European Commission – Written evidence (EUM0081)

European Commission Response to the Questions addressed to Commissioner Moedas

Question 1.              What is the extent of the UK’s influence on decision-making and the development of EU strategies for science and research?

The UK fully enjoys all rights pertaining to EU decision-making associated with EU Member State status. It is represented in all formal bodies shaping and deciding EU research and innovation policies. This includes those at the political level, such as in the Council and the research working group, and in the European Parliament through its committees and the involvement of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). UK nationals also participate in advisory structures helping to prepare Commission proposals and the Programme Committee that provides opinions on the implementing Decisions of Horizon 2020.

In this context, it should be noted that the UK made a number of comprehensive written policy contributions to the preparation of Horizon 2020. These included first a document published by the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) in advance of the Commission's Horizon 2020 proposal, with a submission on the Common Strategic Framework, and second via Research Councils UK (RCUK) - the strategic partnership of the UK's seven Research Councils - a submission on the Commission’s Horizon 2020 proposal. The UK has also been fully involved in European Research Area activities for example in the implementation of the ‘European Charter for Researchers’ and the ‘Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers’.

More generally, the UK has been amongst the leaders in terms of support to the key policy principles for Horizon 2020 including the defence of excellence as the principal criterion for the allocation of funding, the need for simplification and greater efficiencies with programme implementation including funding models, and the need to ensure open access to publications and data generated by EU funded projects. The UK has played a substantial part in Joint Technology Initiatives, Joint Programmes (under Treaty Article 185) and Joint Programming Initiatives with other countries. Also with regard to Horizon 2020 implementation and its work programme, the UK has been an active contributor through the Horizon 2020 Programme Committee in terms of proposed topics for funding, many of which have been taken up.

The UK has participated constructively in the debate and work to identify examples of regulatory barriers and gaps which hinder Research and Innovation (R&I) activities.

a. Is there any quantitative analysis in this area, for example the UK’s percentage share of scientific expert Committee Chairs and positions? How does this compare to other Member States?

There is no quantitative analysis produced by the Commission on the UK's percentage share of committees and positions. When it comes to appointing experts the Commission fully relies on Article 4(2) of the Rules for Participation and Dissemination in Horizon 2020[1] which states that:

'Independent experts shall be chosen on the basis of their skills, experience and knowledge appropriate to carry out the tasks assigned to them. ….

When appointing independent experts, the Commission or the relevant funding body shall take appropriate measures to seek a balanced composition within the expert groups and evaluation panels in terms of various skills, experience, knowledge, geographical diversity and gender, and taking into account the situation in the field of the action. ….'

This is the basis on which all expertise is chosen. Having said that, examples of UK nationals participating in key advisory bodies and expert groups, including those where the UK itself proposes the nominations, include the following:

        Prof. Dame Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist of the UK Met Office, is one of the seven member strong high level group for the Commission's new Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM);

        Prof. Dame Athene Donald, Professor of Experimental Physics at the University of Cambridge, is one of the current 18 members of the Scientific Council of the European Research Council;

        Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, is the Chair of the ERC Identification Committee for identifying potential new members of the ERC Scientific Council;

        Dr Claire Craig from the Royal Society is a member of the Governing Board of the Joint Research Centre;

        Of the 31 in total members of the high level expert group RISE for research, science and innovation, five are from the UK or currently working at UK institutions;

        46 UK nationals are currently members of Advisory Groups (AGs) which provide input for the preparation of the Horizon 2020 work programme. This is out of a total of 446, or equal to just over 10 %. This is the highest number among Member States – Germany has 43. The AGs have recently been re-appointed and are just in the process of selecting their Chairs;

        Richard Fowler Pelly from the UK was one of the twelve member High Level Group of experts for the recent ex post evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme;

        The UK has been a significant contributor to the work of the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC). The current co-Chair, David Wilson of the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has been instrumental in preparing the ERA roadmap and the ERA governance document.

Question 2. How does the European Commission plan to pursue and capitalise on synergies between Horizon 2020 funds and Structural funds awarded to Member States for research and innovation?

