CONTENTS. The FP7 PEOPLE Programme Advisory Group The Secretariat. Brussels, 8 April 2010 RTD/lv D(2010)

Transcription

1 The FP7 PEOPLE Programme Advisory Group The Secretariat Brussels, 8 April 2010 RTD/lv D(2010) SUMMAR REPORT OF THE 17 TH MEETING OF THE PEOPLE ADVISOR GROUP FOR THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMME PEOPLE IN FP7 Brussels, 8 February 2010 CONTENTS Welcome Adoption of the Agenda Adoption of Summary Record of previous meeting Presentation on the DOC-CAREERS Report Introduction of the Institutional changes of the new Commission, and the Rationale Discussion on Specific issues arising from the previous discussions Any other Business...12 Annex I Agenda...14 Annex II Membership, Participation...15 Annex III List of Documents for the meeting...16 Annex IV -The Marie Curie actions; the ERC grants and Erasmus: different programmes for scientific training, mobility and education...17

2 Frequent Marie Curie Acronyms AC Associated Countries AG Advisory Group COFUND Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes EAC Education & Culture EIT European Institute of Innovation & Technology EPR European Partnership for Researchers ERA European Research Area ERAMORE European Research Area & Mobility of Researchers in Europe ERC European Research Council ERCEA ERC Executive Agency ESOF Euroscience Open Forum EURAXESS Portal = Job services Rights (Charter & Code) DG Directorate General HR Human Resources IAPP Industry-academia pathways and partnerships ICPC International Cooperation Partner Countries IRSES International Research Staff Exchange Scheme ITN Initial training Networks IPR Intellectual Property Rights IxF The collective abbreviation for the IEF, IIF and IOF schemes - IEF Intra-European Fellowships for Career Development - IIF International Incoming Fellowships - IOF International Outgoing Fellowships for Career Development FP Framework Programme LERU League of European research Universities MCA Marie Curie Actions MCFA Marie Curie Fellowship Association MS Member States NIGHT Researchers' Night Action PAG People Advisory Group SGHRM Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility SME Small and Medium Enterprises REA Research Executive Agency RIS Research Innovation & Science DG RTD DG Research xrg The collective abbreviation for the RG (Reintegration Grants) schemes - IRG International Reintegration Grant - ERG European Reintegration Grant URF Unique Registration Facility WP Work Programme 2

3 Welcome The Chair introduced the context of the current meeting in the light of the impending incoming Commission and the proposed changes for the People Specific Programme. Mobility has been shown to be a major vector of economic change; these are the carriers of innovation and knowledge transfer, and this recognition at the heart of the knowledge triangle. Innovation leads to jobs, so any efficiency in the education system will be beneficial. 1. Adoption of the Agenda The agenda was adopted. 2. Adoption of Summary Record of previous meeting The Summary Record had already been approved by written procedure, and published on the website of the FP7 Advisory Groups. 3. Presentation on the DOC-CAREERS Report The Advisory Group (AG) heard a presentation of the above project by the invited speaker, Dr Lidia Borrell-Damian, of the EUA (European University Association). This was a study wholly financed by the People Programme. The European University Association (EUA) prepared the report, Collaborative Doctoral Education: University-Industry Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange - DOC-CAREERS: From Innovative Doctoral Education to Enhanced Career Opportunities. The report draws upon the knowledge and experience accumulated by EUA on doctoral programme reform through several projects in the framework of the Third Cycle of the Bologna Process, and on university-industry cooperation through the Responsible Partnering Guidelines initiative. The European Industrial Research Management Association (EIRMA), as one of the partners of the latter initiative, has been also a key partner in the conduct of this present study by facilitating the consultation with the business sector. The full report is available at Advisory Group appreciated the report in its scope and width. It notes though the very wide variation in Doctoral expectations between countries can lead to a dilution of recommendations. Examples of industrial sponsorship which did not mature were given; and it was agreed that universities were still the most natural "home" for doctoral education and training and research. However, there was little in the report on how to build more industry-academia cooperation; this is still very dependent on local circumstances and leadership; it is not a given. Also there are many possible 3

