As such, Research Media Ltd will be providing coverage of the events in its flagship International Innovation publication, detailing the key issues, objectives and outcomes, as well as featuring interviews with prominent members of the ESF. Furthermore, complimentary copies of International Innovation will be available at the events.

International Innovation is a unique publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology. It offers a bespoke service to researchers and leading scientific institutions who wish to highlight and share their latest work with those in the global research community, producing tailored articles and interviews to suit the needs of its clients.

Nick Brake, Director of Research Media Ltd, is enormously excited by the prospect of being an official media partner of all 2012 ESF events: “We are thrilled to announce our collaboration with the ESF at their upcoming events. The visibility that this will afford to the projects that we disseminate cannot be underestimated and we hope that our presence at the events will attract a wealth of new readers”.

The ESF is an independent, non-governmental organisation dedicated to pan-European scientific networking and collaboration and has played an essential role in mediating a multitude of heterogeneous research cultures and agencies. With a total budget of €61 million in 2010 and a projected economic impact in excess of €1 billion, it is a major driving force for advanced research in Europe.

To guarantee your FREE subscription to International Innovation and to ensure that you stay up to date with the latest ESF events, outcomes and interviews, please visit our dedicated subscriptions page at www.research-europe.com/subscribe.php.

Furthermore, for an overview of the ESF’s 2012 events, please see http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/2012-upcoming-events.html?year=2012.

The programme sessions will offer a forum to present and debate on the current state of gender equality within research and science organisations. Research Media Ltd Director Nick Brake expresses his delight to play a key role in the Summit: “Research Media Ltd is pleased to promote the first ever European Gender Summit by serving as official media partner. As one of the leading scientific dissemination services in Europe, we look forward to spreading awareness of the importance of including all individuals in the pursuit of more comprehensive research and innovation”.

Participants will have the opportunity to learn about the latest research on gender and innovation, learn how to implement solutions to gender-related issues within their work environment, and contribute their project to be included in a reference base to be showcased at the stakeholder exhibition. The discussions will culminate in a manifesto on policy development on gender for innovation called “Integrated Action on the Gender Dimension in Research.”

The European Gender Summit is supported by the European Commission through the Science and Society Programme (FP7). Key speakers include Director of the Joint Research Council and the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Dr Elke Anklam, and Chief Editor of the peer-reviewed journal PLos, Dr Virginia Barbour

Commissioner for Research, Innovation & Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn encourages the Summit’s dedication to gender equality saying: “Specific measures are needed to support women’s scientific careers, and to address gender factors in the research process, with a view to improving quality. The European Gender Summit will show how these issues can be tackled more effectively through collaboration between scientists, gender research scholars and policy makers”.

www.gender-summit.eu/

Research Media are pleased to announce that they will be an official partner for this year’s event, where we will be distributing free copies of International Innovation – our publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology.

Simon Jones, Director of Research Media states: “We at Research Media are thrilled to be an official partner of the European Innovation Summit 2011. Research clusters consisting of industry, SMEs and academia are essential for research, development and innovation, and we hope that the event will serve to highlight the most pressing and pertinent issues”.

This year’s event will be held from the 10-13 October, and will be split into two distinct parts: a summit in Brussels, for which President Jerzy Buzek has granted the patronage of the European Parliament, and a Ministerial Conference in Warsaw.

Organised by Knowledge4Innovation (K4I), a non-profit, independent multi-stakeholder platform with members from the European public, private and academic sectors, the event will adhere to the motto ‘Towards a European Innovation Ecosystem’. In Warsaw, the summit will focus on both adapting EU research and innovation policies in national and regional contexts, and increasing synergy between different policy areas. Furthermore, the Brussels-based activities will enable participants to examine the role of individuals –  and young talent in particular – in fostering innovation and addressing the challenges presented by funding.

In the past two years the event has proved to be a lynchpin in debates on the function, pitfalls and importance of supporting innovations, attracting some 2,000 innovation stakeholders and over 200 speakers, including the presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

This year’s event promises to be just as engaging, with the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek; European Commissioner for Innovation, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn; and the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, William Kennard, already confirmed as but a few of the high profile speakers at this year’s summit.

With hot debate surrounding future European policy and budgets for European innovation initiatives, this event affords a timely and open forum to discuss the most pertinent issues for all involved.

For further information, see the official website: www.knowledge4innovation.eu/EIS/SitePages/eis2011_home.aspx

What is your vision regarding the development of regional policy across the EU?

The debate on the future of European regional policy after the current funding period ends in 2013 is well underway. In the context of both the Europe 2020 Strategy – which sets out the sustainable economic development blueprint for the Union for the next decade – and the EU budget review, 2011 is in many ways a pivotal year for laying down the foundations for the future policy.

We are working hard on preparing a regional policy which is relevant and appropriate for the economic situation of today. The financial crisis has underlined the need for a strong development policy, supporting processes of structural adjustment across Europe and addressing key bottlenecks to growth. It has also shown that we need a policy that continues to invest in the competitiveness of all regions, as well as supporting development in those lagging behind.

However, to achieve this, and to increase the effectiveness of policy in the future, we must simplify the rules. Future funding should also be focused on a limited number of priorities, in line with the goals set by Europe 2020 Strategy. We need to explore new financing models to pool resources between the public and private sectors to maximise the impact of the policy. And we need to focus more on results. Evaluating the impact of this investment, learning what works and why it works, is critical to its success. Letting the public know what has actually been achieved with their taxpayers’ money is also a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

Can you summarise what ‘regional policy’ entails, and highlight issues which must be addressed in today’s European climate? Can you offer an insight into your strategies for addressing economic disparities in Europe?

Regional policy is the expression of the EU’s solidarity with its less-favoured regions and countries. It works through integrated programmes to support the sustainable development of the regions and the EU as a whole. More specifically, it works to bring out the best in every region, make all regions competitive, and create more and better jobs.

Of the EU’s 271 regions, one in four has a GDP of less than 75 per cent of the EU average. There are diverse reasons for this inequality, with many of the poorest regions suffering from longstanding hindrances such as geographical remoteness or the legacy of centrally planned economies. However, allowing these differences to continue unchecked could damage the EU’s overall dynamism and competitiveness. The EU is committed to ensuring that this doesn’t happen – which is why such a significant amount of the EU’s overall budget (around one third) is invested through regional policy.

Between 2007 and 2013, regional policy is worth 347 billion euros. It is not just about transferring wealth from well-off regions to poorer ones. The money is targeted towards economic growth and the creation of jobs, for example, by improving transport links to remote regions, boosting SMEs in disadvantaged areas, investing in a cleaner environment and improving education and skills.

What is the significance in developing tailored policies for distinct regions of the EU?

The regional diversity of the EU, in which regions have vastly different characteristics, opportunities and needs, requires us to go beyond one-size-fits-all policies. This is why we have developed an approach that gives regions the ability to design – and the means to deliver – policies that meet their needs. This is what regional policy provides through its place-based approach.

