Pass Notes: the Innovation Union

‘Innovation Union’ has become a buzz word in the world of European funding recently, and it’s a key influence on the development of Horizon 2020.

I’d just got used to the European Union. What’s the ‘Innovation Union’ when it’s at home?

Oh do keep up. The Innovation Union was introduced in October 2010, and set out 34 commitments aimed at creating a supportive and stimulating environment for innovation.

And innovation is...?

Where have you been? Innovation is the universal panacea, the cure for all known evils, the magic pill that will save us from the Great Recession, and help us to leapfrog our competitors in a single bound.

No seriously.

It’s the development of ideas to the stage of commercial exploitation. But most funders do see it as the universal panacea, and all are keen to get on the innovation bandwagon.

Okay. Gotcha. So how will the Innovation Union encourage innovation?

It hopes to learn from those countries that have successfully embedded innovation. It was clear that success has been no accident there: they had strong strategies for innovation that were integrated across the board, in education, skills, regional development, standardisation, and tax policies. It was backed, steered and monitored at the highest levels. If Europe is serious about innovation, it’s got to do likewise.

Can’t imagine the UK is keen on being told to prioritise innovation by those pushy Brussels bureaucrats.

Au contraire. The British government sees innovation as the key to recovery, and wants to give it a bigger share of the depleted national budget.

Alright, so Europe has got to learn from its competitors. Then what?

Then, my dear friend, it implements the 34 commitments. For higher education these include:

• 1: Member states have to have strategies in place ‘to train enough researcher to meet national R&D targets and to promote attractive employment conditions in public research institutions.’
• 2: Better benchmarking, to produce evidence for business/academic collaborations, and development of new curricula.
• 4: ERA framework single market, including measures to remove obstacles to mobility and cross border cooperation.
• 9. The European Institute of Technology (EIT).
• 29. European Innovation Platforms (EIP), a new funding mechanism (or instrument) for meeting societal challenges, such as climate change and energy security. There’s currently a pilot ‘EIP on healthy ageing’, with a goal of adding an average of two healthy years to older EU citizens. There will be others, including ‘smart cities.
• 30. Attracting highly skilled third country nationals...

Zzzz...

Wake up!

Sorry, you lost me amidst all those acronyms and aspirations.

Well let me make it simple for you. Innovation is going to be a key to research at a European level, so if you want to get some European funding, you’d better start talking to business.

Do say: ‘innovate to accumulate’
Don’t say: ‘Innovate? I’m quite happy in my ivory tower, thank you.’

European Funding: What's on the Horizon?

Keith Sequeira, Policy Officer for the Framework Programme and Simplification Unit, gave an insight into the development of the future framework programme, Horizon 2020, in his keynote address to the UKRO Conference in Newcastle on Thursday.

This was an important time for Horizon 2020: the proposed budget had been announced last week, and the starting gun for negotiations had been fired. Horizon 2020 would combine elements of FP7, the Competitiveness & Innovation Programme (CIP), and the European Institute of Technology (EIT), as well as linking to relevant parts of regional and structural funds. An increase of 46% had been proposed (to €80bn), but Sequeira made it clear that, whilst this sounded like a large increase, it represented a steady increase on the funding levels reached at the end of FP7.

In terms of the content of Horizon 2020, there would be three broad ‘pillars’, with a fourth set of cross cutting priorities:

• Supporting excellence in science base: to face the imbalance with the USA, and the challenges from China, by attracting, developing and supporting world class research, through the continuation of such streams as the European Research Council (ERC), Future and Emerging Technologies (FET), Marie Curie Actions (MCA) and research infrastructures.
• Tackling societal challenges: identified as health, food security, secure and green energy, smart, green and integrated transport, raw materials and climate, and inclusive societies.
• Integrating innovation and links with business: including leveraging private finance.
• Cross cutting priorities: in particular simpler access and openness to newcomers.

Overall, Horizon 2020 aimed to integrate research and innovation, and meet the objectives of Europe2020 and the Innovation Union. The EC wanted to move away from prescriptive descriptions of tools and methods, and instead present the problem to be solved and leave it to individuals to decide best way to do so.

There was a strong appetite for simplification. But then, how many times have we heard that before? However, they do sound serious this time. Inter alia, they intended to introduce:

• a rationalised set of funding schemes and instruments;
• a single set of rules for eligibility, accounting, reporting and auditing;
• a simplified approach to cost reimbursement;
• a broader acceptance of usual accounting practice and greater use of lump sums and flat rates;
• shorter negotiation and selection phases;
• a unique IT portal, common support structures, and guidance which would build on EPSS of FP7;
• more use of external management of the programme, through such bodies as the Research Executive Agency (REA), which already runs the MCA.

The budget and structure would continue to be discussed in the final years of FP7, and UKRO would continue to inform the UK HE sector on developments.

The Future of Marie Curie after 2013

UKRO has been listening to Dr. Georges Bingen, Head of the Marie Curie Actions Unit, speak about the future of the Marie Curie actions. As some of you know, Marie Curie actions are fellowships intended to encourage movement of researchers in Europe. Whilst popular and successful, the actions have been criticised for being overly complex.

Dr Bingen suggested that, after 2013, they could be streamlined so that there were just three:

• one for early stage researchers (ESRs), which would be a development of the current Initial Training Networks (ITNs). Industrial participation would be crucial for this scheme.
  
• one for experienced researchers (ERs), which would possibly merge the three current Individual Fellowship schemes: the Intra-European Fellowships Scheme, the International Incoming Fellowships Scheme and the International Outgoing Fellowships scheme.
• and one for staff exchanges, which would be a single, more open integrated programme allowing for collaboration/exchanges across sectors and between countries inside and outside of the EU.

As with research funding more generally after 2013, Marie Curie will have to fit squarely within the vision of an 'Innovation Union'. Finally, there is likely to be a focus on ‘alumni services’: there have been 50,000 Marie Curie fellows since 1996, and there is currently no central database of all of them. Again, this is likely to be initiated in the 2012 People Work Programme.