It is important to underline that Horizon 2020 funding is based entirely on the principle of excellence and there are no national quotas for funding. Synergies with Structural Funds are sought to ensure a higher impact of the funds. These can help build capacity of research and innovation players and pave the way for future proposals under Horizon 2020. Member States and regions, using Structural Funds, can support projects after Horizon 2020 funding has finished. This can also happen simultaneously, provided double funding is avoided. An initiative launched last year is the Seal of Excellence Pilot, which is a quality label designed to facilitate alternative funding support to Horizon 2020 SME Instrument projects that have been positively evaluated under Horizon 2020, but which could not be funded under that programme due to insufficient budget. If successful this scheme will be rolled out more widely.

a. We understand that ERDF funding for research and innovation is conditional upon the adoption of a smart specialisation strategy at national or regional level. How will smart specialisation develop?

Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart specialisation are the ex-ante conditionality for research and innovation investments under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the current programming period 2014-2020. Smart Specialisation can be defined as 'place-based approach to innovation, rooted on knowledge assets'. In other words it is 'a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support to research and innovation'. It gives priority to investments in research and innovation activities that play to the regions' (or country's) existing or potential strengths, and thus ensures a more effective use of public funds while stimulating private investment. It focuses on the real growth drivers of the country / region.

A smart specialisation strategy may take the form of (or be included in), a national or regional research and innovation policy framework depending on the choice made by each Member State during the Cohesion programming phase. The definition of a smart specialisation strategy is considered a bottom-up activity where all relevant actors have to actively participate (the entrepreneurial discovery process). The role of the authorities should hence be limited to providing information and facilitating the process, by bringing together the stakeholders - state/regional authorities, business community, universities and civil society - and providing technical assistance as well as other appropriate expertise. In a collaborative process involving all relevant actors, strategies should build on existing strengths and potential of a state/region, strengthen comparative advantage and connect with both local and external expertise. These strategies will be implemented through the relevant Operational Programmes where they are embedded.

b. What are the objectives? How will progress and impact be monitored?

Smart specialisation is not about achieving a simple and narrowly-focused specialisation process. The objective is more about smart diversification of priorities, enhancing connectivity across sectors, developing the appropriate skills at all levels and building on the so-called 'related variety' of present sectors and specialisations. The degree of connectedness of the region and its exposure to the various interrelated sectors will define the scale and the choices that will have to happen in the context of the smart specialisation. The ultimate goal of smart specialisation is to achieve improved innovation ecosystems and a higher impact of the funds.

Each smart specialisation strategy must contain a monitoring mechanism. The Smart Specialisation Platform[2] of the Joint Research Centre's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) has identified a number of key issues for monitoring. Monitoring should focus on tracking the developments related to policy interventions within the specific priority areas identified in the strategy. The mechanism should be able to capture and follow the relevant expected changes that are foreseen in each priority by means of an appropriate choice of result indicators; it should also capture and follow the policy output that ought to make expected changes happen. The actual development of the Strategy will be monitored through the Operational Programmes where it is integrated.

Question 3.               We welcome the development of the Science Advisory Mechanism (SAM) and have heard helpful evidence from Professor Dame Julia Slingo on the early stages of its work. Could you describe the future plans for the SAM group?

a. Will the SAM be empowered to identify areas that require advice or will it be confined to responding to questions posed by the Commission?

The Commission Decision of 16.10.2015 on the setting up of the High Level Group (HLG) of scientific advisors as part of the Commission’s scientific advice mechanism (SAM) states that the task of the HLG shall be to:

        provide the Commission with independent scientific advice on specific policy issues where such advice is critical to the development of EU policies or legislation and does not duplicate advice being provided by existing bodies and;

        support the Commission in identifying specific policy issues where independent scientific advice is needed.

The Decision also states that:

        The Commission may consult the group at any time on any policy field, defining the timespan in which advice is needed and;

        The chairperson of the group may advise the Commission to consult the group on a specific policy issue.

The SAM HLG may thus advise the Commission on the identification of specific policy issues requiring independent scientific advice.