Consequently, European regional policy – that is, its instruments and programmes – are largely managed in a decentralised way by the national and regional governments concerned. Within a common framework set by the EU, Member States and regions select priority areas for European investments. Each programme is developed in a collective process involving authorities at European, national, regional and local levels, as well as social partners. This ensures that each partner has ownership of the programmes and that they are best adapted to the needs of each region.

Why might it be suggested that European regional policy is – or ought to be – at the heart of the EU’s efforts for economic recovery and long term prosperity under the EU 2020 Strategy?

As the European community’s largest source of investment in the real economy, the EU’s regional policy provides stable investment at local and regional levels. In this economic climate, the importance of this investment is clearer than ever, providing robust support for budgetary stability and public investment in the regions. Regional policy is at the heart of the EU’s efforts for exiting the crisis. The policy made a significant contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan. A series of measures have been taken to help simplify and speed up project implementation, and accelerate structural fund payments.

I am also convinced that we must ensure that the future regional policy is closely aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Europe 2020 headline targets cannot be achieved by policies formulated at EU or national level alone. Such an ambitious agenda can only succeed with strong national and regional participation and ownership on the ground. And regional policy has a vital role to play in providing incentives to foster adjustment to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. It can ensure that community action is translated into real development on the ground, mobilising a wide range of regional and local stakeholders.

What would you highlight as the most pressing challenges facing policy makers in the development of regional policy, and how is the Department addressing them?

The main challenge facing European regional policy is that despite recent trends towards convergence (our recent evaluation reports show how investment from the policy has had a clear impact to help reduce economic, social and environmental disparities), significant differences between European regions remain. These are not just measured in terms of levels of economic development. More developed regions are also more competitive – that is, more innovative, with a more skilled workforce and higher levels of employment, and better endowed with infrastructure and a higher quality of government.

The challenge facing European regional policy today is to find the right policy to be able to address these challenges. Drawing on lessons learnt from the current and previous programming periods, as well as discussions with a broad range of stakeholders, the fifth cohesion report will make a series of proposals for reforming the policy. The focus here will be on making the policy more effective and more results-driven to achieve a greater EU, value-added in line with the priorities of the Europe 2020 growth goals. We also need to strengthen the governance of the policy and involvement of partners, as well as simplify its delivery system.

Sceptics might suggest that so-called ‘red tape’ – that is, extensive legislation and regulation – hinders socioeconomic development at regional levels. How might you address such claims?

I am aware that regional policy tends to be perceived as difficult and complex to manage. I would like to make two points here. Firstly, rules are in place for good reason. Complex projects involving a lot of money have to respect many rules (eg. Environmental assessments, state aid rules, public procurement rules, documentation standards, etc.). The checks and balances are inplace to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent properly and correctly.

However, I do recognise that there is always scope for improvement. This is why we are always striving to strike the right balance between getting value for money, without imposing a regulatory burden that turns people off. We have actively been looking at ways to simplify delivery over recent years, a process given increasing urgency with the crisis. We adopted a number of initiatives aimed at simplifying management rules which should help to facilitate access to the funds and accelerate flows of investment at a time when public budgets are under pressure. In the fifth cohesion report, we will also examine a number of ideas for further simplifying and streamlining the delivery system.

To what extent does the Department facilitate interaction and dialogue with stakeholders, industrial leaders, national governmental bodies and SMEs in identifying key concerns and developing workable solutions to these issues? How significant is collaboration in this regard?

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy attaches much importance to the interaction with stakeholders and beneficiaries of regional policy. We have developed a highly constructive, ongoing dialogue with stakeholders looking at key concerns and developing workable solutions to issues around the implementation of the policy.

For example, we organise regular meetings examining ways in which we can simplify the implementation of the funds and reduce the administrative burden. We held a meeting in June 2010 on ‘Streamlining the implementation mechanism of the Structural Funds’, to which we invited representatives of beneficiaries of the funds from the following sectors and authorities: SMEs and businesses; local authorities and public institutions; and research institutions as recipients of funds.

This is just one example – other informal dialogues have been established with civil society organisations, socioeconomic partners, and management and audit authorities, amongst others. This partnership aspect is an area which we are keen to strengthen even further in the future reformed policy, post-2013.

In what ways are you working to develop and stimulate innovation and growth in areas which have emerging knowledge economies?

Under the regional structural funds, 86 billion euros – a quarter of the total budget – is targeted for research and innovation between 2007 and 2013. However, innovation performance and take-up of funds varies considerably across the EU-27 Member States. The Commission has recently brought forward a new Communication: ‘Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’, which sets out a raft of policy recommendations to tackle regional disparities and encourage higher levels of investment in innovation in the regions. Tabled on 6 October 2010 alongside the flagship EU ‘Innovation Union’, it calls for more effective use of EU regional funds to help boost innovation and meet the Europe 2020 goals on smart growth.

National and regional authorities are asked to design ‘smart specialisation strategies’ in cooperation with business, universities and research centres. These will help regions identify their best assets, focus on key priorities, increase cooperation with other regions, and identify bottlenecks to innovation. The aim is to concentrate resources on a limited number of priorities which are proven areas of comparative advantage, for instance, on clusters, existing sectors and cross-sectoral activities, eco-innovation, high value-added markets, or specific research areas.

To assist the regions in identifying their strengths and opportunities, the Commission will develop a ‘Smart Specialisation Platform’, bringing together expertise from universities, research centres, regional authorities and businesses.

Can you offer some tangible examples of the work which the department has facilitated or mobilised? What would you identify as its key achievements in recent years?

Evaluation reports published in April 2010 give a clear indication of the achievements of the policy. Regional policy has had a major impact on the European economy in recent years, reducing the economic gaps between different parts of the Union and promoting environmental and social development. It provides investment for modernisation, is a catalyst for change in all European regions and brings new business opportunities. We estimate that between 2000 and 2006, it helped to create 1.4 million new jobs, supported small firms and boosted research. It has offered valuable training opportunities to millions of women, young people, the vulnerable in society and the unemployed. It has modernised transport links, supporting the construction or improvement of thousands of kilometres of road and rail and the modernisation of ports and airports. It has also improved environmental conditions for millions of Europeans bringing the quality of drinking water and treatment of waste water up to EU standards.

In sum, the regional policy investment that Europe channels through the structural funds has made a huge difference to the lives of millions of citizens across the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy

Innovation has been a mainstay of the UK and Europe’s identity. With current global economic constraints in mind, how will you encourage innovative research during your term in office? Is it not seen as a risk to push the boundaries of science with so few resources available?

The biggest risk would be not to push the boundaries of science. We need science for society and our economy to progress – innovative research is a pre-requisite for moving from crisis to sustainable growth. I want to re-focus EU research policy on five ‘grand challenges’: climate change, energy, food security, health and our ageing population.

I see the need to simplify procedures so that we maximise the value for each euro spent. I also want to bring in more SMEs, and complete the European Research Area so that more researchers stay in and come to Europe.

