPC was about to make its first biannual report to the competitiveness council.
This was an ideal timing to organise a conference on JP. The objectives of the conference were:
1. to clarify the notion of JP which is a recent concept generating misconceptions regarding the concept itself and regarding the role of various actors
2. to make a first evaluation or appraisal over active JPIs to this day
3. to make a state of play regarding the implementation of the first initiatives, the way the different instruments were mobilised and the progress on the development of the framework conditions
4. to contribute to the GPC report with conclusions to be presented to the competitiveness council in December 2010
5. to formulate concrete recommendations for the development of the JP approach and to facilitate the implementation of JPI.
Project results:
The project of a conference on JP under the Belgian Presidency was a coordination and support action centred on the organisation of a public event. Scientific and technical results were thus difficult to quantify. According to the objectives of the conference described above Wallonia was hoping that the discussions between witness, scientists and various stakeholders of the European research policy could be the beginning of innovation oriented reflexions. If these representatives of the European research fields were looking together for further development of joint technical initiatives (JTIs), there were reasons to suppose that new partnerships could arise and that global challenges would be tackled more efficiently, directly responding to the citizens needs.
The Belgian Presidency focussed on the endorsement of the 2010 version of the voluntary guidelines for framework conditions. The Conference organised by Wallonia on 18 and 19 October 2010 was included in the stocktaking of the JP process and contributed to the report of the high level group on JP to the Council ('JP in research 2008-2010 and beyond'). It was considered by the GPC and taken into account in the council conclusions of 25 November 2010 competitiveness council.
Potential impact:
During the conference 'JP in Research: A common approach towards innovation' organised jointly by the Belgian Presidency and the EC, relevant stakeholders discussed the role of JPIs in the innovation cycle and provided a valuable input to the establishment of the biennial report on the JP process and the framework conditions guidelines.
These discussions significantly contributed to the council conclusions in which the council:
1. recognised the significant progress made by the GPC from 2008 (it had not only fulfilled its main tasks but had also laid down the foundations for the future development of JPIs)
2. welcomed the first biennial report on the JP process, adopted by the GPC on 11 November and set out in the Annex, in particular as regards its first overview of the achievements in strengthening the strategic coordination of research initiatives at national and European level in order to respond more effectively to major European societal challenges, as well as its contribution to the realisation of the ERA alongside challenges and policy issues to be addressed in the future
3. acknowledged that JP process had the potential to contribute to tackling major European societal challenges
4. underlined the need to continue with this process, in particular with the implementation of already identified JPIs
5. reiterated the need to ensure an appropriate level of commitment of the participating countries and an adequate governance structure which generates trust, a shared common vision and a strategic research agenda, as well as to facilitate, where appropriate, the participation of countries with limited research base
6. welcomed the 2010 voluntary guidelines for framework conditions on JP, set out in the Annex, as a living document that would facilitate and simplify implementation of JPIs
7. recommended MS participating in JPIs to use these guidelines, as appropriate, and encouraged their regular review in the light of new experience of the JPIs in applying them
8. invited MS participating in the pilot and the 'first wave' JPIs to continue progress towards the definition of a strategic research agenda and invited MS participating in the pilot JPI on neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's, to move forward in the implementation of rapid actions identified by its management board, so as to allow lessons to be drawn on the implementation of joint actions in JPIs
9. acknowledged the efforts of the coordinators of the six 'second wave' JPIs to demonstrate their maturity since their endorsement by the council on 26 May 2010. On this basis, invited the Commission, within the remit of its competence, to further contribute to the preparation of JPIs which correspond to these themes with a view to adopting recommendations as soon as possible in 2011, as well as invited the participating MS to further facilitate the preparation of JPIs, notably by nominating members to management boards and by providing a state of play of relevant national research instruments and identify how these could be further developed to support the JPI
10. invited the MS, with the support of the Commission, to define the role of JP in the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy, including a view to further streamlining research and innovation instruments and, in relation to the concept of European Innovation Partnerships, underlined the importance to avoid duplication of contents with the JPIs
12. invited the ERA Committee (ERAC), in the context of the review of the ERA related groups and by taking into account the contribution made by GPC, to explore what governance would need to be put in place in order to further bring forward the concept of JP of research in Europe from the planning to the implementation phase, with a view to a council decision on the matter. The GPC would continue its work, as appropriate, until such decision was taken.
