New Worlds — New Solutions

Transcription

THE SWEDISH EU PRESIDENCY CONFERENCE
new
worlds
—
new
solutions
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
AS A BASIS FOR DEVELOPING EUROPE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
new worlds —
new solutions
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
AS A BASIS FOR DEVELOPING EUROPE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
Lund 7-8 July 2009, Sweden
Final report
Rapporteur: Professor Uno Svedin, The Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas)
(In consultation with the Lund Declaration Group)
table of contents
Introduction
The aim
Preparatory seminars
The Lund Declaration
The Lund Conference design
7
7
7
7
7
Report from plenary session (Day 1)
1:1 Welcome
1:2 World outlooks towards 2025 and beyond
1:3 Reflections on the international research panorama
1:4 Surprising system changes
1.5 The future European research and innovation landscape in a global context
9
9
10
12
13
14
Report from the four break-up sessions (Day 2)
A. Nature shocks — as Opportunity
B. Business Shocks — as Opportunity
C. Social and Cultural Shocks — as Opportunity
D. Decline — as Opportunity
16
16
18
21
23
Report from final plenary session (Day 2) — Conclusions
26
Appendix
App. 1 Conference programme
App. 2 The Lund Declaration
App. 3 The Lund Declaration — Addendum
App. 4 Speech by the Swedish Minister for Higher Education and Research Tobias Krantz App. 5 Speech by EU Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potočnik
App. 6 “Non-western” contribution by Ambassador Krishnan Srinivasan (Asia)
App. 7 “Non-western” contribution by Dr. Neville Alexander (Africa)
App. 8 Ex Post reflections by the Organisers
App. 9 Participants at the conference New Worlds — New Solutions
App. 10 Organisation for the conference New Worlds — New Solutions
App. 11 Informative links to conference material (Back cover)
28
28
40
42
44
46
49
54
60
61
67
69
introduction
new worlds — new solutions
introduction
The Conference “New Worlds — New Solutions” was
held on 7–8 July 2009 in the University town of Lund
in Southern Sweden and was arranged as an integral
part of the Swedish eu Presidency that started on 1
July 2009. It attracted around 380 participants from 35
countries in Europe and also from other parts of the
world on an invitation basis.
The aim
The aim of the conference was to probe the long term
aspects of European Research Technology, Development and Innovation (rtdi) with special regard to its
tasks and missions and also, in an indicative manner,
on its structure. The relation between the all European
level efforts and the rtdi activities connected to the
national level was especially at the heart of the endeavour. A common theme was how Europe should manage the emerging “Grand Challenges”.
At an early stage in the preparation a few of these
challenges were selected in order to illuminate the situation and also to give some deeper reference to the
possible content of such challenges, without being
all-encompassing in scope. In all cases the balance between the problem aspects of the major challenges and,
on the other hand, the possible opportunities connected with these, was strived for.
The selected “prototype” challenges were
a.Nature shocks
b.Business Shocks
c.Social and cultural shocks
d.European-relative world decline
In all cases the time horizon chosen was up until 2025,
but with possibilities to use a longer time frame when
this could be seen as appropriate (e.g. as in the case of
climate change).
Preparatory seminars
For the investigation, exemplification and illumination of all these four domains pre -seminars were organised during the period February — April 2009 in four
different European cities: Brussels (seminar a), Berlin
(b), Tallinn (c) and Madrid (d). The reports from these
meetings are available on the Swedish Presidency web
and on other websites also given at the end of this report. The results of the pre-meetings were provided
to all participants before the Lund Conference and a
strong fraction of those participating in these seminars also participated in Lund, some of whom were
speakers.
The Lund Declaration
Backed by the results from the pre-seminars and from
other European consultations preparation was made
for a “Lund- declaration”. That was launched the last
day of the Lund Conference (on 8 July) as the Conference Chair’s Summary. In addition, an Addendum
to the Declaration was made in the days following the
closure of the Lund Conference. The addendum mirrors the discussions from the two conference days and
was also made available, together with the Declaration,
on the Swedish eu Presidency web within a few working days of the Conference. These results have also
been open, not only to the Conference participants,
but to the public at large.
The Lund Conference design
In order to reflect on the various challenges and on
issues of importance for the future of the European
Research and Innovation (rtdi) system the two Lund
Conference days had the following design.
Day 1
After the opening by the organisers, keynote speeches
were given by the Swedish Minister of Higher Education and Research Dr Tobias Krantz and the eu Commissioner for Science and Research Dr Janez Potočnik.
A broad overview was then provided of the global and
European arenas to look for inherent long term tendencies and allow foresight based analysis of the emerging
patterns. This provided a starting point for research
and innovation policy reflections by political leaders
at ministerial level. Later in the day, after a survey of
different potential surprises, further reflections were
made by various senior stakeholders from the EU, the
business world, academia and civil society.
The session blocks were thus the following:
a.Welcome and political keynote, stage setting presentations
b.World outlooks towards the situation in the year
2025 and beyond (through interventions from Europe, Asia, Africa and North America)
c.A political reflection on the research and innovation
international panorama
d.Reflections on surprising system changes that may
change the world picture
e.Comments by various stakeholder representatives
on these perspectives and what they mean for the
future of the European research and innovation
landscape in a global context.
e.Summing up of the day and laying the groundwork
for day 2.
introduction
Day 2
Four parallel break-up sessions started the day, corresponding to the four “Shocks — as opportunity” i.e.
a.Nature shocks
b.Business shocks
c.Social and cultural shocks
d.Decline in relative terms of Europe in a world perspective.
With that as a basis a rounding-up plenary session was
arranged with comments from the Director General of
dg Research in the eu Commission Mr José Manuel
Silva Rodríguez, and from the Spanish State Secretary
for Science and Innovation Dr. Carlos Martínez Alonso, representing the incoming eu Presidency.
The Lund Declaration was ceremonially delivered
by the Conference Chair Professor Pär Omling (as the
Conference Chair’s summary) to the Swedish Minister
for Higher Education and Research.
report from plenary session (day 1)
report from plenary session
(day 1)
Most presentations from the plenary sessions are possible to access over the web using the links given in
Appendix 11, specifically in the Lund University web a
streamer presentation is provided giving video images
of the presentations from the plenary sessions.
1:1 Welcome*
After introductory words of welcome by Professors
Pär Omling and Lena Gustafsson — representing the
four organising Swedish research bodies (fas, Formas,
The Swedish Research Council and vinnova) a word
of welcome was also given by the Vice Chancellor of
Lund University Per Eriksson, Lund University not
least providing the venue for the Conference. Over the
two days Mr. Quentin Cooper from the bbc, uk, served as moderator for the plenary discussions.
Swedish Minister Tobias Krantz
In his keynote address the Swedish Minister for Higher Education and Research Dr Tobias Krantz opened by stating
that in a period of economic crisis it is very important to
invest in the future by maintaining investments in research
and innovation. He mentioned the priorities for the Swedish
EU Presidency in dealing with the strengthening of the European Research Area, ERA. Facing climate change and other
Grand Challenges will be an important task for future European research as well as the links between education and
research. The efforts needed at European level were clearly
outlined. On the research policy level he mentioned that he
didn’t see any conflict at all between the complementary efforts provided by basic and applied research. We need both.
The innovation aspects were also highlighted.
At the general policy level he emphasised the importance of research infrastructure and the new globalised mobility landscape to strengthen era. The world
competitive situation was referred to with comments
on the development in the usa and Japan. From a Swedish perspective he was in particularly appreciative
of the fact that the ess initiative now has landed in
Lund.
Strengthening the links between different policy
areas is another priority of the Swedish Presidency, in
particular in the knowledge triangle.
The development of a new governance structure for
era (European Research Area) also has a high priority
with clear budgetary consequences. It may be an app-
ropriate time now to discuss both the composition of
the future eu budget, where more resources should
go into research and innovation, and to discuss what
should come after the current eu framework programme for research.
(The full text of the Minister’s speech is provided in
Appendix 4 and on the Swedish Presidency web).
Commisioner Janez Potocnik
Dr Potočnik started by referring to the Conference title “New Worlds - New Solutions”. Here the “levelling
out” of the global players came to the fore, as the geopolitical situation is quickly changing. The concern for
availability of energy, food, water etc. exemplifies what
we are dealing with. We are facing a “new world of problems” that we have to find solutions for. It is now very
timely to address these challenges. This is especially
true now when we — at the global, as well as European
level — have become so much more interconnected.
Thus our solutions need to be globalised. And in this
situation Europe has to act together.
The issues we have to take seriously are many. The development of sustainability is urgent. Green industrial
production — including food — is at the top of the list.
The new basis for innovation in Europe has to be developed. Also in industry there are many challenges connected to new technical solutions. Here we have to find
appropriate forms for the future development of era.
We have to further design what could be named
the “European Research Ecosystem” and be alert to its
interplay with the innovation system. This is among
other things elaborated upon in the Vision 2020 document.
So we have to set up a roadmap beyond the 7th Framework Program, including finding the future path for
the erc. We also have the new initiatives just coming
along as “Joint Programming” and the set plan (in the
energy field) to take care of.
The globalised world means a need for more international cooperation and support for capacity building.
It is not sufficient just to develop policies. We have to
implement them! It is in the implementation that the
new major social challenges have to be met. The development of the “knowledge triangle” is part of this.
Thus all this calls for an enhanced forward looking
era governance, where the eu member states will interact, mobilising all sorts of efforts at European level.
The need to involve all stakeholders in this is obvious.
* The text in this report is on the responsibility of the Rapporteur only and has not been checked with all the many speakers and panel discussants. What really was said in the
Conference plenaries could though be freely viewed in the Lund University web streamer presentations - see Appendix 11 for the link.
We are not only talking here about the context of the
Framework Program, as it is only one of several instruments. In general terms the strategic approach must
build on further development of all elements of the
Lisbon Strategy.
(The presentation in full is provided in Appendix
5 and is available on the Lund University website, see
Appendix 11).
1:2 World outlooks towards 2025 and beyond *
In the following session world outlooks with the time
horizon 2025 were explored by specially invited guest
speakers, not only from Europe but also from Asia,
Africa and North America.
In this overview session dealing with some of the
most important tendencies that can be identified at
the moment concerning world development the speakers tried to also probe Grand Challenges such as world
economy, climate change, changes in the education system and democracy considerations. They also reflected
upon how future everyday life for individual citizens
could be imagined in different parts of the world. A
very important overriding concern was the long term
world history development and what it might tell us.
The session also tried to illuminate world perspectives
from outside Europe, including constructive but still
critical comments on European perceptions about the
world and the future position of Europe in the coming
world situation. (The non-western contributions from
Asia and Africa are provided in Appendix 6 and 7). Issues about the development of knowledge production at
world level were also reflected upon in a mood of probable strong change. Tendencies in the human and technological resources of Europe compared to tendencies in
the rest of the world were high on the list of attention.
Speakers:
Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Professor, iiasa Austria
Mr. Krishnan Srinivasan, Ambassador, India
Dr. Neville Alexander, South Africa
Dr. Cynthia McIntyre, usa.
Professor Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Europe
Prof. Nakicenovic started by reminding the audience
of the major changes that have been going on during
the last 10 000 years, from tool making/agriculture through the industrial revolution up until today. The global challenges we are facing today include:
• sustainable energy and food security
• the reliability of systems
• the investment in rtd and development
• efforts to be made with regard to climate, energy and
economy in the light of the needs of individual citizens
• the demographic development
Among major trends he highlighted three, i.e. urbanization, democratization and education in relation
to development. These issues will also have to be the
starting point for addressing the management of major risks ahead (e.g. dramatic climate risks if we move
too far above a 2 degree global average temperature increase. If not counteracted we may have to face severe
shocks in this domain!).
The potential major risks call for new solutions, e.g.
in the interface of climate change and new solutions in
the energy production and consumption system.
But we also need to mobilise global investments that
match the risks. Both human and technical capital
is needed. Knowledge capital in rtd and Innovation
capital has to go hand in hand. Not least this applies
in the challenge of the needed sustainability transition. eu has here to face the need for increased rtd
and innovation support for these purposes, facing the
competition with the rest of the world that is now also
growing in mobilisation of its rtd and innovation efforts.
Ambassador Krishnan Srinivasan, India
Prof. Srinivasan saw his task as one of providing an
Asian perspective to the global challenges we all face,
but particularly the European role in this. He made the
distinction between what has been called emerging
and emerged economics. In a certain way this is mirrored in the bi-polar world of the “occident” versus the
“orient”. Less reasonable is to see this as an expression
of different civilisations having “active” or “passive”
inclinations.
As seen from Asia, “western” universities have tried
to promote a specific perception of time and space. Institutionally this has been a way to propagate a certain
set of cultural values as a means to manifest a certain
world order.