Could you outline your Agenda for 2020? What are the most important aspects of this proposal and how will it differ from the current research strategy?

Research and Innovation have a crucial role in the EU’s overall Europe 2020 Strategy. They are right at the top of the political agenda, perhaps for the first time ever, creating an unprecedented opportunity. Working with colleagues, I will submit the EU’s first ever Research and Innovation Plan in September and it will be debated by EU leaders at the October EU summit. Before that an expert group reporting directly to me will start work on developing a comprehensive set of indicators to benchmark progress on research and innovation. The Commission is proposing to keep the target of three per cent of EU GDP to be invested in R&D, complemented by agreed national targets. We also intend for it to be much more robustly monitored, so that where progress is too slow, effective action can be taken.

When outlining your mandate you stated that you wanted to use your term to put Europe firmly on the path to a sustainable and successful future. What needs to be done to achieve this and is a sustainable Europe even an achievable prospect?

I think it is the duty of politicians to be optimistic – and though the challenges are huge, there is much to be optimistic about. Europe has gone through a terrible economic crisis and it is not over, but the right action was taken to tackle it. Europe has led the world in the effort to beat climate change and promote sustainable energy and although Copenhagen was disappointing I am confident there will be more progress. Of course, the research side is absolutely crucial in this – in particular areas like second generation biofuels, electric cars and clean skies. Furthermore the green and the economic agenda are a perfect fit – it is precisely by taking a world lead in green technologies that we can give our competitiveness a badly needed boost.

How do you propose to strengthen and build upon the current European Research Area? Which aspects of the ERA require a significant investment or change of ethos?

To transform research into genuine innovation and to strengthen the whole chain from research to retail, a close working relationship with other Commissioners, with Member States, with research institutions and with business will be necessary. At EU level we need patent reform. We also need to make better use of EU regional funding to support research and innovation and to make sure we are using every instrument we have to encourage private sector investment. This is where the funding gap lies – we have already almost achieved the one per cent of GDP target for public investment, but it is the two per cent private contribution which lags behind.

International and interdisciplinary collaboration is an essential part of 21st Century scientific research. How do you propose to encourage beneficial relationships and what is your stance on data and knowledge sharing between EU and non-EU nations? Would you like to see an increase in human and technological exchange between countries in the EU and their neighbours?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the globalised age is the increase not only in competition but also in collaboration. Researchers circulate with others from all over the world. No one country or region can tackle climate change alone and no one country can invest enough alone in developing areas like nuclear fusion – that is why for example we have the ITER project involving partners from across the globe. The EU’s Research Framework Programme already has a very strong international element. The U.S. is the non-EU country most represented in the projects we support. But, yes, I would like to develop our international networks even further. In particular I think we can do more to help developing countries – for example, we’ve just published some proposals on global health which include a strong research element.

Could you elaborate on the ‘Fifth Freedom’ concept? How will you ease its transition from proposition to reality?

The fifth freedom means the free circulation of knowledge, and of the people who create that knowledge, within Europe – and ultimately beyond. That requires world class research infrastructures, including new generations of electronic communication infrastructures. It requires excellent research institutions, engaged in effective public-private cooperation and partnerships.

Of course, this concept has been on the table for several years and a lot of progress has been made. Just to give a couple of examples, the previous Commission set up the European Research Council and the European Institute of Technology.

One key priority we need to progress with is achieving an adequate flow of competent researchers, with high levels of mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries. I have already had the opportunity to explain to a meeting of EU Employment Ministers what needs to be done to get rid of social security and pension obstacles, and I think we will achieve movement on that over the next couple of years.

The current FP7 funding initiative expires in 2013; how will FP8 differ from its predecessor and how much progress has been made on this?

Just as for previous Framework Programmes, there will be extensive consultation with stakeholders before the Commission brings forward its proposal to the Parliament and Council in late 2011 or early 2012. This consultation is likely to begin in early 2011. So it’s too early to say in detail how it will differ from FP7, though we do know two things already. Firstly, we need to focus on those grand challenges I mentioned previously, and secondly we want to simplify funding procedures already for the remainder of FP7 and then build on that in FP8.

Important lessons for future research funding will also be drawn from the interim-evaluation of FP7, expected for October 2010. This evaluation is being carried out by an independent expert group and aims at a comprehensive analysis of the FP7’s rationale, design, implementation and impact.

Can the EU do more to offer support to scientists? Are there enough opportunities for post-graduates to gain experience in their chosen field?

I think there can never be enough opportunities! And support for scientists is about much more than just money – although obviously in a perfect world we would have much more of that, too! We need to get more young people and more women into science. At the risk of using a cliché, we need to make science sexier, and better communicate the benefits it brings to us all and the interesting professional opportunities it offers. We are talking about a cultural change.

Many international efforts, such as the recent Climate talks in Copenhagen, have failed due to differing political agendas. How will you avoid this conflict of interest and promote a unified research strategy?

I agree that Copenhagen was disappointing – from the Commission’s point of view, President Barroso made that very clear. I don’t think there is a conflict of interest, though – if there is one thing that is in the interest of everyone worldwide, it is tackling climate change! The problem is one of vision – I think Europe has that vision but not everyone else shares it.

As far as research and innovation are concerned, there is definitely a shared vision within and beyond Europe – everyone agrees that only more investment in these areas can turn our economies round in a sustainable way. Of course, we will need to negotiate on priorities and on detail, but I think we have an unprecedented opportunity.

Are there any areas of European innovation that particularly excite you? For example, can Europe adopt a position at the forefront of renewable and alternative energies in the battle against climate change?

Yes, I think Europe is very well placed to lead on renewables – for example, in recent weeks I have visited both Solucar, a solar power platform near Seville in Spain, and the Marine Institute near my own home city of Galway in Ireland. Solucar has received well over €50 million in EU research funding through the Risk-Sharing Finance facility and through project funding. The Marine Institute is coordinating Irish involvement in 43 FP7 marine research projects worth €18 million to Irish researchers and €182 million overall.

In those places, I have seen cutting edge research and innovation in renewable and alternative energies and I know they are only two examples among many. Europe has plenty of wind, waves and sun and we have plenty of scope to produce second generation bio-fuels that do not compete with food production. Above all, we have a wealth of talented and highly motivated scientists and innovators in those areas. But I am equally enthusiastic about Europe’s research on new medicines, on green transport and on nanotechnology, just to name a few areas.

How do you foresee the challenges of European innovation and research evolving during your term? Will global circumstances such as the economic collapse and climate change require a highly adaptive and flexible approach?

I have said already that the economic crisis has been both a threat and an opportunity for our research agenda. It is crucial that governments and businesses keep up and even increase investment in research and innovation, because this is the type of investment that creates most growth and jobs in the medium-term.

I sincerely hope that the challenge evolves from moving out of crisis to consolidating full and sustainable recovery. But that depends on making the right political choices and on implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Certainly adaptability and flexibility will be essential. At EU level, we have already launched innovative public private partnerships, for example on clean skies and innovative medicines, and we want to launch more. We are also complementing the Research Framework Programme by working with Member States on Joint Programming, to improve the efficiency of the way national research funding is used and to avoid duplication.

