EP belegt hoorzitting over oprichting Europees Instituut voor Technologie (EIT)

At a hearing on the proposed European Institute of Technology, MEPs were generally much in favour of the proposed "Knowledge and Innovation Communities" but they expressed doubts about the legal and financial structure of the EIT project. They heard from experts from universities, research organisations and businesses about the objectives of the EIT and the problems that still need to be solved if it is to be a success.

"The EIT must give Europe's best universities, research centres and businesses an opportunity to come together", said Ján Figel, Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth. "Together we can make a difference," he told the hearing, jointly organised by the Industry and Culture Committees.

The EIT will have a two-level structure: a Governing Board which to choose universities, research centres and businesses that will then form a so-called "Knowledge and Innovation Community" (KIC). Each of these KICs will focus on a specific topic such as climate change or energy efficiency. Many participants thought that in order a special EIT diploma was necessary to guarantee its visibility around European and beyond and to attract the best researchers.

Innovation is "Europe's Achilles' heel"

Horst Soboll of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) underlined that especially when it comes to innovation Europe needs to make a bigger effort. "The EIT is a proxy for this innovation gap in Europe," he said, and urged the politicians to "stop the lip service and take action." Reino Paasilinna (PES, FI), the Industry Committee's rapporteur, agreed, saying "Innovation is the Achilles' heel of Europe". The EIT should therefore focus on improving the EU's innovation capacity "to renew Europe".

According to Willi Fuchs, President of the European Federation of Engineering Associations (FEANI), the EIT should also address the EU's "acute or foreseeable lack of engineers" by providing education and vocational training for them. "Only when we have enough excellent scientists and engineers can we successfully develop  innovative products and services," he said. Erich Hödl, Vice-President of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, said that "the concentration on a limited number of strategic innovation themes and the bundling of existing excellence into critical masses may convert the current brain drain to a brain gain and promote global economic competitiveness".

Kari Raivio of the League of European Research Universities (LERU) called the Commissions' analysis of the current situation "overly pessimistic" and too generalised. In fact, "the real difference between the two sides of the Atlantic", he said, "is the money". Where the USA spends over €300 billion a year on Research and development, European countries are lagging behind, led by Germany with €60 billion and France with €40 billion.

Funding is still a "black box"

The overall budget for the EIT is estimated at €2.367 billion Euros for the first six years from 2008 to 2013. As the EIT has not been provided for in the Financial Perspective for this period, the €308.7 million which it is proposed should be provided by the EU would have to be taken from the reserve. "The €308 million represent a minimum needed for the launch of a credible EIT", said Commissioner Figel. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE, DE) argued that the proposed financial structure still remains a "black box." He called on the Commission to "have the courage" to use surplus money, returned from the Member States to the Community budget at the end of last year, for innovation.

Nina Skottová (EPP-ED, CZ), the draftsperson of the Budget Committee, criticised the fact that €1.5 billion of the estimated overall amount was to come from other EU programmes such as the Seventh Framework Programme or regional and structural funds. She expressed "legal doubts" on this "duplicated financing" because the €1.25 billion taken from structural and regional funds used for an EU project would then not be available for any regional projects. Mr Hödl also feared that "the redirection of the existing EU-innovation instruments would at least partly destroy well established research and innovation activities and severely hamper the development of the European University system". In his view the private sector contribution should be increased considerably.

"In terms of funding - we will need innovation there as well", remarked Mr Paasilinna. The KICs would have to be able to attract money themselves. "We have to show more trust and allow people to do their job", said Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (EPP-ED, LU), the co-rapporteur of the Culture Committee.