Whatever could be thought of the world of 2025 it
seems most likely that it will be distinctly less “western”. Some analyses have already named this future
period — which we are now moving with speed into
— the “Asian Century”. Already we see a spectacular
economic growth in Asia fuelled by low cost work, vast
technical investments and growing infrastructure.
Many of the key economic system elements, i.e.
trade, financing, innovation, organisation of markets
etc., will shift their emphasis to Asian realms. An important issue is the idea of independency. Already in
2030 the combined Chinese and Indian spending power could represent 2/3 of the world economy. Already
today the envisaging of the future shape of manufacture in the world is an urgent research topic. The financial architecture of 1945 is quickly changing. Already
today China is a strong global economic player and will
very quickly expand this position. In such a situation it
is very strange to see the institutional composition of
10
countries being led by institutions like the imf, e.g. giving strong presence to European countries, forgetting
the emerging superpowers in the new situation with
rapid expansion in Asia.
Dr. Neville Alexander, South Africa
In the short to medium term we already face a globalised world. This also relates to the fields of Research
and Education.
In the longer term the way we see the world will
change. Specifically, a stronger concern for the planet
as a whole might emerge. However, globalization has to
be viewed with a long historical and also philosophical
perspective. Especially with African eyes - and reflecting on the fact that Africa long ago was the cradle of
humanity – such a grand perspective is needed. Such a
long evolutionary perspective may also pave the way
for a possible shift from a current “western-centric”
view of the world to one that is more “world” centred.
The more than half a millennium of European domination may now come to an end. The historical
steps developing the “European model” i.e. the steps
of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial revolution may now take a new turn. The disruptive features of the European dominance for other
parts of the world must especially be seen with open
eyes. However the paths for Africa and Asia may not be
identical. Their historical backgrounds are different.
In the intermediate steps the ways in which “foreign
aid” is distributed and coordinated has to change. The
new way to see the world will definitely call for these,
and other, changes. This is especially true when we are
on the doorstep of a New World Order. We should understand how the new values and ethics that are now
called for should be promoted.
Humanity has for example to break with the economic rationality behind the idea that “more is better”.
This is especially important in facing the situation of
the scarce resources and the environment of the globe.
The new world order must take this into account. This
must be part of the new ethos! And again: the value
system has to change.
Dr. Cynthia McIntyre, USA.
As seen from the “west” we have a perception of Europe and the us as being the leaders of the world in
many ways — and that has been a fact for decades. It
relates to the research side (both basic and applied). It
relates to the intellectual capital, to the available and
growing research infrastructure and to the connected
innovation systems in all their shapes and shades. The
development of strong high-tech markets is also based
on the capacity to continuously be at the leading edge
of innovation. The capacity to develop new companies
is also part of the strength of this development model.
The role of culture will increase as a competitive factor. But what type of “culture” are we talking about,
especially with regard to knowledge generation and
innovation application? The qualities that have bred
a dominant number of Nobel prize winners in the sci-
ences are to be found here “in the west”. The relationship to risk taking is still a major western asset, although many facets of this culture are under “export”
to other parts of the world. Essential elements in this
model of innovation and risk taking are the capacity to
launch the capital needed, to fund the development of
technology at the edge, and to provide partnership and
maximise the return on public policies. Indeed, at the
centre of this stands a culture devoted to the promotion of risk talking.
Session round-up reflections
In the reflections about the emergence of a new world
economic landscape the quickly expanding capacities
from Asian countries were highlighted. Especially
from the perspective of a multi-decadal time frame
this is very important — but also within a much shorter time frame. It seems as if the “old” issue of how
the “cultural values” frame development is taking on a
new and vivid presence. This emergence is greeted by
different voices — on the one hand with self assurance
from Europe/North America and on the other from
Asia and Africa. In the later cases it also comes with
a distinct element of historical sarcasm on how the
European view of world order has up until now been
perceived elsewhere in the world and what that now
means in terms of need for European self-reflection.
It is also greeted, not least from Africa, by the voice of
need to reform the value base.
If we are just at the moment entering an “Asian century” what does it mean in terms of a multi-polar world
system, and in particular what does it mean for shifts
in the world knowledge production system, including
that of innovation. What in turn does this mean for
the future of allocation and expansion of research infrastructure?
The architecture of the economic word order, as
it was designed after 1945, will change, although it is
still difficult to say exactly how. What is clear is the
coming shift of power of the global actors, including
the emerging ones. In the new multi-polar world there will emerge a new balance between the “Atlantic”
and the “Asian” regions. Decisive factors for how the
balance will be struck will depend on capacities to
mobilise clear visions, foresight capacities to analyse
alternatives, and planning competence. It will also be
dependent on how the young people will be mobilised
in their societies.
The aging European societies also need to shift their
priorities in order to match these changes in demography. In the socio-cultural field, Europe will need to redefine its relationship to Islam. In a broader sense Europe
will need to redefine its relationship to the world that
has earlier been economically “undeveloped”, but that
now emerges at world level as competitors and also as
possible partners of equal standing.
The role of research and innovation will be decisive.
In the broader competitive world, Europe should be advised to sharpen its priority setting, and to stay more
united, in order to adapt to the new situation. Europe
11
could also take the lead with regard to sustainability
approaches, even at world level. A new pressure may
emerge for Europe to be more self-sufficient in terms
of resources. The competition and control of natural
resources, raw material and other life-essential support
factors, such as water, will grow. Thus the way the management of these resources is carried out will increase
in importance. There is a need for a shift in this value system. We all have to adapt to be able to live on
the planet under the conditions that the natural cycles
provide. And we have in this context to “de-carbonise”
the world. Sustainable development is also an aspect of
the knowledge based society.
1:3 Reflections on the international research
panorama*
In this session people holding political offices with
connection to research and innovation discussed, in a
panel format, the research policy aspects for Europe in
relation to the long-term world outlook
Participants in the panel:
Dr. Björn von Sydow (chair),
Dr. José Mariano Gago, Minister, Portugal
Dr. Miroslava Kopicová, Minister, Czech Republic
Mr. Uffe Tovdal Pedersen, Permanent Secretary,
Denmark.
The research and innovation policy challenges
The challenges for Europe, as well as for usa, were
considered to be how to continue to be world-leading
societies. Here the rtd capacities are seen to be in the
forefront. We also have to be very alert to creating solutions that are sustainable.
We have to explore a number of facets of development where technology is only one of these. Technology
is just one of several factors — although important. We
need to develop the ways in which we cooperate, how
we use the cultural assets of Europe, and also how an increased emphasis on social solutions could be achieved.
In the discussions about science policy in Europe several different lines of reflections were expressed. The
history after the second world war was perceived to
be interesting in this regard. Here we have the aim of
finding solutions to urgent issues, such as the need for
food and water. These challenges should be seen in a
frame of development of democracy and to be embedded in the ethos of the rule of law.
Also the strong need to promote the role of women
and the emphasis on education belong to what needs
to be done. The challenges are both societal and nature
oriented (such as the coupling of human and natural
resources) as well as technical (development of supporting new capacities serving increased employment
possibilities, such as material science and it etc).
One point of the discussion was concerned with if
and how a scientific agenda could be connected to a
societal agenda. The responses to this question went in
several directions, ranging from strong scepticism to
strong support (i.e. that indeed there was, or was not, a
distinct link and if the connection was important).
Causing less disagreement was the indentified need
to increase public spending for science (and development and innovation). There is a real responsibility to
reach the target of 3% for these purposes (including
the contribution from the private sector). The research
system needs to be kept vigorous and supported even
in times of economic crisis.
Another issue causing a high degree of concern was
the need to keep up the demand for high quality in
research. This is linked to the further improvement of
the European Research System, but this has to be done
in a rapidly changing world with strong actors competing with Europe, e.g. many of the countries in Asia.
Also the student exchange picture is rapidly changing.
The issue of the 3% target
Often the techniques of setting targets in politics have
a useful symbolic function, even when the targets are
not in the end being met. Now that the 3% of gdp target for research has been launched this is in itself an
important step. It can be seen as an expression of an
increased political interest for the science (and innovation) policy fields. But the European investment is
still only half of that in the usa. An important aspect
of this is the sheer size of the research constituency in
counties competing with Europe, such as the usa, China, India etc., considering the relative development in
different regions of the world and the speed of transformation. This is a very critical issue.
Setting the targets is thus in itself a very useful process. Seeing how well the target is met is also important
as this acts as a probe into the conditions of the research
system and its support in the general policy system.
But the discussion need not only be fixed on the
percentage figures of the target. The effectiveness by
which the investments are mobilized for research purposes need to be analysed. The relationship between
spending and outcome is an important factor. The way
in which the target is set and how it is applied is often
as important as the sheer size of the target.
International cooperation
The Lisbon treaty (and its current ratification process)
is important in dealing with a number of issues, including that of relating national and European efforts.
One new trend that could be identified might be the
increased role of the national contribution of the European research scene.
There are very quick changes going on right now
in the “knowledge eco-system” in Europe and in the
12
related knowledge economy. One important issue is
the process by which this system can be made more
“simple” and transparent. Also the reduction of “bureaucratic procedures” is part of this challenge.
To improve the future of the Framework Program
a more coherent policy is needed. The fragmentation
issue is real and it has to be seen in comparison with
the state-of-the-art in the systems of our competitors.
This also provides conditions that we have to contemplate when addressing major challenges, such as health,
food etc. where the science and technology efforts are
very important.
University issues
The issue of accountability in funding is important.
There is an intergovernmental aspect to this. How could
cooperation be expanded? Research Infrastructure and
the esfri road map are part of all this and have considerable impacts on the capabilities for university research. Universities play an important role, but have to
reform by improving their capacity to match the new
challenges.
1:4 Surprising system changes *
This session explored the ways in which surprises can
emerge that disrupt the entire picture of what seems
to be reasonable assumptions and a basis for prognosis.
What is the nature of these surprises and how could we
address them? What are we in fact looking for?
This session started by viewing a video film specially designed for the conference, made by the Swedish
artist duo Bigert & Bergström. The video film covered
aspects of future surprises as seen through the eyes of
the artists. After that a set of keynote speakers gave
their views on the subject.
Speakers:
Prof. Bertil Andersson, Singapore
Prof. Em. C.S.”Buzz” Holling, Canada
Prof. Joyeeta Gupta, the Netherlands
Dr. Erkki Ormala, Nokia, Finland
Professor Bertil Andersson —
Technological changes and their social impacts
As a starting point, Bertil Andersson reflected upon a
comparison between the situation now and the situation a century ago. This was based on an analysis made
for the 800 year anniversary celebration of Cambridge
University in 2009. The question was “what was the
technology world outlook when Cambridge celebrated
its 700th anniversary in 1909”. What did they already
know then, and what did they not even envisage? The
list of what was not there in 1909 proved to be a long
one. The atomic knowledge and the understanding of
the molecules of life were not there, nor was the In-
ternet. But in 1909 the Nobel prize for physics went
to Marconi and Brown for the development of wireless
telegraphy. What would then be areas that could in the
future be domains for dramatic new findings for us? It
is not unreasonable to speculate about breakthroughs
in the interface between computers and the human
brain within the next 25 years. This may have strong
influences on education and there may emerge strong
social consequences of kinds that we today do not have
a faint understanding of.
Another interesting domain could be the field of
photosynthesis, creating the basis for what could be
called “the artificial leaf”. If we could construct it, then
the efficient capture of solar energy may be used to
make chemical fuels. “If the leaf can do it, we can do
it”. A comparison was made with Leonardo’s dream: “If
birds can fly, we can fly”. However, the potential great
discoveries of tomorrow may not be made (only) in the
us or Europe, but rather in institutions in Asia. Thus
the issue of dealing with the development of the European Research Area (era) is of high importance for us
in Europe.
Professor “Buzz” Holling —
The planet as system
In a very different approach the issue of “Managing
the planet” was addressed. Here it was less the specific
technological advances that were in focus, but instead
the need for grand systems changes — at planetary level - that could be met by large co-operative international efforts with the goal of transforming the combined
social and natural systems, while at the same time also
facing the possible risk panoramas involved. To achieve
this there is a need for support by various technologies.
An important historical example from our times is the
development of the Internet which is such a key instrument.
Times of pulses in the systems are also times of deep
surprises from the unknowns that become exposed.
Therefore we also need a host of failsafe experiments
to test new ways of communication, living and sustaining our foundations. An example of ongoing projects
that spawn different regional inventions for global responses is trying to find a new energy synthesis for the
world that as rapidly as possible minimizes the use of
oil and minimises net production of greenhouse gases.
And this is only one example dealing with the broader
approach of calls for a combination of multi-scale synthesis, non-linear theory, evolutionary biology and human history as the foundations for understanding and
managing our complex, transforming world.
