- Email: [email protected]
Opportunities for research partnerships in the emerging European Community
Food Reseurch Internutional
26 (1993) 227-232
FORUM Food Research International welcomes material concerned with issues raised by published articles or by recent developments in food sciences. Material should usually be supported by reference to published work
Opportunities for research partnerships in the emerging European Community* Daniel B. Cumming Attucht! ( Apri-Food Science i, Mission qf Cuntrdu to the European Conmunities,
INTRODUCTION When the first stirrings of the European Economic Community began some 40 years ago (Borchardt, 1990) it is unlikely that anyone present would have seriously thought that this could lead to the EC of today, much less the foreseeable Community of tomorrow and certainly not the potential Community of the next century. Those having to interact in one way or another with the ‘EC’ often forget that it is not, and actually never has been, a static entity. Since 1951 when the original members agreed among themselves on the need to form an alliance, the EC has grown from the six members that signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to the 12 members of today. The relatively modest goals of creating an open trading zone with common policies on external matters, have long been surpassed and supplanted by the much more ambitious objectives of the ‘1992’ or ‘Single Market’ program, not to mention Economic and Monetary Union. Even as the Community of the Twelve deliberates on the timing and details of a single currency and other critical matters including Community social structures, there are neighbors knocking on the door with intentions to join the family. EFTA has
*Presented to the 35th Annual Conference of The Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology, 31 May-3 June, 1992, Ottawa, Canada. All observations and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent an official position of the Government of Canada. Food Research International 0963-9969/93/$06.00 8 1993 Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology
Z A vr de Tervuren, 1040 Bru.wl.v. Belgium
essentially disappeared into the EEA (a potential market of 380M) (Gazzo, 1992) and the line is already forming among the non-EC members of this alliance to become full partners in the EC. Austria and Sweden have already attained a formal approval to begin negotiations. Finland has voted to petition for membership and one to three more countries are expected to receive the signal to proceed in the near future. The countries of Central Europe, particularly Poland, Czech and Slovak Republics and Hungary fully expect to be seriously considered for membership in the Union within the next decade. Canada has a relatively lengthy and positive relationship with the EC. In 1976 a Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Cooperation was established. In November of 1990 the TransAtlantic Declaration on Cooperation was also signed, effectively strengthening the pact of 1976. Within both of these documents Science and Technology is mentioned as a field of common interest. Through various mechanisms. Canada has undertaken a considerable amount of joint research with European partners. Canada is seen as a world leader in certain areas such as nuclear technology, space systems and electronics/communications and enjoys unique status within a number of European research programs and institutions. While the agri-food sector perhaps does not have the profile of the fields mentioned above, Canada does command very real international respect in this area and there is a considerable European interest in opening and maintaining lines of communication and cooperation.
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS PROGRAMS The Framework Program in research Within the total Framework Program there are some 15 specific sub-programs aimed at discrete areas of technology. The current, or Third Framework (19914) has a total value over its lifetime of ECU 5.7B (approximately $C 8.3B). For those concerned with agriculture and food research several sub-programs may have some interest but two clearly must be more important than the others. These are the Biotechnology Program (ECU 164M) and the Agriculture and Agro-Industry Program (ECU 333M). As there is an overlap between the 2nd and 3rd Framework Programs there is also interest in FLAIR, ECLAIR and BRIDGE which relate to food, agricultural production and biotechnology, respectively. The research program has evolved over the years from a very modest, narrow focus (nuclear technology) to a much more comprehensive collection of research fields. The success of the program in reducing duplication of effort and creating networks within the Community is at least partially responsible for the fact that the 2nd and 3rd Frameworks are overlapping. The 4th Framework is currently being planned and prepared for implementation. At the moment, the Framework budget represents about 4.5% of total research funding in the EC. The greatest part of the money is spent in shared cost undertakings. Theoretically, there are two fundamental rules for accessing the funds administered by the Commission of the EC (1) the research must be ‘pre-competitive’ and (2) at least two organizations from at least two Member States must be involved in the proposal. Theory and practice seldom coincide exactly and the EC Framework Program is no exception. While the work proposed and funded does generally meet the first criterion of being pre-competitive, the Commission like all funding bodies is under pressure to show relevance for the programs. As a result, they are caught between the need to fund only ‘non-trade-distorting’ research and to ensure that outcomes are exploited to the advantage of the European industry and thereby the Community in general. With respect to the second requirement of minimum participation, practice surpasses theory and it is common to see three to five Member States and more than one
