For the CoR opinion on the Irish Presidency referral Closing the Innovation Divide Rapporteur: Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP)

Transcription

1 ANALYSIS NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMISSION EDUC 1.Key messages For the CoR opinion on the Irish Presidency referral Closing the Innovation Divide Rapporteur: Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP) The secretariat recommends a few key messages, focusing mainly on strategic goals, which the CoR could deliver to the other institutions. They are by no means binding for the rapporteur. The Committee of the Regions: supports the idea to adopt a much more strategic approach to research and innovation as an overarching policy objective, from a medium- to longer-term perspective, and with EU and national/regional policies closely aligned and mutually reinforcing; acknowledges the different types of research and innovation challenges that different types of regions face; recognises, in this regard, the importance of smart regional specialisation strategies; appreciates reference to social innovation, including public sector innovation; calls for exploring possibilities to use territorial pacts to help overcome the innovation divide; emphasises that the European Commission and Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that local and regional authorities are fully and effectively involved in managing 1 ERA-related initiatives. Knowledge and innovation must become the economic driving force. Active participation in the ERA by local and regional authorities helps to boost productivity and competitiveness; underlines the fact that regional and local authorities are well-placed to create synergies between research and innovation policies and cohesion policy, which would have an impact on economic and industrial activity as well as on social policy action. 2 recognises that starting points on innovation vary greatly across Europe, and that regional policies with their own specific characteristics could complement EU research policy in line with smart regional specialisation strategies CdR 283/2008 fin. CdR 67/2011 fin CdR 67/2011 fin 1 EN

2 2.General Context and Relevance for the Committee of the Regions 2.1 Outline of the Irish Presidency referral Following up on previous work of the Committee, the opinion could help identify and flesh out in more detail what role there can be for cities and regions in the Horizon 2020 Programme. This could address: (a) the research and innovation challenges that different types of region face; (b) identify the niche opportunities to add value; and (c) the synergies with ERDF notably on Smart Specialisation Strategies. The potential that cities and regions possess to act as platforms to benchmark, trial the viability and act as test-beds for innovations and establish future partnerships could be looked at. The opinion could also address how regions see their role in the Knowledge Innovation Communities (KICs) and how other initiatives (such as JPIs and EIPs) can be better embedded in regions. Horizon 2020 brings together existing EU research and innovation funding, including the Framework Programme for Research, the innovation related activities of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). The possible actions which could address the participation in Horizon 2020 include boosting national investments in research and innovation; information, communication and training measures; simplification measures; schemes for mobility and supporting returning scientists; increasing the number and share of small projects; measures for opening of existing networks for newcomers; better mapping and quantitative and qualitative indicators; and learning from the experiences of other Member States. 2.2 Relevance for the CoR The Horizon 2020 proposal recommends aligning resources across the EU, developing close synergies with EU programmes in other areas and with the Cohesion Policy funds, as well as complementing support for research and innovation from national or regional authorities under the Cohesion Policy Funds within the framework of smart specialisation strategies. The proposal also mentions that the EIT shall ensure a better connection between higher education institutions and regional innovation and growth, in the context of regional and national smart specialisation strategies. The specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 [COM(2011) 811] explicitly mentions items of regional relevance and coordination with cohesion funding sources, including e.g. the development of regional (research infrastructure) partner facilities, pre-commercial procurement by research infrastructure actors 4, public procurement of innovation, SME-support measures 5. The societal challenges priority includes an item on closing the research and innovation divide in Europe 6, e.g. by teaming excellent research institutions and less developed regions, recognising excellence in less 4 "developing new world-class research infrastructures is dealt with in Part I, items , 4.3., p. 34, 36 of the specific programme 5 Item in part II (p. 49) deals with enhancing the innovation capacity of SMEs 6 Item of part III (p.78) acknowledges the 'significant regional disparities across Europe in research and innovation performance which need to be addressed' 2