4 configurations of such co-operation and the most suitable variant for a specific objective or situation has to be identified. 4. Introduction of the Institutional changes of the new Commission, and the Rationale The Commission recalled the decision by President Barroso following his guidelines for the new Commission, that the Marie Curie Actions will be transferred from DG RTD to DG Education and Culture. The new Commission is expected to take up their office on Feb 10, then the process of the transfer will be formalised. DG RTD will continue to have overall responsibility for the execution of the Framework Programme, and the group of DG's that execute the various programmes will be enlarged to include DG EAC. The Commission expressed its expectations to be able to create further synergies from the move. Past cooperation has been fruitful for all parties and will benefit from the wider environment, which also includes the EIT now. A detailed explanation is attached as an Annex. The Chair recalled that President Barroso s EU2020 vision paper noted the benefits of scale and mobility enjoyed by US based researchers, and that exchange programmes like Marie Curie need to be extended. A sound Commission proposal will be all the more vital in the next few years at a time when many Universities will be in financial crises. The Group noted that MC was a research programme not to be confused with the University roles in general. The group noted that doctoral training, and certainly postdoctoral training are research by nature and not education. DG Education and Culture acknowledge the above and have confirmed that the essential of the Marie Curie Actions will remain in place in FP7. In this context, the definition of what is a researcher (and expectations of what they can do) should be discussed by the Group. The Commission pointed out and the Group agreed that the change of DG is an opportunity to have a fresh look at Marie Curie. Programmes which broadly support Human Capital development will be expected to have the full support of the Commission at the highest level. That priority has been already declared, and the Group noted that such clear expectations at the political level are usually matched by resources. The Group concluded that the internal changes within the Commission will bring its own challenges but also many more opportunities; and looks forward to a flexible environment responsive to the evolving needs of European research. It is in everyone's interest to continue the Marie Curie success story for the benefit of Europe and the ERA. It is clear that mobility is beneficial for research and careers, yet 80% of academic staff work at the university where they obtained their degree, Europe-wide; so there is much left to be done. 5. Discussion on Specific issues arising from the previous discussions The Chair had summarised the previous years outstanding issues into a 12-point note (see previous Summary Record). At this meeting three topics were discussed. 4

5 5a Career progression and pension provisions The Chair recalled that problems of mobility across borders are still legion, and careers are interrupted and take some time to be resumed. Institutions are generally still focused on home grown staff. Pensions are either not transferable or are degraded actuarially upon moving. Contribution thresholds under national systems are often not reached at all. et multinational companies manage this for years and for thousands of staff, while adhering the national legislations. Maybe this is one of the reasons why overall mobility in academic Europe is still low, and over 80% of university staff are graduates from their own university. On the other hand artificially induced mobility as tried in Germany does not resolve the issue either. This hinders innovation and the mobility of knowledge. The Group agreed that it is a crucial ingredient of any strategy for mobility that the researchers concerned should not suffer in their career progression and in pension provision by moving from one country in Europe to another. At present, this is very definitely not the case. When researchers move, they are either supported on a short term fellowship (which lies outside provisions for career progression and pension schemes) or they are brought into an existing national or international structure. These structures are rarely compatible, so that it is nearly impossible to work out an international career pattern in which the researcher does not lose out. This remains a major obstacle to mobility inside Europe, especially if one adds to this already complex situation the fact that some universities in Europe are autonomous, with their own career patterns, and others are state controlled, with promotion rules handed down by the national civil service of the country concerned. Such incompatibility applies not only to mobility between universities in different Member States, but also to mobility between Universities and Industry, Industry and Government Laboratories, etc. There is a need to break down the barriers between the different administrative structures so that career steps can be transferred from one system to another and between different Member States. The strategic question here is: who will set this discussion in motion? The Group noted that the Commission, by producing the highly respected 'Charter for European Researchers' and its associated Code of Practice, has implicitly taken the lead in this area of concern. However, the issue cannot be left to lie without some person or body in charge to push it forward. The issue of Pension rights is very similar. At present, it is not possible to have a mobile career, with some years spent in one country, then some in another, and some in yet another Member State, without losing out on pension rights. There is at present no suitable system of 'portable pensions' available to researchers within the European Union as e.g big multinational companies. This contributes to making the international career option distinctly unattractive for a young researcher. It also makes mobility impossible for many researchers later in their career, because many pension schemes require a minimum period of contribution (as many as fifteen years in some cases) before a pension can be drawn. The Commission has proposed to consider a special scheme designed for European researchers in order to facilitate mobility. It is recommended that this is being followed up. 5