organization from each. cooperating 111it glvcn proposal. Of course. the actual requirements For specific proposals are more complex than implied here and the time required to develop a consortium and see the proposal through to i;uccessful funding can be lengthy. The time factor and relative scarcity of funds (only 10 20”%of proposals are funded) must call into question the value of putting the necessary effort into preparing proposals. However, the scale of work that can be undertaken and the size and diversity of the teams that can be developed seems to make the effort worthwhile. The total value of even relatively modest research actions can exceed ECU 2M. The attractiveness of this funding system is that when as many as 5 10 partners pool their traditional resources (their 50% of the funding), they are then able to turn relatively small contributions into a quite significant fund. The diversity of the partners enriches the research activities and when all is working well the result is a synergistic output of results. As previously indicated, however, there is a pressure to exploit the outcomes of the research and this has resulted in two notable actions. The primary current activity is a program called VALUE (Council of the European Communities, 1989) which is now funded by an obligatory set-aside from any approved project budget. At the moment. 1% of the project budget must be earmarked for technology diffusion and exploitation activities. The second result of the desire to connect the research to economic exploitation. is found within the most recent Commission budget proposals for the period 1993--7. It is being proposed that R&D spending increase from 3.7 to 6% of the EC budget and that most of the new money be dedicated to programs ‘closer to the industry level’ (Delors, 1992; Gazzo, 1992; McKenzie, 1992). It will be interesting to watch the evolution of this proposal as it still seems to be the mandate of the Community to guard against any programs which are clearly tradedistorting within the Community. There are fundamentally two types of research programs which are supported. The first system of project funding and the largest on the basis of resources, is the Shared Cost program. Generally, this type of project funding results in a 50/50 sharing with specific rules about which costs can be covered. Some cooperators may be eligible for up to loo%, funding but the allowed costs are stringently regulated and limited. The other major program under which projects are funded is the
Opportunities for research partnerships in the emerging European Communit>~ Concerted Action program. In this system, only coordination costs are covered. All research performance costs, per se, must be obtained from other sources. Concerted actions are topic specific but tend to be quite large in scale with networks containing many institutions from a large number of participating states. Costs of meetings, publications and specialized communication are covered by the EC funds. The cost to the Fund is relatively small and benefit to the participants significant. The Framework seems to have been effective in achieving one of its main goals which was to reduce duplication of effort while developing a more pan-European approach to research. Unfortunately, the very success of the programs in creating networks and in developing interaction within the Community of the Twelve is leading to complications for those from outside the EC seeking cooperation with European partners. It becomes increasingly more difficult for researchers statutorally excluded from access to the Framework to propose collaborations that are completely unrelated to work ongoing or intended for action under the Framework. At this moment in time, collaborators can be found but a serious trend is developing. Fortunately, the cost of these restrictive policies is known to the Member States, their research organizations and most importantly, the Community itself. The Parliament of the EC has passed resolutions declaring its interest in promoting third country collaboration in research. The Commission has a real understanding of the need for extensive collaboration and action has been and is being taken to ensure that the Framework policies designed to enhance collaborative research do not curtail international cooperation in scientific research, particularly at precompetitive levels. An important result of this awareness of the need to avoid isolation in research activity is the ongoing process between Canada and the EC to develop a specific S&T agreement. Even though we have, since 1976, agreed that we should, generically speaking, cooperate in science and technology, this does not represent the necessary entrCe to the major programs of the EC. The 1976 Framework Agreement has provided the vehicle for some activity, and some of that quite successful, but is not considered specific enough and definitely does not establish a system under which the process of collaboration can proceed by its own momentum within prescribed rules or guidelines. A specific S&T Agreement would be ex-
229
pected to define the conditions under which collaboration could occur and simply allow specific proposals to be judged on their merit. Although the vehicle of a Science and Technology Agreement is not currently available, there is good reason to believe that an undertaking will be concluded in the foreseeable future. Since the matter is under negotiation and truthfully speaking, at a relatively early stage of development, it would be premature. if not inappropriate, to speak in any detail of what it might contain. However, both sides agree that it must be mutually beneficial and have balance or it will not succeed in producing the effect desired by either party. How we capitalize on the opportunity presented both to develop and to acquire more and better technology and whether or not we can find enhanced business opportunities flowing out of the results of the research will be up to our institutions and businesses. They will have to seize the opportunity presented, form alliances and capitalize on that which is new. An agreement with the EC only creates the possibilities. We will have to take advantage of that which is opened to us. 1992 or the Single Market Exercise The Single Market has some important realities built into it. For those in the food business, one of the most important aspects will be regulations applied to foods and food processes. Mr Paul Gray of the European Commission (Gray, 1990) has described in detail the mechanisms and processes by which the Community will standardize, monitor and administer food regulations. One of the guiding principles is that the safety and well-being of consumers must be protected. However. this premise must not be used to create non-tariff barriers to internal trade within the Community. Pursuant to a Communication of the European Commission (1985), all legislation at Community level should be based on three principles (1) to ensure consumer safety, (2) to provide consumers with information and protection in non-health matters and to ensure fair trade, and (3) provide for the required public controls. The eloquence of the Communication is bespoken in the following quotation: ‘. . . it is neither possible nor desirable to confine in a legislative straitjacket the culinary riches of twelve European countries. . .’ From this flowed the concept that compositional or recipe matters should not be subject to legislation. More than 100 000 rules and regulations have existed in
730
1)
11. C ‘urnming
