- 1 -
European Economic and Social Committee
Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption
Minutes of the public hearing onResearch and development: a boost to competitiveness
Prague, 18 March 2009
- 1 -
BackgroundThe Czech EU presidency chose as its motto "Europe without barriers!" There are still barriers in Europe and we have to discover and understand them if we are to remove them. Those barriers also exist in European research.
The Czech EU presidency asked the EESC to draft an exploratory opinion on Research and development: a boost to competitiveness and will use it as a basis for its discussion at the informal summit on competitiveness on 3 and 4 May 2009.
In November 2008 I initiated a process of cooperation between the rapporteur of the exploratory opinion, Ms Anna-Maria Darmanin (Group I), and Ms Vlckova and Ms Kolmanova of the Czech permanent representation in Brussels. A public hearing was very swiftly organised, reflecting the importance of this issue for the Czech EU presidency. I contacted the permanent representation of the European Commission in Prague to organise the hearing in its premises and at no cost.
The permanent representation of the Czech Republic and Mr Josef Zboril (EESC Group I) suggested a number of possible speakers as well as representatives from the Czech ministry of Education, Young People and Sport.
It was decided in consultation with the head of the study group – Peter Morgan (EESC Group I) – to hold the second study group meeting immediately after the hearing.
The hearing was a full-capacity event with 65 participants, 5 speakers and two people from the ministry: Mr Jakub Dürr, deputy minister for European affairs, who attended in the morning, and Ms Nadezda Witzanyova, who attended the study group in the afternoon. Both expressed their interest not only in the exploratory opinion, but also in the other EESC opinions on this matter (INT/325, INT/326 and INT/448), which I was able to give them.
The hearing afforded the opportunity for an open discussion of the following questions:
- What cooperation is there between industry, education and research? What improvements can be made to make it more competitive?
- Does the education provided by European universities match up to industry needs?
- What are the obstacles to the "knowledge triangle" and what are its limits?
- What visions and future for European research and innovation policy?
- What barriers to innovation do SMEs have to contend with?
- What about spending on innovation and research in Europe's companies?
The first panel, on European research and innovation policy, was chaired by Josef Zboril and the second, on the knowledge triangle, by MrGerd Wolf.
Opening of the hearing by Jakub Dürr, Deputy Minister for European Affairs, Czech Ministry for Education, Young People and SportMr Dürr warmly thanked the EESC for being invited to the hearing and welcomed the seriousness with which the EESC had responded to the Czech EU presidency's request. He regarded competitiveness as a matter of survival for Europe. It was a positive development, especially in prompting research and development that would engender innovation and its transfer into practice. He compared the situation of innovation today with that during the latter half of the 19th century: in both cases, there was little link between scientific development and technological progress. Since the 1950s, however, competitiveness had been closely bound up with progress in scientific knowledge and its practical application.
At the present time, it was difficult to put scientific progress into practice because its outcomes far surpassed common understanding and were therefore difficult to transfer. Improved competitiveness would mean producing goods with a technological added value. In other words, being competitive meant greater success in the markets and raising living standards. The way to ensure competitiveness was by close cooperation between government and stakeholders from the private sector. Mr Dürr thought the vehicle par excellence for this type of cooperation was the Public Private Partnership.
He recapitulated the research goals of the Lisbon Strategy: 3% of GDP should be invested into R&D, with 2% coming from the private sector and 1% from the public sector. Only a number of countries would manage to achieve these goals by 2010.
One of the Czech EU presidency's priorities was "Evaluation of the national impacts of the coordination of the European research". One of the conclusions of the EUFORDIA 2009 conference held in Prague (and attended by the EESC's Mr Zboril) was the recommendation to set up a database of results of EU framework programmes.
It also concluded that the FP6 evaluation report presented at the conference demonstrated the progress made by the European Commission in recent years in developing its approach to the evaluation of the RTD Framework programmes. It was important to get robust data on the FPs in terms of participation and results as the foundation for any evaluation. The European Commission was invited to establish a database of project results, which, as far as possible, should be based on open access and availability.
The increase in competitiveness was manifested by the knowledge triangle comprising research, education and innovation. This was one of the fundamental bases of the European Research Area (2000) established by decision of the European Council.
The French, Czech and Swedish EU Council presidencies had taken on the following commitments, falling into three stages, vis-à-vis the Ljubljana process:
1.France formulated the vision of the European Research Area by 2020;
2.The Czech Republic is proceeding with the Implementation of Vision 2020 (focusing particularly on removing barriers within the knowledge triangle, frontier research and human resources development);
3.Sweden will follow the concept of the overall governance of the ERA.
The hearing and the discussionMs Darmanin outlined the main points of the opinion for which she was rapporteur. Mr Morgan called on the speakers to give their presentations.
Panel I: European Research and Innovation policy
1.Prof. Ing. Jiri Drahos, DrSc.,dr.h.c, Vice-president of the Czech Academy of Sciences,
2.Dr. Martin Navratil, Chairman of the Board and Managing Director, SYNPO,
3.Prof. Ivars Bilinskis, Institute of Electronics and Computer Science
Chair: Mr Josef Zboril, Group I, EESC
Taking part in the debate were:
Ing. Ladislav Novak, Association of Chemical Industry of CR (Reach)
Mr Peter Morgan, EESC
Mr Gerd Wolf, EESC (knowledge transfer, financing of the competitiveness)
Ms Grace Attard, EESC (focus on SMEs)
Mr Karel Oliva, Director of the Institute of the Czech Language of the Czech Academy of Sciences (innovation, including in teaching, learning, governance in the society, social innovation)
Ing.PhD. Jan Smolik, Research Centre of Manufacturing Technology (Operational Programme Prague competitiveness)
Mr Zboril summed up the discussion.
Coffee break
Panel II: Knowledge triangle
Chair: Prof. Gerd Wolf, Group III, EESC
1. Prof. Jan Slovak, Head of the Technology Transfer Office, Masaryk University, Brno
2.Dr. Vladimir Albrecht, Deputy Director, Technology Centre, Czech Academy of Sciences
Taking part in the debate were:
Mr Peder Munch Hansen, EESC
Doc.Ing.Ph.D. Jiri Vacek, University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Economics, Department of Management, innovation and projects
Mr Peter Morgan, EESC
Prof. Jan Slovak, panel speaker
Ms Jirina Pavlikova, VFN (General Teaching Hospital), Prague
Prof. Wolf summed up the discussion.
Participants were invited to the brunch provided by the EESC.
Cooperation with the permanent representation of the European Commission in PragueAs soon as preparations for the hearing began, I set up cooperation with Ms Luggin, Ms Jilkova and MsCarkova of the Commission's permanent representation in Prague.
I also went to look at the room in November so I could tailor the hearing to the premises: number of chairs, layout, use of local interpreters, catering arrangements, decorations (two banners, posters, etc.).
At the hearing itself, I met the head of the delegation, Ms Moozova, who took a keen interest in both the hearing and the work of the EESC in general.
The delegation has a documentation and information centre for the public, which also expressed an interest in the EESC's work and publications.
The following documents were given to the centre:
- Opinions INT/325, INT/326 and INT/448 in Czech and English
- The EESC in 10 Questions (60 copies in Czech/20 in English)
- 58 recommendations (60 copies, in English)
Ms Magdaléna Bĕlařová Carabin, Administrator, EESC Secretariat
______