The position of the REGIONAL MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, INNOVATION AND SCIENCE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ANDALUSIA in response to the Public debate launched by the European Commission regarding The green paper from challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework For EU Research and innovation funding Working together to deliver on Europe 2020 The questions in this section correspond to Section 4.1 of the Green Paper. 1. How should the Common Strategic Framework make EU research and innovation funding more attractive and easy to access for participants? What is needed in addition to a single entry point with common IT tools, a one stop shop for support, a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain and further steps towards administrative simplification? General simplification, applicant centred, comprising: 1) One single procedure, which means a set of common rules for all funding strategies allowing a restrictive number of specific rules for certain programs/actions. Call for proposals should not increase the rules and requisites. Mutual recognition of administrative and financial national rules should be included in the new regulatory framework. 2) Comprehensive approach for a single and easy process- to the project life cycle: calls, selection, management, accountability and audit. 3) Simplification of the funding initiatives/opportunities. 4) Virtual workshops and Infodays through IT, not requiring physical presence in Brussels. 5) Transparency in selection processes. 6) A stronger support for SMEs involvement, the core of the productive system in many EU countries, to be more involved in research and innovation with the assistance of interface organisations. 7) Call for proposals should be permanently open throughout the whole framework period, with several decision taking dates every year. 8) Pre-registration system for participants, so basic data need not to be provided for every single project proposal throughout the framework duration. 9) Reducing the number of documents to be submitted. 10) Clarify in a easy way the obligations of the project participants, justification rules and legal framework. 11) To create a EU consultant service not national or regional advisors- for participants to solve their questions throughout the submitting process. 12) Speedy contracting and funding time, adapted to different types of agents (see further in point.). 13) Creating a European Research and/or Innovation Quality Standard and Seal, so European innovations can be worldwide recognised and disseminated.
14) Granting access to participate in call for proposals to individuals. With the increasing unemployment rate, more entrepreneurs could look for funding innovative activities at European level. The simplification of 2 separate funding strategies for Research (FP7) and an Innovation (CIP) should be carefully weighed. Although strongly recommended, care should be taken to avoid an innovation-centred Common Strategic Framework. It could be an easy tool for large corporations to fund their R+D+I strategies. This could minimise the impact of long-term research-driven innovation. This could mean displacing Public Research organizations notably universities and Research Centres- along with the SMEs and the public/private funded interfaces which serve them such as the Technology Parks and/or Centres. Consequently attention must be paid to attain a balance for fundamental research, research driven innovation and other forms of innovation. A minimum threshold is to keep for basic research at least the level of funding for the Ideas and People Programs under current FP7. 2 How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake? The Common Strategic Framework intends to substitute the current diversification of instruments with a view to overcome barriers to innovative growth in the EU, as to reach the EU 2020 objectives. Pooling research, research driven innovation and nontechnological innovation is not an easy task, as all of them are different in kind, needs and purposes. A differentiation should be done between basic research, research driven innovation and other types of innovation, as currently through the FP7 and CIP initiatives, but in a Single and Common Strategic Framework. Early commercialization should also be targeted by the Common Strategic Framework. Differentiated strategies concerning the phases of research, innovation (research driven or not) and commercialization should be defined. 1) Basic Research: a fundamental long term effort must be made and sustained, as referred in question 1. Future competitiveness made depend on today s fundamental research. 2) Research Driven innovation is usually far from reaching the market uptake, because the research agents are not usually involved in commercialization. The study The impact of publicly funded research on innovation. An analysis of European Framework Programmes for Research and Development (2009), written among PRO INNO Europe platform experts, underlines that projects not including commercialization goals among the initial design, are less likely to reach a marketable innovation. A two step process in which funding for research and for innovation and commercialization is not dissociated, should be adopted. The original submission should include an analysis of the socio-economic impact of the