the Community but the process of standardization is expected to reduce this to about 1000. ‘The end result of taking this position is that consumers should be protected when necessary and traders should be able to trade freely within a specified set of rules. It is stressed by the Commission that this does not imply moving to the lowest common denominator. It does imply strict application of a simplified set of rules and it does imply that Member States do not attempt to limit trade in goods from other Member States through the adoption of regulations which exceed those of other Member States. The implication of the Single Market for goods imported from outside the Community seems to be freer movement. Entry of goods to a given Member State will depend on meeting specified requirements as is the case now. In theory. those goods should then be treated the same as European manufactured goods. Many knowledgeable advisors strongly recommend that firms wishing to ensure secure access, form alliances and ‘become European’. The matters just described are far from simple. There are many aspects of deliberation, negotiation and finally legislation that cannot be described here. The essence of the matter is that Community food law and its administration will be greatly simplified, presumably to the betterment of European consumers. The final proof of this statement must await the practical test of effective application over a significant period of time. One caveat that must be expressed is that regardless of the legislation being passed, the very real removal of boundaries and barriers or of the political will to become one economic zone, Europe is an amalgamation of regions with strong cultural heritage. An interesting phenomenon is currently being reported. Even as the ‘National’ boundaries and perhaps sovereignties, are fading, they are being replaced by ethnic or regional cultural identities. Generally speaking, those who would trade in the food markets of Europe must not make the mistake of believing that 1992 will necessarily create a huge single market for any specific product even though it will create an open trading zone.
THE GENERAL CLIMATE COLLABORATION
FOR RESEARCH
Commission does not perform research. It c‘ncourages and supports research. especially III areas of broad or strategic interest transcending Member State competences or ability to fund. In .I longstanding arrangement under the 1976 I’ramework Agreement on Cooperation the C‘ommission has participated in managing a defined program of joint research with Canada. The Parliament of the European Community has passed various motions in support of increased third country cooperation in the area of scientific research. Finally. as mcnCanada has been In\lted to tioned previously. begin a process that should result in ;I Science and Technology Agreement under which a significant program of collaborati\:e research can flt)urish. During the negotiation process related to the proposed S&T Agreement collaborators ~111 have to ensure that their interests are protected and advanced. After the completion of the agreement the partners will have to operate in a business-like fashion to ensure that they benefit fully and appropriately from their participation. Neither of these statements is meant to throw a negative light on ‘official’ Canada/EC‘ cooperation. The point is simply that Canadian partners must look after their own inter-ests. Also. while no final position has been taken, it is most likely that the nature of the Agreement will be that there will be no direct access to IX‘ money by Canadian partners. In all likelihood the (‘anadian partner will have to supply from whatever source. 100% of the Canadian share of the total budget J’OI any given undertaking. However. as a ’ s or even ‘) 10 partner in a specific research project. the effect of spending a single. Canadian dollar could be immense. (At the very least, a Canadian partner would have to have two European cooperators.) Indirectly. the Canadian partner(s) will experience rho advantage of sharing of EC funds through the European partners. Only the Canadian component would not be matched by EC funds. In the tinal analysis this is both financially attractive and the fact tha! It opens access to powerful international research consortia, scientifically important. Matters such ah sharing of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) will generally be agreed upon between the research partners. based on inputs and contributions to project activity. Such arrangements must. of course. comply with the laws of relevant legal jurisdictions.
At the EC Commission lewd
Bi-lateral Member State cooperation
There appears to be a definite openness to the concept of cooperation. For the most part, the
In the area of bi-lateral cooperation there is a wealth of experience of cooperation at all levels.
Opportunities for research partnerships
In a number of instances, e.g. France and Germany, to name only two, Canada has country to country agreements. There are specific MOUs and we have direct project by project activity not covered by any higher level agreement. In pursuing the mandate of the Attache position considerable interest in collaboration has been found in most Member States and in their related institutions. It is the opinion of the author that, because cooperation with individual Member States organizations exists within a more flexible milieu, it is likely in this area that the majority of cooperation would continue. for some time. The Community level S&T Agreement would not apply directly but could shelter bi-lateral activities in the sense that participation would not be blocked because of Framework commitments by the European partner. Cooperation
at the pre-competitive vs strategic level
For the most part, pre-competitive research is performed by universities or government operated/ funded institutions. This is true in both Europe and Canada. One difference is that in Europe many of the former government laboratories have been spun-off/privatized under various names such as ‘operating agencies’. They are still funded largely (80% or more) by government but on a contract basis as opposed to a budget. Industry and technology centres (in some cases, these include the privatized former government labs) tend to perform the more strategic research. Industry participates in various aspects of research, including funding by one mechanism or another. It appears that the progress of the European Community will become even more oriented toward and sensitive to, industrial needs according to the budget proposals of Mr Delors for 199337. The specifics of this matter are still to be developed but should Canada become party to a Science and Technology Agreement, the new EC thrust could provide an important meeting ground for Canadian and European industry as well as the academic communities.