3 developed regions and facilitating policy learning at regional level. The Marie Curie actions also include a part on nurturing excellence by means of cross-border and cross-sector mobility 7, where the focus appears to be mainly on individual researchers. Local and regional authorities have a particularly important role to play in improving the European research and innovation policies. They are key players in developing regional research and innovation strategies, they often manage research institutions and they support innovative environments, because they have the experience needed. Moreover, typically either cities or regional administrations have recognised legislative powers and their own research budget or are otherwise important drivers and co-funders of research and development activities. Effective working institutional systems at local and regional level are crucial in planning and implementing successful and fruitful research activity The research and innovation challenges and niche opportunities for regions and cities Previous regional innovation strategies have often suffered from one or more of the following weaknesses: They lack an international and trans-regional perspective, i.e. the regional innovation and economic system is often considered in isolation. They are not in tune with the industrial and economic fabric of the region; there is too much public involvement in R&D which is not sufficiently business driven. A sound analysis of the region's assets is missing. There is a picking winner's syndrome. The best performing regions are copied without consideration of the local context. As a result, regional innovation policies have often demonstrated a lack of efficiency in identifying priorities and forms of practical cooperation between regions. This issue is even more critical in the current economic crisis where public and private financial resources are scarce. The smart specialisation concept therefore promotes efficient, effective and synergetic use of public investments and supports countries and regions in strengthening their innovation capacity, while focusing scarce human and financial resources in a few globally competitive areas in order to boost economic growth and prosperity. 9 The importance of the regional level for economic development and for the design and implementation of innovation policies has been widely acknowledged. A detailed typology of regions, further distinguishing between business sector and public sector orientation with regard to R&D, is available in a separate study on regional innovation systems Item 3.2 in part I (p.31) CdR 11/2009 fin Europe s regional research systems: current trends and structures 3

4 The study notes that regions are "open systems" in that national and European level actors decide about activities within them, while regional actors may decide about activities elsewhere. Hence, the place where activities are performed does not necessarily coincide with the place where decisions about them are taken. In this sense, it is important to take into account that national framework conditions have an impact on the structure and development potential of regional research systems which are contingent on national level regulation, standardisation and the provision of public services. In the context of the objectives set in the European Commission's Europe 2020 strategy and specifically the Innovation Union flagship action, the Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM) project provides a platform for sharing knowledge and know-how on major innovation policy trends in EU regions. The RIM service includes: An 'inventory' of regional innovation policy measures, policy documents and organisations A single access point for good practice dissemination on regional innovation policy in Europe An on-line interregional comparison of innovation performance and governance trends by means of the benchmarking tool A new communication platform for innovation stakeholders The Innovation Union Scoreboard 11 discusses growth in innovation performance at a national level, noting that the spread in innovation performance is decreasing as less innovative countries tend to grow faster than more innovative ones. Acknowledging and dealing with the different strengths and weaknesses of regions is of key importance to developing smart specialisation strategies. As stated in the Barca Report 12, regional policy could effectively complement European research policy by focusing on the application of innovation at local level and being aimed at the promotion of a specific (and unique) knowledge base in each region. Such an approach could contribute to making the most of the present diversity of industrial agglomerations and networks, while preserving their openness beyond regional or national boundaries. The rapporteur might emphasise the importance of S&T cooperation with neighbouring countries, which can also have a great impact on regional development within the EU area. This can apply to Russia with its significant S&T capacity, but also to East European, Balkan and Mediterranean non- Member States. 13 The CoR has highlighted the current geographical distribution of European research infrastructures which, mainly for historical reasons, are located in Western Europe and should be planned so that Innovation Union Scoreboard An agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations", Fabrizio Barca Report (2009), CdR 11/2009 fin 4

5 they are distributed evenly throughout Europe and, where possible, among Member States too. This decentralised distribution of facilities will achieve benefits for the regions and at the same time meet the need at European level for new infrastructures, and could be strengthened by a virtual network connecting all these facilities, providing particular support for small or medium-sized research infrastructures that could be important for the development of knowledge in areas of strategic importance and for economic development and innovation in the regions and local areas concerned. 14 The rapporteur can recall the essential role of cooperation between public institutions and the private sector, with particular focus on involving universities, colleges and research bodies 15 and note the importance of linking university curricula to the technologies that are relevant to the workforce of a region, in order to retain knowledge and competitiveness in that region. 16 The next programmes for research and innovation funding could entail greater synergies with programmes aimed at developing regional capacities and facilitating participation by regions in R&D activity, as part of a common strategic framework. While upholding the principle of research and innovation excellence, this could be done, for example, by a scheme which includes creating opportunities for mainstreaming the participation of competent partners from research-lagging regions in projects and programmes led by their better known, excellent peers, through mentoring schemes or other means; notes, in this regard, the potential of local and regional actors to nurture hubs of competence linked to "poles of excellence". In this regard, the CoR encourages dissemination and exchange of good practice examples. 17 There exist in many places regional and local innovation and knowledge transfer partnerships, often made up by the local or Regional Authority, the local academic and business stakeholders; notes the importance of a collaborative approach also amongst local and regional universities, for example through research pooling and participation initiatives. 18 Reflecting the principles of partnership and smart specialisation, such partnerships could conceive and manage, where applicable, regional innovation programmes funded by the structural funds with rules being changed to allow the Management Authority to subdelegate; stresses that such new approaches will make it possible to substantially accelerate the transfer of research findings to local and regional practices; it is important to adequately involve relevant stakeholders in the conception, implementation management, and evaluation of such programmes, so their specific needs are accounted for where feasible CdR 283/2008 fin CdR 83/2007 fin. CdR 15/2010 fin 5