© European Union, 2010

Jordi Curell, Director of Lifelong learning: higher education and international affairs, responsible for the Marie Curie Actions in DG Education and Culture, offers an illuminating account of the roles their various programmes play in attracting the brightest talents from across the research arena, and highlights the ways in which the different Actions offer personal and professional support to young researchers

Could you explain the motivating factors behind Marie Curie Actions? How would you describe its mission?

The Marie Curie Actions (MCAs) were created more than a decade ago as a series of programmes for the transnational mobility of researchers, and have evolved into actions aimed at structuring and strengthening human resources activities in Europe. This is achieved through attracting, training and retaining high ability researchers and exposing them to interdisciplinarity, inter-sectorial (public-private) experiences, and innovative science in an international and inter-cultural environment.

The MCAs also prepare researchers for the specific needs of creativity and innovation by insisting on the acquisition of transversal and transferable skills such as entrepreneurship, management of intellectual property rights, patenting, project management, languages, proposal writing and communication. Further, the mobility of researchers encourages the creation of centres of excellence around the EU which are able to attract researchers internationally. The schemes are designed to overcome the obstacles to mobility via, for instance, additional mobility and family allowances. The MCAs are characterised by their bottom-up approach, allowing the research community the possibility to apply to the various schemes, regardless of the topic.

Through the emphasis put on the training quality and the attractiveness of the researchers’ careers, the Marie Curie Actions contribute to achieving the ambitious goals that Europe has set itself in the area of Research & Innovation.

Could you highlight the difference between your host- and individual-driven actions, and give a brief overview of the range of actions you offer?

The key difference is that in an individual fellowship, a single researcher applies, with their own project, at a host institution of his/her choice. The researcher’s choice will normally be towards institutions (or companies) that have a high reputation in a particular scientific domain, so that he/she can employ their skills in the best possible context. These actions are open to the best researchers, regardless of whether they are from Europe. We can also send researchers to top institutions outside of Europe to learn and then bring that knowledge back into Europe.

In contrast, host-driven actions address research organisations (or networks of organisations) that propose to train cohorts of researchers and/or implement exchange programmes for researchers. These organisations will select directly the researchers they wish to recruit or to second in the framework of a network. There are host actions for Initial Training Networks (ITNs) to bring academia and industry together to set up a coherent and structured training programme in a specific discipline. The network advertises open positions and selects a cohort from the best candidates for the training programme. Technology and knowledge transfer actions – including Industry–Academia Partnerships and Pathways for exchanges between industry and academia, as well as International Research Staff Exchange Scheme for exchanges between Europe and the rest of the world – are also implemented through host-driven actions.

In what ways do ITNs provide the means for research teams to collaborate? How flexible are these frameworks, and to what extent do you promote multidisciplinary research?

Partners in an ITN are first of all joining their potential to provide benchmarking training programmes for early stage researchers (mostly PhD level). They use their complementary resources (eg. specific techniques and knowledge from different scientific fields, or from the private and academic sectors) to provide state-of-the-art training, thus offering the best possibilities for beneficiary researchers to develop their careers. But ITNs are also networking in their scientific activities, involving the young researchers as part of their training, which allows them to benefit in terms of scientific collaborations. It goes without saying that multidisciplinary research, along with cross-sector collaborations, are important elements of these networks.

What strategies are you employing to involve less-favoured regions of the EU, as well as Associated and Candidate EU states?

Marie Curie Actions are bottom-up and have neither scientific nor geographic priorities. Selection is based purely on excellence and the potential of the participants and beneficiary researchers. Less favoured regions, Associated and Candidate EU countries are encouraged to participate under that competitive basis. To provide the maximum amount of information for each country, we support an extensive network of National Contact Points and in those regions where awareness is lower than elsewhere, within the network we encourage cross-region training and experience sharing. This way, applications from proposers will improve and become more successful.

How are you facilitating the transfer of knowledge through your fellowships? What organisations do you target to develop new areas of competence?

All Marie Curie Actions contribute to knowledge transfer. Some of them, such as the Industry-Academia Partnerships or the International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, are actions where the entire rationale is based around the circulation of knowledge by the balanced participation of researchers from different countries or sectors, thus generating or enhancing research networks.

Marie Curie training actions also include a huge potential for transfer of knowledge. For example, individual fellowships – typically two year post-docs in another country – allow the researchers to stay in contact after the fellowship and thus build a network of connections which will serve them in their later careers. These professional contacts are essential to the mobility of researchers.

Can you shed light on the importance of the conferences and training courses initiated by Marie Curie Actions? What opportunities do they present for participants? More specifically, can you offer an insight into the developments which have stemmed from recent activities?

The transfer of knowledge through training courses and conferences is a major element of the Marie Curie Actions approach. They support the practical development of transferable skills in areas such as Intellectual Property Rights, where the European Patent Office organises training for the MCA as third party provider.

While conferences and training courses were a separate Marie Curie action in the previous Framework Programme (FP6), they are now included as built-in mechanisms in host-driven actions such as ITNs or Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP). The programme also organises, on a regular basis, major events for all Marie Curie fellows, such as the satellite conference through to the EuroScience Open Forum that took place in Turin in June 2010.

How is Marie Curie Actions attracting experienced or promising researchers from Third Countries to work and undertake research training in Europe and, conversely, how are you reinforcing the international dimension of the career of European researchers?

For most of Marie Curie Actions, researchers from all over the world are eligible for funding through ITNs, Individual Fellowships, Career Integration Grants, and Co-funding of regional, national and international programmes (COFUND).

The EU has opened these schemes to European and international researchers, with an expected increased budget over the next couple of years for all of them. The by-product of this openness and increased budget is that the actions attract attention from outside of the EU. Transfer of skills, knowledge and experience is thus promoted, and motivated researchers from all over the world are attracted. And when returning to their home countries, the connections with European researchers and research organisations often lead to ongoing collaborations, which are ultimately beneficial to European research.

Given your breadth of actions, what is your most successful initiative and why?

Marie Curie Actions cannot and should not be compared in terms of how successful they are. All actions serve different objectives: initial training of researchers in ITNs; advanced training for experienced researchers or transfer of knowledge towards Europe in Individual Fellowships; the enhancement of sustainable industry-academia collaborations in IAPP, the support for starting a permanent career as a researcher in Europe in Career Integration Grants, etc. Some actions are more specifically for individual researchers, because they require a certain level of experience and tailor-made solutions, while other actions mainly address organisations and companies.

Depending on the actions, there are varying numbers of applicants and, consequently, differences in success rates. The actions with the highest number of applicants are traditionally Individual Fellowships, which attract up to 5,000 candidates per year. However, ITNs have the lowest success rate due to the much higher cost of a network.