6 Feasibility Study on Pan-European Pension Schemes for Researchers The Commission reported on various aspects of this area. DG Research has commissioned a feasibility study on the establishment of pan-european pension schemes for researchers. The feasibility study will produce an analysis of existing pan-european pension funds; identify the interest of researchers' employers, possible governance structures, and the cost of running pension schemes, taxation aspects as well as the best geographical location for setting up such schemes. The study will be completed in May Member States will be consulted through the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM) meeting on 23 February The Council conclusions on better careers and more mobility: A European partnership for researchers of 26 September , invited Member States and the Commission to study how best to implement certain priority lines of action, including those concerning supplementary pension needs of researchers. On this issue, the Commission had proposed two alternative and complementary lines of action in the preceding May 2008 Communication: Commission and Member States to assess the need for a Commission or Council Recommendation on easing transfer of supplementary pension rights for highlymobile workers, including researchers Commission and Member States to encourage pan-eu pension schemes targeted at researchers The Commission (through DG Employment) is planning to present a Green Paper on Pensions in general, in 2010, in order to re-launch the debate on possible legislative measures. This Green Paper would provide a good opportunity to highlight possible solutions on addressing the pension question e.g. agreements between major pension schemes (to be noted that there is an example of such a system in Germany) or pan- European solutions. Pan-European schemes would be managed by one or more Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) as foreseen in Directive 2003/41/EC. The new schemes could be operational as from 2013, provided there is enough interest among stakeholders. If such schemes were created, researchers would have the opportunity to sign up to a single pension fund to which they could contribute irrespective of where they are employed in the EU. The pension fund would ensure that the national rules are respected and the researcher is informed about the concrete consequences of moving to another country. Career progression The Commission reported a number of studies and reports on career progression using still different classification: The ERA - SGHRM Working Group Training, Skills and Industry / Academia Relationship (Implementing the European Partnership for Researchers) focused on 1 6

7 1. New Researcher 2. Recognised Researcher 3. Established Researcher 4. Leading Researcher 5. Star Researcher The ESF Study on Research Careers in Europe - Landscape and Horizons will focus on the 1. Doctoral training stage 2. Post-doctoral stage 3. Independent research Stage 4. Established researchers The LERU report Harvesting talent: strengthening research careers in Europe" will cover 1. Doctoral candidates 2. Post doctoral scientists 3. University Scientists 4. Professors The LERU 2 report also includes a Model Code of Practice for Research Employment, which is in line with the Charter and Code 3 and a number of existing university career paths to help guide researcher's careers. Under the European Partnership for Researchers, many Institutional Human Resources Strategies will be scrutinised. Some 40 universities and other research organisations have agreed to take part in a European scrutiny of their Institutional Human Resources Strategy against the Charter and Code. A second cohort will be scrutinised from the autumn of 2010 onwards. Conclusion The Group noted that implementation of this comprehensive approach needs the cooperation of the partners. There are many facets to these actions, many of them with administrative and human resources implications. Some form of review of progress is welcome and the results will be interesting. Pay systems can now be linked with Careers and Research Outputs in many countries, although universities are often hampered by public service constraints. It is not only a matter of not just good practice, but also good business sense, and positions universities better for their role in the knowledge triangle. 5b Integrated Funding Schemes 2 Strengthening research careers in Europe, January 2010, the LERU report was written by Professor Geoffrey Boulton (Edinburgh, g.boulton@ed.ac.uk).. See also the ESF report on "Research Careers in Europe - Landscape and Horizons: A report by the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Careers". This is a follow up of the LERU (League of European research Universities), report "Doctoral Studies in Europe: Excellence in Researcher Training" 3 European Charter for Researchers' and the "Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of researchers" 7

