Written answer to the Green Paper on a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding

This European Commission Green Paper proposes major changes to EU research and innovation funding to make participation easier, increase scientific and economic impact and provide better value for money. The questions are the same as those set out in the Green Paper. To facilitate responding, you are asked to rate the relative importance of the aspects covered in each of the questions. Text responses are limited to 1500 characters. If you wish to provide detailed written comments you are encouraged to use the written response submission form. Information about the respondent I am answering as: Company Country of location France My/ my organisations' main activity is Telecom Operator The name of my organisation is Orange - France Telecom Group my organisation has received funding from: FP7, CIP, research/innovation support programme in different countries : Fr, UK, Spain, Egypt, . Have you or do you intend to submit a separate written response to this consultation? no

Preamble The European Commission issued a Green Paper on February the 9 2011, with the aim to launch a Public debate for the future of the European research and innovation funding programmes. The European Commission is clearly willing to support the European research and innovation which is demonstrated by its initiatives with FP7, CIP and EIT, and the development of new approaches through Public Private Partnerships including Joint Technology Initiatives. For OFTG (Orange - France Telecom Group), innovation is a top investment priority and the group is welcoming this clear support of the European Commission to research and innovation. The group is in favour of an open innovation that captures the best of innovation worldwide. Through R&D expenses, OFTG also wants to establish itself as a local development player in France and Europe. KEYFIGURES: Over 3,500 researchers, engineers and scientists Around 400 new patents registered each year (and more than 8,000 patents filed or issued worldwide) Orange Lab network: 18 locations on 4 continents (EU: 8 locations in France and 4 in other countries). 2009: 862 million euros devoted to innovation, i.e. 1.9% of the groups revenues.
th

Oranges strategy, developed in Conquests 2015 considers innovation as a key source of future growth, provided the customers needs are taken into account, to ease their daily lives. Orange is recognised as one of the most innovative operators on the European market. The main objective is to provide customers with advanced technology; this is the reason why we have contributed to major breakthroughs on services (e.g. Machine to Machine which uses mobile networks to communicate between machines), as well as on networks and access (increased speed, services and content of mobile networks). These actions activate important means and develop key principles:

May 2011

1. The Orange Labs network, launched in 2007, brings together R&D laboratories and the technocentre and forms the group's new global chain of innovation. More particularly, the technocentre aims to improve the selection of the innovations developed by the group and to reduce their time to market, thanks to the immersion in different cultures and ecosystems. 2. Co-innovation enables complementary expertise, accelerating the creation of value and capacity for innovation, to give its customers the best of innovation. As a leader in telecommunications innovation, the Group attracts top-flight partners to contribute to its projects, to develop products, protocols or services (big companies, SMEs, start-ups), including other operators, hardware manufacturers, application developers, ISPs and content providers. E.g.: Moldova: Orange launched the worlds first high-definition voice service for mobile phones, anticipating the introduction of new standards in cooperation with all the stakeholders concerned. Partnerships with universities, public laboratories and state research centres. E.g. France: participation in seven competitiveness centres set up to foster local synergies for innovative projects, and it chairs the Image and Networks Center. Open innovation: licensing programs for its patents, technology transfers and participation in "patent pools"(groups of patent holders), to contribute to the establishment of standardised technologies and facilitate their deployment in areas such as voice coding, audio coding, (MP3 and AAC) and video coding (MPEG), digital TV broadcasting, 3G mobile networks and wifi networks (802.11). 3. European cooperation: partnerships and programs Orange is one of the most active operators in line with the framework program; it either leads or is a major partner in ambitious integrated projects such as Beyond 3G, home audiovisual networks and platforms, or broadband for everyone. The group is also a member of European Technology Platforms (Net!works, Nessi and NEM), which bring together major industry players to define policy and joint initiatives. Example of a key European partnership: Future Internet PPP Orange is one of the main actors in this programme including 150 companies, beyond the telecommunications sector. OFTG leads Outsmart project dedicated to smart city and region, focusing on urban and regional utilities, and environment services, notably using M2M infrastructure. Orange is also technical leader of Instant Mobility project and contributors to Finseny, FI-Content and FI-Ware projects. 4. Customer centric innovation Consumers needs taken into account in the innovation process: at Orange Labs, multidisciplinary project teams bring together researchers and application developers alongside marketers and design specialists. OFTG is running Customer Test Centres and Lab Explorers (customers who participate directly in the creation, improvement and testing of new or existing services). 5. Innovation in areas of public interest by Orange: health care and eco-responsible products. The Group is closely involved in actions and investments aimed at increasing the geographical coverage of its networks: opening up isolated regions, tackling dead zones, and increasing the connectivity of developing countries. Lastly, we have initiatives in place to facilitate access to communication among the disabled or dependent. As example our contribution to REACH 112 European CIP project.

