Launch of the public consultation on the - European … · reference Theme specific • ... LAUNCH...
Transcript of Launch of the public consultation on the - European … · reference Theme specific • ... LAUNCH...
Launch of the public consultation on the ERA Framework
Areas of untapped potential for the development of the European Research Area
ERAC Stakeholders' Seminar Brussels, 13 September 2011
ERA Framework – Terms of
reference Theme specific
• Researchers
• Cross-border operation of funding organisations and research performing organisations
• Research infrastructures
• Knowledge circulation
• International dimension
Cross-cutting
• Definition and objectives for ERA;
• Ensure systematic links and coherence in EU and MS policies and complementarity between them
• The international nature of science and the largely national political framework;
• ERA relevant information and monitoring of ERA and its objectives;
• Ensure openness and enable free movement
ERA Vision 2020 - preamble
By 2020, all actors fully benefit from the “Fifth Freedom” across the ERA: free circulation of
researchers, knowledge and technology. The ERA provides attractive conditions and effective
and efficient governance for doing research and investing in R&D intensive sectors in Europe. It
creates strong added value by fostering a healthy Europe-wide scientific competition whilst
ensuring the appropriate level of cooperation and coordination. It is responsive to the needs and
ambitions of citizens and effectively contributes to the sustainable development and
competitiveness of Europe.
research policy
strategy
governance
partnership
coordination
Member States
Managing and monitoring
the ERA partnership
The Current ERA
Governance and
Coordination Mechanisms
Prof. Susana Borrás
Copenhagen Business School
Denmark
ERAC Stakeholders’ seminar
Launch of the public consultation on ERA framework
Brussels, September 13th 2011
Contents
• What is ”Governance”?
• ERA Governance: Which
mechanisms and instruments?
• How do they work? Are there any
deficiencies and limitations?
• What can be done?
12
”Governance” is…
• … the capacity of a society to develop some means of making and implementing collective choices.
• ”Governance” is much broader than ”public action” taken by governments. It includes as well aspects of public-private collaboration and other forms of participatory means to reach collective goals and aspirations.
• Therefore ERA governance can be defined as: The capacity of Europe to develop some means of making and implementing its own politically defined collective choices regarding the levels of research and technological development for Europe. 13
ERA Governance: Which mechanisms?
1) EU Funding programmes
– Goal: European funding generating
European added value
– What mechanisms? • Today FP7: € 50bn; as well as Innovation CIP: €
3.6bn [Structural Funds: ~ € 86bn for R&I]
• Future funding program “Horizon 2020” will bring FP7 + EIT + CIP together
• Innovation Partnerships within the ”Innovation Union” flagship initiative of the ”Europe 2020” (previous Lisbon Strategy)
14
2) Coordination of national policies
– Goal: Voluntary coordination mechanisms in
order to foster: • Convergence of national policies
• Mutual learning through peer reviews and benchmarks
• Policy guidelines and general recommendations
– What mechanisms? • The Open Method of Coordination (5-rounds of
OMC during the Lisbon Strategy)
• Ljubljana Process: Definition of 5 ERA partnership initiatives
• New coordination instruments within/outside FP7: ERA-Nets, Art. 185, Joint Programming.
15
3) Legislation
– Goal: Legally binding activities in Europe in the
research policy field or in other fields with impact on
research-related activities
– What governance mechanisms:
• Today: Regulation for research infrastructures (ERIC)
• Today: Directive for third country researchers (Justice), State
aid rules for R&D&I (Competition), Harmonization of biotech
patents (not Community Patent, nor computer-related
inventions patent) (Single Market)
• Future: the new Treaty articles offer a new framework for
future EU legislation (TFEU art. 179 about ERA, and 182 (5)
as the new basis for ERA legislation)
16
• Funding programs: Generally reached their goals but:
• Need more consistent interaction (”Horizon 2020”)
• Need a moratorium and simplification of instruments
• Need focus on the effectiveness of the new FP7 instruments (ERC and JTIs)
• Coordination: Positive new steps, but:
– The new coordination instruments inside/outside FP7 (like Joint
Programming, ERA-NETs, ERA-NET Plus, Article 185, and Innovation
Partnerships) :
• are very new, but will need to be carefully assessed
• There is still an unclear distinction between them – Need moratorium as well
– The Open Method of Coordination has fostered learning, but:
• Learning is too much person-dependent, and no evidence of convergence
• Issues of organizational capacity at national level are important
• Legislation: Good aspects like block exemptions, but:
• There is little legislative dimension of research and research-related policy: The new
Treaty offers new possibilities
• Some legislative areas have been problematic (f.eks. Harmonization of intellectual
property rights)
17
How do they work?
What can be done?
A) Improve coherence between EU and national policy, as
there is still a EU27+1 separation
Would require focus on overall ERA governance going beyond
the current main focus on managing funds
B) Enhance efficiency in ERA. There is a ”jungle” of too many
policy instruments in FP7 and in ERA
Would require a moratorium and even reduction of the number of
instruments.