research proposed and innovation market-oriented plan. Once approved, funding will be allocated as required for 1 to 3 years research activity, to be evaluated at the end of this phase. No funding is granted for innovation development and/or commercialization before the research phase is evaluated. When satisfactorily achieved this research phase, objectives for innovation and commercialization could be oriented according to the research results. 3) Non-research driven innovation or experience-based innovation. Oslo Mannual (2005) defines innovation as the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations. This report also introduces a catehgorization among technological and non-technological innovation: Four types of innovations are distinguished: product innovations, process innovations, marketing innovations and organisational innovations.. Product innovations and process innovations are closely related to the concept of technological product innovation and technological process innovation. Marketing innovations and organisational innovations broaden the range of innovations covered by the Manual as compared to the previous definition. Considering the European Commission goals for Europe 2020 Strategy (COM (2010) 2020 final) for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, innovations including transversal actions, such as eco-innovation and experience-based innovation should be promoted. a. This late innovation experience based- arisen out of a Research activity, mainly as a innovative solution to a day-by-day problem: it could be a new and cheaper security system in a building company, a new device to shorten the production method, etc. which is developed inside the company by any worker. They are process and product innovation not arisen out a previous research activity, but arisen out of the company Know-how. This is close to the openinnovation concept. Experience-based innovations are often not patented, mainly because of high patenting costs for SMEs, although the European Directive Interest & Royalty (2003/49/EC) allows for partial fee derogations among Member States. To fund this type of experience-based innovation (non research-driven but tending to product and process innovation) a diversification of instruments, a clarification of the funding share f should clearly be made. Individuals and SMEs should be funded for patenting these advancements, to increase their competitiveness and European innovation visibility in world markets. These patents are directly put into the European market, and easily worldwide. b. In any case, market and organizational innovation should never be funded through the Common and Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation. A CDTI study on Impact of R+D+I in the Spanish
productive System (2009) underlines that this type of innovations is more frequent in those companies that don t invest in R+D+I. 4) Innovation novation Commercialization: it is a major weakness of European research and innovation systems. Public agents (universities and other research centres) conduct research driven innovation but usually fail to commercialize their results. Alliances of public agents and companies are growing, but still this strategy is overwhelmingly dominated by a pool of large companies and research institutions. Commercialization of European innovation should be strongly promoted as a specific goal, and through specific actions, independently of the innovation process previous funding. An example of this could be the present Proof of Concept ERC initiative, sustaining commercialization activities out of FP7 Ideas Program research activities. All range of actors should be involved in the commercialization support strategies, public and private. A differentiation of financial mechanisms should be defined (grants, loans, financial guarantees, venture capital, ). Specifically when referring to commercialization by private companies, diversified support should be offered to large companies and to SMEs. As to deeply involve the latest into the innovation process, generous access conditions and preferential financial terms should be granted to SMEs. The European Investment Fund should be involved in this phase: Jeremie actions for SMEs and other types of instruments should be more clearly linked to a Common Strategic Framework for an Innovation Union. This could allow funding market analysis, demonstration, prototypes design and implementation and first commercialization projects. A preferential treatment should be granted for allocating commercializing funding to proposals directly connected to a basic research, a research driven innovation or experience-a non-technological innovation previously funded through the Common Strategic Framework specific programs. The study EVIMP-2: Analysing the outcomes of EC funded projects under FP5" (2009), conducted by experts appointed by the European Commission underlines that new products, processes and patents mean more jobs. In the same line, projects generating more licence contracts, copyrights and prototypes, more spin-off generation favour job creation. Mobility among Research groups and companies should accordingly be promoted and strengthened. 3 What are the characteristics of EU funding that maximise the benefit of acting at the EU level? Should there be a strong emphasis on leveraging other sources of funding? The opportunity to coordinate a research agenda and to take the most out of common resources, the promotion of cooperation among stakeholders in a specific sector across Europe engaging several countries in the development of a specific action.