The HLG held its first meeting[3] on 29 January 2016. As reflected in the minutes of that meeting[4], the discussions focused on future work including the first two issues to be considered by the HLG ('Cybersecurity' and 'Closing the gap between light duty vehicles' real world CO2 emissions and laboratory testing'). The HLG will hold its second meeting on 16 and 17 March 2016.

b. Do you think the SAM will be able to respond quickly enough to advise on a crisis where advice might be needed in hours or days?

The task of the HLG is to provide the Commission with independent scientific advice on specific policy issues where such advice is critical to the development of EU policies or legislation. This also includes, according to the Commission Decision, 'urgent advice', provided it does not duplicate advice being provided by existing bodies. A range of bodies exist that have crisis management explicitly included in their mandates. An example is the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). In such circumstances, and in accordance with the task description of the HLG as defined in the relevant Commission Decision, the HLG will necessarily play a complementary role. In order to be able to play that role as well as possible, mechanisms have already been or are currently being established that should ensure that the HLG can act as quickly as possible. For instance, the Commission services are in regular contact with EU-ANSA, the EU Agencies Network for Scientific Advice. An informal network of Member State scientific advisors (or scientific advice structures) is also being established, which is due to meet in July 2016 at the Manchester ESOF conference and will be helpful to rapidly identify actions undertaken on the national levels. And finally, to ensure rapid access to expertise, provision has been made for an €6 million grant to European networks of Academies and learned societies to facilitate inter-academy co-operation and the flow of information and evidence between the academies and SAM HLG. The capacity for rapid responses will be required in the grant agreement. It is clear that it will take time for all of these different parts of the scientific advice mechanism to be fully operational, in particular in the case of urgent advice.

Also relevant in this context is the recent initiative of the Commission in establishing a Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre in a networked approach with the Member States, which provides an interface between science and policy in the whole disaster-risk-management (DRM) cycle. This Knowledge Centre will help in translating complex scientific data and analyses into usable and reliable information for science-based advice for DRM. It will also allow the SAM-HLG to perform scientific synthesis, assessments and analyses before and after major events, thus increasing preparedness and response levels of the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), operating within the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO). The Knowledge Centre is coordinated by the Joint Research Centre in cooperation with ECHO, DG Climate Action, DG Environment, DG Research and Innovation, and DG Migration and Home Affairs.

c. The remit of the SAM is to provide science advice to the European Commission. By what mechanisms do the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union receive science advice?

Our understanding is that the European Parliament has a number of formal structures which enable Members, committees and other bodies to benefit from scientific advice. These include the Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel (STOA)[5]. Parliamentary committees may also obtain scientific evidence from the Policy Departments, within the Directorates-General of committee secretariats for Internal and External Policies, and individual MEPs may request briefings from the Members Research Service[6].

There is at present no formal structure which provides scientific advice to the Council of the European Union. However, in many Member States the Academies and Learned Societies play an important role in advising governments and the SAM will also engage these bodies. The Commission has also invited Member States to nominate scientific advisors (or structures) to facilitate interactions with Member State science advice.

4.              How does the Joint Research Centre fit into the EU landscape for science, research and innovation? How does this Centre link with science advice and evidence-based policy making within the EU?

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has a mission “to support EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle”. It does this through a diversity of science and research-based activities to support and advise fellow policy departments in the Commission in areas like environment, energy, transport, finance, health, security, agriculture and food. The JRC also fulfils the Commission’s research and training obligations in nuclear energy safety and security stemming from the Euratom Treaty. As a Directorate-General of the European Commission the JRC not only provides input to policy development but is also formally consulted on policy proposals before they are submitted to the College of European Commissioners. A Panel of independent experts under the Chairmanship of the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham, recently carried out an in-depth evaluation of the JRC activities over the past few years and its findings are available in the evaluation report of the JRC activities.[7]

Practical arrangements are being in put in place to ensure strong complementarities between the independent advice from the SAM and the in-house expertise of the Joint Research Centre. To support this aim, a number of staff have been seconded into the SAM Secretariat.

a. How were the locations of the seven JRC institutes chosen?