May 2011

Orange main messages

ICT Future of internet as key R&I priorities Orange is sharing with European Commission the importance of ICT sector as key enabler for Europe Competiveness materialized by Digital Agenda flagship. OFTG agrees also with the role of internet as vital medium of economic and societal activity: for doing business, working, playing, communicating and expressing ourselves freely and the importance of the development of high-speed networks today (is) having the same revolutionary impact as the development of electricity and transportation networks had a century ago. We support the proposition of Industry-led initiatives for open innovation.The Commission will reinforce the activities bringing together stakeholders around common research agendas in areas such as the Future Internet including the Internet of Things and in key enabling technologies in ICT. (Brussels, 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2).and welcomes the launch of the KIC ICT Labs as the launch PPP Future Internet programm. Maintaining such a vital medium at the right level of expectation and security requires a lot of research and developpement. (see ETNO R&D Key Priorities for 2020 and recommendation for FP8)

We do recommand the launch of an European Innovation Partnership Friendly and Trustworthy Digital Society which the aims to Promote EU's competitiveness in the digital society through faster access to information and new ways of trustworthy communication, interfacing and knowledge sharing enabled notably by the internet of the future. (Brussels, 6.10.2010 COM(2010) 546 final) The on-going PPP Future Internet being considered as an in-situ experimental nutshell of such an EIP.

Vision and Strategy to better articulate research and innovation Scientific as Technology oriented research are needed. The first one pushing limit out of frontier leading to disruptive invention is vital to place Europe at the top of the emergence of totally new business and market (which was the case in US with Internet and in Europe with GSM). The second one more incremental and integrative is required to consolidate, improve, innovate and transform existing bussiness (- vital medium) but needs the same amount of expertise and brain ressources (see LTE or Optical access or Cloud Services). OFTG does regret that core technologies such as data management, signal processing, internet architecture and protocols, software engineering are not identfied as Key Enbling Technologies by the European KET initiative. A right balance between both Scientific and Technology agendas is required as dedicated ressources and places to manage cross fertilizations between those both agenda. This strong and efficient articulation and coordination of different approachs should be based on a clear ambition and shared strategy.

OFTG does recommand Europe to elaborate an ICT R&I strategy with clear objectives, priorities and topics including a SWOT analysis : - What is the vision 2020-2030 on ICT? - What is the Europe ambition on ICT, Future Internet, Web competiveness ? - What are the challenges to reach this ambition ? - What are the strengths and weaknesses? - What the are the actions that should be launched (topics and instrument KET , EIP, ) ?

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020 The questions in this section correspond to Section 4.1 of the Green Paper.