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES SUPPORT OF COLLABORATION
IN
Canadian funding for international research It is almost dangerous to try to specify the source of such funds since specific programs come and go
in the emerging
European
Communii?.
231
and others are so specific they could be missed. In a number of instances, the funding would not be earmarked for international cooperation but nothing would prevent the use of support for that kind of research under the correct circumstances. A few of the key funding agencies for international collaboration are External Affairs and International Trade Canada, Industry Science and Technology Canada, National Research Council and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. It should be said that ‘new’ and ‘big’ money is not necessarily the key to successful collaborations Resources committed to a field of research can legitimately and profitably be allocated to a strategic international collaboration which represents new research activities. In other words. international cooperation is not absolutely dependent on new resources. In many instances, the alliances formed are as important as the actual research. Presuming the initial experience was good, doors that have been opened tend to stay open for future joint efforts. Agriculture Canada initiative in collaborative research with European partners All of the foregoing can be considered a preface to the deliberations and decisions of the Research Branch of Agriculture Canada with respect to cooperative research with Europeans. The looming Single Market’ or ‘1992’, the associated programs and policies, combined with domestic consultations and perspectives resulted in Research Branch determining in 1989-90, that an effective way of advancing RB interests in the area of research and technology flow would be to station a dedicated representative in Europe (Brussels). Consultations with EAITC and the current Ambassador at the Mission of Canada to the European Communities seemed to confirm the soundness of this conclusion and space and accreditation was provided for an Attache ( Agri-Food Sciences ). In August of 1990, the author reported to Brussels to take up the challenge of ‘promoting and facilitating collaborative research and bi-directional technology flow’ between Canada and Europe. Reality dictates that a measure of the success of the initiative can only be taken at some titne in the future when we can see whether or not real collaborations with real outputs have happened. With about 60% of the current assignment complete, it is possible to cite some of the accomplishments to date that can be expected to enable cooperation to take place.
232
/I. R. (‘urnming
In the absence of a Science and Technology Agreement at Community level it was necessary to focus most of the effort on potential bi-lateral collaborations at the so-called Member State level. It has already been stated that very real interest has been shown at this level and this augurs well for future possibilities when a S&T Agreement is in place. When working at the level of specific counterpart organizations. such as INRA (France), AFRC (UK), and DLO (Netherlands), the level of enthusiasm for the Research Branch initiative has been even greater. As of this moment. both the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique and the Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek have signed MOUs with Research Branch. While the MOUs had to be between bodies that had the authority to make an official arrangement, both encourage the participation of other research partners in Canada and Europe. These MOUs signify a real intent to increase direct cooperation between the parties involved. Specific projects are being arranged across the spectrum of agri-food research. The presence of a Research Branch representative has been useful in gathering and interpreting information about pertinent developments in the EC. in assisting Branch personnel in making effective visits in Europe and in directing European delegations to make effective visits (from their perspective and ours) to Canada. It has even been of significance to the decision of a Belgian biotechnology firm, Plant Genetic Systems, locating a component of its business in Canada. The main thrust during the remaining period of the current assignment will be to facilitate the initiation of specific research activities with appropriate partners.
CONCLUSION The conclusion will be brief. There are tremendous forces at work in Europe at this moment. Some are initiated and managed by the current partners in the European Communities while others are more or less beyond their control. The advantages to Canada to form cooperative alliances, at an organized and strategic level, are considerable. In general terms, there is a willingness, even eagerness. to collaborate with Canadian research partners. However. since in this case Canada is the ‘petitioner’ Canadians must take the initiative and seize the opportunities that are presented.
REFERENCES Borchardt. K. D. (1990). ~%rlroprun Un@cation. Mice Ihr Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. Commission of the European Communities (1985). Completion of the Internal Market: Community Legislation on Foodstuffs. COM(85)603 CEC Brussels, Belgium. Council of the European Communities (1989). Adoption of a specific programme for the dissemination and utilization of scientific and technological research results (VALUE) 1989. 1992. Qjicial Journal of’the EC L200, 1989. pp. 23 ~8. Delors, J. (1992). From the Single Act to Maastricht and beyond. European Documents 1762163, pp. 5 6 Gazzo, E. (1992). EEA: The Saga Draws to u Clot. Europe No. 5670. Agence lnternationale d’Information pour la Presse. Gazzo, E. (1992). The Cwnmission Proposr.~ u .Strtrtc,gJ fbr Technological R&D Europe No. 5107. Agence Internationale dInformation pour la Presse. Gray, P. (1990). Food Law and the Internal Market. Food Policy, April 1990, pp. 1 I I -21. McKenzie, D. (1992). Delors to push science funds into arms of commerce. Neu Scientist. 8, 16.