The establishments of the JRC are spread over five countries at six geographic locations: Brussels and Geel in Belgium; Ispra in Italy; Karlsruhe in Germany; Petten in the Netherlands; Seville in Spain. These sites were mainly decided following the signature of the Euratom Treaty in March 1957, when four of the founder Members of the European Community for Atomic Energy (Euratom) (namely, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands) offered sites for the location of the "Joint Nuclear Research Centre", established by the Euratom Treaty.

As a result, the Ispra site in Italy was inaugurated in 1959; the Geel site in Belgium was inaugurated in 1960; the Petten site in the Netherlands was established in 1962; and the Karlsruhe site in Germany was inaugurated in 1965. The Seville site in Spain was established in 1994 following a Research Council decision to reinforce cooperation in the research domain with the countries of the Mediterranean basin. Some of the JRC strategic and administrative units are located together with the majority of the other European Commission departments in Brussels.

Over time the organisation and scientific focus of the JRC Institutes have been adapted to the needs of its partners. The current organisation comprises seven Institutes with most of them located in more than one site: Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (Geel, Belgium); Institute for Transuranium Elements (Karlsruhe and Ispra); Institute for Energy and Transport (Petten and Ispra); Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (Ispra); Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Ispra); Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (Ispra); Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Seville and Brussels).

b. Do these remain the optimum locations for the institutes?

The locations of the institutes are fixed in Site agreements concluded by the European Commission to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the Euratom Treaty "to establish a Joint Nuclear Research Centre" signed in 1958. The first Site agreement was signed with the Italian government in July 1959, which entered into force in 1960. Immediately after that, land and facilities long-lease agreements with the German nuclear research entity in Karlsruhe were concluded in 1960, followed by an agreement with the Land Baden-Württemberg and an exchange of letters with the German Federal Government in 1963. A land and facilities long-lease agreement was concluded with Belgian SCK-CEN in 1961 (not followed by an agreement with the Belgian Government) and a Site agreement with the Dutch Government in 1961 (followed by a long-lease agreement with a Dutch nuclear research organisation in Petten). As for the Seville Site, this involves only a Site agreement concluded in 1994 that places administrative building at the disposal of the JRC (no facilities, nuclear or conventional, are involved). The hosting founder Member States also established an educational infrastructure with European Schools at these sites.

Breaking up these host agreements, or moving large scale research laboratories, including nuclear facilities from one site to another, would have many negative side effects from political, technical, social and economic points of view. It should also be noted that for nuclear facilities phasing out would require decommissioning which is a long-term and costly process.

It should be also emphasised that the different geographical locations of the JRC are not an obstacle to the normal day-to-day functioning of the organisation, or to effective cooperation between colleagues, as the advanced information and communication platforms allow for this.

c. Is the network likely to be expanded or modified?

The Commission has no plans to expand the network. Nor does it intend to change the current geographical locations of the JRC as explained above due to existing long-term agreements with the hosting Member States as well as because of the large scale research infrastructures on most of the sites that are difficult to move or decommission. The Commission however has the right to change the organisational structure of the JRC if necessary for the organisation of the work in order to guarantee the best possible science-based evidence throughout the whole policy cycle.

In addition to the physical networks described above, the JRC has established large and very flexible virtual partnership networks with around 1000 partners across the EU and globally. This allows the JRC when needed to be able to mobilise competence and knowledge without expanding its own organisation.

Question 5.               What percentage of EU investment in scientific research infrastructures goes to facilities based in the UK?

a. How does this compare with other Member States? [8]

In overall terms, taking infrastructure in the broadest sense to mean the research system as a whole, the UK has been one of the leading recipients of funding under both the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and Horizon 2020. For FP7 (2007-13), among the EU-28 Member States in all FP7 signed grant agreements, the UK ranks 2nd in terms of budget share, with a total EC contribution of just over € 7 billion. For Horizon 2020 (2014-20), current statistics show that the UK has received just over €1.4 billion, which also puts the UK in 2nd place in terms of budget share.