Professor Joyeeta Gupta —
The planetary governance
Looking more closely at the governance aspects of the
emerging global changes, the interplay between the
13
human capacity to handle the challenges, and the technological support to do so, comes in focus. There may
be telecommunication surprises waiting around the
corner. On the one hand increased capacities may be be
created, but if not carefully scrutinized new types of
vulnerabilities may also be created that at the moment
are difficult to perceive.
The changes in the geo-political realm, some of
which are due for example to climate change, call for
efforts in redesigning paths to sustainability. How the
new strong actors, such as China and India, will act is
of great interest here, but also how Europe will proceed
in these, and connected, areas of concern.
Here the way in which global governance will be approached is of great importance. The way that the governance of climate change has been pursued so far is
a very illuminating case that may also provide lessons
for other related areas. The creation of the ipcc (The
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) in the
1980s and how it has developed since then is especially
of great interest.
In the further pursuit of elements for future governance the public-private-partnership mechanism
(ppp) has to be more carefully investigated. A number
of issues have here to be further probed and developed. One interesting case is the water provisions for
which current models are not working in a satisfactory
way. All this has to be dealt with. At the same time this
provides a source for social surprises. The same holds
true for cultural and religious implications that may
emerge in the grander picture connected with competition over resources.
With changes in the economical and ecological world
situation (e.g. due to climate change) the issue of refugees and large scale changes in migration patterns may
also give rise to major surprises, especially in terms of
the sheer size of the surprises relating to the challenges.
Major social and political turbulences have previously
emerged historically from such types of developments
with origins in poverty and desperation over food situations. In this context the old “South-North” divide
may take quite different forms. This will be of strong
importance when new forms of negotiations will have
to be installed at global level. New challenges may here
add to old, not yet solved, ones in dealing with issues
such as “the right to develop” and similar topics.
Vice President, Nokia, Erkki Ormala —
New rules in the innovation game
What could be seen as surprises in “the innovation
game”? First of all the industrial world is already experiencing strong rtd investments in many sectors,
including the it domain where Nokia is operating. It
is not only the sheer size of the operations in terms
of people and global investment, but also the design
of the networks and the new ways of knowledge crea-
tion and utilization that is at the heart of things. The
situation has gone from a system of traditional large
enterprises to “extended enterprises” with “orchestration capability”. The architecture of the orchestration
is especially in focus as they are balancing demand,
supply and innovation spheres of action. And these are
global operations calling for a distributed pattern of
key innovation capacities. Centres located in key technology areas have hot spots e.g. in Boston, Palo Alto,
Beijing, towns in Switzerland, and in Helsinki. The development of joint facilities is part of the picture. The
links between industry and world leading university
and research institutions is another facet involving the
triangle “research — knowledge sharing — and education”. A strong emphasis on the mobility of research
personnel is also part of the strategy, as is the need to
prepare for flexibility.
The need to engage people who can think beyond
the routine and who will have the ability not just to
adapt to change, but to help create the new world is
essential. A social transformation in those parts of the
world where the innovation dynamics will be created
is already about to happen feeding the future “network
economy”. Thus fundamental changes are already taking place in this globalized world. Due to the complexity of the endeavour it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the surprises may emerge, but they are bound
to appear. And in all this there are more opportunities
than threats involved.
1:5 The future European research and innovation
landscape in a global context *
In this session a panel discussed the research and innovations consequences for Europe against the background of a world changing in ways alluded to by speakers earlier in the day, including the inherent possible
surprises.
Panel participants:
Dr. Jan van den Biesen, Philips, the Netherlands
Prof. Luke Georghiou, uk
Prof. Helga Nowotny, erc
Dr. Zoran Stančič, eu, dg Research
Prof. Howy Jacobs, Finland
Dep.Dir.Gen. Antti Peltomäki, eu, dg Information
Society and Media
Initiating the discussion Jan van den Biesen alluded
to the points made earlier in the day about the public
— private — partnerships (ppp). His view was that the
current financial regulations in Europe do not work
well for the ppp.
Luc Georghiou addressed the current Research and
Innovation policy in Europe. He did so against the
background of the two simultaneous ongoing crises i.e.
14
that of the economy and that related to sustainability.
The picture of how the economic recovery should come
about is not yet clear. In the rtd field he highlighted
the importance of the knowledge triangle and also the
need to encourage “cost sharing” in major projects in
Europe - as is now emerging in the possibilities of “joint
programming activities”. There is also a deep need to
quickly generate new ideas, as the speed of change is
high. At the same time we have to improve the entrepreneurship skills in the public service sector.
Helga Nowotny started by reflecting on the Grand
Challenges. The situation is highly dynamic. With
regard to our actions we have to be alert to temporal
aspects in the rtd responses. The climate change issue
exemplifies this situation. We have to strengthen our
capacity to respond. In this situation the European Research Council (erc) may face a need for radical policy
alertness. In general the erc has been a success story.
Young talented researchers have been kept in Europe
and a basis for cooperation has been created, with a
process characterised by bottom-up, excellence, and
individual achievement. For the future we shall have
to handle our relative lack of mechanisms in the rtd
arena, especially developing mechanisms devoted to
the identification of and the support of talent.
Zoran Stančič in addressing the Grand Challenges
for the future said that we are in the process of trying to find the right solutions, and in order to do so we
need to organize ourselves in Europe. When we look at
the picture of the future of European research (e.g. in
terms of the European Research Area, era) we need to
define the role of the public sector. This might be important to do in the context of the new challenges, and
this has to be done beyond the perspectives generated
in the current economic crises. The moves in era have
to be made in the context of the Ljubljana process.
Howy Jacobs pointed to the strong advances in the
bio-research sector, not least in the basic sciences. It
is especially the cutting-edge science that should be
supported and not “second class” versions. Short term
demands should have less priority than science aiming
at really new understanding. The European Research
Council (erc) has demonstrated capacities to select
such types of research, emphasising originality, risk
taking and the minimising of bureaucracy. Thus an
expansion of the erc activities should be important
for the future of European Research. In identifying the
tasks of high importance our obligations to this planet
are high on the list.
Antti Peltomäki provided an eu Commission perspective in pointing to the current budgetary constraints
and the need for economic recovery. For the future we
have to probe the lessons learned. All public spending
has to face scrutiny regarding how it is used. The efforts to set up collaborative platforms in research and
innovation are important in mobilising the capacities
in all the 27 Member Countries. The aim is to nsure
that Europe will achieve an advanced position in the
emerging knowledge economy. This should be done
with a clear understanding of the demands of the users
of the knowledge. It is not the aim of the Commission
to be “bureaucratic” in serving these goals.
Discussion
In the general discussion with the auditorium, issues
that came up dealt, for example, with the following
topics:
• erc budget development issues
• The issue of trust and legitimation in the system
• The Lund Declaration
• The Global Challenges
• Leadership in science: it is important that it is not
lost.
• The interface between science and business
• The international relationship Europe — Africa —
Asia
• Gender issues in the context of the 7th Framework
Programme
15
report from the four break-up sessions (day 2)
report from the four
break-up sessions (day 2)*
A. Nature Shocks — as opportunity
B. Business Shocks — as opportunity
C. Social and cultural shocks — as opportunity
D. Decline — as opportunity
A. Nature shocks — as Opportunity
Break-up session arranged by The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial
Planning, (Formas)
Text: Professor Uno Svedin
(For details of the programme see Appendix 1)
Nature shocks and their solutions.
Research as a basis for developing Europe
in a global context
What is meant by Nature shocks and what does relating to these entail? First of all we are not speaking of
just single shocks, but of multiple ones. In addition
they often come in a connected way — they come in an
entangled web – like clusters which make them much
more difficult to handle than if they had just showed
up in a single mode. The shocks also push the total system towards the edge of what it can take, threatening
to drastically move away to a completely different state, from which there are great difficulties in returning
to the initial state. We are speaking about moves close
to tipping points. These transitions are not only environmental, but also social and geopolitical in character.
Due to these features the solutions are not always easily at hand. That is not to say that they do not exist. In
fact there are new possibilities emerging when we are
deliberately facing the nature shocks. The situations
invite us to probe all sorts of actions and invite innovative moves. Research is at the heart of these processes.
Problem perception
Many of these phenomena appear — as seen from the
human side - to arrive with bad timing and often with
unexpected size. We are talking about collapsing life
conditions e.g. induced by climate change or environmental problems of other kinds causing a strong erosion of the life support base. The interconnections between these challenges provide a new frame which calls
for the development of new ideas to face the problems.
We have to find the right set of success factors, i.e. to
identify the most important measures and “topics” for
research and action. One of the important issues that
calls for speedy attention is the question: are we close
to some flipping points from which we should take
measures to withdraw, despite the fact that we have
not previously recognised their true seriousness. Often
this demands behavioural changes that are not so easy
to understand or support and which thus call for development of knowledge that we did not earlier associate
with these needs e.g. concerning brain activities and
social behaviour etc.
The global connotation
Previous nature shocks have mostly been local or regional. However the new types of shocks are emerging at a
global level. Also the potential solutions require a global
participation in many cases, as the example of climate
change illustrates. Or to reframe it: “the Grand Challenges” are often in themselves global in character.
The counter measures in terms of new types of investment goals and patterns of actions thus also have
to be global. The technology paths for the solutions
must have a strong international dimension. There
is a European call for efforts in the rtd and innovation fields. Severe core bottlenecks may be time
and timing issues. These may also be insufficiently
developed partnerships — often at global level. And
it may entail more head-on approaches to issues dealing with poverty and inequity i.e. in essence ethical
challenges.
Conference plenaries could though be freely viewed in the Lund University web streamer presentations - see Appendix 11 for the link. In the case of the four parallel sessions
Day 2 no such coverage is available, but the reports from the four blocks are closely linked to the formal rapporteur presentations in the Day 2 afternoon plenary session and
with the respective rapporteur texts from that session as the basis, although in some cases expanded and further structured to provide a better overview, in cooperation with
the respective agencies in charge of these parallel sessions.
16
The doing
All investigations point to the need to act as early as
possible (see the Stern report, for example). The early
efforts to design solutions must go hand-in-hand with,
and be facilitated by, early investments. The effort to
make institutional innovations that could pave the
way for transformations of the institutional landscape
is part of that frame. Designs of potential societal solutions must be tried out in an experimental fashion,
supplying the resources and prerequisites for such efforts, including societal encouragement and reframing conditions for these activities. The changes in the
knowledge system that accompanies these efforts call
for changed mindsets, changed design of universities,
change in the priority setting of resources and a strong
support of the trust factor, without which all this will
not be possible.
The tools
There are several factors that have to be mobilised simultaneously in order to make the solutions possible.
First of all the human resources must be there. There is
a need for new forms of platforms for dialogue if new
lines of strategies are to emerge and also to be broadly
accepted in society. There needs to be resources for this
grand scale experimenting coupled to mechanisms of
synthesis regarding gained experiences e.g. in the form
of scenarios associated with descriptions of their underlying assumptions. Coupled to this is a strong need
to find educational tools to explain all the complexities
involved; both to decision makers and to the public.
Europe’s position with regard to challenges
emerging at the interfaces between natural,
social and technical systems.
Europe’s influence in the world seems to be dwindling
in general terms in the next decades. Relatively poor in
natural resources, it has to concentrate more than ever
on knowledge based activities (i.e. the Lisbon process
and its successors) in order to keep up with the challenges.
However, there are domains where Europe already
today is a frontrunner, as is the case in sustainability
solutions and in environmental technologies. The socalled “Grand Challenges” ranging from the supply of
energy, food and feed, to the combating of animal and
human disease and to the handling of extreme natural
events, thus seem to fit the European competence and
potential action-frame very well.
The strong emergence of new powers, e.g. in Asia,
at global level may soon provide heavy competition
for Europe. This threat is probably correctly assessed
although the extent, the speed and the details are not
known so far. However, this also holds true for the
ongoing identification of global changes, such as that
of global climate changes, land use changes etc. All
these factors exist and need to be addressed by European policy development and willingness to act at the
global level. The factor of alertness, in relation to what
is going on, needs to come even more into focus when
priorities for the future are discussed. And these reflections should closely be accompanied by new thinking
on governance and new possible global partnerships to
address the challenges.
These “new worlds” will all be complex and thus
call for the expansion of the existing knowledge based systems. Europe seems here to be in some aspects
better prepared than others to cope with these Grand
Challenges because of its long history, its abilities to
integrate different streams of science and also its experiences with scientific policies. Europe is also a forerunner in consolidated but also new ways of dealing
with civil society.
In the knowledge production sphere the integration
of for example social sciences, behavioural sciences,
nano- bio- and info-technologies need further efforts
that may further move such integrative activities more
towards the centre of future priorities.