6 The CoR underscores the role which university partnerships must play in bringing research results to the market through integration of higher education, research and business; notes in this regard the importance of a supportive local and regional environment, with whom universities will work in partnership; stresses that research should be seen in its broadest sense and not as merely being about product development; also underscores the importance of encouraging researchers to link their work to the wider public; involving the public in shaping and designing projects and particularly disseminating the outcomes. 20 The CoR has cautioned against any intention to use smart specialisation as a way of prioritising already leading regions or local authorities while leaving other areas not or under-supported. This would be against the overriding principle of EU Territorial Cohesion. A European map showing regions according to their level of innovation is thus needed: this classification can then be used to establish specific support instruments for the lagging regions through the provision of ad hoc funds to help them catch up with the most innovative regions. One way of increasing cooperation between different regions is to introduce procedures whereby less-developed regions can access and use relevant research knowledge and applications from different parts of Europe, for instance with support from the structural funds. 21 There are research and innovation programmes that operate across regions with different levels of innovation performance (RIS), which are beneficial for all stakeholders: there is a need to increase regional involvement in the European Research Area Network scheme for example. 22 Regions and cities should include Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) as an essential part of their core policy agenda. Horizon 2020 and Cohesion funding should be used to create the concepts, tools and other pre-conditions through which local and regional authorities can actively promote innovation, take risks and invest in the practical application of RDI, so as to provide a tailored regional dimension The synergies with ERDF notably on Smart Specialisation Strategies Cohesion policy has led to account being taken of political areas that were previously overlooked by national or regional policies. A number of pilot-projects such as the Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS) and the ERDF's Innovative Actions have gradually established themselves as key national and regional policies. Broadly speaking, the most flexible and market-focused approaches have been the common denominator for the new approaches introduced by cohesion policy. The ERDF aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions in different areas, including research and innovation infrastructures CdR 67/2011 fin CdR 402/2011 fin 6

7 The rapporteur might note that the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) can provide financial support for the development of skills and for the modernisation of educational structures and systems, by funding business incubators and science parks, and hence facilitating connections between SMEs and universities. 24 In order to take full advantage of the leverage effect of the Structural Funds, the regions and Member States should be rigorous in establishing adequate coherence between local and regional strategies, National Reform Plans, National Strategic Reference Frameworks and Operational Programmes implemented under European cohesion policy, in keeping with the European common strategic framework for research and smart regional specialisation strategies. 25 Cohesion policy plays a special role in supporting innovation activity in the regions; therefore the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) can also be used for funding business incubators and science parks (infrastructure and connections). Clusters are particularly useful for SMEs, as they provide a context which encourages links with universities and large businesses, and enables them to access international trade networks. 26 In order to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, it is important that EU cohesion policy contributes to enhancing the skills base and innovation capacity at local level, as well as to developing instruments and cooperation that promote intra-european cooperation between regions. Such instruments and cooperation are needed to implement the results of Horizon 2020 on regional and local level. All regional research funded by Horizon 2020 should include a "global excellence" dimension, facilitated by the principles of smart specialisation. Furthermore, a closer linkage of Horizon 2020 and the structural funds should be also properly reflected in the operational programmes and in the strategies for research, innovation and smart specialisation. 27 The CoR has stressed the importance of having a regional component in Horizon 2020 in order to achieve the aimed-for synergy between regional policy and research policy, and therefore calls for the retention of the instruments and programmes in Horizon 2020, such as the Regions of Knowledge (RoK) and Living Labs. These programmes have a strong regional dimension, regional participation and regional impact, strengthen regional innovation potential and go beyond simply "knowledge exchange". 28 However, complementarity of Horizon 2020 with other EU funding programmes, including the Structural Funds, must ensure that even those regions and cities that are not eligible for funding from such funds, are supported in the development of the so-called "Triple Helix" constellation (involving CdR 15/2010 fin CdR 402/2011 fin CdR 402/2011 fin 7