Under the narrower understanding of the term research infrastructures, Horizon 2020 does not invest in research facilities per se. The scope of the research infrastructures part of the programme is to facilitate the development of world-class research infrastructures in Europe, to integrate and open national research infrastructures, to foster the innovation potential of the infrastructures and their human resources, and to reinforce European policy and international cooperation through synergies by setting up partnerships between relevant policy makers, funding bodies or advisory groups. In the FP7 Research Infrastructures calls (the part of the programme set aside specifically to support research infrastructures), funded projects included 146 different UK participants, with 629 total participations, which represented around 11.9% of total participation. The related EU contribution, €272.7 million represented approximately 17.8% of the overall budget allocated to research infrastructures. Regarding Horizon 2020 calls for Research Infrastructures, the funded projects include, so far, a participation of 78 different legal entities from the UK, which constitutes 174 participations in total. In terms of budget, this amounts to €66.7 million, representing approximately 12.1% of the total budget allocated to these calls.

It should be noted that the data on Horizon 2020 does not include the GEANT specific agreements (SGA), in which DANTE (established in the UK) plays a major role. The data on UK participation in FP7 and Horizon 2020 do not include either the significant participation of EMBL-EBI (European Bioinformatics Institute, outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory), which is located in the UK but whose headquarters are in Germany.

It should also be noted that the UK is coordinating the European Social Survey, one of the first European research infrastructure consortia (ERIC), which is a legal structure established by a decision of the European Commission to facilitate the joint establishment and operation of research infrastructures of pan-European interest.

b. Does that distribution of investment reflect the relative size and strength of science in Member States?

There is in general a good correlation between what the Member States invest in science at the national level and the funding received from the framework programme.

For the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), UK grant holders received approximately 17.2% of the total EU contribution to grant holders (in the EU 28 Member States). This compares to a UK share of 12.4% of total R&D expenditure in the EU in 2013.

Question 6.               We have repeatedly heard from the UK science community that EU level support for innovation is welcome and serves to complement that available in the UK. Could you describe future plans in this area, including the development of the European Innovation Council?

The first priority of the President Juncker Commission is boosting jobs, growth and investment. Research and innovation are also critical to other priorities, such as the Digital Single Market, Energy Union and Climate Action.

Commissioner Moedas has launched a debate about a possible European Innovation Council, including a public 'call for ideas' that will remain open until 29 April 2016[9]. The results of this debate will be taken into account in the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 which will be completed before the end of 2017 and which may make recommendations for the remaining period of implementation of Horizon 2020.

Question 7.               How does scientific evidence inform the development of EU regulatory frameworks?

a. At what stages and by what processes is scientific evidence and advice taken into account in the development of regulations?

Scientific evidence and advice are taken into account in the development of regulations at the impact assessment stage. The European Commission ex-ante Impact Assessment system is unique in the world. Before the Commission proposes a new initiative it assesses the potential economic, social and environmental consequences in an impact assessment. Impact assessments prepare evidence (including results from evaluations) for political decision-makers on the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options by assessing their potential impacts and assess whether future legislative EU action is justified and how such action can best be designed to achieve desired policy objectives. The Commission's Joint Research Centre contributes strongly to the implementation of Better Regulation.

Aside from this, and at an earlier stage in the policy and legislative development processes, scientific advice provided by SAM may guide the early stages of these processes, but it is not a formal part of the Impact Assessment process.

b. Do you evaluate the effectiveness of scientific advice in the creation of regulatory frameworks?

Better regulation is about designing EU policies and laws so that they achieve their objectives in the most efficient and effective way. It ensures that policy is prepared, implemented and reviewed in an open, transparent manner, informed by the best available evidence and backed up by involving stakeholders. To ensure that EU action is effective, the Commission assesses the expected and actual impacts of policies, legislation and other important measures at every stage of the policy cycle – from planning to implementation, to review and subsequent revision. The Better Regulation package has established the ‘evaluate first’ principle, which means that before proposing new regulatory frameworks, the Commission first evaluates existing ones. Moreover any proposal for a new regulatory framework is accompanied by an ex-ante impact assessment which ensures evidence-based policy making, taking into account state of the art scientific evidence.

The Commission's Joint Research Centre performs an annual evaluation of the impact of its policy support work.[10] On the basis of a comprehensive set of criteria, it determines where its policy support became part or even the basis of European policy-making and implementation. In 2014, there were nearly 340 policy impacts across many policy areas.[11] This represents an increasing trend since 2010.

4 March 2016

1