A new dimension is added as these Grand Challenges will take place on a planetary scale. In this respect,
proposals for global environmental (and other similar)
research efforts need a stronger contribution from Europe, especially in so-called “strategic” Earth sciences and
research. There is a strong need for the establishment of
global networks of research centres devoted to, for example, environmental and climate changes etc. Here European research and innovation definitely has a place.
Europe seems also to be better prepared for regional cooperation and coordination than its competitors,
due to its diversity of nations in the European Union.
There are however still many obstacles to overcome.
In order for this to happen several types of developments are needed: A more advanced flexible education
and training system for scientists, new ways of communication, and reliable levels of funding, as many of
these novel technologies and social experimenting in
particular would be very capital intensive.
The Grand Challenges might also lead to new opportunities to develop new and stronger computational
and modelling facilities. This process must be accompanied by a strong involvement of Europe in so-called
grand infrastructures, including new scientific advisory schemes similar to ippc, e.g. for food security. They
could be European based but also globally orchestrated
foresight exercises. A permanent discussion among the
leading scientists of the world could help to pave the
way for a better understanding of options as a basis for
improved cooperation and coordination.
A plea has been made that Europe should be even
more ambitious than has up until now been the case in
setting tighter targets for reduction of ghg’s and for a
further increase in the use of renewables. This example
highlights the need for an increase in science-based
support for decisions that have to be taken. Europe
should also need to improve science efficiency, reduce
bureaucracy in the research field, and eliminate barriers
for the application of new technologies, as well as be
prepared to accept more risks in the research activities.
17
As practical examples of the complex domains which
do offer opportunities a few could be mentioned here.
In relation to the co2 challenge, technological solutions such as carbon capture and sequestration are
coming into focus, but new techniques to grow algae
for many different purposes are also of great interest.
With regard to actions related to the food, feed and energy price crisis of 2008 a number of innovations can be
contemplated in relation to new uses of bio-resources.
The crises in biodiversity, related to its preservation at
the same time, calls for the opening up of potentials
in biomass use. The challenges in urbanisation provide
ample exemplifications of innovation possibilities.
RTD and innovation policy
The science/research dialogue with policy needs to be
further improved. Europe has great potential in handling the great challenges, but this requires action and
the lowering of all sorts of barriers, including different
sorts of bureaucratic ones in the financing and management of European science and innovation.
There needs to be a stronger element of encouragement to take risks than that which seems available in
the current system. The global aspects also have to be
included when projects are mobilised in the research
area to match the challenges.
The “knowledge triangle” has to be involved in all
thinking around these strategies, i.e. involving education, research and innovation in a more integrated way.
This also calls for a reform of the knowledge production system (including the universities in conjunction
with their funders) in approaching issues of ”opening
up”, of encouragement of young researchers, support
of inter-disciplinary approaches to the challenges etc.
What does this mean in the case of the challenges
emerging in the European rtd and innovation system?
The discussions highlighted a few points:
• Transcend the existing eu research and innovation
frame, while at the same time taking care of the useful aspects in the existing programmes in the eu and
build upon these. Especially the “Grand Challenges”
and “Great Ideas” are good starting points for further
elaboration of the eu research and innovation structure.
• Counter the lack of incentives to implement such
knowledge as already exists
• Improve communication and transparency
• Realise that social dynamics play an important role
in coming up with solutions and draw operational
consequences from this
• Put more trust in scientists: their accountability and
creativity is important
• Involve leading scientists in the definition phase and
in the framing of major new research programmes,
and provide the seed money necessary
• Find the forms for new efforts in Europe e.g. around
“Joint Programming”
• Reform the universities to cope with interdisciplinary
challenges in an existing, mostly disciplinary, system
18
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve cooperation in the era between erc, Framework Programmes and national research councils
Further highlight the importance of synthesis and
assessments
Install new instruments in the global research arena
e.g. in the form of suggested glorea programmes
or similar i.e. globally up-scaled programmes with
similar functions to era-nets in the European domain, in which equal level partnerships are essential
Establish global universities, perhaps with “rotating”
responsibility and new types of operational designs
Mobilise “global partnerships for social justice”
Further strengthen training and capacity building
Draw the appropriate conclusions in terms of resources and initiatives in relation to the identified
importance of infrastructure and databases and their
needs for investments and long-term maintenance.
In focus remains the need to improve the criteria’s that
have to be used to point at the way to success and provide efficiency in the moves needed to face the challenges. The lacks and the gaps in the current system
have to be deliberately and wisely addressed facing the
necessary transitions.
B. Business Shocks —
as Opportunity
Break-up session arranged by VINNOVA
Text: VINNOVA and Dr. Michael Stampfer, Vienna Science
and Technology Fund (WWTF), (rapporteur)
The purpose of the workshop was to discuss “how can
a future era support and stimulate research, innovation and sustainable economic growth in Europe?” The
following three major issues were in the centre. (For
details of the programme see Appendix 1):
1)The implications of the globalisation of era
2)How the industrial perspective in era can be
strengthened
3)The need for a horizontal innovation policy in Europe
The title
The title of the session caused discussion. One thing
positively noted was the implication to see opportunities, to act fast and to change behaviour. A second,
more critical discussion started around the term ‘shock’.
Here the speakers and the audience rather followed the
proposal by Manuel Trajtenberg (National Economic
Council of Israel) to see the current situation not as
an abrupt, surprising event, but as a period with forebodings and causes piling up over the years. Thus “crisis” is to be seen as the suitable term. Göran Marklund
(vinnova) reminded us of the nature of the current
situation, i.e. a number of different, partly interlinked
multiple crises. Some of them however can be seen as
shocks when they come, like pandemic diseases, but
which, in the right policy framework, again can be
seen as business opportunities. So perhaps shocks are
closer to opportunities than crises.
Great plans, small moves, difficult changes:
The China Syndrome
Within such a critical situation one starts to look closer at ongoing routines. Routines are necessary, but a
crisis leads (or should lead) to a closer examination. In
the session era was discussed also in a global context
and relations with China, not surprisingly, formed the
main discussion line. Sylvia Schwaag Serger (vinnova)
provided an analysis of the new economic patterns,
research and development co-operations and (re-)locations. A great number of Chinese students are going through the higher education system; something
which should be seen as positive. At the same time,
multinational companies are relocating strategic r&d
functions from Europe and North America to China.
The global research and innovation landscape is quickly changing with companies constantly looking for the
best place to locate their research facilities, and with
highly skilled labour gravitating towards the new innovation hubs. Transition economies and so called developing countries are becoming increasingly important,
both as sources and drivers of innovation. From a European perspective, it is worrying that North America in
general has stronger links with these new knowledge
hubs than the eu does.
From his evaluation of China’s participation in the
eu Framework programmes (fp), Erik Arnold (Technopolis) concluded that cooperation with countries such
as China requires tailor-made long-term approaches
and that one should stop categorizing these countries
as ‘add-ons’ which the term ‘third country’ implies. Sieglinde Gruber (the eu Commission) presented funding
opportunities, decision structures and statistics regarding fp7 and participation of “third countries”. It was
noted that the fp is open to third countries in principle, but that progress in reality is slow (an increase
from 5.3% in fp6 to 6.1% in fp7).
Europe offers cooperation funding instruments. However, a clear strategy and the will to pursue a few clear
political goals have been missing. Funding takes place
in often rather marginal areas (which are not level
playing fields), in rather small numbers and without
mutual trust. Some in the audience came to the conclusion that our crisis should lead in general to bolder
action and to a more strategic coherent plan of what to
do in terms of opening the era to the world.
However, there has been some progress in this respect with fp7. The possibilities are there and can be
used as the successful case of 3g pre-standardisation
agreements shows. One industrial representative in the
audience noted that multinational companies have already gone through the globalization process. Another
comment was that the eu should provide more support to companies operating in countries like China.
It was also argued that it is necessary to make sure that
there is reciprocity in our global collaborative research
projects. For example, it was noted that while Chinese
research groups can join any fp7 project, the reverse
does not apply to European researchers wishing to participate in many non-European funding schemes. Even
though they have substantial global r&d capabilities
and have financed research labs in China, several foreign multinationals have not been allowed to participate in Chinese research programmes.
Innovation in Europe from an
outsider’s perspective
Manuel Trajtenberg provided insights and experiences
from Israel, a country which has a good track record
in substantial spending on r&d and its position as the
second largest venture capital market in the world. He
emphasized that innovation must benefit the whole
of the economy, not only the high-tech sector. Three
essential components are required for innovation, according to Trajtenberg:
a)Competitive advantages
b)Space for growth and expansion
c)Institutional adaptation
While Europe lacks cost advantages or natural resources, it has a clear competitive advantage in excellent
human capital. However, Europe seems to miss quite a
lot of opportunities by operating under too timid and
too complicated governance structures and by underusing more market-oriented “inducement policies”
such as price-setting, taxes or public procurement.
Government procurement can be very effective. One
example is the use of public procurement for medical
ict in the us. When it comes to space for growth,
the eu has provided it, but it is also important for
Europe to hook up with other parts of the world for
innovative ideas to be able to continue to expand.
Finally, institutions in Europe have been hindering
growth, rather than stimulating it, and research policy is no exception. The fp can be seen as being too
insular. It is important to stimulate collaboration
between different actors in business, especially between those enterprises who have their own research
capabilities.
Following a question from the audience about the
venture capital industry in Israel, Trajtenberg replied
that continuous financing is extremely important. Financing is like oxygen; you need it in the morning and
in the evening. Therefore, it is important to look for
and effectively deal with financing gaps in the system.
The popular combination of (i) a new co-ordination
body plus (ii) a complex multi actor multi goal strategy, plus (iii) a complex funding programme, can successfully answer many, but by far not all, challenges
around.
19
The crisis of being in a crisis
When in a shock you at least stop doing unnecessary
things. You lose parts of your memory and your body
concentrates on core survival functions. In a crisis to
a large extent you just carry on. However, national responses and programmes to respond to the crisis have
been quickly delivered in the last year. (A comparison
with the eu level would be unfair as eu policies are
multi-annual, therefore less flexible and less well endowed as compared to the national level). Some countries
have even included meaningful research and innovation policy measures in their recovery plans (Frieder
Meyer-Krahmer). Forecasts about the future evolution
of the situation included vastly different scenarios,
spanning from early recovery to continued slowdown
(Luc Soete). Measures to finance research, innovation
and higher education seem a safe bet in any case,
though the links between innovation investment patterns and business cycles are still not fully understood.
It was also suggested that the current structure with
national research councils’ in 27 member countries
may not be optimal at all, since research excellence is
dependent on scale.
From national examples to (new) European
instruments
A common European Research Policy, related to the
“fifth freedom”, was a common claim in the session
and the present situation was judged to be favourable
for initiatives in this policy field. Successful national
experiences and good practices should serve as learning
ground for European initiatives and instruments. This
holds true both for more basic research (and its infrastructures, including those with a broader research
use) and for a European innovation strategy (Frieder
Meyer-Krahmer, Keith Sequeira). The latter should be
formulated in a fashion bolder than the one announced and discussed so far in Lund, according to some
participants.
Close to this position, a call for more and better
policy coordination came from Susana Borras who reminded us of the cost of non-coordination, of existing
sector policy “silos” and of a lack of an ambitious coordination grid in Europe. The omc in this context is actually more about openness than about coordination.
Promising cases in that respect include eib/eif (Constantin Christofidis) and (still in the making) the eit
(Daria Tataj), the latter forming a strong link between
the none too well coordinated policy fields of research
and higher education.
Strengthening the Industrial Perspective in ERA
In this session, some of the competitive advantages of
European r&d were again mentioned. Carlos Härtel reminded us of how Europe remains a leader in setting
global trends and standards. A recent example is the
area of eco-innovation. Being a leader in standards also
attracts global companies to Europe. Universities in Europe also have a good track record in collaborating with
other actors; academic and in the private sector. Allyson
Reed listed some of the drivers of innovation, including
setting the direction, creating a climate for innovation
and encouraging commercialization. Societal challenges such as changes in demographic patterns, security
and climate change can also be innovation drivers, and
governments can act as early adopters. The pace of execution is important, as well as building trust. Anna
Lönnroth provided practical examples of potential new
markets in the life science sector. For example, pandemic
influenza and antibiotics are areas with strong incentives to create new products and services. However, the
markets are not working properly. Keith Sequiera described the on-going development of the Innovation Plan,
which includes a consultation process and the creation
of a business panel, the members of which were encouraged to come up with radical, new ideas. Again, the
idea that societal challenges are drivers for innovation
was mentioned, as well as highlighting the importance
of non-technological innovation and the possibility to
develop SBIR-like schemes in Europe*. While the argument for the needs for increases in predominantly funding basic, curiosity-driven research was brought up by
the audience, it was at the same time argued that not
all basic researchers are interested in tackling relevant
problems and that indeed undirected, basic research is
not underfunded in Europe today.