May 2011

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? Aiming at making the EU R&D funding more attractive for participants, large efforts leading to further simplifications of the Framework Programme should be devoted. 1. Simplifying the procedures: A breakthrough in simplification can only be achieved by introducing a more trust-based and risktolerant approach in European research funding, as advocated by ERAB (see the annex on pages 7375 of the recent EC Communication on progress in FP7) and the Lund Declaration of the Swedish EU Presidency. This would require a revision of the EU Financial Regulation. For example, the zero-risk, zero-trust attitude currently observed in FP7 may well stem from the provisions on financial liability being interpreted as the personal responsibility of Staff officers. The relevant clauses in the Financial Regulation may have to be changed. A more trusted-based approach must have impact on all the phases of the project lifecycle: the proposal submission process, the evaluation and the review of project performance and usage of funding. That would bring a simplification of procedures in all stages. Thus, at the stage of project management several measures might be taken in order to reduce rigidity of schedule, partnership, resource etc. Thus, the following enhancement could be cited: More simplified financial reporting More flexible procedures to stop, resume, reorient, enlarge projects, modify consortia, and even changing the instrument. Reintroduction of Associate partner status where one party may act as the contract responsible for associate partners and thereby insulating them from the complexities of the administration procedures. More open evaluation of performance in terms of periodicity (some project might be evaluated once a year, whereas other requires just an assessment at the end). 2. A more focused programme. An agenda with a number of specific objectives has to be set up every 2-3 years in partnership with the industrial investors. The objectives should be measurable both for research (area covered, publications, major breakthroughs, ..) and particularly for Development and Innovation. Clear techno economical objectives, including the development of SW and HW elements (with the appropriate IPR policies) are to be put into place. The example very much mentioned of GSM and UMTS should serve as an example. Certainly, those examples show that an R&D policy which is not accompanied by regulatory and financial measures will not be successful. 3. Including SMEs : a generous and encompassing Venture Capital programme The associate partner concept will greatly facilitate SMEs being involved by the larger organisations they wish to collaborate with. Currently many SMEs cannot handle the payment delays and administration complexity of being a partner in research. Once the general framework has been set up in consultation with large industry, the identification of where VC can help in extending the benefits to SME and novel entrepreneurs is greatly facilitated. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very Important

May 2011

2 How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake? - Avoid complexity and fragmentation between instrument - Build a strategic and integrated approach to ICT research and innovation Current research programme implementation is too much fragmented between the different programmes and instruments (FP7 coop, JTI, PPP FI, Era net, CIP, FP7 people, FP7 infra,) and even competition between these programmes has been observed. We stress the point that different programmes and instruments are required to fulfil different priorities (education, interaction between industry and research institution, sharing equipment and platforms,..) but all those instruments that complement each other, should be better organised to leverage the same vision and goals.. Currently we see often that the programme and instrument appear as the first priority and then the selection of domains/ topics to be addressed is second. An example of this is that the CIP programme identifies its topics on its own, in isolation from the other instruments. . We propose the approach is reversed and to consider first the priorities / domains and second based on a SWOT, the instrument to launch the right action using the right instruments at the right time. Example: Future Internet is a key priority/domain for Europe, but where are our weaknesses: the needs in education, in research, in industry-research cooperation, in adoption by the market, in policy and how is this priority theme visible across all instruments?,.. An ICT strategy with clear objectives, priorities and topics should be elaborated based on a SWOT analysis. - What is the vision 2020 on ICT? - What is the Europe ambition on ICT, Future Internet, Web competiveness ? - What are the challenges to reach this ambition ? - What are the strengths and weaknesses? - What the are the actions that should be launched (topics and instrument) ? Continuity on an adopted theme is critical the evaluation process does not appropriately support the completion of strategic programmes, Discontinuities in strategy such as the one we experienced in Wireless World Initiative (WWI) where the EC was in position to launch the first phase of projects (SPICE, E2R, Winner, Ambient Network and Mobilife) but did not fully the second phase, should be avoided. This resulted in LTE research and studies were started in the FP6 WINNER project being finalised in the WINNER+ project under the CELTIC programme. While this is a good example of complementary programmes it does mean the initiative lost time and the EC lost an opportunity to be the facilitator of this success. Now some CIP and FEDER complementary actions are helping the adoption of LTE through Europe. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very important,