8 The Group heard a discussion on integrated funding schemes between ERASMUS, ERC, national and Regional programmes, Marie Curie and in particular the COFUND Mechanism and the balance between them, based on a paper (Annex: The Marie Curie actions; the ERC grants and Erasmus: different programmes for scientific training, mobility and education) The Commission tabled supporting documents being a compendium of current COFUNDed fellowship schemes and a related listing of relevant ERC and DG EAC schemes. There exist a number of fellowship schemes in addition to the well-known and very popular Marie Curie Programme, to support research and training within the European Union. There are also many European level educational programmes. There are also national fellowships, and programmes which mix public with private funding in various degrees. The Groups' purpose here should not be to attempt to draw up any exhaustive lists, or to make any detailed comparison between them, but rather to ask: what should the overall strategy be, and what should the balance be between all these different sources of funding? For example, there are complementarities between the activities of the Erasmus Mundus scheme run by DG EAC in the field of education, and the Marie Curie scheme run so far by RTD in the field of research and research training. There is also the position of ERC fellowships versus other European Fellowships administered by different organisations. A degree of overlap of the different funding mechanisms may actually be a good thing, provided it is understood in the correct way and does not simply happen by accident or by default. Similarly, there is the question of national programmes within each of the Member States. These constitute a valuable resource, but are not generally coordinated with actions at the European level. How can this result in an integrated strategy? Finally, there is the question of cooperative programmes involving industry. Is the balance right? Should industry pay more for research in Europe, as comparisons with the USA seem invariably to suggest? Conclusion The Group concluded that the EC has a range of programmes wide enough to cover the requirements of the educational and the scientific communities. They address different populations but they have the common goal of providing resources for a better qualification of the intellectual potential within Europe. Overlapping should be avoided; on the contrary, complementarity should be sought for a better exploitation of resources and for ambitious achievements. Also even at such an early stage the COFUND catalog looks impressive, and a part of the future seems clear to include the COFUND mechanism. The Marie Curie Actions are comprehensively thought through in detail and have evolved over time to meet emerging demands. They should continue their evolution, however in order to benefit from the new opportunities they should continue to address privat sector needs and innovation. Synchronised calls between programmes, back to back funding and a single portal for application procedures could be areas where first gains can be made. A common portal for anyone who is a researcher or student to guide them to the various options is recommended by the Group. The Group looks forward to the concept of the Participant portal being useful for all stakeholders of the Education and Scientific programmes. 8

