Opening up

Report of the thematic expert group: Opening up Public Funding

Description of the theme and its relevance

The Background
Sweden and Finland have already a very close collaboration in various fields of research and innovation-processes. This co-operation has been fruitful and constructive and in addition to past collaboration there is ongoing and planned collaboration. For example, in the field of research evaluation, there has been co-operation in peer review process of research grant applications. The ongoing evaluation on clinical research is the first in kind executed jointly by two different countries. Interactions across the Gulf and Bothnia, Microbes and Man and Wood Material Science are examples for topics in which Sweden and Finland have in jointly funded programmes. Funding agencies have good contacts and meet regularly.

The Challenge
The Universities in Sweden and Finland like other universities in Europe still underestimate the potential benefits of sharing knowledge with the economy and society, while industry has not developed sufficient absorption capacity to fully use the potential of university-based research. Consequently, the cross-fertilisation with the business community and with wider society remains difficult. With the challenges that are existing, living in the northern periphery of Europe and the world, requires changes in order to create the necessary conditions for modernising the university-system. Sweden and Finland have to become more competitive so that in a much better way can play our role in the knowledge based society envisaged under the Lisbon strategy.

The ERA Concept
In the Green Paper from the European Commission in April 2007 the core elements of the European Research Area (ERA) has been analysed and discussed. Some progress has been made since the concept was endorsed at the Lisbon European Council in 2000. But at the same time the EU Commission realise that there is still much further to go in order to build ERA particularly to overcome the fragmentation of research activities, programmes and policies across Europe. Reforms undertaken at the national level lack a true European perspective and transnational coherence. According to the Green Paper ERA should have the following features:

• An adequate flow of competent researchers with high levels of mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries.
• World-class research infra structures.
• Excellent research institutions, engaged in effective public-private cooperation and partnerships, forming the core of research and innovation clusters.
• Effective knowledge-sharing, notably between public research and industry, as well as with the public at large.
• Well-coordinated research programmes and priorities, including a significant volume of jointly-programmed public research investment at European level involving common priorities, coordinated implementation and joint evaluation; and
• A wide opening of the European Research Area to the world with special emphasis on neighbouring countries and a strong commitment to addressing global challenges with Europe´s partners.

The opportunities of the ERA
When it comes to the question of optimising research programmes and priorities the paper states that further progress could be made and take form of common principles for peer review, quality assurance and joint evaluation of European, national and regional programmes and agencies, which would help simplify and raise the efficiency and impact of research funding in Europe. “Could be the reciprocal opening of corresponding national and regional programmes to participants from other Member States, particularly in the case of investigator-driven research. This would enable researchers to apply for funds in another member State with the aim to enhance excellence everywhere and increase the efficiency of funding allocation to the best research in Europe, reinforcing the impact of the European Research Council”(Green Paper page 22)
 
The Green Paper has been widely discussed among all types of stakeholders during 2008 and the results will be further discussed and worked on at least for the next ten years. Most of the stakeholders recognise the need for better coordination of Member States´research programmes.

Opening up the programmes is more agreeable to respondents in the case of basic (74%) than applied research (66%). But there were also strong opinions expressed in favour of options of more “limited opening of programmes based on bilateral agreements” (page 87 in Results of Public Consultations). The respondents agreeing with the opening-up of either basic or applied research programmes consider “high-level” civil servants” and “EU Research ministers”as the best placed stakeholders to define transnational research issues.

1. Description of the theme and its relevance
   
The background above is a description why it is justified to propose that the Governments and Parliaments of Finland and Sweden jointly make a political decision this year in order to take lead in Europe in the process of further developing the ERA. This could be done through a closer collaboration for the implementation of the 8th FP-Programme but also strengthen our own competitiveness in Europe and in the World at large through a bilateral decision of a deeper collaboration aiming at opening up the funding agencies in Finland and Sweden for each others researchers. 

Deepening this collaboration further will benefit both countries and certainly give us a competitive advantage on the European level. Also joint actions outside Europe could be one more asset for both countries in our position in the knowledge based societies. Having a net-work of institutes or deeper research collaborations with researchers in countries such as China, India, Japan and Korea or in other prominent research and innovation countries would also be something striving for!

2. Goals and objectives

The vision should be to improve the competitiveness of Sweden and Finland in the international arena, both at European as well as at global level.

A deeper collaboration by Swedish and Finnish public funding agencies should be seen as a tool to achieve the vision. Funding agencies should aim at long-lasting and serious commitment. The process should gather all relevant public funding agencies from Sweden and Finland to explore means for deeper collaboration so that the ultimate goal is to find ways for opening up public funding.

The objective is that there is a flexible timetable which allows a feasible implementation plan. The goal is to proceed step-by-step so that within the next ten years high quality and relevant outcome can be demonstrated. Impact of this deeper collaboration should be measurable.  The process itself should be a learning process.  Benefits will be seen at various levels: research and innovation policy, institutional collaboration and individual contacts.

3. Proposed actions

The proposal is that a political decision will be taken this year at the joint Governmental Meeting in Tavastehus on the 14 of May to launch a process that aims at exploring possibilities how open up public funding on research and innovation both in Sweden and Finland.

The first step of this process is to set up a task force which should have members both from Swedish and Finnish public funding agencies: Vinnova, Swedish Research Council, Tekes and Academy of Finland plus other public funding agencies. Also representation from the corresponding ministries from both countries as well as business sector should be present in the task force work.

The agenda of the Swedish-Finnish task-force is to solve those open science and innovation policy questions that are related to the proposal. These include e.g. the objectives, timetable and roles of different actors. Defining the ultimate goal is the most important step in order to be able to study success of the programme in the future. The task-force will draft different stages of the process. It is obvious that the whole process needs to be implemented step-by-step.

When the task-force has accomplished its work, also an Implementation Committee and Evaluation Committee have to be set up. These Committees have also members from all participating funding agencies from both countries. Members representing business sector would desirable.

The Implementation Committee will make an implementation plan, including proposals concerning funding, instruments etc. Implementation, on the other hand, will include e.g. plans what kind of instruments are being used, whether there is any thematic areas and so on. Joint programming is one option for an instrument to fund a thematic area. The task-force will plan carefully different stages of the process.

The Evaluation Committee needs to plan issues related follow-up, evaluation and reporting.
Defining the ultimate goal is the most important step in order to be able to study success of the programme in the future.

The issues related to administration and running the programme in general should be taken care by a joint management group.