A certain degree of co-funding is important to assure effectiveness. Nevertheless, some special rules can be granted: 1) For public research agents (such as universities) co-funding in kind should continue to be allowed. 2) To involve SMEs participation. Co-funding could be substituted by other forms of guarantee for satisfactory fulfilment of the tasks in the specific project proposal. 3) The present crisis may oblige to substitute private co-funding obligation for other creative form of compelling fulfilment. Companies are interested in innovation and development, but at present cannot satisfy their financial part in the projects. 4 How should EU research and innovation funding be used to pool Member States' research and innovation resources? Should Joint Programming Initiatives between groups of Member States be supported? Stronger coordination and cooperation among Member States research and innovation policies should be encouraged. An important obstacle for JPI is the different rules that may become applicable to a certain Initiative. A sort of harmonization for national rules applying to such initiatives could be in the interest of all. 5 What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones? No size barrier should be erected to eligibility. Excellence projects are not necessarily bigger or smaller in size. Strategies and projects should de defined and funded according to: 1) A reflection on the present and future needs of the Innovation Union strategy; 2) The socio-economic impact of research and innovation in the present economic scenario 3) Long term knowledge expansion. None of these criteria are based on size and/or numbers (investment, outcomes or people/stakeholders involved) Small projects may have a bigger impact at local level, while large, strategic one a worldwide impact. But both aspects of development are at stake when talking about a more competitive and cohesive European Union. Small projects are an important motorway for SMEs to speed up, along with small and young research groups. SMEs should be the target group for the R+D+i efforts in the closest future in the EU. Important actions must be taken for the research bodies to meet the SMEs, and viceversa. That is a key to EU sustainable and economic development. R+D+I relationship between research bodies and large companies is well established. But large companies in most European countries remain a small part
of their economies. The lion s share of the EU Member States domestic GDP still depends on SMEs activity, usually R+D+I low-intensive. 6 How could the Commission ensure the balance between b a unique set of rules allowing for radical simplification and the necessity to keep a certain degree of flexibility and diversity to achieve objectives of different instruments, and respond to the needs of different beneficiaries, in particular SMEs? Some answers have already been advanced in question 3. Simplification is mainly concerned with a user friendly procedure. That means reducing steps and documents needed, maintaining the requisites along the framework duration, and not introducing specificities but the very justified ones for different calls. Simplification is also concerned with transparency in the assessment and decision making; speediness in the contracting process and funding transfer. Measures such a pre-registration of potential beneficiaries (so they don t have to process the same or similar basic information every time they go to a call for proposals) would simplify and increase participation of potential beneficiaries. On the other hand, diversification can be done more through the objectives of the programmes and the funding means than in the procedural aspects. The easier, simplest and faster the procedure could be for all programmes and calls, the more active participation of small partners the program can pool. Diversification of objectives allows to pay diversified attention to the different groups of potential beneficiaries: public research groups and centres (universities and others), large companies, SMEs, interface institutions, etc. Diversification of means of funding (from grants to loans, guarantees or co-funding) allows promoting different goals: 1) effectiveness for public research (through grants plus prices when the project ends in a commercialization stage); 2) compromise of large companies with the common interest through cofinding (through loans and guarantees in times of crisis); 3) increased participation of SMEs, avoiding a co-funding entry-ticket for them 7. What should be the measures of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performance indicators could be used? Performance indicators concerning innovation should align with indicators included in Annex II of COM (2010) 546 final, European Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, as European Union mean them to provide the basis for an annual performance scoreboard as part of the monitoring of the Innovation Union. The data, using the latest available statistics, will be presented for each Member State, for the European Union, and for main non-eu countries. Efforts will be made to make data available at regional (i.e. sub national) level for EU Member States. The Scoreboard will be maintained until 2020 and will be subject to review periodically depending on the availability of new data sources and/ or new policy orientations. The Commission will