9 The Commission agreed that continuity did not prevent synergies and innovative developments to be considered. Considerations of the impacts on the web portals have started internally. It is in everyone's interest to demonstrate that this complete portfolio of support to research and training is evident. The Group and the Commission agreed the public Communications is the key to promoting this new opportunity. Also it is noted that in new instruments like COFUND, the Commissions leverage is also lower, and national legislation will predominate. 5c Success rates of MC Actions The Group noted that here is a general worry that the success rate of applications for European support is far too low and the competition much too severe. When this occurs, the impression given to the world outside is that the selection becomes arbitrary, unfair, and may be open to 'insider trading'. It is therefore very important (in the interest of credibility) to set up a system in which success rates are reasonable (closer to 30 percent than to seven percent). There are two issues to consider here from the point of view of establishing a European Strategy. The first is one of fairness, i.e. escaping from the impression that success may have become a lottery. The second is preserving some kind of overall strategy rather than just responding to demand in an unsystematic way. What is the right balance here? Should the Commission also consider introducing administrative tools such as two-step applications, to avoid the situation where many people spend huge amounts of time preparing very detailed cases which are subsequently turned down, creating a higher level of frustration? Low success rates for applicants can of course be regarded as a big success for the programme, but they carry many hidden dangers which can turn their popularity into frustration. A two-step process has the advantage that the first step can be a simple one, based on a simple declaration of intentions and line of research, which acts as a coarse filter and brings the numbers down in a less arbitrary way, but expands the time of due process. An analysis of success rates for the Marie Curie Actions over the past 5 years was presented to the Group. Success rates are more or less static for established programmes, despite rising gross budgets. Clearly, demand is rising recently. In some programmes the attraction is great, but even in ITN with 40% of the budget of the whole MC actions the success rates are still under 10%. In IAPP the success rates are better but the total number of projects funded are sub-critical to have an impact in Europe. The IIF success rates are low but this is a magnet programme and again the scale of action needs to be looked at. Over the last few years, the 800 or so IRG awards would probably not create a critical impact. A lack of critical mass for many actions and decreasing success rates are significant trends which have to be addressed. Rising costs for fellowships will reduce the numbers of fellowships awarded. The ERC may take some pressure out of the system, but it is also possible that MCA are used to review a larger application to the ERC. There are many proposals each year which pass the quality threshold but cannot be funded for budgetary reasons. The Commission could propose means of advising the Member States of the situation. Countries who allocate more than the Lisbon targets to RTD should be rewarded by additional support via COFUND. The Group thought the Cofund was more of a modality that could be used in a wider context for more schemes in order to increase success rates, but also had expected closer 9

10 monitoring of the progress of each fellow, as in the individual fellowships. It was explained that the purpose of the instrument was to promote national and regional programmes to grow in their own way, with their own specific characters and that it was the role of each programme to follow up individual fellows. The Group felt that a better communication of the evaluation process, which is fair and equitable, can cushion the blow for high failure rates and even encourage improvement. The Group also pointed out that MC (and "European" funding) is often seen as a competitor to national and other supranational funding; when they should cooperate to increase mutual leverage such as evidenced by the additionality by the new COFUND actions. When the Lisbon objectives were set, the shortage of manpower was not so evident. Now it seems that the European resources could be increased in very desirable areas (such as Initial Training and Industry Academia Partnerhips) in order to satisfy the demand that has been created by European policies. The Commission notes that the budget allocation is not success rate driven, but primarily on a distribution of budget related to the political emphasis of the various objectives. These have been validated annually by the Programme Committee. COFUND is a useful method of increasing impact and partnership with likeminded organisations increase offer of fellowships and have a positive impact on global success rates. The Group also thought this was an important process to develop and integrate overall leverage. Maybe a relaxation of the current regime (which is intended to mirror the IEF) would demonstrate the attraction to a wider range of programme managers. Also a stepped contribution rate (maybe a higher % at the start with a phased out approach at the end) would help start up new schemes. The Group also thought it maybe possible to better exploit high quality but unsuccessful proposals which can be picked up by other funding bodies. This requires good evaluation processes and timely information flows. This can be beneficial for all parties involved. The Group recalled that a two stage process is a method for reducing overheads and volumes of rejected proposals. However, as the Group recalled and the Commission agreed, this process adds undue delays to the overall process (having been tried in FP6). The Commission noted that it seemed that a two stage process encouraged partial and incomplete proposals which are not necessarily then followed through into a full proposal. Also for the ITN and IAPP it is not always ideal to describe the various aspects in very short proposals. For Individual Fellowships a two stage may be suitable, but the main pressure on success rates is not there. The Group also noted that those who had high research scores but maybe lower management evaluations could be helped to improve the management. The UK process of blocking reapplications for up to one year after an unsuccessful proposal created unnecessary discontinuity. The Group noted that consistent low success rates are frustrating for the applicants but they also send out strong signals to the member States that the demand is there, and should be matched with resources if the Europe 2020 objectives are to be addressed. The Chair concluded that more reflection may be needed on this issue. WP