8 local and regional authorities, knowledge institutes and industry) on innovation and valorisation of knowledge. To this effect, and given the relevance of Horizon 2020 for the EU as a whole, the programme's budget should foresee specific funds to be allocated for the research and development of such collaborative relationships Smart specialisation Smart specialisation promotes synergetic use of public investments and supports countries and regions in strengthening their innovation capacity, while focusing scarce human and financial resources in a few globally competitive and promising areas of comparative advantage. It aims to harness regional diversity by avoiding uniformity and duplication. It combines goal-setting (EU 2020, Innovation Union) with a dynamic and entrepreneurial discovery process involving key stakeholders from government, business, academia and other knowledge-creating institutions. A national / regional innovation strategy for smart specialisation is a multi-annual strategy aimed at developing a well-performing national or regional research and innovation system. It defines a policy mix focusing on a limited number of priorities targeted at stimulating smart growth. The strategy is built on a sound analysis of the assets of the region and technology foresight studies. It includes the analysis of potential partners in other regions and avoids unnecessary duplication and fragmentation of efforts. It is based on a strong partnership between businesses, public entities and knowledge institutions. The "quality" of this partnership is essential for its success. The Smart Specialisation platform (S³Platform) aims at supporting the process, in each region, towards the identification of the high-value added activities which offer the best chances to strengthen its competitiveness and the policy-portfolio that should be put into place to achieve this goal, including the governance set-up, stakeholder involvement and practices to draft their smart specialisation strategies. The Platform is hosted by the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Seville, Spain. It is run by a Steering Team gathering representatives of several Commission Services: Regional Policy; Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; Research and Innovation; Enterprise and Industry; Education and Culture; Information Society; Health and Consumers; Climate and the JRC. A Mirror Group composed by high-representatives of networks (such as EURADA, ERRIN, EBN, OECD, European Cluster Observatory, European Cluster Alliance, ERISA) international experts, etc.) will advise the steering team. 4.2 Synergies Expert Group FP7, the CIP and the Cohesion Policy Funds 29 CdR 402/2011 fin 8

9 The Synergies Expert Group (SEG) started its work in October 2010 with the task to produce recommendations for the development of synergies in practice for the current programming period, concerning enhanced synergies of policies and programmes for R&D, innovation and cohesion for the next programming period, and in particular for the future of the two regional actions in FP7, Regions of Knowledge (RoK) and the Research Potential (REGPOT). As detailed in the expert group report 30, for the current programming period the SEG recommends to use the remaining time for exploring and testing the possibilities for enhancing the interoperability of the programmes and instruments when defining and implementing the FP7 work programmes. In the next programming period, the Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation (CSFRI) will promote excellence and the part of Common Strategic Framework for Cohesion Policy (CSFCP) related to research and technological development, innovation and entrepreneurship will focus on capacity building. Smart specialisation has to be developed and complementarity has to be ensured with Europe 2020 and even more with the Innovation Union flagship initiative. This has to be supported by both CSFRI and the CSFCP that should be complementary to each other in the areas of RTDI and education and training. 5. The role of regions in the Knowledge Innovation Communities (KICs) 31 and other initiatives A KIC is a highly integrated, creative and excellence-driven partnership which brings together the fields of education, technology, research, business and entrepreneurship, in order to produce new innovations and new innovation models that inspire others to emulate it. They are to become key drivers of sustainable economic growth and competitiveness across Europe through world-leading innovation. The KICs will be driving effective translation between partners in ideas, technology, culture, and business models, and will create new business for existing industry and for new endeavours. KICs are legally and financially structured entities of internationally distributed but thematically convergent partners. These partners involve key actors from the three sides of the knowledge triangle: research, higher education, and innovation-entrepreneurship-business. KICs build innovative webs of excellence across the knowledge triangle with the intention of addressing key societal challenges. KICs must address a long-term horizon of 7 to 15 years, but with short-, mid- and long terms objectives that follow the mission of the KIC. KICs bring together different people working together across the innovation web. Key actors include: businesses (including SMEs); entrepreneurs; research and technology organisations; higher education 30 Synergies between FP7, the CIP and the Cohesion Policy Funds, report available on ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/segfinal_en.pdf