26 (1993) 227-232
FORUM Food Research International welcomes material concerned with issues raised by published articles or by recent developments in food sciences. Material should usually be supported by reference to published work
Opportunities for research partnerships in the emerging European Community* Daniel B. Cumming Attucht! ( Apri-Food Science i, Mission qf Cuntrdu to the European Conmunities,
INTRODUCTION When the first stirrings of the European Economic Community began some 40 years ago (Borchardt, 1990) it is unlikely that anyone present would have seriously thought that this could lead to the EC of today, much less the foreseeable Community of tomorrow and certainly not the potential Community of the next century. Those having to interact in one way or another with the ‘EC’ often forget that it is not, and actually never has been, a static entity. Since 1951 when the original members agreed among themselves on the need to form an alliance, the EC has grown from the six members that signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to the 12 members of today. The relatively modest goals of creating an open trading zone with common policies on external matters, have long been surpassed and supplanted by the much more ambitious objectives of the ‘1992’ or ‘Single Market’ program, not to mention Economic and Monetary Union. Even as the Community of the Twelve deliberates on the timing and details of a single currency and other critical matters including Community social structures, there are neighbors knocking on the door with intentions to join the family. EFTA has
*Presented to the 35th Annual Conference of The Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology, 31 May-3 June, 1992, Ottawa, Canada. All observations and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent an official position of the Government of Canada. Food Research International 0963-9969/93/$06.00 8 1993 Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology
Z A vr de Tervuren, 1040 Bru.wl.v. Belgium
essentially disappeared into the EEA (a potential market of 380M) (Gazzo, 1992) and the line is already forming among the non-EC members of this alliance to become full partners in the EC. Austria and Sweden have already attained a formal approval to begin negotiations. Finland has voted to petition for membership and one to three more countries are expected to receive the signal to proceed in the near future. The countries of Central Europe, particularly Poland, Czech and Slovak Republics and Hungary fully expect to be seriously considered for membership in the Union within the next decade. Canada has a relatively lengthy and positive relationship with the EC. In 1976 a Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Cooperation was established. In November of 1990 the TransAtlantic Declaration on Cooperation was also signed, effectively strengthening the pact of 1976. Within both of these documents Science and Technology is mentioned as a field of common interest. Through various mechanisms. Canada has undertaken a considerable amount of joint research with European partners. Canada is seen as a world leader in certain areas such as nuclear technology, space systems and electronics/communications and enjoys unique status within a number of European research programs and institutions. While the agri-food sector perhaps does not have the profile of the fields mentioned above, Canada does command very real international respect in this area and there is a considerable European interest in opening and maintaining lines of communication and cooperation.
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS PROGRAMS The Framework Program in research Within the total Framework Program there are some 15 specific sub-programs aimed at discrete areas of technology. The current, or Third Framework (19914) has a total value over its lifetime of ECU 5.7B (approximately $C 8.3B). For those concerned with agriculture and food research several sub-programs may have some interest but two clearly must be more important than the others. These are the Biotechnology Program (ECU 164M) and the Agriculture and Agro-Industry Program (ECU 333M). As there is an overlap between the 2nd and 3rd Framework Programs there is also interest in FLAIR, ECLAIR and BRIDGE which relate to food, agricultural production and biotechnology, respectively. The research program has evolved over the years from a very modest, narrow focus (nuclear technology) to a much more comprehensive collection of research fields. The success of the program in reducing duplication of effort and creating networks within the Community is at least partially responsible for the fact that the 2nd and 3rd Frameworks are overlapping. The 4th Framework is currently being planned and prepared for implementation. At the moment, the Framework budget represents about 4.5% of total research funding in the EC. The greatest part of the money is spent in shared cost undertakings. Theoretically, there are two fundamental rules for accessing the funds administered by the Commission of the EC (1) the research must be ‘pre-competitive’ and (2) at least two organizations from at least two Member States must be involved in the proposal. Theory and practice seldom coincide exactly and the EC Framework Program is no exception. While the work proposed and funded does generally meet the first criterion of being pre-competitive, the Commission like all funding bodies is under pressure to show relevance for the programs. As a result, they are caught between the need to fund only ‘non-trade-distorting’ research and to ensure that outcomes are exploited to the advantage of the European industry and thereby the Community in general. With respect to the second requirement of minimum participation, practice surpasses theory and it is common to see three to five Member States and more than one
