The Lisbon strategy: will it succeed?

Conclusions:

1. On the Lisbon agenda
   There was broad agreement amongst participants that while Europe has progressed relatively little on its way to Lisbon, the Lisbon agenda has not lost any of its relevance. Rather, questions are being raised about the implementation and execution of the agenda. Furthermore, this relates less to initiatives at the level of the Commission, than at the level of national states where performance with respect to knowledge investments has been very different as between individual member countries. Participants strongly endorsed the Commission’s plan to make of the Lisbon agenda the priority in the next financial perspectives.
   
   
2. On the human factor
   The human capital factor is the hidden mirror side of the Lisbon and Barcelona targets with respect to research, development and innovation expenditures (the so-called 3% norm). Both business leaders from some of the largest European companies as well as leading academics confirmed the findings of the high level expert group on the human capital research needs in Europe (“Europe needs more scientists: EU blueprint for action”) on the many shortcomings that stand in the way of increasing the number of science professionals in Europe. The public research and university sector is significantly under-funded in Europe with the funding per researcher in Europe in the public sector amounting to half the comparable figure in the US. There is a need to adopt a common European policy for human resources in this area, based on mobility within Europe, strengthening the attractiveness of Science and Engineering studies (also to women), facilitating the easy and fast immigration of scientists and engineers from non-member countries, etc. Cohesion and competitiveness come together here.
   
   
3. On the complementarities between private and public knowledge investments
   Excellent knowledge generation requires a good match between public and private research infrastructures, including higher education. The discussion focused on both ways to improve the financing of fundamental research in Europe as well as ways in making Europe more attractive for private research and innovation. The foundation of a European Research Council seems from this perspective a particularly promising way to stimulate not only the generation of fundamental and applied knowledge in Europe by the best research teams through cross-border tendering but also an interesting instrument for improving the attractiveness of Europe for the location of private research and innovation. From this perspective there should be less concern and discussion about the concept of an ERC, its purpose and even its funding, which should be substantial and based on a redirection of EU funds away from the old defensive, low growth sectors/areas, but rather on the practical implementation with less bureaucracy and fast, transparent and easy rules of tendering and assessment. The European Commission is currently rapidly loosing its credit with both the scientific and business community because of such practical implementation problems. The experience with the 6th FP is somewhat disconcerting in this regard.
   
   
4. Improving Europe’s innovation climate
   The competitiveness of European industry is not just a function of its private research and innovation investments but will also strongly depend on the surrounding European “framework” conditions: efficacy of government institutions, simplicity, transparency and harmonisation of national rules and regulations, taxes, subsidies, access to and openness of public research and higher education establishments, and many other factors. It will be essential to match the various European research and technology policy instruments with industries’ needs and capacities to generate new knowledge and technology, and transforming this into new products and services. The so-called European Technology Platforms and SME-financing initiatives of the European Commission could be helpful in this process.
   

• European Technology Platforms
  Business leaders pointed to the possible relocation of private investments in research and development, to insufficient working time and weak productivity growth as major factors challenging Europe’s competitiveness with long term serious consequences for growth sustainability despite the EU having its macro-economic basics “right”. The purpose of the so-called European Technology Platforms bringing together those who use and exploit knowledge with those who finance it, and those who generate it, was welcomed.
  
  
• SME-financing
  SME's play clearly a particularly important role in the production, processing and translation of new knowledge into innovations. SME's have, however, difficulties in practice to participate in the EU Framework Programs, especially in the large, new instruments. For SME’s the distance from Brussels and the heavy bureaucratic costs of submitting proposals are having a negative impact on their active interest in such policies. The discussion will have to focus on alternative policies more appropriate for SMEs, involving less bureaucratic hassle and administrative burdens while at the same time maximizing the innovative capacities of SME's.