Discussions about elements in the Draft Lund
Declaration and beyond
The following key elements of the Draft Lund Declaration (dld) were highlighted and were strongly echoed
and reinforced by the discussion in this break-up session:
dld: “European research must focus on the Grand Chal-
lenges of our time, breaking with current rigid thematic
approaches.” In this session there was a strong positive attitude towards this approach for broad innovation initiatives to answer societal needs.
dld: “This calls for a new deal between Member States
and the European Commission in which European and
national instruments are well aligned and cooperation
builds on transparency and trust”. In this session a
number of steps in that direction were proposed.
dld: “Such processes have to be articulated in the
context of Research, Education and Innovation
communities and clusters, and based on the understanding of the dialogue between “bottom-up” and
“top-down” initiated research.” Examples like eit,
eib, networks of scientific excellence and others
were discussed as positive steps.
* The US Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Technology administers the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The objective is to ensure that small,
high-tech, innovative businesses in the US are a significant part of the federal government’s research and development efforts. For more information, see www.sbir.gov
20
dld: “Strengthening frontier research initiated by the re-
search community itself …. Modernisation of universities is a key element for enhancing the competitiveness
of European research. There is a need to develop instruments to stimulate and support initiatives for cross-border cooperation between knowledge-building institutions
in creating …excellent environments ….” Strong(er) research organisations were seen as key for era and
for the economic development. Some proposals include networks of strong actors in fields of excellence. This was complemented by a certain expectation
that a more stratified actor set will evolve, which
means that some strong institutions with active policies will, and should, grow much faster and be able
to attract much more resources.
dld: “Supply-oriented research and innovation policies
should be more strongly supported by demand-oriented policies, such as lead market initiatives, public procurement,
problem and issue-driven policies and priority setting …”
A number of speakers strongly emphasized the necessity to enhance the presence of more market related
instruments in the policy agenda. Public procurement;
standardisation (like in Telecom or Ecology), regulation and pricing were discussed in this context.
Another strong focus of the discussion was to place era
in a global context. Therefore more explicit and encompassing global strategies have to be formulated for and
within era, with instruments following this strategy.
A final point was the strong emphasis on better and
stronger coordination mechanisms within a broader
innovation policy approach. era activities, including
work to define the problems which must be tackled to
meet the Grand Challenges, must also include innovation. This also calls for stronger capacity building in
public administrations.
C. Social and Cultural Shocks —
as Opportunity
Break-up session arranged by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, (FAS)
Text: Professor Erland Hjelmquist
The break-up session was divided into three separate
sessions. The second session was further divided into
two parallel sessions and the complete structure therefore was the following (for details of the programme
see Appendix 1):
1 The need for new procedures and priorities of research activities in the future European Research
Area (era)
2a Grand Challenges and issue-oriented research
2b Processes to ensure quality, relevance and trust
3 How should Europe act to turn problems into opportunities with the help of research and innovation policies?
1. The need for new procedures and priorities
of research activities in the future European
Research Area (ERA)
A general observation was that the present system for
eu funding of research seems to present obstacles to
prioritization of a number of obviously important social and cultural research areas and is not instrumental
for coping with the inertia of functional and structural
aspects of the European higher education and research
system.
A main priority should be the reduction of health
inequity. It was argued that health inequity can be avoided and that action to reduce health inequities includes research. It is also important to understand that
“health” is not equal to “health care” and that there is
a close relationship between education and health. Research should be conducted across sectors, such as economic, social, political, biological, medical and psychosocial, in order to better understand the mechanisms
of health inequity, such as social determinants. One
way of scaffolding such research was presented, the
European Social Survey (ess). This is an instrument to
study social attitudes and values within, as well as between, European countries over time. In particular, two
examples of cross-national data were presented, one on
institutional trust across nations, another on attitudes
towards migration across nations over time. It was argued that compulsory goals for era should be the provision of immediate, free and on-line access to methods
and data, to guarantee timely publications containing
evidence and (accessible) interpretations, inclusion of
a programme of training, capacity-building and knowledge transfer, incorporation of specific plans to advance methods of comparative measurement and analysis
and assurance of potential continuity of institutional
involvement, subject to periodic reviews.
The role of higher education and the university system in Europe was discussed as crucial aspects of new
procedures and priorities. The freedom of universities
and independence of political intervention is commonly recognized by the political system in the eu.
At the same time it seems that the political system,
when granting freedom to universities, creates new
forms for the control and monitoring of universitybased research. Accountability, in terms of universities
reporting back to the political level, in practice means
circumscribed freedom and manifests a lack of trust.
When studying the effects of research the time scale
should be extended far beyond the usual output-oriented evaluations and should be geared towards longterm impacts. Changing to such a perspective requires
a not yet developed basic trust between university and
government. The specific situation in Europe, with
around 2000 universities, presents a complex challenge
to the eu and to each government of the 27 member
countries. In this context it was emphasized that eu
financed research is complementary to national research, the latter covering the lion’s share of the total
European research budget. Therefore, the national level of funding and the national university systems are
21
of paramount importance when discussing new procedures and priorities.
A recurrent theme was the necessity to support
high quality research, as defined by the research community. This was coupled with a strong emphasis on
putting young researchers at the focus of the strategic
long-term era discussion. Recruiting and retaining
young researchers is crucial for era to be a competitive and attractive global partner. New worlds require
new people and new ideas, which are to be found in
the younger generations. It might be fatal for era to
neglect this perspective. Action is necessary, targeting
basic issues of how to foster interest in pursuing a research career and issues of how young people in Europe
prioritize in terms of life choices. One has to take into
account how family patterns and the choice of if, and
when, to have children affects the attractiveness of a
research career. At the same time, the complexity of
Europe should be recognized, also in terms of attitudes
and opinions about the value and prestige of research
and research careers.
Another theme concerned the relative lack of humanities as a visible partner in the type of initiatives of
which the conference was an example. This observation was discussed in the broader framework of a bias
in eu funding towards what was called thing-related
research. It was argued for more emphasis on peoplerelated research to get a better overall balance between different research interests. In this context it was
strongly argued that ultimately EU-research should
benefit the citizens of Europe. Therefore research aiming directly at the conditions, in a wide sense, of the
people of Europe should be prioritized.
2A. Grand Challenges and
issue-oriented research
Two main questions were addressed:
1. What Grand Challenges can be foreseen?
2.What should the response in terms of issue-oriented
research be?
Four Grand Challenges were identified and discussed
- Ageing and declining populations
- Ethnic and cultural diversity
- Rising inequality and shifting risks
- Risky life-course transitions
Ageing and declining populations
Costs of population ageing, such as pensions, social
care and health, will increase too rapidly to be compensated for by economic growth alone. A declining population will also make per capita costs for infrastructure higher. This will not be solved by immigration,
nor will higher fertility. It was argued that the figures
for immigration and fertility needed in these respects
are far beyond what is reasonable to expect. Solutions
could instead be incentives for increasing labour-force
participation and reforms of pension systems and social care. There is also the case of new biological tech-
22
nologies and biomedical knowledge that will increase
the longevity of humans. This will create ethical challenges, including population ageing, personalization
of risks and social inequality.
Ethnic and cultural diversity
There is a strong need to turn increasing ethnic heterogeneity and cultural diversity from problems into
strengths. There is also a need to solve the growing
youth unemployment rates. Solutions to this involve
permanently short-term employment/project contracts, a changing in the meaning of employment/unemployment, creating differences in lifestyles, values and
future orientations. There is also the case of wellbeing
of young people.
Rising inequality and shifting risks
Inequality in income has risen across European
countries in recent decades. There has also been an
increase in privatisation of risks. Therefore, there is a
need for strengthened solidarity, preventing socioeconomic gaps from being turned into health inequalities.
Instead health equity should be on the agenda for all
(health) policies. Here education is an important vehicle for change. It enhances upward social mobility,
promotes better health and longer life expectancy.
Equity in education is also important for economic
competiveness of nations as well as enhancing social
cohesion.
Risky life course transitions
The transition from childhood to adulthood is afflicted by youth unemployment, as well as large ethnic
and social diversions. Retirement is also afflicted with
different kinds of problems. Early life conditions are
important for educational success, social mobility and
health throughout life. To understand these processes
cross-national longitudinal research is needed, as well
as research on values, worldviews, citizenship rights,
participation, globalization and environmental and social harmony
How can these issues then be solved? It was argued
that comparative cross-national studies are of importance. There is also a need for developing new philosophies and devising new political mechanisms and
policies and to articulate European perspectives. It was
also stressed that challenges should be expected to appear as interconnected trends. When it comes to research organisation and financing, the following areas
were identified as being of main importance:
- Setting priorities at the right level of detail
- Supporting medium-sized, medium-term, organically grown groups
- Long-term investments in longitudinal databases
and training, i.e. infrastructures
- Management and evaluation
A shift in the direction implicated by these four areas
means far reaching changes in the processes for defi-
ning Framework Programmes, their structure, function and evaluation. In essence, it is a plea for more
researcher bottom-up procedures.
2B. Processes to ensure quality,
relevance and trust
Two main questions were discussed
1. What processes are needed to identify Grand Challenges?
2.Who should be involved and what processes are
needed during the stage when broad areas of issue-oriented research are formulated in response to
Grand Challenges?
Several processes to identify Grand Challenges were
discussed, such as the fp7 and era, but also forward
looking activities for defining research priorities such
as horizon scanning and European as well as national
forecasting were addressed. Such forward looking activities should be inserted into policy cycles to identify
common social challenges. Obstacles to this are, for example, that national efforts only have national interests,
that the efforts are sector specific rather than cross-cutting, and the complexity of eu decision-making, which
prolongs the process of identifying challenges.
At the same time it was emphasized that catalogues of
challenges should be avoided. Ambitious and time-consuming efforts to define challenges, whether they are
known as foresights or by any other term, run the risk
of being outdated when finally presented. Instead other flexible ways for foreseeing and meeting challenges
should be sought. The session consequently identified
an area with seemingly contradictory points of view.
3. How should Europe act to turn problems
into opportunities with the help of research
and innovation policies?
One main issue presented was that few academic institutions within era offer young scholars a role in
the science policy function. Although most academic
institutions offer support to young scholars very few
are interested in involving young scholars in participating in the future development of research policy.
This has to be changed in order to rejuvenate academic institutions and policymaking. This theme recurred during the day, an indication that it is a matter of
great concern to European stakeholders in the research
arena and should be faced not only with words but by
prompt action.
The need for changing eu-funding, especially the
framework programmes, into much more flexible resources for high quality research was stressed. In general, the quality aspect was focused on, and though
nobody would of course question that the highest quality research should be funded, there is a need for going
into depth with the different meanings of quality.
Echoing the previous concerns with methods and
procedures for foreseeing challenges, era should be
more geared towards a capacity to act at short notice,
drawing upon the entire spectrum of research and innovation competence. The Grand Challenges will require the best contributions across the entire research
and innovation landscape. Consequently it was again
stressed that the humanities should be a partner in all
of these future endeavours, and that it should never be
forgotten that all these endeavours are for the sake of
the wellbeing of the eu citizens.
D. Decline - as Opportunity
Break-up session arranged by The Swedish Research Council
Text: Dr. Annette Moth-Wiklund
(For details of the programme see Appendix 1)
Europe’s shrinking importance
During the break-up session on “Decline as Opportunity” it was mentioned that the self image in Europe
for a long time has been that of Europe being “on top”.
However, Europe is now in a period when a number of
trends underline that its relative importance is shrinking and that other countries are beating Europe at its
own game. In this context it was suggested that from
a historical point of view maybe Europe is reverting to
a normal stage after 150 years of arrogance. On a more
positive note it was stated that the Greeks invented democracy and the word dialogue and that Europe is the
inventor of modern science. We are not in decline as
regards this. What then is Europe’s long term identity
and role? We are currently in a crisis which was not
predicted when the Aho report, the Green Paper and
the fp6 assessment were produced. The European gdp
is shrinking and the first cuts in industries are expected in the r&d sector. Easy money is no longer available and we must prove that r&d funding is essential.
Despite this a tendency towards complacency can be
noted (“après nous le deluge”) and it is apparent that
the crisis is not big enough for all concerned to wake
up. Do we perhaps suffer from a “conspiracy of status
quo” and could e.g. increased use of rankings be a means to trigger action?
Responsiveness to change
In a period of decline and crisis the fittest will survive
and it is therefore important to develop responsiveness
to change. Agility is also needed since good ideas come
from everywhere. In an interconnected world we may
not be able to control events. We should therefore focus
on resilience and recovery. As an example the Internet
was highlighted as a revolutionary invention that offers new possibilities. Internet collaborations place the
individual in the centre rather than institutions and
this provides an information “big bang”. It was suggested that research on the black economy could give
creative insights. A related problem is that we do not
23
get enough out of available competencies, perhaps because of a lack of responsiveness and mobilisation in
the political systems. A lot of results exist that have
not been made available to business — we can do a lot
through using already available information.