11 Charter and Code implementation The Group heard a presentation from two members on the potential leverage of Human Resources on the 7FP in general, and how the Advisory Group could maximize leverage from participants in MC in implementing the Charter and Code. It seems the European Charter and Code is a key element in maximizing the potential of researchers. A number of organisations have signed the document but the level of engagement is slow. It may need some small resources allocated to enable organizations to undertake the first steps of analyzing their situation, developing an action plan and then implementing a programme and assess their progress every 2 years. The initial steps are not intensive but by developing a support framework it will encourage organizations to start their own evaluation process to kick start their own reflections. The presentation highlighted an example where the feedback from staff on implementing the Charter and Code led to an improvement action plan. As a result, over a number of years, research staff felt increasingly valued by the organisation. Such opinion shifts can lead to many positive outputs including improved research and teaching quality.. This impact on the "bottom line" is difficult to assess, but in the UK attempts are being made to compare employee engagement to formal research outputs as part of the 5 year Research Assessment Exercise that judges UK research quality.. The proposal was made to more formally link MC funding to starting the implement the early stages of the Charter and Code in order to speed up the process for the benefit of all researchers across Europe. It was suggested that organisations should at least undertake an evaluation of current practice in order to apply for MC funds from It was stressed that no assessment of current quality would be made so institutions with much work to do would still qualify to apply for funds, the only stipulation would be that they have taken some time to assess their own performance against the Charter and Code framework. It seems there is room to align the implementation of the Charter and Code with supporting organizations who implement it. The Group thought there was potential for this and suggested the Commission look at what is possible; and sought reassurance that the future move to DG EAC would not weaken the resolve for the Charter and Code. The Commission will report back with some comments on how to offer help to organisations attempting to implement the Charter and Code.. The Commission noted that policy concerning the 5 th freedom (related to researchers) will remain in DG RTD. Reintegration Grants The Commission outlined its proposal for the future of the Reintegration Grants, where the ERG was increasingly seen to have little impact. This action is unique in that only previous MC fellowship holders may apply. The Group had thought at various times that the scheme could be opened for wider applications. The Commission presented a merged concept with relaxed application requirement BUT with mobility requirement. This ERG/IRG would be of increased interest and make the ERA attractive by helping establish researchers with seed money to establish themselves in a research group. Also the re-defined action would have no nationality restriction but both the ERG and IRG would have a mobility requirement. 11

12 The Group thought this was a dramatic improvement and sent out the right signals to the research community. Maybe the funding profile could be differentiated to focus on the start up aspects. Initial Training Networks The Commission presented its suggestions for discussion concerning the ITN actions. Around 40% of the People programme budget is dedicated to ITN, and there is a consistent and high demand. It is planned to focus the recruitment on ESRs and to further improve their training in ITN. Visiting Researchers (VR) would continue to be supported through the ToK (Transfer of Knowledge) cost category, not through a specific cost category of researchers as before. This would simplify the action as no CV would be required in the submitted proposal, no minimum duration of recruitment (previously a minimum of 1 month was required) which makes the recruitment more flexible to attract more VRs from the private sector with a wider spectrum of expertise. Also all participants from the consortium could recruit VRs if they so wish. Transferable skills that are crucial to make a doctorate holder more employable in both public and private sector will be improved by placements of each ESR in the private sector, which currently benefits between 15% (full-time) and 30% (part-time) of researchers. An additional evaluation criterion to ensure a meaningful exposure (to the private sector) of each researcher based on the context could be added. This requires higher participation of private enterprises in ITN. Recruitment of ERs (limited to 20% of total researcher-months) could be used as an incentive to attract more SMEs in the programme. This directly supports the EU-2020 objectives set by President Barroso. Although ITNs have seen increased participation by the private sector, this trend needs to be encouraged still further. The Group supported the general concept and encouraged the Commission to develop the action. Simplification The Commission made a number of suggestions to reduce the number of allowance categories. Harmonised Management costs for large projects are suggested together with increased overhead support. Currently the Commission is seeking the opinion of the Programme Committee. The SME equipment allowances would remain. The Group welcomed any simplification that impacted easier application mechanisms, and welcomed the use of the highest common denominator when merging of allowances was undertaken. 6. Any other Business There was no other business. Date of next Meeting: April 30 th was proposed as a date, subject to the transfer of responsibilities from DG RTD to EAC. The Commission will respond after that. 12