look for an additional performance indicator reflecting gender for inclusion in the Scoreboard. Andalusia has once and again since 2007 Research and Innovation Regional Report (PAIDI) tried to compile and analyse those indicators, previously included in the European Innovation Scoreboard (now described in the Innovation Europe Flagship Initiative. IUt is hard to get those indicators at regional level, so comparative analysis is impossible or void. An important measure to be promoted and financially sustained through Research and Innovation Funds is to build these indicators up at regional level, coordinating national and regional statistical offices. 8. How should EU research and innovation funding relate to regional and national funding? How should this funding complement funds from the future Cohesion policy, designed to help the less developed regions of the EU, and the rural development funds? European Regions and Member State Governments should adopt legislation in order to comply by COM 2006/C 323/01 (Community framework for state aid for research and development and innovation). At national level, there is no piece of legislation in Spain; at regional level, in Andalusia, a Regulatory Framework has been adopted for R+D+I funding, compatible with this Community Framework. Mixed funding must be possible, aligning different actors, both at European, national and regional levels in a proposed research and innovation plan. For boosting European countries worldwide and domestic competitiveness a more coordinated Research and innovation strategy should be accomplished. At European level, coordination across policies should be strengthened (Research and innovation, cohesion policy and other sector policy instruments). Financial instruments should be aligned: Future Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation Funding, European Investment Fund and Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund (although this must be done partially under national and not European competences, as the allocation of funds depends on the national level). Cohesion policy presents a redistributive nature, although it is getting more competitiveness oriented since the attainment of Lisbon Strategy Goals was a partial pre-condition for the national decision on the allocation of funds (more importantly for competitiveness and employment regions up to 75% of the funds pursuit the Lisbon agenda for growth- than for convergence regions 60% of the funds-). Research and innovation policy and funding tend to be purely competitive. Those two logics may not opposed but complement each other in a way. This evolution appears to be present in the COM (2010) 553, Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020. Apparently, Cohesion Policy is tending towards a smart
innovation promotion, in place of late Lisbon Strategy Goals we ve seen in 2007-2013 period cohesion planning. For some aspects, Research and Innovation European policy could mirror Cohesion Policy: the existence of a common regulatory framework, such as the Regulation 1083/2006. It is very commonly admitted the role of ERDF funding research infrastructures, which contribute largely to R+D+I efforts. This has intensify with the Lisbon Strategy goals alignment for 60%/75% percent of the allocated funds. But an important role is still to be played by the Social Fund actions for innovation and vocational education. It should contribute largely to the promotion of an innovation culture among current high unemployed numbers. As a long-term action it should look into the schools to prepare the youngest for the innovation economy. Along with this, attention must be paid to vocational higher education, as technical staff is required to disseminate and market R+D+I efforts and investments. At national and regional level, research and innovation funding should concentrate on overcoming barriers to compete in European calls and in project development related to country/region specific needs trying to avoid duplication of efforts. Tackling Societal Challenges The questions in this section correspond to Section 4.2 of the Green Paper. 9. How should a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the balance between curiosity-driven research and agenda-driven driven activities? Agenda-driven activities restrict the possible future but not foreseen developments of European economies. Curiosity-driven research should be absolutely supported, although a certain social and/or economic impact could be demanded. 10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities? Absolutely. 11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy-making and forward-looking activities? ERA-net is a good way of supporting policy making and coordination across Europe at different funding levels. Supporting research in non Science & Technological areas is another way to support the policy making process, as analysis of political, social, historical, legal and economical problems is a core part of the decision making at all levels.