organization from each. cooperating 111it glvcn proposal. Of course. the actual requirements For specific proposals are more complex than implied here and the time required to develop a consortium and see the proposal through to i;uccessful funding can be lengthy. The time factor and relative scarcity of funds (only 10 20”%of proposals are funded) must call into question the value of putting the necessary effort into preparing proposals. However, the scale of work that can be undertaken and the size and diversity of the teams that can be developed seems to make the effort worthwhile. The total value of even relatively modest research actions can exceed ECU 2M. The attractiveness of this funding system is that when as many as 5 10 partners pool their traditional resources (their 50% of the funding), they are then able to turn relatively small contributions into a quite significant fund. The diversity of the partners enriches the research activities and when all is working well the result is a synergistic output of results. As previously indicated, however, there is a pressure to exploit the outcomes of the research and this has resulted in two notable actions. The primary current activity is a program called VALUE (Council of the European Communities, 1989) which is now funded by an obligatory set-aside from any approved project budget. At the moment. 1% of the project budget must be earmarked for technology diffusion and exploitation activities. The second result of the desire to connect the research to economic exploitation. is found within the most recent Commission budget proposals for the period 1993--7. It is being proposed that R&D spending increase from 3.7 to 6% of the EC budget and that most of the new money be dedicated to programs ‘closer to the industry level’ (Delors, 1992; Gazzo, 1992; McKenzie, 1992). It will be interesting to watch the evolution of this proposal as it still seems to be the mandate of the Community to guard against any programs which are clearly tradedistorting within the Community. There are fundamentally two types of research programs which are supported. The first system of project funding and the largest on the basis of resources, is the Shared Cost program. Generally, this type of project funding results in a 50/50 sharing with specific rules about which costs can be covered. Some cooperators may be eligible for up to loo%, funding but the allowed costs are stringently regulated and limited. The other major program under which projects are funded is the
Opportunities for research partnerships in the emerging European Communit>~ Concerted Action program. In this system, only coordination costs are covered. All research performance costs, per se, must be obtained from other sources. Concerted actions are topic specific but tend to be quite large in scale with networks containing many institutions from a large number of participating states. Costs of meetings, publications and specialized communication are covered by the EC funds. The cost to the Fund is relatively small and benefit to the participants significant. The Framework seems to have been effective in achieving one of its main goals which was to reduce duplication of effort while developing a more pan-European approach to research. Unfortunately, the very success of the programs in creating networks and in developing interaction within the Community of the Twelve is leading to complications for those from outside the EC seeking cooperation with European partners. It becomes increasingly more difficult for researchers statutorally excluded from access to the Framework to propose collaborations that are completely unrelated to work ongoing or intended for action under the Framework. At this moment in time, collaborators can be found but a serious trend is developing. Fortunately, the cost of these restrictive policies is known to the Member States, their research organizations and most importantly, the Community itself. The Parliament of the EC has passed resolutions declaring its interest in promoting third country collaboration in research. The Commission has a real understanding of the need for extensive collaboration and action has been and is being taken to ensure that the Framework policies designed to enhance collaborative research do not curtail international cooperation in scientific research, particularly at precompetitive levels. An important result of this awareness of the need to avoid isolation in research activity is the ongoing process between Canada and the EC to develop a specific S&T agreement. Even though we have, since 1976, agreed that we should, generically speaking, cooperate in science and technology, this does not represent the necessary entrCe to the major programs of the EC. The 1976 Framework Agreement has provided the vehicle for some activity, and some of that quite successful, but is not considered specific enough and definitely does not establish a system under which the process of collaboration can proceed by its own momentum within prescribed rules or guidelines. A specific S&T Agreement would be ex-
229
pected to define the conditions under which collaboration could occur and simply allow specific proposals to be judged on their merit. Although the vehicle of a Science and Technology Agreement is not currently available, there is good reason to believe that an undertaking will be concluded in the foreseeable future. Since the matter is under negotiation and truthfully speaking, at a relatively early stage of development, it would be premature. if not inappropriate, to speak in any detail of what it might contain. However, both sides agree that it must be mutually beneficial and have balance or it will not succeed in producing the effect desired by either party. How we capitalize on the opportunity presented both to develop and to acquire more and better technology and whether or not we can find enhanced business opportunities flowing out of the results of the research will be up to our institutions and businesses. They will have to seize the opportunity presented, form alliances and capitalize on that which is new. An agreement with the EC only creates the possibilities. We will have to take advantage of that which is opened to us. 1992 or the Single Market Exercise The Single Market has some important realities built into it. For those in the food business, one of the most important aspects will be regulations applied to foods and food processes. Mr Paul Gray of the European Commission (Gray, 1990) has described in detail the mechanisms and processes by which the Community will standardize, monitor and administer food regulations. One of the guiding principles is that the safety and well-being of consumers must be protected. However. this premise must not be used to create non-tariff barriers to internal trade within the Community. Pursuant to a Communication of the European Commission (1985), all legislation at Community level should be based on three principles (1) to ensure consumer safety, (2) to provide consumers with information and protection in non-health matters and to ensure fair trade, and (3) provide for the required public controls. The eloquence of the Communication is bespoken in the following quotation: ‘. . . it is neither possible nor desirable to confine in a legislative straitjacket the culinary riches of twelve European countries. . .’ From this flowed the concept that compositional or recipe matters should not be subject to legislation. More than 100 000 rules and regulations have existed in
730
1)
11. C ‘urnming