10 institutions; investment communities (private investors and venture capital); research funders, including charities and foundations; local, regional and national governments. According to the EIT Regulation, the activity of a KIC must involve at least three independent partner organisations. The partners must be established in at least three different EU Member States and must include at least one higher education partner and one private company. With the intention of strengthening the innovation capacity, KICs may also include non-member State partners. Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI) Joint Programming is a process combining a strategic framework, a bottom-up approach and highlevel commitment from Member States. It builds on the experience gained from existing schemes coordinating national programmes. Suitable Joint Programming areas are identified by a High Level Group on Joint Programming (GPC from the French "Groupe de Programmation Conjointe") consisting of nominees from Member States and the Commission, following a thorough consultation of stakeholders. Based on the result of the GPC, the Council, upon a proposal by the Commission, recommends a limited number of areas in which to implement Joint Programming in priority. From there on, participation of Member States in each initiative is "à la carte", based on voluntary commitments leading to partnerships composed of variable groups of countries. For each initiative, participating countries will start with: Developing a shared vision for the area; Defining a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound); and Preparing for implementation of the SRA by analysing the options, assessing expected impacts and defining the best mix of instruments to be used. The rapporteur might highlight the importance of the regional and local authorities in promoting joint research programmes as they are more in touch with the specific local situation in terms of science, technology and the economy, and therefore know when cooperation on areas of strategic importance is required. 32 The CoR has called for the priority topics in the framework of joint programming to be decided in a consensual way, taking into account the large number of regions with relevant skills and experience, 32 CdR 283/2008 fin 10

11 and carrying out tailored consultation exercises with the scientific community and all stakeholders involved in each field. 33 Innovation partnerships The rapporteur might emphasise that the EIPs should contribute to a streamlined approach, without adding yet another instrument to the myriad of existing ones; highlights the views expressed by the CoR in a recent opinion on research simplification 34, particularly as regards: the need to consolidate research funding instruments in addition to mainstreaming the participation of research-lagging regions; building of research capacities and absorption potential across all territories of the EU and; ensuring that the new instruments acknowledge the commonalities and differences between science, technology development and market diffusion. 35 The CoR has called for involvement of local and regional stakeholders in the conception, implementation and governance of the EIPs; cautions, however, that this should not entail an increase in the already existing and often confusing plethora of information and service providers already in place (such as Business Gateways, Interfaces, Knowledge Exchanges and so on); cautions that lack of clarity could make it increasingly difficult for universities, businesses and the voluntary sector to know how best to proceed; is also concerned that setting up additional structures might encourage ever-fiercer competition for limited and shrinking resources CdR 283/2008 fin CdR 230/2010 fin. 11

12 6.Statistical data Firms with national/international collaboration on innovation, % National collaboration only International collaboration Finland Chile Sweden Czech Republic Netherlands Austria South Africa ( ) Belgium Norway Estonia Denmark Luxembourg New Zealand ( ) Iceland ( ) United Kingdom Ireland Japan ( ) Canada ( , China Australia ( ) Korea ( , Portugal Spain Germany Italy Collaboration on innovation, % Collaboration/High R&D Collaboration/Low R&D Collaboration/w ithout R&D Chile Estonia Iceland ( ) Denmark Sweden Belgium Czech Republic Netherlands Norway Japan ( ) South Africa ( ) Portugal United Kingdom Ireland Luxembourg Korea ( , Italy Austria Canada ( , Australia ( ) Spain 37 OECD, Innovation microdata project based on CIS-2006, June 2009 and national data sources OECD, Innovation microdata project based on CIS-2006, June 2009 and national data sources. 12