The message is that there is no ‘most successful Marie Curie action’, but that they are a coherent set of actions covering the areas that need to be developed in the context of human resources within the European research arena.

By what means are you linked to EURAXESS?

‘EURAXESS – Researchers in Motion’ is one of the specific support actions of the People Programme. It is an initiative to promote research careers and facilitate the mobility of researchers across Europe. It comprises a variety of services to help researchers find and secure their ideal research position, no matter where they are from. It provides them with a wealth of information on job and funding opportunities across Europe, personalised assistance to those moving to another European country or returning to Europe, as well as information on their rights and obligations. EURAXESS also provides interactive web services to European researchers working abroad in order to keep them linked among themselves and with Europe. All this with a single point of access: the EURAXESS portal (http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess).

What benefits are yielded by being a horizontal programme?

The main advantage of a specific programme that is open to almost all areas of scientific and technological research is the ability to give full support to the whole of FP7, in proportion to the demand. It also allows the EU to go beyond the areas covered in the framework programme, except nuclear (which is already covered by the EURATOM Treaty). While other programmes have set funding priorities for specific targeted issues (information technology, energy, ecological, etc.), Marie Curie Actions are bottom-up – that is, they are open to all scientific fields, with a selection process purely based on excellence.

In what direction do you hope to see Marie Curie Actions moving in the future? Are there any plans that you are currently outlining?

Discussions about the future development of Marie Curie Actions have started, but it is definitely premature to say what will come out of it. The Commission has presented its global EU 2020 Strategy, aiming inter alia at building an Innovation Union, and including initiatives such as ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘New Skills for New Jobs’ to boost employment. These initiatives need to be taken into account; at the same time, we need to consider the call for the simplification and streamlining of the Marie Curie Actions.

Is there any other area of Marie Curie Actions you would like to highlight?

An issue of importance relates to gender. Marie Curie applicants are c. 40 per cent female at the early career phase. This is consistently seen across calls, even if there are marked differences in scientific fields and actions. Awards are made on an equal basis, and indeed success rates for male and female researchers are similar, which we consider a very important achievement. As female researchers are, however, more likely to take a career break for family reasons, they often face problems re-entering research after this period. To counteract such discrimination, the Marie Curie Actions have recently launched a special panel – Career Restart – to help researchers get back into the loop. By judging them on their skills when they left research, we hope to avoid the bias faced when trying to return to a subject after an absence.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/

Firstly, could you explain your role within DG Research & Innovation?

The Directorate General for Research & Innovation is a very large DG comprising some 12 separate divisions (called directorates) and over 70 units and associated services. I am one of the three Deputy Director-Generals, and the three directorates under my direct responsibility deal with the ERA, research and innovation and international cooperation. In consequence, my portfolio is heavily policy orientated but it does include the management of a significant budget dedicated to research infrastructures, international cooperation, support for social sciences and humanities, science in society, regions of knowledge, research potential, coherent development of policies, and overseeing the support that we give to SMEs in the area of research and innovation.

One of my main current preoccupations is, of course, the implementation of Innovation Union (IU) initiative, which was launched last October as one of seven Europe 2020 flagship initiatives. The IU has 34 ambitious commitments aimed at boosting the EU’s innovation potential. A key theme is the need to ensure that the EU has a coherent single policy approach towards fostering innovation. So, while my Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, has the lead responsibility for research and innovation policy, she works very closely with her fellow Commissioners to ensure effective coordination. In practice, this means that some of the 34 IU commitments are being implemented by other DGs.

Do you think European policy as it currently stands supports research and innovation sufficiently?

No, but this is one of the fundamental messages of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth! The IU together with the other flagship initiatives will show the way forward – but will need commitment on all sides – including the commitment of EU Member States to reform their research and innovation systems. The good news is that heads of EU Member States and governments have endorsed the IU initiative at a European Council meeting earlier this year. This is a major step forward as it recognises that support for innovation is an economic policy instrument – a way of leading us out of the current financial crisis. At the end of this year, the Commission will publish its proposals for supporting research and innovation after the current support mechanisms come to an end in 2013. We will be proposing a single integrated funding programme – called Horizon 2020 – covering the whole range from basic and applied research to innovation in products and services. The idea is to put Europe’s best ideas to work for the continent.

In what areas might you suggest there is room for improvement where research infrastructures are concerned?

Let’s take for example the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). ESFRI has set out a roadmap, which was updated last year, identifying key large-scale infrastructures where Europe needs to pool effort. We have an IU commitment to implement 60 per cent of this ESFRI roadmap by 2015. That’s quite a lot, but I think we can do it.

Of course, the current financial crisis makes this much more difficult, and we have to look at the complete picture. The ESFRI roadmap is intended for the most important pan-European research infrastructures, but there are also national roadmaps that are making a contribution as well as many initiatives that are outside ESFRI but are still important nationally and regionally. So we have to make sure we can best coordinate our combined efforts in Europe to the greatest effect and this is not simply a question of funding.

Would you say there is a healthy level of Europe-wide scientific competition?

Yes and no. At the EU level the evaluation and selection procedure for project-proposals funded under the Framework Programmes depends on equality of treatment and transparency. Proposals are evaluated by the best experts drawn from across Europe and beyond. Each call for proposals has well defined objectives, the evaluation criteria are published, and the proposers are given a report on the outcome of the evaluation. In recent years, we have also put in place a redress procedure so that proposers can challenge any abnormalities in the way in which their proposals might have been evaluated. All in all, I am confident that this peer review system is among the best in the world and stimulates the highest level of open competition. For example, the evaluation procedure for proposals submitted to the European Research Council, which has an open bottom-up competition based solely on excellence, is so rigorous that some Member States decide to fund reserve-list projects themselves on the basis of the expert-evaluators’ assessment.

However, within Member States the situation is not so clear cut: some Member States have excellent peer review systems and competitive selection procedures; others do not, and funding may go to established researchers on the basis of their reputation rather than on the basis of the excellence of what they propose. This means less support for young innovative researchers or for inspirational researchers who do not conform to accepted dogma. I think that every Member State should have a national system which has a good component of open competitive funding based on international peer review. This is important because this leads to high quality research.

Do you think that the European public trusts the scientific and technological community?

Generally speaking, yes: our Eurobarometer surveys consistently show that Europeans are optimistic about science and technology. For example, last year’s survey showed that 75 per cent of Europeans agree or tend to agree that thanks to science and technology there will be more opportunities for future generations. This is a truly encouraging result.

There is more good news: Europeans want to be more involved in decisions about new technologies when social values are at stake. They also think that scientists should be better at communicating what they do and why it is important. It is clear that some scientists – especially the younger generation – are very good at explaining what they do in non-technical terms, but perhaps communication should become part of the formal training of researchers in universities.

Europeans also have a lot of trust in scientists. About three-quarters think that scientists are doing a good job. This is encouraging, but at the same time, there is some scepticism that scientists cannot always be trusted to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues – especially if they receive money from industry. We need to work on this. Trusted science cannot be confined to ivory towers: the public needs to be confident that technological development and innovation do not take place at the expense of trust or even health, safety, quality of life, societal or environmental concerns.