Risk taking and risk tolerance
Only governments can take large risks and a role for
governments is to make sustained critical investments.
For example the us, which tends to be threat-driven
and has a very high risk tolerance, generally invests
10% in high risk-high gain (basic research being the
highest risk). Europe will be at a disadvantage if the
European Court of Auditors has 0% risk tolerance
whereas the us accepts that of the 10% invested in
high risk-high gain more than 50% fail. This suggests
that our mindset/culture as regards failure must be
changed.
Time matters
Solutions are urgently needed, both to classical challenges which have always been with us such as poverty and hunger, and to acute challenges such as global
population growth, climate change, and the need for
more food to be produced using smaller areas. We are
forced to urgently address these problems which we
have ourselves created. The good news is that we are
able to do it (”we can cure what we cause”).
A new deal
It was generally agreed that Europe needs first rate education, excellent research, innovation and research infrastructure. Increased funding for research is needed
(although more money does not necessarily give more
output, but the probability increases) as well as more
exchanges across borders and the establishment of
platforms where the world can be mobilised for Europe. The question was put as to whether the 29 existing nanotechnology programmes in Europe are sustainable in this time of crisis. Participants called for the
text in the Lund declaration to strongly urge Member
States to work together to achieve the above. In fact a
new deal is urgently needed which includes coherence
between Member States and the European Commission, the inclusion of universities and a new role for
the Framework Programmes with focus on Grand
Challenges and Great Ideas. Scientists and politicians
have to work together on this and convince each other
about what must be done. Important matters to consider are whether we need a new contract with society
or if a fixing of current flaws would be adequate; what
processes are needed to identify Grand Challenges and
which actors should be involved and how, when broad
areas of research are formulated in response to Grand
Challenges?
24
International research cooperation
Better international research collaboration was identified as a key component in order for Europe to compete
better and successfully tackle Grand Challenges. It was
stated that historically we have done best when we have
interacted (e.g. in the middle ages the Catholic Church,
with its international structure, successfully promoted
research). Many factors are involved in order to attain
successful and committed international research cooperation. Money is of course essential, but creating the
right kind of processes is becoming increasingly important, not least because of the growing importance
of research, more challenging problems and the global
nature of many of them. One also needs to be able to
handle unforeseen events and an uneven distribution
of resources as well as managing short-term and longterm scales simultaneously. This calls for a system level
approach in which ways will have to be found to involve policy makers, citizens, researchers, national actors
etc. A particular challenge for Europe is to determine
what should be done at national level and what at European level. If governments agree on tackling certain
Grand Challenges it should be the responsibility of
ministers to allocate funding and that of scientists to
act. Science, it was said, can be an important shaper of
public opinions and policies. We should not forget the
important role that social scientists in particular play
in providing the agenda for politicians, an asset that we
should make more use of.
A critical example mentioned in this context was the
need for an improved European neighbourhood policy
towards countries in Central Asia and the Middle East.
The current eu policy does not fully take into consideration the high conflict potential within these countries or the risk of conflicts with Europe, and not enough
emphasis is put on helping these areas to develop economically, socially and, most importantly, democratically. It was suggested that the eu could contribute by
helping to promote peace and conflict solving research,
as well as democracy research, by enhancing cooperation between researchers from this region and those
from European countries, and by engaging the local
scientific community in the Middle East in specially
created forums for this type of research. It was stressed
that a Grand Challenge both in the Muslim world and
also increasingly in Europe is that of the dichotomy
between religion and science. In the modern world we
have to deal with different understandings of knowledge, different views on the legitimacy of scientific
research and a tension between faith and science. If we
dismiss religion-based claims to truth as irrelevant to
scientific research, we disregard a very real phenomenon in the contemporary world, including the world of
academia, namely the return of metaphysics (if not of
God). As an example it was mentioned how Jürgen Habermas has revisited the religious heritage of Europe,
beginning in 1988 in Nachmetaphysisches Denken, where religious narratives of salvation are considered as an
indispensible source of moral knowledge. Thus, it was
concluded that interaction between researchers from
radically different academic back-grounds (i.e. beyond
the merely interdisciplinary) can produce unexpected
and forward-pointing results.
Other challenges facing Europe and the rest of the
world, and where international and interdisciplinary
research cooperation is needed, are of course those regarding climate change, health, demographic expansion and limited natural resources. It was suggested that
a balance between basic and issue-oriented research
should be reached, both at the national and global level, and that improved strategic programmes to meet
these challenges should be created. The Joint Technology Platforms could serve as sources of inspiration in
this context.
Concepts such as quality, relevance and trust are
usually taken for granted by the research community.
However these need to be considered afresh in new
big projects. A Grand Challenge should be easy to understand and widely accepted, and we need broadly
shared visions. As an example it was mentioned that
40 000 people are killed on the roads every year in Europe. In Sweden the so called “zero vision” has driven
research, suppliers etc. to work towards the realisation
of this vision. The tackling of a Grand Challenge, e.g.
through Joint Programming, should have a significant
contribution from S & T. Meeting participants emphasised that integrated research is needed and that there
is a risk that we speak a lot about cross-disciplinary
cooperation etc. but that we do not put it into practice.
Communication skills and psychology must be taken
into account in the process design. It is good, for example, to have a champion in the lead for each joint
effort. One should select the best and trust them. We
must be realistic when planning the steps to be taken.
We should for example analyse why scientists leave
Europe, how to open up for collaboration, which obstacles there are to collaboration with the rest of the
world, and prioritize clearly. It could in this context be
a good idea to analyse experiences from era-nets etc.
in order not to have to start from scratch. Time and
speed matter. It may be better to start with the “second
best” right now than to wait for the best, and it may be
better with a smaller start. An endpoint for the project
is also important; we must specify what we want to achieve and when. One might even say that a culture to
stop a project is needed.
Research Infrastructure
Europe is rich in well managed, attractive research
infrastructures. Now 2 billion €/year are needed to
implement the esfri roadmap. About 300 European
world class research infrastructures are open to the
rest of the world. They provide good benchmarking of
national scientists. However, currently many research
infrastructures have to hide the fact that they host
non-national scientists and governmental checks keep
increasing. Their sustainability in the current times of
crisis is also at stake.
Universities and researchers
Participants spoke in favour of increasing the autonomy of universities and, identifying certain conservatism both in universities and their students, of their
modernisation.
It was proposed that a European level instrument is
needed to help universities do what they need to do as
regards strategic cooperation. From the point of view
of researchers more time for research was called for as
opposed to spending time filling in timesheets, writing applications etc. In this context it was pointed out
that the eu financial regulations were not created with
r&d in mind and they must be adapted (also to attract
business). Young scholars must be exposed to excellent
scholars. More women and young people in research are
also needed. Innovation should be taken seriously, e.g.
through making an innovation ranking of universities,
but basic science (including cross-disciplinary versions)
must not be forgotten. During the discussion it was
pointed out that nobody had mentioned the negative
effects of aspects of the eu regulatory framework for
research, which has caused, or will cause, research to
move out of Europe. It is important to address the whole value-chain (research — education — business/industry). The customer perspective must not be forgotten.
Regarding researchers in “third countries” it was said
that we should not look at these countries as sources of
talents for us but rather to motivate these talents to stay
in their countries and contribute to national progress.
Final comments
It was concluded that there is a deep sense of urgency.
Many problems have been indentified, but there is still
very little work done on solutions, apart from very generic concepts. Ten years ago we had virtually the same
recommendations. Where are the solutions? What can
be learned from, for example, Latin America or Africa?
We should not always look for solutions and answers in
the same places. However, the diagnosis is much better
now and it is more accepted. Prioritization needs to be
discussed. Prioritize people!
Presentations were given covering the activities of the
four earlier break-up groups disscussions during day 2:
aNature shocks — as opportunity (by Director
General Rolf Annerberg)
b Business shocks — as opportunity (Dr. Michael
Stampfer)
cSocial and cultural shocks — as opportunity (Professor Erland Hjelmquist)
dDecline - as opportunity (Professor Andreu Mas-Colell)
25
day 2 — conclusions
report from final
plenary session (day 2)
— conclusions*
Rounding-up comments were given by Mr. José Manuel Silva Rodríguez, Director General dg Research,
ec, and Dr. Carlos Martínez Alonso, State Secretary,
Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain
Director General Mr. José Manuel Silva Rodrígues
His first statement confirmed the yes to the approach
of the Grand Challenges.
The following six items were also discussed:
1. There is a need for more basic research
2. Simplification
3. There is a need to take more risks in science
4. Be watchful with regard to the Financial perspective for 2007–2013 at the European level and
also have the Structural Funds in mind not only the
Framework Programme
5. There is a need for actors in Europe to work together more. Europe has to be ready to approach the
”grand problems”
6. Take note of the global nature of science and act
accordingly, through international cooperation
State Secretary, Dr. Carlos Martínez Alonso
He started by underlining all that had been said in the
statements by the Swedish Presidency and congratulated Sweden for the success of this event. The common dream for Europe is that we shall be able to meet
the Grand Challenges that are due to the demographic
changes, i.e. the aging of the European population. Political responses must be made to benefit the people, so
talking in a medical analogue we must have both good
diagnosis and also deliver a useful treatment.
So what are the problems we have to face in the future in our society? Whatever they are we have to mobilize the knowledge from the humanities and social
sciences. These efforts must serve solutions that are
sustainable. We also have to enhance efforts regarding
education and innovation. And we have to face the
ethical issues that are involved.
When we at the Lund Conference are talking about
the European (relative) decline we , the European
member states, are now called upon to solve many of
these challenges. In order to do so a participatory approach is of key importance to create a cooperative
spirit. These efforts need cooperation (and less competition) between the member states and between the
states and the eu Commission in order to manage the
challenges.
So to make Europe a leading region of the world we
have to identify those factors that are important. One
of these is for sure excellence in research. Our human
resources must be nurtured even more in order for Europe to be competitive. Improved schemes for training
and education at all levels are part of the solution. Also
the moves to excel in building an advanced research
infrastructure and to further improve our universities
belong to the tasks ahead. Without this we will not be
competitive at world level. We thus have to develop our
models of excellence in the academic field as well as in
industry, finding the right balance between cooperation and competition.
A common thread in all this is the important role
for research and innovation. This must also have budgetary consequences in order to make Europe more
competitive.
We are here at European level not only talking about
the eu framework programme for research, but also
the much wider frame of research and innovation in
Europe. We have to put people at the centre of all this
i.e. put emphasis on the role of the citizens of Europe.
This all calls for an enhanced dialogue with society
around these matters. We have to turn the pieces of
information that we acquire into real knowledge. The
immediate steps relate to the identification of the new
challenges. We have to set up a process for this.
In all these endeavours we must not forget the collaborative efforts with regions outside Europe i.e. tend
to the global and international dimensions.
Sweden has now taken important steps in approaching these issues and during its presidency Spain will
continue to work for these goals.
Rounding-up comments by the representatives
for the four organising Swedish agencies
Lena Gustafsson in her concluding remarks stressed
26
day 2 — conclusions
the aspect of urgency, taking climate change as a case
of exemplification. She also stressed that other Grand
Challenges are also waiting to be addressed. None of
these can be seen in isolation. Thus the issue of how
to govern this complex situation is part of what has to
be handled.
Pär Omling made a reference to all the four international workshops during the spring of 2009 in
introducing the consultative process that has been
the basis for developing the (draft) Lund Declaration that a few minutes later was to be presented to
the Swedish Minister for Higher Education and Research, in its final form, as the Conference Chair’s
summary of the results from the Lund Conference.
He also informed the participants that all that had
been said during the two days in Lund, including the
intense discussions during day 2 in the four break-up
groups, would be taken into account in an Addendum
to the Lund Declaration and that this would be seen
as an integral part of the reporting. (This addendum
was written over a few days following the conference and was, together with the Lund Declaration,
made available to all on the Swedish Presidency web
(www.se2009.eu).)
Before giving over the podium to the Minister the
Chair gave thanks to all those who had made the Conference possible. Gunnel Gustafsson (as Head of the
Lund Declaration group) was especially mentioned. Per
Eriksson, as Vice Chancellor of Lund University (and
thus the local host) and the discussion moderator Quentin Cooper were specially mentioned in this regard.
