1) Introduction:
The simultaneous and historic unfolding of the Arab
Spring across the southern rim of the Mediterranean see and the acute economic
crisis on its northern shores, prompted the Euro-Mediterranean community, under
the leadership of the EC, to take stock of their collaboration, learn from
their experience and renew their cooperation for a mutually beneficial
partnership.
The Euro-Mediterranean Conference on Research and
Innovation is the venue chosen to initiate this new venture and collectively
conceive its agenda. In fact, Session 9,
for which this concept paper is written, is meant to dwell on the important
issues of research and innovation and was originally titled “Building
competence for Research and Innovation: Governance, human capital and research
infrastructure.” This session, along with its companion concept paper, are to
address the following three issues:
1.
Enhancing Research and Innovation policies in the
Mediterranean region (S&T Governance, institutional reforms…)
2.
Human resources, training and mobility including
Diaspora
3.
Research and innovation infrastructures
2) State of play:
“I want Europe to
emerge stronger from the economic and financial crisis.” Declared José M.
Barroso in the preface of Europe 2020 [1].
He added “It’s about more jobs and better lives …The
capability to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, to find the path
to create new jobs and to offer a sense of direction to our societies.”
He further recalled “The commission is proposing five
measurable EU targets for 2020 that will steer the process and be translated
into national targets: for employment; for research and innovation; for climate
change and energy; for education; and for combating poverty.”
Almost concurrently, the leaderless, and ideologiless,
Arab Spring, sprang from Tunisia, spreading quickly to the neighboring
countries and beyond inspiring, entre
autres, “Occupy Wall Street” [2] and echoing the same universal claims of
freedom and dignity and demanding further political participation, and
inclusive sustainable growth capable of providing jobs, and better lives.
These simultaneous unfolding events of the Arab Spring
across the southern shores of mare
nostrum, and the unprecedented crisis on its northern ones, behooves mare
mater nostra, as affectionately called by some [5], and its siblings to
rise to the challenge of this wake up call, and reconquer its centrality in this globalized world as the cradle of our future.
This common pressing and historic context that comes
to exacerbate the already recognized global challenges, such as climate change,
energy and water shortages, infectious diseases and food security to name a
few, calls on the EU and the Southern Mediterranean countries, to jointly set
ambitious goals for the Euro-Mediterranean region, and commit to
synergistically respond to the aspiration of their present and future generations,
through a new partnership paradigm, that goes beyond conventional cooperation.
As a matter of fact, the advanced Euro-Mediterranean
cooperation in the field of energy is most telling in this regard. Indeed, the
two sides of the Mediterranean are highly dependent on each other when it comes
to energy supply, and they will be more so during the gradual implementation of
the Mediterranean Solar Plan (MSP) by the Union for the Mediterranean
(UfM) as a strategic macro-regional renewable energy programme under the
Barcelona Process [9].
The implementation of this trans-national project will
require the full engagement of the UfM member countries, the European
Commission (EC), universities and research institutions, interested NGOs in the
Mediterranean space, as well as public and private financial institutions, and
the requisite difficult negotiations, and complex coordination crowned with the
fitting diplomacy.
The regional and the planetary importance of this
undertaking, due regards its guaranteed environmental benefits, sizable
economic impacts, multiple technological opportunities, and unprecedented
social benefits are well acknowledged. However, recognizing the required
collective efforts to efficiently implement, and swiftly bring to effective
production the different components of the MSP, behooves us to boldly rethink and thus restructure our cooperation
programs, and usher a collectively beneficial partnership paradigm capable of
realizing the aspirations of our people, and securing a peaceful and prosperous
common Euro-Mediterranean destiny.
“If we act together, then we can fight back and come
out of the crisis stronger. We have the tools and the new ambition. Now we need
to make it happen.” Concluded Barroso.
2.1) Policy
Framework:
The Euro-Mediterranean partnership, or the so called Barcelona
Process, was inaugurated in November 1995, and established a wide spectrum
of political, economic and social cooperation between the EU’s Member States
(MS) and the Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPC).
The Barcelona Process provided the two partners with a
unique and ambitious framework where they could endeavour together towards a
Mediterranean space of security, economic development and sociocultural
exchanges. This partnership was implemented through Association Agreements (AA)
between the EU and the MPC, and a dedicated assistance programme (MEDA) [3].
Several evaluations of this partnership agree that
“the Barcelona Process has missed its main objective: to respond to the hope of
reinforcing the Euro-Arab dialogue and overcoming the differences between north
and south of the basin … As a bureaucratic process it has not been a platform
for projects and dreams. The initial ambition has slowly faded away.” [4]
While most of the authors agree on the relative failure
of the Barcelona Process, they don’t concur on the nature of the underlying
causes. In fact, three distinct factors were proposed to explain the obvious
outcome: (i) financial, (ii) managerial and (iii) commercial.