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 key characteristics of EC funded research are that it is collaborative and it is reasonably funded these characteristics must be kept at all costs. The present rate of 50% funding of RTD for large organisations is appropriately attractive, considering the high cost of acquisition, and must certainly not be decreased. The experience of other (national) programmes that offered a lower rate is that, at the end, the number of proposals has decreased significantly. Leveraging other sources of funding (in addition to the funds brought by the partner itself) leads to an additional burden of administrative work and at the end leads other institutions to decrease the part

May 2011

they would have provided without co-financing. Complexity and differing priorities among co-financing agencies can make this very difficult. Unless leveraged and guided by a shared strategic vision and roadmap, co-financing should be avoided. With respect to increasing global competition it would not be acceptable to lose time for unsynchronised funding decisions at different authorities, which may result in different starting dates for partners from different countries in projects and potential restructuring of consortia, if some countries are not able or willing to provide funding for successfully evaluated and selected proposals. Means of co-financing would make the implementation much more complex different access and success rate in different countries depending of national decisions and budget allocation. The experience with existing JTIs is not convincing. Means of co-financing should only be applied in areas, where a clear agreement has been reached between Member States and the EU Commission on topics, budget allocation and synchronised decisions on selected projects and willingness at all involved funding organisations to provide funding. If such agreements are not available, project implementation is at risk, consortia may have to be changed depending on different and unsynchronised national decisions.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very Important

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? This can only be achieved when being driven by a clear strategy & vision on a specific topic which is supported by the EC, member states and industry. Complex approval process and possibilities of confused funding decisions for the use of pooled resources may make this approach too inefficient. . In principle EU funding can be key to bring together research and innovation resources from different States. However, to be successful, it is essential that clear commitments are made (to avoid existing problems e.g. in Eurostar programme and Eureka. The EC resources can only be applicable if real commitments from the states, substantiated, are present. This may need to use a variable geometry approach where the interested States/Regions can participate. Joint programming schemes (variable geometry) are very important and should be promoted by EC if supported by committed groups of MS (ERA-Net, AAL, Eureka clusters). How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

5 What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones? Through different phases of the work, the balance could change. It needs an understanding of the context (one model: small projects for science, then big projects for integration, then smaller ones when reaching the market). On emerging topics, critical mass is needed when dealing with strategic issues as generating large scale consensus (large projects needed). It should not be precluded a priori the size of the projects. The instruments should be flexible enough to determine in each time the correct balance between large strategic high-impact projects or smaller more specific ones. In general, however, large projects are more useful at a strategic level and should be retained and enlarged. An indication could be 70% strategic 30% targeted

May 2011

It should also be clear if the project is intended to achieve strategic consensus (large with many participants) or if it is intended to achieve a substantial strategic result (large with a limited number of participants making significant contributions) Larger/strategic projects must be supported on the condition that where such projects must produce a substantial result the project must provide a higher budget per participant and not simply increase the number of participants. . How important are the aspects covered in this question? important

6 How could the Commission ensure the balance between 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? Emphasis should be put on the results rather than on the process. This should lead to obvious simplifications in that the management of the project can be results focussed and assed.. Flexibility and simplification are not exclusive: flexibility (e.g. associate partners) can provide simplification (e.g. easier ways to join a consortium). More flexibility in the project financing rules e.g. allowing Consortia to agree on rules to fund participants from the advance payments this would reduce the risk of underperforming partners sitting on large advance payments, could make the reporting process more relevant and timely, and would increase the project ability to ensure the work is done. The use of the Associate partner structure would allow SMEs to be involved in direct partnership with the organisations that they want to have long term working relationships with while reducing the number of administrative procedures. Promoting a more trust-based and risktolerant approach in an environment of truly simple set of procedures for selection, management and reporting of projects. The grant of funding might be extensively based on the former outcome of similar-related projects. More freedom should be given to companies/entities in managing the projects based on the trust they gained in former projects. Reputation in delivery should be one important factor to be taken into account for selecting projects in the EC competitive environment. A more trusted-based approach must have impact on all the phases of the project lifecycle: the proposal submission process, the evaluation and the review of project performance and usage of funding. While recognizing the important role of SMEs in promoting more industry driven initiatives the need for the strong participation and leadership of larger industry players to guarantee the results can have a significant impact and can reach the large scale markets as products/services is critical. The industry pull effect will leverage the SME participations and assist the SME to achieve significant success as well. The current practice of auditing practically every participant and using in-experienced auditors who often make excessive and incorrect demands on the company being audited is not constructive or productive. The process for correcting mistakes and misrepresentations made by the auditors in the audit process is totally ineffective. A simpler method for assessing financial reporting correctness is needed or, as has been proposed, a move to value based payments where the price for the work is fixed and is paid once the required quality has been achieved. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very important