In receiving the Lund Declaration from Professor
Omling the Swedish Minister for Higher Education
and Research Tobias Krantz thanked all participants
and all those who had made the event possible. He indicated that the Swedish Presidency will now actively
go through the Lund Declaration, also in the context
of the wider issues that higher education and research
and innovation are embedded in. He said that the Lund
Declaration will be an important input to the work
ahead in formulating a Swedish policy position to be
discussed at formal eu level. This Lund Conference
has thus been an important starting point for the Swedish Presidency period.
27
appendix
appendix
appendix 1
conference programme
MONDAY JULY 6 — ARRIVAL DAY
17:00
|
21:00
Registration
19:00
Buffet at AF-borgen
TUESDAY JULY 7
09:00
Setting the Scene
Welcome address by the Conference Chairpersons:
Dr. Pär Omling, Director General of the Swedish Research Council
Dr. Lena Gustafsson, Acting Director General of VINNOVA, the Swedish Governmental Agency for
Innovation Systems
Dr. Per Eriksson, Vice Chancellor, Lund University
Introductions:
Dr. Tobias Krantz, The Swedish Minister for Higher Education and Research
Dr. Janez Potočnik, European Commissioner for Science and Research
9:45
Coffee break
10:15
World Outlooks 2025
What will the world look like in 2025 and what would it mean for Europe?
Key note speakers from Europe, Asia, Africa and North America will share their views and expectations.
Moderator:
Mr. Quentin Cooper BBC, UK
The world of 2025 as seen from Europe:
Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Professor, Deputy Director International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Austria
The world of 2025 as seen from Asia:
Mr. Krishnan Srinivasan, Ambassador, Fellow of the Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Calcutta, India
The world of 2025 as seen from Africa:
Dr. Neville Alexander, Director of Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa, Cape
Town University, South Africa
The world of 2025 as seen from North America:
Dr. Cynthia McIntyre, Senior Vice President, The Council on Competitiveness, Washington D.C., USA
11:55
Reflections on the International Panorama
Future challenges for Europe in a research and innovation policy perspective.
Panel discussion
Moderator:
Dr. Björn von Sydow, Chairman of the Swedish Research Council
Dr. José Mariano Gago, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education, Portugal
Dr. Miroslava Kopicová, Minister of Education, Youth and Sports, Government of the Czech Republic
Mr. Uffe Toudal Pedersen, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Denmark
28
appendix
12:55
Welcome address by Mayor Annika Annerby Jansson, City of Lund
Buffet lunch at “Kulturen”, an open-air museum. Courtesy of the City of Lund
14:45
Art-i-ficial Science
Science seen from an artist’s point of view (short film) by Swedish artist duo Bigert & Bergström
15:00
Surprising System Changes
Speakers from business and academia will illustrate these issues by posing provocative questions about the future.
Moderator:
Mr. Quentin Cooper, BBC, UK
Dr. Bertil Andersson, Provost, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Dr. C.S. ‘Buzz’ Holling, Professor Emeritus Eminent Scholar, University of Florida, USA
Dr. Joyeeta Gupta, Professor, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Dr. Erkki Ormala, Vice President, Technology Policy Nokia Corporation, Finland
16:15
Coffee break
16:45
The Future European Research and Innovation Landscape in a Global Context
How can Europe turn the new challenges into advantages and take the lead in international research? What are the
implications for future research activities in Europe?
Panel discussion
Moderator:
Dr. Jan van den Biesen, Vice President Public R&D Programmes, Philips Research, the Netherlands
Dr. Luke Georghiou, Professor, University of Manchester, UK
Dr. Helga Nowotny, Vice President of the European Research Council
Dr. Zoran Stančič, Deputy Director General, DG Research, EC
Dr. Howy Jacobs, Professor, University of Tampere, Finland
Mr. Antti Peltomäki, Deputy Director General, DG Information Society and Media, EC
18:00
Conclusions and Messages to the Break-up Sessions Day 2
|
Moderator:
18:20
Mr. Rolf Annerberg, Director General, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural
Sciences and Spatial Planning
Dr. Göran Marklund, Deputy Director General, Acting, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation
Systems
Dr. Erland Hjelmquist, Secretary General, The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
Dr. Gunnel Gustafsson, Deputy Director General, the Swedish Research Council
19:30/20:00 Dinner at Academic Society (Akademiska Föreningen)
29
appendix
WEDNESDAY JULY 8
09:00
Session I
Four parallel break-up sessions “shocks as opportunities”*
New Worlds —
New Solutions
NATURE SHOCKS
— AS OPPORTUNITY
New Worlds —
New Solutions
BUSINESS SHOCKS
— AS OPPORTUNITY
Introduction:
Mr. Rolf Annerberg,
Director General, The
Swedish Research
Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and
Spatial Planning
Introduction:
Dr. Göran Marklund,
Deputy Director General, Acting, Swedish
Governmental Agency for
Innovation Systems
Session Chair:
Prof. Jaqueline
McGlade, Director,
European Environment
Agency
Session Chair:
Dr. Sylvia Schwaag Serger, Director of International Collaboration and
Networks, VINNOVA
Speakers:
Prof. Marion Guillou,
President of French
National Institute for
Agricultural Research
Speakers:
Prof. Dr. Frieder MeyerKrahmer, State Secretary, Federal Ministry of
Education and Research,
Germany
Prof. Johan Rockström,
Director of Stockholm
Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Carlos Härtel,
General Electric Global Research Centre in
Europe
Prof. Ged Davis, CoPresident of the Global
Energy Assessment Council, IIASA
Prof. Susana Borrás,
Centre for Business and
Politics, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
New Worlds —
New Solutions
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
SHOCKS — AS OPPORTUNITY
Introduction:
Dr. Erland Hjelmquist,
Secretary General, The
Swedish Council for
Working Life and Social
Research
Session Chair:
Prof. Jüri Engelbrecht,
President, All European
Academies
Speakers:
Prof. Sir Michael Marmot, University College
London, UK
Coffee break
10:45
Session II
12:00
Buffet lunch at Academic Society (Akademiska Föreningen)
13:30
Session III
15:00
Coffee break
30
Session III
Introduction
Dr. Gunnel Gustafsson,
Deputy Director General,
the Swedish Research
Council
Session Chair:
Dr. Adelheid Ehmke,
European Platform of
Women Scientists
Speakers:
Prof. Gudmund Hernes,
Institute for Labour and
Social Research, Norway
Dr. Riitta Mustonen,
Academy of Finland
Prof. Sir Roger Jowell,
Centre for Comparative Mr. Jay M Cohen, ForSocial Surveys, City Uni- mer Under Secretary, U.S.
versity London, UK
Department of Homeland
Security
Prof. Daniel Tarschys,
Professor at Stockholm
University
10:15
Session II
New Worlds —
New Solutions
DECLINE
— AS OPPORTUNITY
Session II
Session III
Session II
Session III
appendix
15:30
Plenary session
Moderator:
Short reports/Conclusions from the four break-up sessions
Mr. Rolf Annerberg, Director General, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural
Dr. Michael Stampfer, Managing Director, Vienna Science and Technology Fund, Austria
Dr. Erland Hjelmquist, Secretary General, The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
Prof. Andreu Mas-Colell, University Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Invited commentators:
Mr. José Manuel Silva Rodríguez, Director General DG Research, EC
Dr. Carlos Martínez Alonso, State Secretary, Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain
16:45
The Lund Declaration and closing remarks
The Lund Declaration will be presented, a contribution to the shaping of the future organisation of research and innovation
activities within the EU.
Dr. Pär Omling and Dr. Lena Gustafsson
Dr. Tobias Krantz, The Swedish Minister for Higher Education and Research
17:00
End of Conference
*Three Research Councils and the Innovation Agency in Sweden: Vetenskapsrådet — Swedish Research Council, fas — Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, Formas — The Swedish Research Council for
Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning and vinnova — The Swedish Governmental Agency
for Innovation Systems will be responsible for one thematic sub-conference each on how to turn the challenges
Nature shocks, Business shocks, Social and Cultural shocks and Decline into opportunities.
31
appendix
Break-up session on
nature shocks — as opportunity
8 July 2009
09:00
|
10:15
Session 1
NATURE SHOCKS AND RELATED OPPORTUNITIES LINKED TO NEW PROCEDURES AND PRIORITIES OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
IN THE FUTURE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA (ERA)
Venue:
206 Universitetshuset
Introduction:
Director General Rolf Annerberg, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural
Session chair:
Prof. Jaqueline McGlade, Director General European Environment Agency
Speakers:
Prof. Marion Guillou, President of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research
Prof. Johan Rockström, Director Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden, and the
Stockholm Environment Institute
Prof. Ged Davis, Co-President of the Global Energy Assessment Council, IIASA
10:15
Coffee Break
10:45
|
12:00
Session 2 A
Natural Resources challenges
Venue:
105 Palaestra
Main questions to be discussed:
What are the perspectives for development and unexpected paths in relation to resources in terrestrial,
fresh water and marine settings?
Session chair:
Prof. Lisa Sennerby-Forsse, Vice Chancellor, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Panel:
Dr. Robert Kriger, National Research Foundation, South Africa
Dr. John Marks, Former CEO, European Science Foundation
Dr. Nicole Dewandre, DG Research, ec
32
appendix
10:45
|
12:00
Session 2 B
Challenges emerging at the interface between natural, social and technical systems
Venue:
206 Universitetshuset
Many of the future challenges emerge due to the interlinkages between systems. This can generate unexpected behavior
of different kinds including serious flip-flops. How would such situations emerge? How to scan for surprises? How to build
a flexible and adaptive knowledge capacity?
Session chair:
Dr. Christian Patermann, Director (retired), Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food, DG Research, ec
Panel:
Prof. Alexei Gvishiani, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Prof. Carole Crumley, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Prof. Deliang Chen, International Council for Sciences
12:00
Lunch
13:30
Session 3
|
How should Europe act to turn problems into opportunities with the help of research
15:00and innovation policies?
Venue: 206 Universitetshuset
Session Chair:
Director General Rolf Annerberg, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences
and Spatial Planning
Reports from session 2A (Lisa Sennerby-Forsse) and 2B (Christian Patermann)
Commentator:
Mr. Anders Wijkman, Former Member of the European Parliament, Vice Chair Tällberg Foundation
Rapporteur:
Prof. Uno Svedin, Director of International Affairs, The Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
15:00
|
15:30
Coffee Break
33
appendix
Break-up session on
business shocks — as opportunity
8 July 2009
How can a future ERA support and stimulate research, innovation
and sustainable economic growth in Europe?
Venue: Nedre Palaestra
09:00
Introduction
Prof. Göran Marklund, Acting Deputy Director General VINNOVA
09:15
|
10:15
Session 1
Globalization of ERA
What are the consequences of the rapid globalization for ERA?
How do we a strike a proper balance between strategies and measures at the member state level and at the EU level with
regards to internationalization efforts?
Introductions:
Dr. Sylvia Schwaag Serger, Lund University/VINNOVA
Dr. Erik Arnold, Technopolis
Session chair:
Dr. Sylvia Schwaag Serger, Lund University/VINNOVA
Panel:
Dr. Sigi Gruber, DG Research, ec
Prof. Manuel Trajtenberg, Head of the Israeli National Economic Council
10:15
Coffee Break
10:45
|
12:00
Session 2
Strengthening the Industrial Perspective in ERA
How do we increase industry participation and influence in publicly funded research?
What kind of measures do we need to facilitate a more rewarding industry-academia interaction?
Introduction:
Prof. Dr Luc Soete, UNU-MERIT, Univ. of Maastricht
Session chair:
Prof. Göran Marklund, Deputy Director General (Acting) VINNOVA
Panel:
Dr. Carlos Härtel, GE Electric
Dr. Allyson Reed, Technology Strategy Board
Dr. Anna Lönnroth, DG Research, ec
Dr. Keith Sequeira, DG Enterprise, ec
12:00
34
Lunch
appendix
13:30
|
15:00
Session 3
Horizontal Innovation Policy
How can different (DG) policies on the European level, as well as, policies designed by different ministries on a national
level, be targeted towards innovation?
Introductions:
State Secretary Prof. Dr. Frieder Meyer-Krahmer, BMBF
Prof. Susana Borrás, Copenhagen Business School
Session Chair:
Dr. Michael Stampfer, Managing Director, Vienna Science and Technology Fund, Austria
Panel:
Mr. Constantin Christofidis, European Investment Bank
Dr. Jan van den Biesen, Philips Research
Prof. Maureen McKelvey, Gothenburg University
Dr. Daria Tataj, European Institute of Technology
15:00
|
15:30
Coffee Break
35
appendix
Break-up session on
social and cultural shocks
— as opportunity
8 July 2009
Venue: Palaestra
09:00
|
10:00
Session 1
The Need for New Procedures and Priorities of Research Activities in the Future
European Research Area (ERA)
Venue:Övre Palaestra
Introduction:
Dr. Erland Hjelmquist, Secretary General, The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS)
Secession chair:
Dr. Jüri Engelbrecht, President, ALLEA, The European Federation of National Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
Speakers:
Prof. Sir Michael Marmot, University College London (UCL)
Prof. Sir Roger Jowell, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London
Prof. Daniel Tarschys, Stockholm University
10:00
Coffee Break
10:45 |
12:00
Session 2 A
Grand Challenges and Issue-Oriented Research
Venue:
Palaestra
The main questions to be discussed:
What grand challenges can be foreseen?