13 The Chair also suggested a meeting in parallel with ESOF (the week of 2 nd 7 th July 2010) would give additional exposure to the work of the Group and allow interaction with about 350 MC fellows who attend regularly. The Chair also urged members to send input to propose a further three points from the Chairs list, to be discussed at the next meeting. 13

14 Annex I Agenda Draft AGENDA 17 th meeting of the PEOPLE Advisory Group Brussels Monday 8 February 2010 (10:30-16:30) Building: CCAB Rue Froissart 36, Brussels Room: 2C 1. Adoption of the Agenda 2. Adoption of summary record of the previous meeting 3. Presentation on the DOC-CAREERS Report (Invited Speaker Lidia Borrell- Damian, EUA Brussels) 4. Introduction of the Institutional changes of the new Commission, and the Rationale 5. Discussion on Specific issues arising from the previous discussions, including a. Progress on proposals for support for career progression and pensions provisions b. Coordinated funding schemes within the MC actions, ERC schemes, national and regional programmes, the COFUND Mechanism; and the balance between them. c. Stabilisation of higher success rates, proposals learning curve and feedback mechanisms 6. The 2011 People Work Programme 7. Any other Business 14

15 Annex II Membership, Participation Members CARTER Christian CONNERADE Jean-Patrick - Chair CURAJ Adrian EGRON-POLAK Eva ENGELBRECHT Jüri FENG Jiang KOFOD Guggi KSIAZEK Elżbieta MAKAROW Marja MSIAK Jaroslav PEDRAZZINI Fausto POTOČNIK Dunja SAGLAMER Gulsun Vice Chair SAVAKIS Charalambos VELA OLMO Carmen WINCKLER Georg Participation Apologies Apologies Apologies Apologies Apologies Apologies Participation by Commission/REA staff: LENNON T. CURELL GOTOR J. DG EAC BINGEN Georges ARANO Begoña WILKIE Graham ROGERS Mike CRAIG Alan DI VIRGILIO Sergio DEBIAIS-SAINTON Vanessa KARAOGLOU Anna Dir C VAN DER HIJDEN Peter Dir C VESTERLUND Liz Participation by external expert: BORRELL-DAMIAN Lidia EUA 15

16 Annex III List of Documents for the meeting o Agenda Agenda point 1 o Summary records of the previous meeting Agenda point 2 o DOC Careers presentation by Ms. L. Borrell-Damian EUA Agenda point 3 DOC Careers Report o Note from DG EAC Introduction of the Institutional changes of the new Commission, and the Rationale Agenda point 4 o Issues for the 2011 WP from the Chair document Agenda point 5 Information note on pension provisions Directorate C News letter article from Research Europe: DG RTD Study on "Monitoring human resources policies and practices in research and assessing the impact of the "scientific visa" package" The Marie Curie Actions; the ERC grants and Erasmus summary Marie Curie Actions FP6-FP7- Applications and success rates - summary Marie Curie Actions How to increase success rate of applications? Presentation by G. Saglamer Core information on ERC and EAC Funding schemes summary Listing of the Marie Curie Action "Cofunded" Fellowship Programmes - summary o People 2011 Work Programme - a discussion paper Agenda point 6 Simplification of allowance categories - presentation by G. Wilkie Reintegration Grants Options for WP presentation by G. Bingen Initial Training Networks 2011 People WP - presentation by V. Debiais-Sainton People AG "Leverage" role in HR productivity FP7 - presentation by C. Carter and G. Kofod 16