12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved i in supporting policy-making and forward-looking activities? Broad dissemination of the reports and documents prepared at the Centre, so they are useful not only for the European Commission but to all national and regional governments. 13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and involvement of citizens and civil society? Creating a European label and awards could create a sense of proud of being part of European competitiveness worldwide. Dissemination activities must be made a compulsory part in every project, funded separately in all types of programmes: basic research, research and development (technological innovation or non technological) and commercialization projects. This should include fairs, campaigning for European innovation, school activities for children, market demonstration for SMEs, etc. Purpose of this action should concentrate on awareness raising campaigns concerning how EU funded R+D+I solves actual problems of the civil society, improving the quality of life (employment, working conditions, health, ageing, security, etc.) Specifically innovation and creativeness culture along with an European membership awareness should be constructed throughout early school stage. Action should be taken in all official languages and through new communication channels, reaching the youngsters. Strengthening competitiveness The questions in this section correspond to Section 4.3 of the Green Paper. 14. How should EU funding best take account of the broad nature of innovation, including non-technological innovation, eco-innovation and social innovation? Although a Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation policies is intended, Research driven innovation and non-technological innovation are two different fields. According to question 2, attention must be paid to the diversification of goals and stakeholders involved in the different type of activities to be covered by the new Framework. This new approach makes conveniently coherent to support research-driven innovation along with other forms of innovation, arising out of social, organizational or eco-fields.
Nevertheless, a link between these new forms of innovation and the research activity is always possible the other way round: research as a consequence of innovative activities that are worthy the study to spread worldwide the innovations. A study should be done to properly measure the need for and the types of nontechnological innovations which companies apply. It should be important to be aware of the mechanisms throughout which these innovations are produced, developed and applied to properly measure the need and amount of the EU funding to be allocated to this type of actions. 15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation i programmes be strengthened? How should Joint Technology Initiatives (such as those launched in the current Framework Programmes) or different forms of 'public private partnership' be supported? What should be the role of European Technology Platforms? Large industrial companies are important beneficiaries of the 7FP, especially through the thematic JTI. More transparency should be a good improvement, as JTI may work as an externalisation of funding. Another improvement should be to involve more SMEs companies in long term and strategic R+D+I. Public-private partnerships are to be reinforced and adapted to reach these companies. New measures could be set up, specifically directed to SMEs, such as regional/sector mapping the SMEs needs for an innovation based activity. This would add a bottom-up approach to the agenda-driven approach focused in the current JTI. 16. How and what types of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and a regional level schemes? What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes? Proposals have already been submitted in different places of this document. Summarising, although not being exhaustive: generous access conditions and preferential financial terms for participation in the programmes, avoiding co-funding formula for SMEs; including new strategies specifically for first stage in commercialization and for establishing networks to channel their need to research centres and groups, so SMEs both access innovation already produced and demand à-la-carte innovation. 17 How should open, light and fast implementation schemes (e.g. building on the current FET actions and CIP eco-innovation market replication projects) be designed to allow flexible exploration and commercialisation of novel ideas, in particular by SMEs?
An open consultation to SMEs could be useful. But funding disseminating activities and early commercialization along with demonstration, fairs, and initial market launching of new products could be a good way to attract SMEs towards research driven innovation results. For exploration and commercialisation by SMEs a bottom-up approach is very important. 18. How should EU-level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively? The binomial innovation + risk is important when companies are involved, specially the large ones. That means that funding the large companies involvement in Research and innovation projects should be made through loans, guarantees and equities But these tools are not easily bearable by public research centres and SMEs, where grants and other financial instruments should be applied. 19. Should new approaches to supporting research and innovation be introduced, in particular through public procurement, including through rules on pre-commercial procurement, and/or inducement prizes? It could be interesting to test through a pilot program public purchase of European innovation. 20. How should intellectual property rules governing EU funding strike the right balance between competitiveness aspects and the need for access to and dissemination of scientific results? COM(2010) 700 final intends the european budget to be more effective in attaining the EU goals, proposing a reform n EU funding. Open access to research results, but steady protection of intellectual rights. The core aspect is how to promote exploitation of results, not finishing the chain in the research results publication/protection mechanisms. Considering EVIMP-2 : Analysing the outcomes of ec funded projects under FP5" (2009), already mentioned, license agreements, copyrights and spin off tend to job creation. On the contrary, the more common strategies used by FP grantees for protecting innovation is secrecy and personnel attachment to the company (for not disseminating the company product and process innovation). European Directive Interest & Royalty (2003/49/EC) should be more widely applied, concerning fees reduction and/or exemption and European patent, so patenting costs are reduced to a minimun and innovation is offered to the market and not kept secret. Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area