the Community but the process of standardization is expected to reduce this to about 1000. ‘The end result of taking this position is that consumers should be protected when necessary and traders should be able to trade freely within a specified set of rules. It is stressed by the Commission that this does not imply moving to the lowest common denominator. It does imply strict application of a simplified set of rules and it does imply that Member States do not attempt to limit trade in goods from other Member States through the adoption of regulations which exceed those of other Member States. The implication of the Single Market for goods imported from outside the Community seems to be freer movement. Entry of goods to a given Member State will depend on meeting specified requirements as is the case now. In theory. those goods should then be treated the same as European manufactured goods. Many knowledgeable advisors strongly recommend that firms wishing to ensure secure access, form alliances and ‘become European’. The matters just described are far from simple. There are many aspects of deliberation, negotiation and finally legislation that cannot be described here. The essence of the matter is that Community food law and its administration will be greatly simplified, presumably to the betterment of European consumers. The final proof of this statement must await the practical test of effective application over a significant period of time. One caveat that must be expressed is that regardless of the legislation being passed, the very real removal of boundaries and barriers or of the political will to become one economic zone, Europe is an amalgamation of regions with strong cultural heritage. An interesting phenomenon is currently being reported. Even as the ‘National’ boundaries and perhaps sovereignties, are fading, they are being replaced by ethnic or regional cultural identities. Generally speaking, those who would trade in the food markets of Europe must not make the mistake of believing that 1992 will necessarily create a huge single market for any specific product even though it will create an open trading zone.
THE GENERAL CLIMATE COLLABORATION
FOR RESEARCH
Commission does not perform research. It c‘ncourages and supports research. especially III areas of broad or strategic interest transcending Member State competences or ability to fund. In .I longstanding arrangement under the 1976 I’ramework Agreement on Cooperation the C‘ommission has participated in managing a defined program of joint research with Canada. The Parliament of the European Community has passed various motions in support of increased third country cooperation in the area of scientific research. Finally. as mcnCanada has been In\lted to tioned previously. begin a process that should result in ;I Science and Technology Agreement under which a significant program of collaborati\:e research can flt)urish. During the negotiation process related to the proposed S&T Agreement collaborators ~111 have to ensure that their interests are protected and advanced. After the completion of the agreement the partners will have to operate in a business-like fashion to ensure that they benefit fully and appropriately from their participation. Neither of these statements is meant to throw a negative light on ‘official’ Canada/EC‘ cooperation. The point is simply that Canadian partners must look after their own inter-ests. Also. while no final position has been taken, it is most likely that the nature of the Agreement will be that there will be no direct access to IX‘ money by Canadian partners. In all likelihood the (‘anadian partner will have to supply from whatever source. 100% of the Canadian share of the total budget J’OI any given undertaking. However. as a ’ s or even ‘) 10 partner in a specific research project. the effect of spending a single. Canadian dollar could be immense. (At the very least, a Canadian partner would have to have two European cooperators.) Indirectly. the Canadian partner(s) will experience rho advantage of sharing of EC funds through the European partners. Only the Canadian component would not be matched by EC funds. In the tinal analysis this is both financially attractive and the fact tha! It opens access to powerful international research consortia, scientifically important. Matters such ah sharing of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) will generally be agreed upon between the research partners. based on inputs and contributions to project activity. Such arrangements must. of course. comply with the laws of relevant legal jurisdictions.
At the EC Commission lewd
Bi-lateral Member State cooperation
There appears to be a definite openness to the concept of cooperation. For the most part, the
In the area of bi-lateral cooperation there is a wealth of experience of cooperation at all levels.
Opportunities for research partnerships
In a number of instances, e.g. France and Germany, to name only two, Canada has country to country agreements. There are specific MOUs and we have direct project by project activity not covered by any higher level agreement. In pursuing the mandate of the Attache position considerable interest in collaboration has been found in most Member States and in their related institutions. It is the opinion of the author that, because cooperation with individual Member States organizations exists within a more flexible milieu, it is likely in this area that the majority of cooperation would continue. for some time. The Community level S&T Agreement would not apply directly but could shelter bi-lateral activities in the sense that participation would not be blocked because of Framework commitments by the European partner. Cooperation
at the pre-competitive vs strategic level
For the most part, pre-competitive research is performed by universities or government operated/ funded institutions. This is true in both Europe and Canada. One difference is that in Europe many of the former government laboratories have been spun-off/privatized under various names such as ‘operating agencies’. They are still funded largely (80% or more) by government but on a contract basis as opposed to a budget. Industry and technology centres (in some cases, these include the privatized former government labs) tend to perform the more strategic research. Industry participates in various aspects of research, including funding by one mechanism or another. It appears that the progress of the European Community will become even more oriented toward and sensitive to, industrial needs according to the budget proposals of Mr Delors for 199337. The specifics of this matter are still to be developed but should Canada become party to a Science and Technology Agreement, the new EC thrust could provide an important meeting ground for Canadian and European industry as well as the academic communities.