List of websites:
The conference website was hosted at 'http://www.jointprogramming2010.eu'. It provides useful information wvwn after the event's completion, such as conference program and speakers and participants lists as well as power point presentations.
To get some additional information on the conference and its outputs, please contact the project coordinator, Ms Emilie Parthoens.
The conference project initiated by Wallonia came within the scope of the Belgian Presidency of the council of the European Union (EU). It was based on the admission that misconceptions remained regarding the joint programming (JP) concept itself and regarding the role of various actors. Some degree of confusion existed especially between JP and other approaches such as European Research Area networks (ERA-NETS), art. 169, the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan etc.
Wallonia saw through the development of JP activities the opportunity to ensure the transition towards a knowledge based society, by increasing investments in research and improving their efficiency. However, funding for research was scattered. Only between 5 and 15% of public financing of research came from the EU, mainly through the Framework Programme (FP), while the largest share of public resources for research and innovation came from regional and national levels. This situation was clearly not ideal when addressing societal problems of strategic importance on a European scale.
Based on the conclusions of the European Council in December 2008, the trio Presidency of Spain, Belgium and Hungary in 2010 and 2011 explicitly intended to pay careful attention to the implementation of JP in the form of a primary list of themes and modalities over financial cross-border cooperation and coordination.
That is why Wallonia decided to implement a conference whose main concerns were:
1. to clarify the notion of JP. Despite of the high level group for JP (GPC) activities, meetings and communications from numerous actors on the topic, it was a recent concept
2. to make a first evaluation or appraisal over active JPIs to the end of 2010
3. to make a state of play regarding the implementation of the first initiatives and the way the different instruments were mobilised (national, regional, and inter-governmental programmes, ERA-NET) and the progress on the development of the framework conditions
4. to contribute to the GPC report. The conclusions were marked out to be used to feed the report that GPC had to present to the competitiveness council in December 2010 in order to formulate concrete recommendations for the development of the JP approach and to facilitate the implementation of JPI.
Wallonia and the project stakeholders made a considerable effort to continue the work begun by certain EU Member States (MS) in the field of scientific research and innovation on the development of a common agenda and framework conditions that favoured the emergence of coherent solutions to the problem of the compartmentalisation of the public funding of research and the existence of numerous areas of action.
A fact that could be acknowledged during the conference was that considerable investment came on the part of industrialists and company directors, who were increasingly demanding synergies between European entities. Those involved in research, meanwhile, wished to receive directives without delay so that they could tackle the social challenges and respond to what was an urgent situation. The year 2011 would see the launch of the first concrete actions. In view of this urgency, pilot projects would permit the testing of the efficiency of the initiatives and of the project governance structure. Eventually, calls for project proposals would be able to be launched on the basis of an already solid management structure. The pilot project relating to neurodegenerative diseases, particularly Alzheimer's, offered a good example of this shared determination to obtain rapid results. Other actions concerning food, agriculture and climate change were also on the drawing board.
In conclusion, JP would appear to present a coherent solution to Europe's challenges. The European Community (EC) was playing the key role of facilitator in order to maximise the actions of the MS and regions, who were the real spearheads of these initiatives.
The Presidency prepared draft council conclusions which were adopted on 25 and 26 November 2010.
Project context and objectives:
The situation pointed out by the Lisbon Strategy, i.e. the urgency to ensure the transition towards a knowledge based society, by increasing investments in research and improving their efficiency, was clearly not ideal when addressing societal problems of strategic importance on a European scale, such as climate change and natural resources. Indeed, funding for research was scattered. Only between 5 and 15% of public financing of research came from the EU, mainly through the FP, while the largest share of public resources for research and innovation came from regional and national levels. Consequent problems were alarming. Firstly, from a pan-European perspective, national research programmes might overlap each other. Secondly, the national and regional levels lacked the necessary scope needed considering the stakes at hand and did not allow to reach the necessary critical mass. Then, the researchers' mobility and the diffusion of research results were slowed down because of the lack of cross-border cooperation.