The financial argument claims that not only the
allocated budget was below expectation, but a very low percentage of it, e.g.
less than 30% for MEDA I, was actually executed. In addition, only one project
targeting innovation (EUMEDIS) was funded for about 1% of the total budget [3].
The managerial hindrances expressed itself on both
sides. Underdeveloped administrative and bureaucratic capacities on the MPC
side, due regards the European cooperation requirements, and a frail
acculturation from the EU side [3].
The commercial dimension, i.e., the Free Trade Area,
occulted the fundamental premise of the construction of the Euro-Mediterranean
project, by denying to the Mediterranean space its Geo-political, Geo-economical and euro-strategic dimensions [5].
The enlargement of the EU and the ramping
globalization, along with the above diagnosis, prompted the emergence of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) since 2003, along with its European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). This new policy framework
constituted a marked quantitative and qualitative step in the North-South
Mediterranean cooperation, but fell short from incarnating the
above mentioned strategic dimension [5].
The summer of 2008 saw the Barcelona Process evolve
into the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). This initiative aims at
providing both shores of the Mediterranean
with a framework, a strategy and means of action, allowing them to apprehend
hand-in-hand the common challenges of globalization [5].
The unfolding of the Arab Spring impelled the EU to
recognize the importance of this historic event and acknowledge its lasting and
profound transformational consequences for the Euro-Mediterranean people, the
world and the EU in particular [6,7]. A new response to a changing
neighbourhood [7] and its companion communication [6], open the
possibilities towards a prospective project of a Euro-Mediterranean New Deal
[5], whose objectives, modus operandi and road map are advocated by the
Euro-Mediterranean community.
2.2) Institutional
Framework:
The Monitoring Committee (MoCo) was set up by the EC in the framework of the
Barcelona Process, to promote the development of a Euro-Mediterranean space for
Science and Technology by stimulating and monitoring RTD cooperation. To
achieve this goal, MoCo proposes, among others, action plans to extend the
European Research Area (ERA) to the whole region. It is composed of high-level
officials representing RTD Ministers from MS and MPC. It is co-chaired by a
representative of the country holding the presidency of the EU and a co-chair from
the Southern shores.
Since 2001, and during its 8th meeting in Stockholm, MoCo focused
its activities on two goals [3]: (a) Opening the ERA to the MPC, and (b)
Establishing links and synergies with the MEDA programme. Given that the MEDA
programme didn’t include RTD activities, the inaction of the latter goal
required the intervention of the Foreign Ministers, during their December 2003,
Naples conference, by strongly encouraging the insertion of an RTD component in
every priority sector. Moreover, “the Ministers underlined that Research and
Technology Development (RTD) is an important tool for the economic stability
and growth of all countries around the Mediterranean.
They agreed that the opening of the European Research Area to all Mediterranean
Partners can strengthen regional integration in the short term and can
contribute to sustainable growth, high-value-added job creation, and the
promotion of competitive economies in the region.”
The Cairo Declaration ambitiously titled “Towards a Euro-Mediterranean
Higher Education and Research Area,” is a inter-ministerial agreement signed in
June 2007 in
Cairo. As its
title indicates, it stipulates (i) creating a Euromed Higher Education System,
and working (ii) towards the creation of a Euromed Research Area.
The Euro-Mediterranean Charter for Enterprise [8] attempts to make of the
Euro-Mediterranean region a vast area of free trade and economic prosperity.
Among its actions one finds:
- Tailoring
universities curricula to the needs of innovative companies,
- Promoting
links between higher education, research and industry,
- Ensuring
the rapid development of knowledge-based services in MPC,
- Strengthening
MPC companies participation in national, European and international
technology programmes,
- Encouraging
MPC companies participation in international R&D projects,
2.3) Relevant programmes/projects/actions:
The EU-MPC S&T cooperation is covered by a
plethora of instruments. Among such instrument, we list the following:
- The Tempus, Erasmus
Mundus and Marie Curie programmes
- The Framework program,
- The Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework program (CIP)
- The Euro-Mediterranean Industrial
Cooperation program
- The ENPI Regional Indicative Program
for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
- The ENPI Cross-Border Cooperation
program (CBC)
- The Technical Assistance and
Information Exchange (TAIEX) program
- The Twinning Instrument
- The IncoNet Mediterranean Innovation
and Research Coordination Action (MIRA)
- The EUROMEDCONNECT project
- The Facility for Euro-Mediterranean
Investment and Partnership (FEMIP)
A quick look at the above list reveals important
information about the structure of the intended systemic nature of the EU-MPC
RTD cooperation. In fact, just the eleven components listed above span the
quasi totality of what might become a Regional Innovation System (RIS). Unfortunately,
many barriers prevented the emergence of a coherent research and innovation
dynamics capable of contributing even further to growth and thus more well
being. In this context, the following main three barriers are provided:
- The absence of a globally harmonizing
and coherent framework,
- The lack of “soft” use of knowledge,
and
- High-Tech/Public Organizations bias.