C) Develop the principle of EU-national level partnership,
which remains underdeveloped
Would require developing ERA “coordination” and “legislation”
mechanims to their full potential
18
D) Enhance support capabilities for strategic decisions in ERA.
The transformation of CREST into ERAC is a good step, but need
to enhance support capabilities
Would require structures for the monitoring and evaluation of ERA
mechanisms.
E) Generate governance overview for strategic purposes
Would require considering appropriate governance structures by
developing a theme-specific ERA initiatives (as today) or a single
comprehensive ERA framework, or both.
F) Strenghten stakeholder participation. Stakeholder participation
is still limited to EURAB.
Would require rethinking and expanding national stakeholders’
participation in ERA governance
19
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
ERAC STAKEHOLDERS’ SEMINAR
LAUNCH OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE
ERA FRAMEWORK – SESSION II RESEARCHERS
Prof Dr Kurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General LERU
Dr Katrien Maes, Chief Policy Officer LERU
Brussel, Berlaymont, 13 September 2011
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
ERA Framework Public Consultation
• Q1 : Does the European research sector attract and retain sufficient
numbers of leading researchers (including from third countries) ? If
not, what are the reasons for this ?
• Q2 : Does the European research sector produce enough researchers
with adequate skills ? If not, what are the reasons for this ?
• Q3 : What are the obstacles to the inter-sectoral and transnational
mobility of researchers? What are the causes/drivers of these
obstacles ?
Answers : Yes ? No ? Yes, but ? No, but ?
Consensus re reasons, obstacles, causes, drivers, solutions ?
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Cf Innovation Union Communication (06.10.10)
2.1. Promoting excellence in education and skills development
“The number of researchers in Europe as a share of the population is well
below that of the US, Japan and other countries. The EU will need at least one
million new research jobs if it is to reach the R&D target of 3%. The number of
researchers required is significantly higher, as many researchers will retire
over the next decade. The EU and its Member States should strengthen their
capacity to attract and train young people to become researchers and offer
internationally competitive research careers to keep them in Europe and
attract the best from abroad. In this respect, the Marie Curie fellowships under
the Research Framework Programme are playing an important role to
strengthen the skills development, mobility and careers of researchers across
borders. More broadly, more needs to be done to address innovation skills
shortages and to implement European e-skills agenda. This is crucial to
accelerate the development and the adoption of innovative business models
by European enterprises, especially SMEs.”
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Cf Innovation Union Communication (06.10.10)
6. Leveraging our policies externally
“Europe's success depends on its ability to reverse several decades of a relative
'brain-drain‘ and to attract leading talent. European universities and research
institutes award many thousands of degrees in science and engineering to
foreign nationals every year. These people should be given the option of
remaining in Europe, by exploiting the possibilities under the Scientific Visa
Package and the Blue Card scheme. Beyond the necessary legal entitlements,
they must be convinced that Europe's universities and research centres and the
innovation clusters around them are places of global excellence, and that living
and working conditions are attractive.
For Europe to be successful in this global push for excellence, it must further
deepen its international scientific and technological cooperation. The EU's
research programmes are already among the most open in the world. Europe's
markets are also the most open in the world, giving investors access to an
integrated and competitive internal market of 500 million customers based on
clear, predictable and fair rules.”
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Cf CSF Green Paper (09.02.11)
4.4. Strengthening Europe’s science base and the ERA
“The setting up of the ERC was a major step forward in raising the excellence of Europe's
science base. A strengthening of its role could involve both the weight it occupies and the
instruments it uses. Important lessons must be drawn from the experience of those regions and
countries which have managed to nurture the world's most excellent public research
institutions, through concentration of funding and a combination of project grants and
institutional support schemes.
In the long term, world class excellence can only thrive in a system in which all researchers
across the EU are provided with the means to develop into excellence and eventually compete
for the top spots. This requires Member States to pursue ambitious modernisation agendas for
their public research base and sustain public funding. EU funding, also through the Cohesion
policy Funds, should assist to build up excellence where and as appropriate.
A major achievement in training and transfer of knowledge are the EU Marie Curie actions,
which have boosted cross-border mobility and research collaboration by many thousands of
researchers. Marie Curie actions have also played an important role in equipping the next
generation of researchers with innovative skills, in particular through industry-academic
exchanges.”
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Cf Recent reports on research careers
• Doctoral degrees beyond 2010: Training talented researchers for society. LERU paper.
March 2010.
• Harvesting talent: Strengthening research careers in Europe. LERU paper. January
2010.
• Research careers in Europe: Landscape and horizons. ESF report. 2010.
• Collaborative doctoral education: University-Industry partnerships for enhancing
knowledge exchange. EUA report. 2009.
• Research careers in the UK: A review. Nigel Thrift. 2009.
• Towards a European framework for research careers. European Commission (DG
Research and Innovation) report. July 2011.
• Social security, supplementary pensions and new patterns of work and mobility:
Researchers’ profiles. Expert Group final report for the European Commission (DG
Research). September 2010.