13 Innovation hot spots in biotechnologies and nanotechnologies, Share of region in country's biotechnology patents Share of region in country's nanotechnology patents Canada CA35 Ontario (CA) 20,1 19,5 Germany DE1 Baden-Wuerttemberg (DE) 8,0 8,0 Germany DE2 Bayern (DE) 12,8 11,2 Germany DE7 Hessen (DE) 5,0 6,0 Germany DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE) 8,7 8,9 Denmark DK01 Hovedstaden (DK) 38,0 27,5 France FR10 Ile de France (FR) 19,6 13,9 France FR71 Rhône-Alpes (FR) 9,7 15,5 Japan JPC Southern-Kanto (JP) 20,5 27,4 Japan JPF Tokai (JP) 10,0 5,3 Korea KR01 Capital Region (KR) 31,1 27,3 Korea KR05 Chungcheong Region (KR) 10,6 14,7 Netherlands NL3 West-Nederland (NL) 23,4 5,0 Netherlands NL4 Zuid-Nederland (NL) 14,5 36,1 United States US06 California (US) 12,5 11,3 United States US17 Illinois (US) 1,3 1,6 United States US24 Maryland (US) 3,0 0,9 United States US25 Massachusetts (US) 5,9 6,3 United States US26 Michigan (US) 0,8 1,4 United States US27 Minnesota (US) 0,9 1,9 United States US34 New Jersey (US) 2,2 1,4 United States US36 New York (US) 2,7 4,0 United States US37 North Carolina (US) 1,7 1,0 United States US42 Pennsylvania (US) 2,4 1,8 United States US48 Texas (US) 1,8 3,4 United States US53 Washington (US) 1,6 0,9 39 OECD, REGPAT Database, January

14 Expenditure on innovation by firm size as a percentage of turnover, SM Es Large firms Canada (2004, manufacturing) Korea (2008, manufacturing) Estonia South Africa (2005) Luxembourg Germany Italy Denmark Sweden New Zealand Ireland Belgium China Czech Republic Iceland (2004) Netherlands United Kingdom Spain % 40 OECD, Innovation microdata project based on CIS-2006, June 2009 and national data sources. 14

15 Government budget appropriations or outlays for R&D as a percentage of total government outlays, Spain United States Korea Finland Canada ( ) France Sweden Iceland Netherlands Portugal Austria Italy ( ) Norway Slovenia Czech Republic Germany Denmark United Kingdom Ireland Poland Luxembourg Belgium Hungary ( ) Slovak Republic Greece Procedure Schedule: Working document discussion in EDUC meeting 25 February 2013, draft opinion discussion and adoption in EDUC meeting on 25 April 2013, adoption in plenary session foreseen for May 2013 (tbc). Rapporteur: Mr Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP) ANNEX Related CoR Opinions Opinion on the " The European research area - new perspectives", COM(2007)161 final, COM(2007)182 final, Rapporteur: Mr Michael Schroeren, CdR 83/2007 fin Opinion on Proposal for a Council Regulation on the "Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI)" - COM(2008) 467 final /0148 (CNS) and Communication "Towards joint programming in research: working together to tackle common challenges more effectively" - COM(2008) 468 final, Rapporteur: Mr Aguirre Arizmendi, CdR 283/2008 fin. Opinion on the "Strategic European Framework for international science and technology cooperation", Rapporteurs: Mr Jyrki Myllyvirta, CdR 11/2009 fin 41 OECD, Research & Development Database, December 2009; OECD Annual National Accounts Database, March

16 Opinion on the "Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding", COM(2011) 48 final, Rapporteur: Mr Claude Gewerc, CdR 67/2011 fin Opinion on "Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU ", COM(2009) 512 final, COM(2009) 607 final, Rapporteur: Ms Veronica Diaconu, CdR 15/2010 fin. Opinion on "Simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes ", COM(2010)187 final, Rapporteur: Ms Fiona O'Loughlin, CdR 230/2010 fin Opinion on "Europe 2020 flagship initiative Innovation Union ", COM(2010)546 final, Rapporteur: Mr Roger Knox, Opinion on "Horizon 2020 (The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation)", COM(2011)809 final, Rapporteur: Mr Markku Markkula, CdR 402/2011 fin Further documents EUROPEAN COMMISSION, COM (2011) 811: "Proposal for a Council decision establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ( ) " Europe s regional research systems: current trends and structures Innovation Union Scoreboard An agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations", Fabrizio Barca Report (2009), ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/seg-final_en.pdf

17 17