These issues were identified and taken into account into several key documents, at different levels:
1. on 15 July 2008 the European Commission (EC) adopted a communication on joint programming (JP) of public research programmes between EU MS, titled 'Towards JP in research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively'. This communication set out the concept and basis of the new approach and underlined the benefits of this new research cooperation mechanisms
2. through its conclusions regarding a common commitment of MS to fight neurodegenerative diseases, and in particular Alzheimer's disease, the council, on 26 September 2008, recommended the launch of a European initiative encompassing the MS, the EC and other interested parties. This initiative consisted in the first pilot JP initiative (JPI)
3. in its December 20081 conclusions, the competitiveness council recognised the increasing need of a new strategic approach in order to increase cooperation between MS and address the common societal challenges. This new approach should be led by the MS, with support of the EC. Through its conclusions, the competitiveness council also invited MS to collaborate in a dedicated configuration of the Scientific and Technical Research Committee's (CREST) GPC, responsible for identifying the possible themes for JP and initiating the consideration of issues during the development and implementation of joint programmes (framework conditions).
4. finally, the trio presidency Spain, Belgium and Hungary during 2010 and 2011 explicitly intends to pay careful attention to the implementation of JP in the form of a primary list of themes and modalities over financial cross-border cooperation and coordination.
JP represented therefore a key priority for Europe in the coming years. As stated in the commission communication, 'JP has the potential to become a mechanism that is at least as important as the FPs in the European research landscape and to actually change the way in which Europeans think about research'. The latest European Research Area (ERA) conference held in October 2009 made a first state of play regarding the approach on JP. This conference presented initial results regarding JP and highlighted the main challenges for the future. Evident progress was made by the GPC. A limited number of JP themes were identified. GPC identified new JP themes, besides the pilot initiative on neurodegenerative diseases (including Alzheimer):
1. agriculture, food security and climate change
2. cultural heritage and global change: A new challenge for Europe
3. a healthy diet for a healthy life.
GPC also started to develop the framework conditions with close involvement of the heads of the research councils (EuroHORCs). However in the end of 2010 some key challenges remained to be addressed for the coming years, for instance:
1. JP success depended on confidence and trust between MS and regions. To ensure optimal cooperation between stakeholders, suitable framework conditions should be developed, implemented and monitored in the different initiatives, while the concept, approach and mechanisms of JP should be clearly understood by all the stakeholders, at all levels
2. the identification and selection process of themes for JP should be reinforced and based on clear criteria in order to find the efficient balance between satisfaction of all the MS and the necessity to stay focussed on a limited number of themes
3. how to finance JPIs and what mechanisms and resources could be mobilised at all levels
4. how to harmonise priorities and timing of national and regional research programmes and joint programmes in order to ensure that joint programmes were real strategic research programmes with their own priorities and budget and not only a juxtaposition of objectives and financial resources from the participating MS and regions
5. presently, research priorities were decided by the MS representative within the GPC. What was expected tomorrow? How and when should other stakeholders be involved, such as enterprises and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)?
Facing these issues, Wallonia intended to organise the Conference under Belgian Presidency, on 18 and 19 October 2010. At that moment:
1. four JPIs were in progress since one year or more having achieved some first results and faced some obstacles
2. guidelines on framework conditions were in the process of being drafted, in preparation of a trail implementation within the existing JP initiatives
3. GPC was about to make its first biannual report to the competitiveness council.
This was an ideal timing to organise a conference on JP. The objectives of the conference were:
1. to clarify the notion of JP which is a recent concept generating misconceptions regarding the concept itself and regarding the role of various actors
2. to make a first evaluation or appraisal over active JPIs to this day
3. to make a state of play regarding the implementation of the first initiatives, the way the different instruments were mobilised and the progress on the development of the framework conditions
4. to contribute to the GPC report with conclusions to be presented to the competitiveness council in December 2010
5. to formulate concrete recommendations for the development of the JP approach and to facilitate the implementation of JPI.