17 Annex IV -The Marie Curie actions; the ERC grants and Erasmus: different programmes for scientific training, mobility and education The EC offers a substantial portfolio of programmes and mechanisms for fostering education, scientific training and mobility of students and scientists. The main programmes are those organised by People and the European Research Council (ERC), which emanate from the 7 th Framework Programme; while the Erasmus Mundus refers to the DG EAC. Even though these activities have their specific history and identity, they are in a sense addressing the same pool of potential users, although with different aim and scope. More specifically the vocation of the Marie Curie (MC) actions and the ERC grants is to provide and/or to consolidate a scientific career of researchers or scientific teams and to facilitate their mobility with the ultimate goal of creating the European Research Area. Erasmus is more devoted to qualifying the educational background of individuals at various levels, (including the preparation of Doctorates), regardless their possible future involvement in R&D activities. Even though the MC actions and the ERC grants refer more or less to the same audience, they differ mainly in their approach and in what they offer: the ERC grants are focused on making available for individuals and/or research teams the resources needed to implement an highly qualified scientific project; they are limited in number but they cover a wide spectrum of science, including basic sciences and humanities; the MC actions' mission is essentially to provide the scientific community with tools and resources to make possible the development of a true open market for scientists in Europe. In both cases (MC and ERC), scientific excellence is the main evaluation criterion for evaluating and selecting the projects to be awarded, but in the case of the MC actions, other parameters are also taken into consideration, like: networking, internationalisation; mobility, partnership with the business sector; etc. In addition, the People programme is directly concerned by reducing/eliminating all those constraints which have a negative effect on mobility and training of scientists. Some important results have already been achieved at this level (see the Charter & Code), but still a lot has to be done. Another specificity of the People programme is its commitment towards the industry/academia partnership. Such a partnership is another opportunity for widening the range of training options for scientists, and for the transfer of know-how between the scientific community and the business sector. The Cofund mechanism is another example of the variety of scopes of the MC programme. Through this mechanism, the integration between the EC sponsored programmes and the national funding agencies is foreseen, bearing in mind that the ultimate scope is to strengthen the international dimension of mobility and not simply to support local programmes. In a few words, the People programme has a multifaceted identity: it deals with individual fellowships for scientists at any stage of their careers; it provides funds for networking; it has specific support mechanisms for reverse the brain-drain; it sets a bridge between the academia and the industry; it looks at creating synergies between 17

18 national and international programmes and, last but not least; it is concerned by undertaking specific initiatives aimed at smoothing down all those constraints which do not help/facilitate the international training and the career development of scientists. If we consider the triangle Education/Research/Innovation, it is quite logic to associate the Education concept with the Erasmus programme and the ERC Grants with Research, while the People programme has a more general mission, dealing directly or indirectly with the triangle as a whole for the full development of the human potential in science. The three considered programmes have complementary roles since they deal with intellectual resources at different stages: Erasmus for improving the educational system up to the Master and the doctoral level independently from any future commitment in R&D; the ERC grants support scientific projects with a special focus on basic science and inter-disciplinarity; the MC actions are oriented towards post-doc individuals interested on building (or restarting) their research career within an international frame and possibly with industrial partners. All together, ERC, People and Erasmus offer a wide portfolio of opportunities for students and researcher at different stages of their professional life. Although it should be made clear that the potential users are different and consequently different approaches should be implemented. Such a requirement calls for a policy which takes into account the specificities and the goals of the programmes in view of optimising the expected results. The efficiency and the relevance of the existing initiatives should be assessed an compared in order to better define the fields of activity and the target group for each programme. Common initiatives should be envisaged and the transfer of experience between the People, ERC and Erasmus should be encouraged; in addition, regular briefings between the management committees and the advisory groups of the mentioned programmes should take place. 18