Indeed, by the end of 2013 we will have committed 330 million euros to research on science in society issues under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7); that is to say, understanding how science is shaping our modern societies and understanding how the needs of society should be reflected in the way that science is done. Topics such as scientific advice, access to information, and ethical issues are covered, as well as work on public participation in debates, and promoting the role of women in science and promoting scientific culture and education, especially among children and young people on whom we depend for the future.

What work in the field of joint programming are you involved with?

This is a Member State-led process but the Commission plays a crucial role in making sure that the process remains on track. In practice, the participating Member States develop a common vision (on a voluntary basis) on what they would like to do and what challenges they would like to tackle together in a specific area. Once this has been decided they set strategic research agendas together. The Commission’s role is to facilitate this process and ensure certain criteria are fulfilled. This is a learning process for all of us but it is important to tackle fragmentation of effort in Europe and this is the primary objective of joint programming initiatives.

Take nanotechnology, for example. In Europe, we are actually investing more money in nanotechnology research than the U.S., but do we get a better return on this investment? The answer is no: our share in nano-based patents and products is much lower than in the U.S.! Our efforts are too fragmented and we are not using our resources in the most effective way. By having a European-wide open competition for funding we would have the best people in each field receiving support. Joint Programming will allow us to pool resources in such a way that we get the best possible quality and impact from the resources we have in Europe.

How are the policies that you help to develop/facilitate in the ERA contributing to solving some of Europe’s challenges, such as our healthcare needs and the ageing population?

This can be done in different ways: through funding individual projects under the framework programme or strategically through research infrastructures, joint programming, or under the umbrella of the new European Innovation Partnerships (EIP). The EIP concept combines the different supply (research) and demand (eg. regulation, standardisation, public procurement) side measures. Indeed, the first EIP will tackle active and healthy ageing to give Europeans an extra two years of good quality life.

The Horizon 2020 programme that I mentioned earlier will address the key societal challenges that Europe is facing in the globalised world, including the need for better healthcare and mitigating the impact of our ageing populations.

How do you see the IU and ERA moving forward? It is already such a comprehensive system; what remains to be done?

We have a lot to do. We have to ensure that the IU will be implemented. We have made good progress since it was launched on October 6, 2010, but it is still early days. We are also preparing the ERA which is one of the IU’s 34 commitments. The aim is to consolidate and complete the ERA process by the end of 2014. The Commission will make a proposal on this during the course of 2012 to reduce the structural impediments that currently characterise the research landscape in Europe. We are in discussion with Member States, Associated Countries and various stakeholders to analyse the key obstacles that are hindering progress. We will be launching an open consultation on this topic starting in September. It will close two months later in November.

That notwithstanding, we still have to implement all the specific programmes running under the FP7!

Is there anything else you would like to discuss?

Well, clearly – but if I may reinforce a message that I have been trying to convey during this interview, it is that we must work together at all levels. The Commission itself has made remarkable progress over the course of recent years. Gone are the days when we were working in separate ‘silos’: one policy for this, one policy for that. The Europe 2020 Strategy and the changes that have occurred within the Commission have torn down barriers and we now have an integrated approach across all policy areas. We must tear down these policy domain-walls across Europe, fight vested interest, and act in the common good for the future of Europe.

Please note that the European Commission is not affiliated with this publication and the opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect its position or opinion.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/pauli.html

Firstly, could you describe and explain the role of DG Enterprise and Industry?

The role of DG Enterprise and Industry is to make business easier in Europe and to help companies, with a special focus on SMEs. We aim to provide good framework conditions to enable businesses to prosper and contribute to economic and social welfare. More specifically, our objectives are to strengthen Europe’s industrial base and promote the transition to a low-carbon economy; promote innovation as a means of generating new sources of growth and meeting societal needs; encouraging the creation and growth of SMEs and promoting a new entrepreneurial culture; ensuring an open internal market for goods; and supporting the European presence in space and the development of innovative technologies through space applications.

How does innovation policy relate to DG Enterprise and Industry and the Commission generally?

It is a cornerstone of our policy for SMEs, entrepreneurship and specific industry sectors, where the cross-cutting element is innovation. We are the co-authors of the Europe 2020 innovation strategy known as the Innovation Union. We have a good share of responsibility in devising and implementing the strategy together with colleagues in DG Research & Innovation and other Commission departments. It is important to address and underline the business aspect of innovation. We know from many surveys that we need cutting-edge research for new technologies as a basis for innovation. But we also know that almost half of European companies innovate without research. Because broadly understood, innovation represents fresh thinking which creates added value. It can involve the development of new business models and system solutions which do not require research. It can also just be the combination of existing knowledge in a new, smart way. To allow that the creativity and the new knowledge from research or existing knowledge combines in a smart way to create value on the market, you need the knowledge of the business and enterprise sector.

Could you explain the rationale of the Innovation Union and to what extent you are involved?

Under the Europe 2020 strategy, our growth and jobs strategy identified seven major actions such as industrial policy, poverty and inclusiveness, education, and mobility. One of these actions includes innovation. More specifically, it deals with the role innovation plays in the overall Commission policy, with our strategy providing very concrete measures on how to move ahead on the EU level, and how to involve Member States in the innovation system at the regional level. Innovation is a very powerful driver for growth and jobs and is becoming increasingly recognised. The world is changing fast – markets are global and regions compete globally. We need to define our place in the new global economy and the best way to do it is to use our brains, creativity and European strengths. Innovation is central to this. It is good that innovation is taking place everywhere. That is to say, I don’t find the fact that India and China, for instance, are investing and making fantastic progress a threat. However, we must ensure that our system remains competitive and continues to address global challenges. This will allow us to preserve our model of society.

In what way is the Commission using and developing innovation policy? What is the Commission’s strategic approach to innovation and structural reforms? How is it responding to the many challenges facing Europe?

The strategic approach has been defined thoroughly in the Innovation Union strategy. It is a policy paper prepared with an analysis of our past strengths and weaknesses, and proposes 34 actions which address the entire innovation system, from the knowledge base to the internal market for innovation, to regional and social aspects, through to pooling resources to find breakthroughs for innovation and international cooperation. It is clear in the academic sense that we need a systematic approach. Translating this into policy is a challenge, particularly given the multilevel governance – local, regional, national and European. Our approach is continually being discussed with Members States and the European Parliament. It also reached the level of Heads of States, the European Council. We seek to ensure that we have a common understanding, and now are looking to implement the actions and continuously monitor our progress so that we can address and correct weaknesses as necessary.

Could you discuss some of the general challenges facing Europe and enterprise in particular?

We are not out of the crisis yet and this is our immediate concern. Innovation cannot fix it straightaway; it is a medium-term investment and we cannot take any shortcuts. This is the background for our companies to remain on the market, remain competitive and provide good jobs. Economists know of the importance of competitiveness. That is only one part of the picture. We have added the rationale of societal challenges – global, common issues such as climate change, energy, poverty, and the ageing population in Europe.