May 2011

7. What should be the measures of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performance indicators could be used? How to measure the success of research is an endless question faced by all ETNO members with R&D divisions. While various parameters exist, the most relevant is the continued successful performance of the companies in the marketplace. Performance indicators are important but they have to take into account that the success of a research initiative will only appear in commercial products years after a project is completed and probably not as a result of any unique project! We propose some global indicator should be used at a European level to assess the contribution the programme is making: Growth of the business sectors particularly the ones addressed by projects Economic well-being of the companies involved (do companies benefit from doing research) R&D employment in Europe motivation of R&D in Europe Private investment in R&D in Europe Increase of the relevant subject (e.g. ICT) in the contribution to the GDP Societal impact of the research priorities and strategies How important are the aspects covered in this question? important

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? These should address complementary and compatible objectives. In some cases, closer synchronisation can be needed (with a clear strategy defined in this case) for example when advanced infrastructure is needed in advance of innovative services. All funding sources should be complementary focused on the same priorities (if possible). Then a better coordination in setting up the key topics, instruments should be pursued. In respect to the term and risk features, in principle, long term investment for more speculative research, should be more centralized, since it is more risky and requires joined efforts and a lot of coordination and discussion at European level. On the other side, short term research and innovation, together with market stimulation can be better financed at national or even regional level. Of course this has to be connected and coordinated It is proposed to use, in larger extent, other community funds, such as cohesion-structural funds in R&D where they have a clear beneficial effect on those regions in preventing them lagging behind. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

May 2011

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 activities? 10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities?

From our perspective, curiosity driven research bottom up and agenda driven activities top down are complementary as frontier research and integrative research, or scientific research and industrial research are. Current FP7 calls are very bottom up by their nature as the freedom within a call and the evaluation allows for a very wide range of proposals to succeed. The PPP call is a more focused approach and, when the focus of the call is agreed with industry, the ability of the focussed programme to achieve a specific result is enhanced. But the real question is : Would a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the European excellence on enabling technologies and infrastructures (such as Future Internet) ? In some ways this question is also an assessment of the market relevance and applicability of the expected results. If, through assessing the societal challenges we are also assessing the directions the industrial players need to support to increase customer satisfaction and be commercially successful, then this approach should have a positive impact. The key point is that we are seeking the mechanism for determining the key scientific challenges, to focus the research programmes. No matter which mechanism is used, there will still be a degree of risk. To minimise the risk and maximise the return on investment we need to maintain a healthy mix of both - agenda-driven and bottom up activities which you can also represent as a mix of - societal challenges and scientific challenges.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? important

11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy-making and forward-looking activities? The first point is that policies should be based on well informed decisions. One major contribution of the research programmes is to determine the options and, as far as is possible, provide an assessment of those options in terms of the potential and the risks. Then we need a much greater consistency between the units deciding and implementing the policies. Interaction among different DGs of varying responsibilities and policy areas (DG RTD, INFSO, ENTR, ELARG, MOVE, ENERGY, EAC,..) is required. Thus coherence between the works of PCs, SCAR, ESFRI, Advisory Boards, GPC, SFIC, ERAC and among EU level processes and activities of greatest importance (Lisbon process, ERA, Ljubljana process, Digital Agenda, Innovation Union, FPs, Bologna process,..) could be achieved. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very Important

12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved in supporting policy-making and forward-looking activities? It may play a role in determining the opportunities and emerging technologies but the main contribution could be ensuring the academic community is also encouraged to be active here.