3) Definition of the main elements for a medium to
long term agenda of Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation in Research and Innovation:
3.1) From the “What?” to the “How?”
Now, the pressing and strategic Question is NOT as
much “What?” but rather and necessarily “How?” For, as well known and as
augmented above, plenty is being done and much money and energy are being spent
to achieve the collectively desired goals, but the willed outcomes and the
expected impacts are far from what is hoped-for! Is the framework experiencing
a systemic failure?
Nowadays, and more than
ever before, it is acknowledged that innovation contributes to the enhancement
of living standards. Furthermore, it is attested that the process of innovation
requires a viable “Innovation System” (IS). This system could be geographical
(supranational, national, sub-national) or technological. It is composed of all
subsystems that constitute its innovation capacity, such as firms, universities
and research centres, the educational system, the financial institutions,
regulatory bodies and others. It is important to note that the innovation
process is complex and is systemic in nature.
Europe 2020, and Horizon
2020, belong to the same lineage of more than a decade old Lisbon, and its companion knowledge-oriented
strategies (CEC 2000). In fact, the EC aimed and still aiming at closing
competitive gaps between Europe and the United
States and Japan by building an innovation
oriented strategy around the concept of a European Research area (ERA).
It is worth mentioning,
that among the main motivations behind the ERA concept is the coordination of
research and innovation policies with the complementary EU guidelines and
national ones. According to the EC, the ERA concept was and remains the
adequate means to (i) mobilize further funding, (ii) create appropriate
environments to stimulate research and exploit results, and (iii) consolidate
activities and pool resources.
3.2) Euro-Mediterranean Innovation Eco-System
(EMIES)
Innovation wasn’t included
in the Barcelona
process. However it is a priority in Europe 2020, Horizon 2020 and in A
Partnership for Democratic and Shared Prosperity with the Southern
Mediterranean. These strategies are meant to build the Innovation
Union with, among others their Southern neighbors, by learning from past
experiences, good practices within and outside of the EU, and providing remedies
to already identified hindrances.
Indeed, these strategies
propose “novel” measures to achieve better governance and simpler procedures,
further cooperation and more efficiency. As a matter of fact [6] claims that
“the regional situation demands that the positive elements of the Barcelona process, together with those of the Union for
the Mediterranean be integrated in a new
approach.” Moreover “…UfM needs to reform to fully realise its potential. It
needs to work more as a catalyst bringing States, International Financial
Institutions and the private sector together around concrete projects
generating jobs, innovation and growth that are badly needed in the region.
…The High Representative and the Commission are ready to play a bigger role in
the Union for the Mediterranean in line with
the Lisbon Treaty.”
To simultaneously respond
to the above aspirations and eliminate the identified barriers, it is proposed
to progressively restructure the cooperation framework between key Euro-Mediterranean
institutional actors, strategic projects along the lines of the EU flagship
initiatives, by progressively moving away from the ERA concept the Euro-Mediterranean
Innovation Eco-System (EMIES) one.
The key idea behind EMIES
is to map the Euro-Mediterranean innovation space in three types of innovation
sub-regions: (1) National Innovation Systems (NIS), (2) Regional networks of
NISs, resulting in Regional Innovation Systems (RIS), and (3) integration of
the different NIS/RISs into the EMIES.
A similar, albeit less
elaborate idea was actually proposed [3]. It is also striking to discover that
the full fledged RIS concept has been introduced and managed by DG REGIO since
the early 90s and provides a valuable experimental phase to build on. The RIS
project evolved into today’s Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization (RIS3), by transiting through the Eastern countries RIS. In
addition, DG REGIO published recently a report in relation to the Structural
and Cohesion Funds where the key findings and recommendations corroborate with
those in this paper, but again, fails to pursue/recommend an overarching IS
framework.
The three levels EMIES
framework has a triadic advantage set: (a) reducing the variety of the
difficulties thus eliminating the barriers, (b) integrating geographically
close NISs, and (c) streamlining the policies and governance systems. In
addition, it will give rise to much needed new complementarities and synergies
between its different components, especially countries and regions.
While the above scheme
allows some degree of simplification dealing with innovation over a vast
geographic area and diverse socioeconomic contexts, it requires a certain
degree of decentralization be it on the institutional and/or financial levels.