I believe this development from competitiveness to include societal challenges is very important because it helps focusing on solutions within the entire value creation chain. The challenge-driven approach corresponds to a global trend.

Do you still think innovation policy needs to be developed? Is it innovative enough?

I think innovation policy always needs to be developed and we are now at a very fresh phase. Our strategy is not even a year old, and we will have our first stock taken at the end of this year. We will do this annually at an innovation convention to bring together companies, academics, researchers, policy makers, citizens and media to see where we stand and how to continue. However, we are not in a phase where we need to develop a new strategy; we just have to make it more relevant.

I don’t think you can ever be innovative enough. You need to bring in change agents who always challenge and foster creativity. The good thing about innovation is that it is a term which has a very positive connotation. There was a survey recently and 89 per cent of the respondents associated ‘hope’ with the word innovation. Innovation is our capacity to design the future we aspire to. You cannot be innovative enough.

Could you discuss some of the deliverables of innovation policy?

The first big delivery is to strengthen the knowledge base in Europe. There is no shortcut for this – we need good skills and creativity, excellent research, and to increase funding and mobility. The other deliverables are concerned with the internal market for innovation. Take the European patent. Because of the absence of one patent for Europe, our costs for protecting inventions are up to 20 times higher than in the U.S. The patent is not the only example. It is about overcoming the fragmentation of venture capital. We have many regional venture capital funds, but they are not strong enough. If they want to invest and be active in another Member State, they need another certification. Or public procurement. Almost 19 per cent of our GDP is spent on public procurement. Practically no money is spent on innovation because during the procurement process we want transparency, openness and competition and that is already difficult enough so the procurers don’t have the incentive to take risks. We have tried in the past to make procurement truly innovative, but we have not succeeded. We are now trying to test financial incentives by bringing procurers together and funding them if they are willing to take risks and be innovative. This could be extremely important for innovation.

Could you outline where you have been successful in facilitating innovative ideas, and the subsequent products and jobs that innovation policy leads to?

We have the Enterprise Europe Network, which is the largest innovation network in the world. They have plenty of success stories where they have facilitated innovative ideas to reach the market. In one Member State, for example, a company has produced environmentally-friendly paint. This product is environmentally friendly, but it has a small market. With the EEN, they are connected to more buyers and as a result, the product is taking off.

Collaboration has long been recognised as an integral aspect of successful research; it is vital in mitigating the duplication of studies, and enables teams to capitalise on the assets of the best individuals, resources and facilities. To what extent do your policies support this? Does the future of innovation depend of collaboration and interdisciplinary research?

This is a question of balance in the end. Our vision is that we have too much research duplication in Europe. You need competition and some duplication, but I think we can benefit from streamlining our research. You need an element of strong individual research independent of collaboration. However, there are disciplines – in physics for example — where there is much collaboration and cooperation among scientists, and then there are disciplines where there is less. As part of the Union’s research funding programme, we have 15 per cent of the overall budget dedicated to this groundbreaking research in which our funding conditions do not include collaboration, which is quite revolutionary. We introduced this idea in 2007 and it is known as the European Research Council. Nevertheless, the majority of our funding programme for research encourages collaboration. It is important to connect different Member States, particularly for marketing the research afterwards.

What are some the Commission’s future plans regarding innovation policy and when will these be initiated?

In the economic reform programmes for each Member State we will put innovation on the agenda and assess what is taking place. During the European Summit of the Heads of State, leaders agreed to assess together how these national reform programmes play overall. We have a very good basis and in the future it is up to us to make the strategy happen.

Are there any other aspects of your work or what we have discussed that you would like to mention?

Innovation is a strong trend everywhere. It is happening in the U.S. State Department, it is happening in India where they have declared a ‘Decade of Innovation’. Imagine how fast the market will grow if the development in Indian cities expands to the rural areas. So, there is a global trend and it relates to the overall global challenges. This is an aspect of international cooperation for innovation which is in the beginning. There are some people who drive this innovation and by bringing international innovators together we can see how they can better interact.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/index_en.htm

Few events in the European Commission’s calendar are as eagerly anticipated as EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW), and this year’s schedule goes some way in justifying why. Running from 11-15 April, this year’s event features a programme packed with an array of high-level debates, conferences and exhibitions, and will bring together industry representatives, scientists and decision makers from across the EU. As such, EUSEW 2011 offers an unrivalled opportunity for networking and dialogue between various stakeholders, scientists and governmental bodies.

As in previous years, EUSEW will showcase the latest technological and research-based innovations in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology. Accompanying this, there will be a series of fora and discussions led by high-profile figures from within the Commission and Parliament, which will shed light on the EU’s existing policy and its drive towards achieving the EU 2020 energy goals. Among these is a call for the EU to harness 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources; and, given a recent report from the European Wind Association suggesting that the EU is presently on track to meet its renewables target, EUSEW 2011 promises to demonstrate how such progress has been made, while ensuring that focus is maintained in the long term.

One particular highlight of EUSEW is the annual Sustainable Energy Europe Awards ceremony, which recognises and rewards the most innovative, exciting initiatives of the past twelve months that have promoted renewable energy and/or energy efficiency. Last year, almost 300 project teams entered the competition, five of which were duly granted awards for pioneering work. This year, a panel of technical experts will draw up a shortlist of the 30 stand-out projects of the last year; awards will then be presented in the six following categories: Communicating, Travelling, Producing, Consuming, Living, and Learning. The prestigious awards ceremony takes place on 12 April.

Fittingly, EUSEW – the keynote event of the Sustainable Energy Europe campaign – takes place this year in Brussels, home not only to the Commission’s headquarters, but Renewable Energy House also. The building, which houses the offices of a range of energy associations – including the European Renewable Energy Council – is an emblem of sustainability and a testament to the organisations it accommodates: the 140 year old edifice was the first in Brussels to be completely renovated in the name of energy efficiency, and today it proudly stands as a building supplied completely by renewable energy.

Yet EUSEW is by no means confined to the conference halls and assembly rooms of Brussels. Running parallel to those events listed, hundreds more have been organised throughout Europe with the aim of promoting, discussing and celebrating renewable energy and energy efficiency. Far from being exclusive events, anyone is welcome – indeed, encouraged – to organise and partake in their own Energy Day event. Schools, associations, companies and public authorities are just a few of the institutions that harness the opportunity to fly the flag for sustainability and raise awareness of the viability, cost-effectiveness and green credentials of renewable energy.

To find out more about events taking place in your town or region, or to discover further details on how to arrange your own event, visit the EUSEW website at http://www.eusew.eu/.

Can you provide a brief outline of why the Institute for Energy (IE) was formed and how the role of the Institute has changed since its inception?