May 2011

How important are the aspects covered in this question? Unimportant

13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and involvement of citizens and civil society? Clearly a greater effort in dissemination to the general public has to be undertaken. If clever priorities and objectives are selected then these should be promoted and supported through the media and education to ensure that people share the ambition to put a man on the moon. Politician support beyond words- to projects and to specific results can also be significant. However, there is a risk this becomes just a marketing tool. We have to recognize R&D is not always general public issue. When a evolution in the technology and services is sufficiently advanced and based on new technologies then it will not happen because of user demand. Its invention will probably create new opportunities and benefits for citizens but they cannot be expected to immediately understand and assimilate all opportunities. The important result is the wealth creation in Europe not the marketing of the programmes How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very important

May 2011

10

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? Those elements are very significant and they should be included. As mentioned, an agenda driven approach can be useful to provide guidelines to potential participants A key point is to educate the politicians and the programme evaluators to recognise the innovation required to take a raw technology and develop it to the point where it is commercially exploitable. Many projects are deemed not innovative enough when they are specifically this critical stage of research. It might be appropriate to shift some emphasis to an assessment of the potential impact a proposal may have to determine its real value. Consulting and training courses could help to select and deploy new solutions. This could be an area of Structural Funds and pre-competitive public procurement to support the adoption of new systems and/or solutions, where the private sector may not be willing to invest, because there is no viable business case or where initial investment needs to be stipulated. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation 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? The key is again promoting more industry driven initiatives: high participation and leadership of industry to guarantee reaching markets as products/services. It should be pursued the creation of a vivid ecosystem of innovation among large companies, universities, SMEs, R&D centers, all working together aiming at bringing the research outcomes to markets. Therefore the key issue is to make sure that all parts of the ecosystem are functioning efficiently, therefore a coherent and holistic approach to European research policies is essential. The JTI PPP structure might be good basis for a new instrument provided that The management is simple and straightforward. The industry has a strong voice in deciding the research priorities, allocation of resources and instruments. More effective commercialization of research results is targeted ETPs might be a component of the whole eco-system as a meeting point where Strategic Research Agendas are produced but we should ensure that the view is holistic. However, it should be ensured that those SRA have impact on the European, national work programmes. Industry is prepared to organise itself around the research priorities and expects the same from the EC in research management, How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very important

May 2011

11

16. How and what types of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and regional level schemes? What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes? The most effective way will be a good integration of SME in a larger ecosystem with leading innovative industrial companies. This means allowing the large companies to use the SMEs as an associate partner or even a subcontractor. This validates the working relationship between the SME and the large organisation and enables future working relationships. As indicated, the role of States and regions is also particularly significant for SMEs they should have programmes for supporting SMEs in acquiring project participations, in getting help for preparing exploitation plans and in finding capital for development. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

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? The implementation of a single Digital market would bring better perspectives for technology transfer, licensing and resale of patents and associated flows of royalties. Having the European patent available for reasonable cost would also significantly assist the SMEs and other s to exploit results. Set standards: Often an innovation is already ready for market but its introduction encounters hurdles due to the lack of respective European or even global standards to enable its application and deployment in different countries. It would be appropriate, therefore, to define standards in Europe in such a way as to anticipate innovation and render it immediately applicable, avoiding expensive and ultimately inappropriate alternatives and enabling the competitive advantage of European industry with respect to the rest of the world to be exploited. One approach is to determine a standards roadmap as part of the strategic research agenda saying where the standards are needed. Therefore, EC services could proceed to a thorough review of all non-financial procedures that could accelerate time-to-market. This review should be completed within 18 months, following a benchmarking analysis. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Very important

18. How should EU-level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively? 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? Member state and European support for research priorities should involve a degree of commitment to uptake and use the emerging results. In that respect three measures might be taken: Public procurement supporting companies in early stage innovation of products. Tax incentives are considered very important. It is relatively easy to apply and do not require large expenditure in control structures as compared to other alternatives. Already measures should be enhanced and more widely applied. Specify the use of results from designated research programmes where the member state has invested/supported.

