Philippe Busquin in the front line. Within the European Parliament and the Commission alike, there is a tendency to consider that the Juncker compromise over the financial perspectives 2007-2013 was so devastating to the research sector that its rejection was actually a positive thing. In other words, the breakdown of last week's Summit was preferable to any result which would have compromised the commitment of the Union to future-orientated activities, and Tony Blair was quite right to call for the very structure of the European budget to be revised. Under the Juncker compromise, the "competitiveness for growth and employment" chapter effectively paid the largest sacrifice, being cut from 121.9 billion EUR for the entire period (under the Commission's proposal) to 72 billion.
The position of the Commission as a college was clearly outlined by its President on 15 June (see this column in bulletin 8970): the Commission could agree to the Juncker compromise, because it felt that the EU's priority was to agree on its "perspectives" and to send out a positive message to the general public, although it felt that the amount of money quoted was insufficient and voicing the hope that this would be increased during negotiations on the next research programme. Two Commissioners took position against this judgment. There was, therefore, a very clear majority in favour, and we should not expect official stances contradicting it, either at the level of the Commissioners or their services. In view of the MEPs, however, there is no "obligation for circumspection", and it comes as no surprise that Philippe Busquin, former Commissioner for Research and now rapporteur (together with Mr Buzek) on the new research programme, is the one who took position the most vigorously. Here is the main thrust of what he told the Brussels newspaper "Le Soir". According to his calculations, the provision for the new research programme would have been cut to 44.4 billion EUR, whereas when he himself was responsible for research, the Commission proposed 73 billion (this figure has become the overall allocation to the "competitiveness for growth and employment" chapter, which also covers the trans-European networks and education). In his opinion (our translation), " there is no good reason to agree to these financial perspectives. The under-funding of research will only accelerate the brain drain and slow down the capacity for innovation of European businesses. There is no way that 10,000 jobs for high-level researchers can be created every year". Whose fault is that? Mr Busquin does not hesitate to opine that "the Lisbon instruments are paying for the freezing of credits to the common agricultural policy. Chirac is the gravedigger of history: he gives the preference to policies of the past over policies of the future".
Research and agriculture, allies. I don't agree with the last part of Mr Busquin's reasoning. If agricultural activity and rural development are conditions for the safeguarding of nature and the territorial and equilibrium in Europe, and present a rampart against mushrooming urban sprawl, crime and violence (see this column yesterday), science and agriculture must be allies, not adversaries. If the objective of research, at the end of the day, is to improve standards of living and the future of humanity, economic competitiveness cannot be its only objective, but its objectives must also be to defend biodiversity, the climate, nature. The question is whether or not the Juncker compromise strangles the Lisbon Strategy. In an initial effort to get to the bottom of this issue, I was inundated by contradictory opinions. The views of Mr Busquin reflect, with a certain amount of excess, a first hypothesis. The second in no way challenges the importance and significance of research, and recognises that without any money, nothing is possible, but it has its doubts that injecting huge amounts of cash all of a sudden is absolutely vital. There is a risk of bankrolling companies which are already very rich and which do not need it, but which are more than happy to let the authorities pick up the tab for research. And if the money is there, then it gets spent: at the end of the budgetary year, the red tape gets slacker, because it doesn't like to leave any money unspent. I've heard of research centres (national ones, obviously) which spend 80% of their budget on their functioning costs, and of massive, ossified institutions. I've also heard about identical projects carried out in several Member States, with each institute jealously guarding its own results (and its own funding). Do I exaggerate? Without a doubt. But research is first and foremost a state of mind, the desire to discover, enthusiasm, and then the ability to control the results. For a few big projects, European funding is vital; in other cases, putting an end to duplication of effort and waste is a priority. The floor is open. (F.R.)