It is clear that energy has been of growing concern for the European Commission over recent years. It was therefore necessary to create a centre which could provide scientific evidence for policy development in the area of Energy. The IE was created in 2002 out of the urgent necessity to produce an energy policy from the most recent, appropriate and consented scientific evidence in the various fields.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in Petten (NL) has significantly modified its responsibilities since it was created 50 years ago this year. JRC Petten was born as a nuclear research institute to study experiments on radiation fuels and materials. Later, as the Institute for Advanced Materials, we significantly contributed to the scientific community’s research in the materials area with a strong emphasis on energy and power applications.

The mission of the IE is ‘to provide support to Community policies related to both nuclear and non nuclear energy in order to ensure sustainable, safe, secure and efficient energy production, distribution and use’. Can you explain how the Institute achieves this practice?

We provide scientific support in the formulation, definition and implementation of different directives through constant contact with our partners in the Directorate Generals of the European Commission (DGs), such as DG Energy and DG MOVE. We also participate in all relevant aspects of daily life of the scientific community, such as participating in conferences and contributing to scientific journals. This enables us to develop expertise in existing and new areas.

In order to achieve our mission, we use all possible contacts, including dialogues with stakeholders, various networks, universities, research centres, and industry. This allows us to provide the Commission with in-house scientific expertise.

You chiefly provide policy support for the European Commission. Do you have other customers and what services do you provide for them?

We collaborate with many different national and international organisations, for example the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, or the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris. Furthermore, we work with researchers outside Europe, such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the U.S. or the Ching Hwa University in China.

Together we have developed mutually beneficial joint projects. We also engage in common competitive projects financed by our DG partners. Finally, we chair major international conference and have significant input to the associated scientific programmes.

The Institute is actively involved in research linked with the development of a low carbon society. Can you give some examples of how your activities are contributing towards achieving this ambition?

This is an area in which we have had huge success, particularly in the area of energy efficiency, which includes the development of green standards for buildings alongside the voluntary agreements to reduce consumption. I would also like to mention the work that we have done to minimise the environmental impact, and improve energy saving. This obviously includes transport with new advanced vehicles. Therefore, we contribute towards improved standards, and the development of a common market, helping countries to standardise new technologies which have not yet been fully harmonised. This is extremely important in the drive for innovation and creation of jobs.

The IE is also involved in nuclear safety and security (indeed, this was the initial focus of the JRC when it was founded in Ispra in 1959). What are the key issues you engage with currently in this area?

We are currently closely involved in the creation and management of the European Clearinghouse for Operational Experience Feedback (OEF), which was launched around a year ago. This comprises a panel of leading European scientists which addresses common nuclear safety issues together. The panel’s existence has proved to be particularly useful after the Fukushima disaster, as Europe will have a full risk assessment exercise in which the safety of all nuclear power plants will be reassessed. The OEF can thus contribute to the harmonisation of standards across Europe and the development of a common safety culture.

This harmonisation will also help in informing European citizens that the reactors across Europe do correspond to the correct safety standards. This is very important in my view.

Can you highlight any particularly notable recent successes by the Institute?

We have provided a very significant contribution to the hot political debate on biofuels through the publication of a very highly appreciated report on how to reach the 10 per cent target for biofuel use by 2020, and what is truly sustainable and what is not. This considered land use changes and secondary carbon emissions, which are important for understanding biofuel sustainability issues.

Another success is the management of the Strategic Energy Technology Plan Information System (SETIS), which is a very ambitious programme which pools together resources and knowledge to develop new technologies more efficiently and to assist in bringing them to market more rapidly. It is essential to bring more of these technologies and products to market, such as high voltage smart grids or biofuels, in order to meet the emissions targets set for 2020, or the full decarbonisation of the energy system by 2050.

In order to bring these clean and efficient energies to the technologies market, the decision makers must have access to the same scientific evidence upon which they can base their future programmes.

The IE manages the GreenLight and GreenBuilding Awards. Could you explain what the awards are and who they benefit?

Each year, the European Commission nominates winners, who are selected by a committee of scientists and have proven themselves to be forerunners in the implementation of Energy Efficiency measures which use the best available technologies and innovative design. We wanted to encourage both the private and public sectors to cut their emissions by using energy efficient technologies.

The awards offer visibility to the positive contributions these technologies can make and demonstrates to the recipients’ customers that they are committed to green technology. Recognition by the European Commission can but help. This year’s winners represented 14 countries and various sectors such as automotive, retail outlets, food industry. One of the many examples is the Delhaize supermarket chain (Belgium), which reduced its annual energy consumption for lighting across more than 130 supermarkets by a total of over 20,000 Megawatt hours (MWh), a 60 per cent reduction.

The IE also manages a series workshops and training sessions. Who are these designed to serve? How successful are they?

We currently have a programme which is aimed at training pre and post graduate students, which now represent a significant number of the institute colleagues – roughly 20 per cent. We feel that it is important to provide this kind of education to students who have just finished or are about to finish their university studies. We need to refocus the matter of these training opportunities every two or three years to address the most relevant topics, or those just emerging.

How does the IE disseminate its findings? Are any of the Institute’s findings subject to security restrictions or are all your results freely available?

As a part of the European Commission, we publish our framework programmes data through open conferences and in peer review journals. The only restrictions arise when we are involved in competitive projects, or when it is third-party work due sometimes to contractual conditions and intellectual property right agreements.

Does the IE have any interaction with the general public concerning its activities? If so, can you outline how this manifests itself?

Firstly, we publish in international journals and interact regularly with the media. Furthermore, we have regular open days– last week more than 10,000 people visited our laboratories based on our Ispra site (IT). So, we do have direct contact with the public through these open days, or via the media.

The JRC aims to become increasingly anticipatory in its role; offering a range of policy options for every research request they receive. How has this specifically improved/impacted upon the activities of the IE?

It does make an impact, because the JRC is becoming more and more active in providing science to support policy development as well as performing basic research. This is very important because you should remain competent, maintaining links to universities and research centres, while on the other side you should continuously monitor policy demand. Therefore, you need to be a source of high level scientific expertise and also aware of the policy developments and issues. Finding the balance is not always easy.

This is how we are changing the responsibility of our staff at the moment, enabling more rapid results for the creation or definition of new policies. However, we are maintaining our links with universities and research centres for our long-term research.

Are there any notable events on the horizon for the Institute?

We will be participating in a series of scientific events over the coming months. I will chair the sixth ‘International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting’ in Copenhagen on 24th May. Furthermore, we will participate in the European Biomass Conference in Berlin in June.

I would also like to mention again that this year is the 50th Anniversary of the Institute, so we will be celebrating that event, hopefully with many high level Commission colleagues, research partners and local and national dignitaries.

Are there any other aspects of the Institute’s work you would like to highlight?

We have over 30 different nationalities working together, which is a real added value and is very rare. It is a very special working environment in which everyone has their own culture and thus we can learn from each other, which is very unique and exciting. I think that the issues of energy and transport are going to become even more important over the coming decades, so it is essential that we develop our competence in such sensitive issues to provide the best possible support.

ie.jrc.ec.europa.eu