May 2011

12

It should also act on the demand side. Most of the measures already taken by authorities were addressed towards the provision by companies of better services/products, infrastructures. It is time to encourage the extensive use of services (e.g. e-Goverment: by creating services to make easier the relationships between public entities and citizens based on ICT will certainly increase the usage of ICT by the population.). How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

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? In principle IPR rules are applicable to commercial transactions and not to R&D. This separation should remain clear. Certainly, the EC has to promote that funding is not use to provide unfair advantage to companies. This has to be considered in a careful analysis and suggesting the use of FRAND contracts and Open developments. For specific focused programmes designed at being major market and uptake enablers the programme call could consider specifying that the results should be open. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

May 2011

13

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 is important to avoid the ERC becomes a closed semi academic- institution. Care should be taken to assure significant contact with industry and the innovation world is maintained to assure researchers and results can and will transfer to industry and market The significance of completing research strategies must be stressed as leaving some strategies unfinished when a new subject comes along can destroy the investment for all. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Of some importance 22 How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence?

The existing procedure, selecting the best proposal regardless of the group proposing it, it is the best way to promote excellence. However care needs to be taken that the evaluation is not too simplistic and the full merits of each proposal are recognised. Industry, as equal funders of the work, should have a role in ensuring the relevance of the evaluation process. If cohesion is also needed, some additional instruments have to be put in place. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Of some importance

23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers? From the industry point of view it is important that the competencies and skills are developed and is available on the market. It is not clear if Marie Curie actions are critical in this. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Unimportant

24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation? Excellence in research is not particularly related to sex. Most R&D groups in Europe are already well mixed and this aspect is not considered of maximum priority. The key steps to strengthen the involvement of women in science and innovation must be taken much earlier in the education process. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Of some importance

25. How should research supported at EU level?

infrastructures (including

EU-wide e-Infrastructures)

be

It depends very much on the type of infrastructure. In any event, where commercial facilities are available, no action should be taken at EU level to promote unfair competition. For test and trial purposes acceptance of infrastructure leasing costs must be allowable. However the main issue is to consider what the persistent element of any experiment would be and ensure this is appropriately supported. The unilateral withdrawal of services from any user group at the end of a trial is not a good result for anyone. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important

May 2011

14

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? The process should be based always on reciprocity: European positions on many strategic subjects should be developed and documented. Then based on known positions and strategies, a clear European strategy for international cooperation can be defined to maximize the effectiveness and impact of international collaboration: - an identification of consistent strategic objectives - harmonization national programmes aiding R&D efforts, make them more efficient by exploiting synergies, with particular focus on those national R&D - measurement of the effectiveness of the collaboration both at the short and long term. Aspects such as: - Potential new markets opened by the cooperation. - Establishing win-win relationships - Involvement of key players: private industry, public authorities, research institutes, academic community, financial community, civil society, users and consumers from Member States including New Member States and Associate Candidate Countries. - Promotion of roadmaps for technological cooperation between European and other areas of the world. - Alignment of strategic research agendas and work programmes should be taking into account. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Of some importance

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? Setting up a pro-innovation legal and regulatory framework (IPR, streamlined adoption of EU standards, pro-innovation state aid rules, consumer policy) A better coordination of the use of Cohesion Funds for innovation activities would help for early market take up in the risky introduction phase of new solutions and systems. That the benefits of participating in EC funded research is not mitigated by the administrative overhead, too high cost of acquisition and overly complex IPR handling. How important are the aspects covered in this question? Important Closing questions Are there any other ideas of comments which you believe are important for future EU research and innovation funding and are not covered in the Green Paper?

May 2011

15