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES SUPPORT OF COLLABORATION
IN
Canadian funding for international research It is almost dangerous to try to specify the source of such funds since specific programs come and go
in the emerging
European
Communii?.
231
and others are so specific they could be missed. In a number of instances, the funding would not be earmarked for international cooperation but nothing would prevent the use of support for that kind of research under the correct circumstances. A few of the key funding agencies for international collaboration are External Affairs and International Trade Canada, Industry Science and Technology Canada, National Research Council and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. It should be said that ‘new’ and ‘big’ money is not necessarily the key to successful collaborations Resources committed to a field of research can legitimately and profitably be allocated to a strategic international collaboration which represents new research activities. In other words. international cooperation is not absolutely dependent on new resources. In many instances, the alliances formed are as important as the actual research. Presuming the initial experience was good, doors that have been opened tend to stay open for future joint efforts. Agriculture Canada initiative in collaborative research with European partners All of the foregoing can be considered a preface to the deliberations and decisions of the Research Branch of Agriculture Canada with respect to cooperative research with Europeans. The looming Single Market’ or ‘1992’, the associated programs and policies, combined with domestic consultations and perspectives resulted in Research Branch determining in 1989-90, that an effective way of advancing RB interests in the area of research and technology flow would be to station a dedicated representative in Europe (Brussels). Consultations with EAITC and the current Ambassador at the Mission of Canada to the European Communities seemed to confirm the soundness of this conclusion and space and accreditation was provided for an Attache ( Agri-Food Sciences ). In August of 1990, the author reported to Brussels to take up the challenge of ‘promoting and facilitating collaborative research and bi-directional technology flow’ between Canada and Europe. Reality dictates that a measure of the success of the initiative can only be taken at some titne in the future when we can see whether or not real collaborations with real outputs have happened. With about 60% of the current assignment complete, it is possible to cite some of the accomplishments to date that can be expected to enable cooperation to take place.
232
/I. R. (‘urnming
In the absence of a Science and Technology Agreement at Community level it was necessary to focus most of the effort on potential bi-lateral collaborations at the so-called Member State level. It has already been stated that very real interest has been shown at this level and this augurs well for future possibilities when a S&T Agreement is in place. When working at the level of specific counterpart organizations. such as INRA (France), AFRC (UK), and DLO (Netherlands), the level of enthusiasm for the Research Branch initiative has been even greater. As of this moment. both the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique and the Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek have signed MOUs with Research Branch. While the MOUs had to be between bodies that had the authority to make an official arrangement, both encourage the participation of other research partners in Canada and Europe. These MOUs signify a real intent to increase direct cooperation between the parties involved. Specific projects are being arranged across the spectrum of agri-food research. The presence of a Research Branch representative has been useful in gathering and interpreting information about pertinent developments in the EC. in assisting Branch personnel in making effective visits in Europe and in directing European delegations to make effective visits (from their perspective and ours) to Canada. It has even been of significance to the decision of a Belgian biotechnology firm, Plant Genetic Systems, locating a component of its business in Canada. The main thrust during the remaining period of the current assignment will be to facilitate the initiation of specific research activities with appropriate partners.
CONCLUSION The conclusion will be brief. There are tremendous forces at work in Europe at this moment. Some are initiated and managed by the current partners in the European Communities while others are more or less beyond their control. The advantages to Canada to form cooperative alliances, at an organized and strategic level, are considerable. In general terms, there is a willingness, even eagerness. to collaborate with Canadian research partners. However. since in this case Canada is the ‘petitioner’ Canadians must take the initiative and seize the opportunities that are presented.
REFERENCES Borchardt. K. D. (1990). ~%rlroprun Un@cation. Mice Ihr Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. Commission of the European Communities (1985). Completion of the Internal Market: Community Legislation on Foodstuffs. COM(85)603 CEC Brussels, Belgium. Council of the European Communities (1989). Adoption of a specific programme for the dissemination and utilization of scientific and technological research results (VALUE) 1989. 1992. Qjicial Journal of’the EC L200, 1989. pp. 23 ~8. Delors, J. (1992). From the Single Act to Maastricht and beyond. European Documents 1762163, pp. 5 6 Gazzo, E. (1992). EEA: The Saga Draws to u Clot. Europe No. 5670. Agence lnternationale d’Information pour la Presse. Gazzo, E. (1992). The Cwnmission Proposr.~ u .Strtrtc,gJ fbr Technological R&D Europe No. 5107. Agence Internationale dInformation pour la Presse. Gray, P. (1990). Food Law and the Internal Market. Food Policy, April 1990, pp. 1 I I -21. McKenzie, D. (1992). Delors to push science funds into arms of commerce. Neu Scientist. 8, 16.