The questions in this section correspond to Section 4.4 of the Green Paper. 21 How should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in supporting world class excellence? It should continue supporting frontier research. And it should increase dissemination activities for transfer of results at European level and worldwide. 22 How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence? EU should support research lifelong careers, mobility and international benchmarking. A European common model for scientific career could be useful. More intensive efforts could be placed on the education target: both creating an innovation culture at schools and developing the vocational higher education, which is an essential part of the research and innovation project development providing the technical staff required. In this late sense, and as already said in question 8, it would be important to better coordinate funding efforts of the Research and innovation policy and the Cohesion policy. Specially, the Social Fund could contribute through an early stage education for innovation. Although a long-term action, it should be seen as a major input for bettering the quality of the labour market, the innovation economy and, thus, the European competitiveness in a global world. Support could be given to the inclusion of regions in ERANET program, so their research and innovation strategies, programs and actions are coordinated with all member states ones at national level. EU could support the strengthening of the relationship between research centres and small companies, as large ones are usually already collaborating or have their own R+D+I department, where researchers can develop their applied research careers. 23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened ened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers? Marie Curie actions are a very important part of the positive aspects of the current system. They must be sustained and financially reinforced. EU could develop a model for scientific career, including mobility to and from the industrial sector. 24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?
Constant measuring of women participation in R+D+I activities, disaggregating indicator by gender is important to state the situation. Mapping the evolution can allow to take future decisions. For the time being, more priority and funding should be accorded to women participation in projects, especially as project leaders. A minimum threshold of women participation could be required or at least specially supported in the selection process. This should go hand in hand with the possibility of eligibility of expenses for conciliation and children care connected to the project (during field and research trips, when assigned to long hours activities, etc), if both members of the couple are working or when single-parent family is at stake, independently of gender. As a matter of fact, women do not involve more deeply in research activities of a high demanding nature because of the family structure. As this is a parallel social problem and debate, measures of the type proposed could be seen as impeding the social change towards real gender equality when children care is at stake. Nevertheless, the social change for the women role is a long term action, and immediate palliative actions for increasing the women involvement in R+D+I actions need to be taken in parallel to long term efforts. 25. How should research infrastructures (including EU-wide e-infrastructures) e be supported at EU level? Mapping the research infrastructures in every Member State in Europe should be supported through European Funds in the Common Strategic Framework as an urgent matter. Specifically, when co-funded with European resources, such as Structural Funds (ERF), open-access to all European researchers should be guaranteed through European legislation. Conditions for use should be made public (fees, access procedure, etc) and updated constantly. Calls for funding this mapping project could be include in the Common Strategic Framework. This action must foresee the mapping at regional and national level, where date can be more easily provided and a methodological stage at European level, including not only de cross border definition of the info requested, but the online platform where the info should go public, and the means to maintain the information updated and translated, at least, into English (as a common language in R+D+I). It should be advisable to have this platform translated into all the official languages of member States, but a cost-benefit preliminary study should be done for this.
26. How should international cooperation with non-eu countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States? It should be supported in terms of strategic socio-economic impact for the EU. Identifying those strategic interests on the side of the EU could be an important task for the European Research Council and/or the Joint Research Centres. 27 Which key issues and obstacles concerning the ERA should EU funding instruments seek to overcome, and which should be addressed by other (e.g. legislative) measures? A common strategy and framework should not only align the EU 27 Member States for the EU R+D+I funding but also align their national and regional funding systems: common procedures across Europe, a common system for the rules governing a project whatever the level the funded was get from (European, national or regional).