• Study on mobility patterns and career paths of EU researchers. Final report of the
MORE project to the European Commission. June 2010.
• Conclusions of the EU/Belgian Presidency conference “Career and mobility of the
researcher”. November 2010. http://www.researcherscareer2010.be
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Q1 : Does the European research sector attract and retain
sufficient numbers of leading researchers (including from third
countries) ? If not, what are the reasons for this ?
• What is “sufficient” ?
• ERC grants, Marie Curie grants
• Research environment (person, institution)
• Government regulation v incentives
• Public institutions v Market-driven behaviour
• EC initiatives (Charter & Code/HR Strategy - Logo) !
• Cf LERU recommendations
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Universities
– creating and managing the environment
– supporting researcher independence
– creating and implementing policies and support proces
Research funders (RCs, EU, Business, Charities)
– prioritise long-term well-funded fellowships
– ensure good grant conditions especially for early-stage researchers
– require support policies as conditions of funding
National and EU policy makers
– devise appropriate processes and patterns of funding
– work to remove barriers to mobility (pensions/career pathways)
– bring stakeholders together (EC)
International networks such as LERU, EUA and others
– promote good policy development and spread good practice
LERU on research careers: priorities & responsibilities
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Q2 : Does the European research sector produce enough
researchers with adequate skills ? If not, what are the reasons
for this ?
• Crucial : doctoral training
• Adequate skills ? (quality v quantity)
• Doctoral schools: structure and visibility
• Multiple employers – Awareness E/E
• Stem disciplines – Gender - Start early !
• Cf LERU recommendations
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
1. Universities should
• ensure that research remains the cornerstone of the doctorate,
• develop doctoral graduates who are creative risk takers with a rigorous approach to the
research questions they tackle,
• develop the confidence of researchers to be independent and autonomous,
• promulgate the unique skills of doctoral graduates,
• work more closely with employers to ensure that the doctorate is a suitable preparation
for the world of work,
• ensure that doctoral graduates are capable of demonstrating their unique skill set
persuasively,
• ensure that structures are configured to support doctoral students through graduate
schools or doctoral schools or some similar organisation to support both candidates and
their supervisors,
• promote mobility of researchers during the doctorate,
• tailor recruitment procedures and appropriate internal support for international students,
• seek new sources of funding for doctoral candidates.
LERU on doctoral training: priorities & responsibilities
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
2. Doctoral candidates should:
• use the doctorate to take intellectual risks,
• take responsibility for developing personal career goals during doctoral
training,
• develop and use scholarly and professional networks,
• communicate research and the disciplinary context to society beyond
academic fora.
3. National governments and the EU should:
• increase the investment in Europe for doctoral education,
• encourage concentration of doctoral education in research-intensive
institutions or organised groupings of institutions able to provide a strong
research environment,
• promote Europe as a strong environment for doctoral education,
• support mobility of doctoral candidates within and without Europe during
their programme.
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
4. Employers should:
• engage with universities to recognise the significant changes that
have occurred in doctoral education,
• work closely with universities to help provide suitable research
environments and training, and funding for projects of mutual interest,
• recognise that universities are the primary locus of frontier research
remaining able to freely challenge the status quo and acknowledge
that it is this aspect that makes universities crucial to society’s
positive development.
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
Q3 : What are the obstacles to the inter-sectoral and
transnational mobility of researchers ? Causes/drivers of these
obstacles ?
• Cf Council Conclusions 02/03/10 on European researchers’
mobility and careers
• Inter-sectoral : different cultures, job expectations, reward
schemes; lack of awareness and information
• Transnational : lack of open recruitment, good information,
support services; portability of grants; social security
• Cf LERU Recommendations
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
• Improve the coordination of social security needs of internationally mobile researchers.
• Take the example of researchers working at accredited universities or research institutes as a pilot case for other categories of mobile researchers and highly mobile workers in general.
• Provide early stage researchers who are in professional statuses other than that of an employee, self employed person or civil servant with social security protection including health care coverage, family allowances and minimal protection in case of work incapacity.
• Clarify and develop interpretations that are appropriate for the world of research of the new EU coordination regulations which came into force in May 2010.
LERU on researchers’ mobility: priorities & responsibilities
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
5. Ensure that third country national researchers active in a member state enjoy fully equal treatment compared to researchers who are EU citizens.
6. Allow second and third pillar pensions to better absorb the negative social security consequences of a typical research career.
7. Develop a network of independent advisers to provide information and counselling on social security matters tailored to the specific needs of mobile researchers and their employers.
Amsterdam • Barcelona • Cambridge • Edinburgh • Freiburg • Genève • Heidelberg • Helsinki • Leiden • Leuven • ICL (London)
UCL (London) • Lund • Milano • LMU München • Oxford • UPMC (Paris) • Paris-Sud 11 • Strasbourg • Utrecht • Zürich
QUESTIONS?
Thank you for your attention!
Contact: [email protected] - [email protected] -
www.leru.org