Brussels, 27/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - At the meeting of EU research ministers on Friday 27 September, nearly half of the EU's member states criticised the innovation indicator unveiled by the European Commission on 15 September (see EUROPE 10921), following a request from the European Summit. The criticism was expected given the balance sheet drawn up by the Commission - 20 member states are below the EU average. The member states in question have either not done enough or what they have done, they have done badly.
Innovation indicator. Before the ministers met in Brussels, it was unclear whether the innovation indicator would be submitted to the European Summit on 24 and 25 October. It is now clear that it won't be. Several ministers argued that the indicator did not in itself reflect the true level of innovation generated by public and private investment in research and development. It does not cover enough aspects (the Commission selected four - number of patents, number of jobs in innovative sectors and high growth sectors, and the weight of high technology as a share of the trade balance) and focussed too much on high technology. The Austrian and Belgian delegations were particularly critical. France commented that the indicator was weak. After the meeting, EU Research Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said: “We need to do further work, but it shows exactly where the different member states are and shows very clearly that the member states which invested serious money in R&D are the member states that have weathered the economic crises better.'
European Research Area (ERA). Geoghegan-Quinn presented ministers with the first progress report, unveiled a few days before (see EUROPE 10928), on implementation of a European Research Area (ERA), repeating the uncompromising statement that the ERA is far from existing, despite the looming 2014 deadline. The ministers simply raised issues that they feel are important for ERA, like ensuring better cooperation between academia and industry, adapting the education system to meet market needs, ensuring free access to science (projects funded by public money) and ensuring better circulation of data. Should legislation be introduced to speed things up? “My political instinct would have been to go for a legislative proposal, but I was convinced by the stakeholders, but particularly by the Member States that they would prefer to give a chance for EER to work with soften measures,” said Geoghegan-Quinn, adding: “Member States have a huge job of work to do and they need to do that quickly. I wouldn't rule out the legislative route. It won't happen in my time as commissioner, but I certainly would not rule out that for my successor.” Various ministers praised the Commission for deciding not to introduce new rules. (JK/transl.fl)