The regionalization, decentralization dichotomy need to take into consideration
the “apparent trade-off between the use of resources for the diffusion of
knowledge in the peripheral parts of the continental economy (widening) of for
generating new knowledge in the core countries (deepening). … This may serve
the twin objectives of encouraging learning in the peripheral areas and
advancing knowledge in the core areas.” [9]
3.3) A Three Phases medium to long term agenda
Phase I (2012-14): Further convergence while
preparing the future:
1. On the EC level:
i.
Initiate
work on supranational EMIES by building on past EC experiences, e.g., DR REGIO,
the US Innovation System, and available literature,
ii.
Identify
and map the EU RISs, existing and potential ones, and identify best practices,
and potential causes of failures for future policies design and streamlining,
iii.
Align,
as much as possible, ERA’s and others ongoing programs and project with EMIES
especially its three spatial levels, i.e., national, regional and Eu-Med,
- On the MPC level:
i.
Benchmark
the National Innovation Systems (NIS) of the North African countries, and help
identify new promising industry/service niches,
ii.
Identify R&D priorities, missing policies,
and S&T policies/managerial capacity building in coherence with (i) and the
new framework,
iii.
Accelerate
the convergence of MPCs to ERA and the European Higher Education Area,
especially the Bologna process, with emphasis on educational and R&D
institutional governance and autonomy, e.g., universities,
Phase II (2015-17): North African ISs and EU
RISs emergence:
- On the EC level:
i.
Facilitate
the emergence of the identified EU RISs,
ii.
Assist
in creating the North African IS (NAIS), while consolidating the North African
NISs.
iii.
Finalise
the blue print needed for the launching of EMIES,
- On the MPC level:
i.
Implement
the needed changes to facilitate the emergence of their NISs,
ii.
Initiate
the needed transformation to adopt the identified industry/services niches,
iii.
Actively
contribute, with the remaining North African countries and the assistance of EC,
to the creation and emergence of the NAIS.
Phase III (2018-20): Viable operation of
EMIES:
- On the EC level:
i.
Progressively
launch EMIES,
ii.
Evaluate,
monitor and adjust the NISs and RISs to better fit EMIES,
iii.
Revisit
EMIES blue print such as the vision and strategies, along with the related
programs and project to sustain the new framework and enhance its viability.
- On the MPC level:
i.
Run
effectively their NISs in coherence with NAIS,
ii.
Contribute
effectively to NAIS and insure the coherence with EMIES,
iii.
Fully
engage via their respective NISs and NAIS, and participate in the governing
bodies to sustain and enhance the viability of EMIES.
4) The Recommendations:
After a rich and constructive exchange, all the
participants of Session 9, agreed to make the following recommendations:
4.1) Most important issues to focus
on:
• Innovation in all sectors and themes, such
as SHS, is much needed for prosperity and well being,
• Capacity building: new ways of educating
towards a non traditional way of thinking,
• Large Euro-Med R&I projects as a means
to achieve prosperity via cooperation.
4.2) Main challenges to be addressed:
• Equal partnership and common long-term
targets with emphasis on inter/intra-regional cooperation,
• Implication of the private sector and NGOs
at all levels and needed activities,
• Suitable and simple governance framework,
to facilitate the emergence of the needed synergies and enhance the efficiency
of the Euro-Med activities.
4.3) Priorities for action – key next steps:
• Call for the follow-up of the Cairo
conference with the involvement of the private sector,
• Harmonize/align the overall legislative
framework especially the IPR one,
• Initiate progressively a suitable
governance framework and action plan to enhance innovation at the national,
regional and Euro-Med levels for the well being of the Euro-Med community and
humanity as a whole.
5) References:
[1] Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth, COM (2010) 2020, Brussels, 3.3.2010,
[2] What Occupy Wall Street demands of our leaders,
The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/what-occupy-wall-street-demands-of-our-leaders/2011/10/11/gIQAjHtZcL_story.html
[3] Pasimeni, Paolo et al., Towards a
Euro-Mediterranean Innovation Space: Some lessons and policy queries, The
Concord Seminar, ITPS, Seville, October 2007.
[4] Moisseron, Jean-Yves, Le partenariat
euro-méditerranéen: l’échec d’une ambition régionale. Pesses Universitaires de
Grenoble, Grenoble, 2005.
[5] Ayari, C., Prologue: Réflexions sur le
projet d’un “New Deal” Méditerranéen, La Méditerranée pour
l’Union Méditerranéenne, Université de Tunis El Manar, Avril 2008.
[6] A Partnership for democracy and shared
prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean, COM (2011) 200 final, Brussels,
8.3.2011.
[7] A new response to a changing neighborhood, COM
(2011) 303 final, Brussels 25.5.2011.
[9]
Archibugi, D., et al., Is
Europe becoming the most dynamic knowledge economy in the world, JCMS 2005,
Vol. 43, pp. 433-59