Project results:
The project of a conference on JP under the Belgian Presidency was a coordination and support action centred on the organisation of a public event. Scientific and technical results were thus difficult to quantify. According to the objectives of the conference described above Wallonia was hoping that the discussions between witness, scientists and various stakeholders of the European research policy could be the beginning of innovation oriented reflexions. If these representatives of the European research fields were looking together for further development of joint technical initiatives (JTIs), there were reasons to suppose that new partnerships could arise and that global challenges would be tackled more efficiently, directly responding to the citizens needs.
The Belgian Presidency focussed on the endorsement of the 2010 version of the voluntary guidelines for framework conditions. The Conference organised by Wallonia on 18 and 19 October 2010 was included in the stocktaking of the JP process and contributed to the report of the high level group on JP to the Council ('JP in research 2008-2010 and beyond'). It was considered by the GPC and taken into account in the council conclusions of 25 November 2010 competitiveness council.
Potential impact:
During the conference 'JP in Research: A common approach towards innovation' organised jointly by the Belgian Presidency and the EC, relevant stakeholders discussed the role of JPIs in the innovation cycle and provided a valuable input to the establishment of the biennial report on the JP process and the framework conditions guidelines.
These discussions significantly contributed to the council conclusions in which the council:
1. recognised the significant progress made by the GPC from 2008 (it had not only fulfilled its main tasks but had also laid down the foundations for the future development of JPIs)
2. welcomed the first biennial report on the JP process, adopted by the GPC on 11 November and set out in the Annex, in particular as regards its first overview of the achievements in strengthening the strategic coordination of research initiatives at national and European level in order to respond more effectively to major European societal challenges, as well as its contribution to the realisation of the ERA alongside challenges and policy issues to be addressed in the future
3. acknowledged that JP process had the potential to contribute to tackling major European societal challenges
4. underlined the need to continue with this process, in particular with the implementation of already identified JPIs
5. reiterated the need to ensure an appropriate level of commitment of the participating countries and an adequate governance structure which generates trust, a shared common vision and a strategic research agenda, as well as to facilitate, where appropriate, the participation of countries with limited research base
6. welcomed the 2010 voluntary guidelines for framework conditions on JP, set out in the Annex, as a living document that would facilitate and simplify implementation of JPIs
7. recommended MS participating in JPIs to use these guidelines, as appropriate, and encouraged their regular review in the light of new experience of the JPIs in applying them
8. invited MS participating in the pilot and the 'first wave' JPIs to continue progress towards the definition of a strategic research agenda and invited MS participating in the pilot JPI on neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's, to move forward in the implementation of rapid actions identified by its management board, so as to allow lessons to be drawn on the implementation of joint actions in JPIs
9. acknowledged the efforts of the coordinators of the six 'second wave' JPIs to demonstrate their maturity since their endorsement by the council on 26 May 2010. On this basis, invited the Commission, within the remit of its competence, to further contribute to the preparation of JPIs which correspond to these themes with a view to adopting recommendations as soon as possible in 2011, as well as invited the participating MS to further facilitate the preparation of JPIs, notably by nominating members to management boards and by providing a state of play of relevant national research instruments and identify how these could be further developed to support the JPI
10. invited the MS, with the support of the Commission, to define the role of JP in the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy, including a view to further streamlining research and innovation instruments and, in relation to the concept of European Innovation Partnerships, underlined the importance to avoid duplication of contents with the JPIs
12. invited the ERA Committee (ERAC), in the context of the review of the ERA related groups and by taking into account the contribution made by GPC, to explore what governance would need to be put in place in order to further bring forward the concept of JP of research in Europe from the planning to the implementation phase, with a view to a council decision on the matter. The GPC would continue its work, as appropriate, until such decision was taken.
List of websites:
The conference website was hosted at 'http://www.jointprogramming2010.eu'. It provides useful information wvwn after the event's completion, such as conference program and speakers and participants lists as well as power point presentations.
To get some additional information on the conference and its outputs, please contact the project coordinator, Ms Emilie Parthoens.