What should the response be in terms of issue-oriented research?
Session chair:
Prof. Antoinette Hetzler, University of California, Berkley and Lund University
Panel:
Prof. Petr Mateju, Czech Science Foundation
Prof. Helena Helve, Dept. of Social Work Research, University of Tampere
Dr. Hans-Joerg Ehni, Dept. of Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen
Rapporteur:
Prof. Tommy Bengtsson, Centre for Economic Demography, Lund University and European Science
Foundation
36
appendix
10:45 |
12:00
Session 2 B
Processes to ensure Quality, Relevance and Trust
Venue:
Palaestra
The main questions to be discussed:
What processes are needed to identify grand challenges?
Who should be involved and what processes are needed during the stage when broad areas of issue-oriented research
are formulated in response to grand challenges?
Session chair:
Prof. Stefan Svallfors, Dept of Sociology, Umeå University
Panel:
Mr. Jean-Michel Baer, Director Social Science and Humanities, European Commission,
Dr. Klara Foti, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Eurofund
Rapporteur:
Dr. Marti Parker, Ageing Research Centre, ARC, Karolinska Institute
12:00
Lunch
13:30
Session 3
|
How should Europe act to turn problems into opportunities with the help of
15:00research and innovation policies?
Venue:
Palaestra
Session Chair:
Prof. Sir Michael Marmot, University College London (UCL)
Reports from session 2A and 2B
Comments on the two reports:
Mr. Kevin McCarthy, Directorate General for Research, Health Directorate, ec
Dr. Jüri Engelbrecht, President, ALLEA, The European Federation of National Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
Ms. Anne-Sophie Parent, AGE — The European Older People’s Platform
Rapporteur:
Dr. Erland Hjelmquist, Secretary General, The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS)
15:00
|
15:30
Coffee Break
37
appendix
Break-up session on
decline as opportunity
8 July 2009
Venue: AF-Borgen
09:00
Session 1
|
European Decline and the Need for New Procedures and Priorities of Research Activities
10:15in the Future European Research Area (ERA)
Venue:
Lilla Salen
Introduction:
Prof. Gunnel Gustafsson, Swedish Research Council
Session chair:
Dr. Adelheid Ehmke, European Platform of Women Scientists, Germany
Speakers:
Prof. Gudmund Hernes, Institute for Labour and Social Research, Norway
Dr. Riitta Mustonen, Academy of Finland
Mr. Jay M Cohen, Former Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
10:15
Coffee Break
10:45
|
12:15
Session 2 A
Grand Challenges and Issue-Oriented Research
Venue:
Nya Fest
What grand challenges can be foreseen?
What should the response be in terms of issue-oriented research?
Session chair:
Dr. Inge Maerkedahl, Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation
Panel:
Dr. Lyudmila Harutyunyan, Yerevan State University, Armenia
Dr. Karin Metzlaff, European Plant Science Organisation, Belgium
Mr. Jan Henningsson, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden
Rapporteur:
Prof. Björn Wittrock, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study
38
appendix
10:45
|
12:15
Session 2 B
Processes to ensure Quality, Relevance and Trust
Venue:
Lilla salen
What processes are needed to identify grand challenges?
Who should be involved when broad areas of research are formulated in response to grand challenges?
Session chair:
Prof. Jerzy Langer, Polish Academy of Science
Panel:
Prof. Josef Syka, Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic
Prof. Hanne Kathrine Krogstrup, Ålborg University, Denmark
Prof. Carlo Rizzuto, European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, Italy
Dr. Horst Soboll, Former Chairman of the European Research Advisory Board of the European
Commission, Germany
Rapporteur:
Ms. Clara de la Torre, DG-Research, ec
12:15
Lunch
13:30
Session 3
|
How should Europe act to turn problems into opportunities with the help
15:00of research and innovation policies?
Venue:
Lilla salen
Session Chair:
Prof. Gudmund Hernes, Institute for Labour and Social Research, Norway
Reports from session 2A and 2B
Comments on the two reports:
Dr. Jan-Eric Sundgren, AB Volvo, Sweden
Prof. Gudrun Nordal, University of Iceland
Dr. Jean-Pierre Alix, National Centre for Scientific Research, France
Rapporteur:
15:00
|
15:30
Coffee Break
39
appendix
appendix 2
the lund declaration
europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time
•
European research must focus on the Grand Challenges of our time moving beyond current rigid thematic
approaches. This calls for a new deal among European institutions and Member States, in which European
and national instruments are well aligned and cooperation builds on transparency and trust.
• Identifying and responding to Grand Challenges should involve stakeholders from both public and private
sectors in transparent processes taking into account the global dimension.
• The Lund conference has started a new phase in a process on how to respond to the Grand Challenges. It
calls upon the Council and the European Parliament to take this process forward in partnership with the
Commission.
The global community is facing Grand Challenges.
The European Knowledge Society must tackle these
through the best analysis, powerful actions and increased resources. Challenges must turn into sustainable solutions in areas such as global warming, tightening supplies of energy, water and food, ageing societies,
public health, pandemics and security. It must tackle
the overarching challenge of turning Europe into an
eco-efficient economy.
To respond effectively, the European Research Area
must develop processes for the identification of Grand
Challenges, which gain political support and gradually
move away from current thematic approaches, towards
a structure where research priorities are based on these
Grand Challenges. Responses to Grand Challenges
should take the form of broad areas of issue-oriented
research in relevant fields.
Processes to ensure quality, relevance and trust will
be of crucial importance for Europe’s ability to meet
contemporary and future Grand Challenges and use
knowledge as a tool to turn problems into opportunities and progress. Such processes have to be articulated
in the context of Research, Education and Innovation
communities, and be based on the understanding of
the interaction between “ bottom-up” and “top-down”
initiated research. The development of such processes
is a matter of urgency.
The identification of the Grand Challenges must
engage the major stakeholders including the European
Institutions, business, public services, ngos and the
research community as well as interaction with major
international partners. Meeting the challenges should
involve public-private partnerships, including smes,
with their potential to develop excellent and sustained
problem-solving capacity. It will require Member States to develop more pro-active strategies on research
priorities at regional, national and Community level.
40
The Framework Programme for Research must also respond to these demands. Therefore the Commission
and the Member States together should, based on a
broad consultation process, agree on the most appropriate and efficient division of labour when designing
future programmes.
Meeting the Grand Challenges also requires the following:
• Strengthening frontier research initiated by the
research community itself. It is fundamentally important to create knowledge diversity, endowing the
European Union with expertise, especially when
confronted with unforeseen Grand Challenges and
“shocks”. Competition among researchers will ensure that research carried out in Europe is of international excellence.
• Taking a global lead in the development of enabling
technologies such as biotechnology, information
technology, materials and nano-technologies.
• Bringing together supply- and demand -side measures to support both business development and public
policy goals. Measures are needed to maximize the
economic and societal impact of new knowledge in
areas such as industrial, environmental and social policies, agriculture and regional development. Links
between these policy areas and research policies must
be strongly improved. Supply-oriented research and
innovation policies should be more strongly supported by demand-oriented policies, such as lead market
initiatives, public procurement, problem- and issuedriven policies and priority setting.
• Excellence and well-networked knowledge institutions. Modernisation of universities and cooperation
between universities and research institutions is a key
element for enhancing the competitiveness of European research. There is a need to develop instruments
appendix
to stimulate and support initiatives for cross-border
cooperation between knowledge-building institutions in creating peak of excellence environments
including for less developed research institutions.
• The creation and maintenance of world class research infrastructures in Europe including installations for big science as well as those serving the
needs of social sciences and humanities.
• A risk-tolerant and trust-based approach in research
funding entailing actions for necessary changes in
the Communities’ Financial Regulation and Rules
for participation and dissemination.
Meeting the Grand Challenges will be a prerequisite
for continued economic growth and for improved
chances to tackle key issues. It will involve women and
men on equal terms in the development of society and
cut across social, religious, generational and cultural
obstacles bringing about new possibilities and increase
the well-being and quality of life for all. Europe’s leadership in meeting the global challenges will make it an
attractive partner in global cooperation for sustainable
development.
41
appendix
appendix 3
the lund declaration
addendum
Introduction
Specific policy proposals
The world is rapidly changing and simultaneously facing a number of Grand Challenges, which require
new solutions. This was the starting point when preparing the Conference that resulted in the Lund Declaration presented to the Swedish minister of research
and higher education at the closing of the conference.
This addendum to the Declaration tries to give further
credit for the affluence of input from the Conference
that could give guidance in the further discussions on
how to better meet the Grand Challenges.
Grand Challenges, e.g. climate change, energy and
water supply, public health, ageing societies and changes in world economy, were used as illustration for
what they may bring. Some will emerge incrementally
while others may come as crises or even shocks. Different Grand Challenges will be characterized by different sets of specific challenges, which may differ in important aspects across different regions of the world.
Radical renewal through research and innovation
is needed to generate the necessary new solutions.
Opportunities for path-breaking frontier research
and paradigm shifts in innovation will rapidly grow.
These opportunities will be the major sources of global university and business competitiveness and help
our society to cope with the future. Taking into account and addressing the specific characteristics
of different Grand Challenges will be critical for
success.
Europe needs to mobilize substantially increased investments in research and innovation targeting Grand
Challenges, as this is required to meet the rapidly increasing global compe-tition and other threats to our
well-being and in order to take part in the widening and
deepening global cooperation. We must build trust with
society so the required resources are made available to
the research and innovation sectors. A major source for
increasing research and innovation investments in Europe should be a reallocation of funds from other areas of
the eu budget, notably the common agricultural policy.
Europe also needs to find effective ways to prioritize
research and innovation targeting the Grand Challenges that are widely inclusive and cross boundary in their
character. It needs efficient ways to manage research
and innovation activities and relationships, which implies considerably improved governance structures and
processes between regions, Member States and the eu,
as well as at each of the different policy levels. This will
be of major importance to the sustainable growth in
Europe and in the rest of the world.
Following the general approach of the Lund Declaration, specific policy proposals from the conference are
summarized below:
42
Prioritizing of Research and Innovation to meet Grand
Challenges and build public trust — a new and holistic
governance structure to approach research and innovation should be developed:
• New stakeholder platforms for further identifying
Grand Challenges are needed
• Focus on Grand challenges to transcend policy silos
and generate governance synergies
• Target excellent transdisciplinary research to meet
Grand challenges
• Bridge research to targeted effective innovation solutions to meet Grand Challenges
• The humanities should be an integral part in the
research and innovation landscape to allow the full
European knowledge and research potential to contribute to the global well-being
• Alert functions and inclusive foresight processes
should be developed for flexible and prompt actions
to meet unforeseen challenges
• Simplification of procedures at the Commission
level hand in hand with increased accountability
to build trust between the commission and the research community, the enterprises and the society
Transformation of the European knowledge production
system through major university reforms — a university
reform is urgently needed in eu to promote top class
research at selected universities and to simultaneously
develop incentives for interdisciplinary research and to
cooperate with the whole of the society:
• Focus on a European champions league of university
research
• Develop incentives for excellence in all three knowledge triangle dimensions
• Incentives and structures for geographic and stakeholder mobility must be developed
• Develop large scale research schools for young scientists
• Focus on developing structures for excellence in inter- and transdisciplinary research
• Bridge innovation gaps by improving academia and
industry relations and mobility
Radical new solutions require more risk-taking in research
and innovation — to secure excellence in research and
lay the ground for incentives for worldwide competiti-
appendix
veness and responsiveness in meeting the Grand Challenges with radically new innovative solutions need
long-term (financial) investments in all knowledge
triangle dimensions:
• Increased support to excellence in research by a
strengthened erc
• Develop increased support for high-risk research
and innovation in research programmes
• Develop new mechanisms to allocate resources to
emerging fields and experimentation
• Simplify administrative conditions for research to
allow for increased impact
• Develop links between high-risk radical research
and high-risk radical innovation
Demand for innovation-based new solutions need to be stimulated through lead market policies — different incentives and tools must be developed or improved in order
to become driving forces for world-wide competitiveness of an innovative Europe:
• Develop public innovation procurement related to
Grand challenges at all policy levels
• Focus on strategic price affecting and standardization policies for Grand Challenge innovation
• New and existing smes should particularly be focused on in different lead market measures
• Focus on competitive conditions and program schemes incentivizing lead market formations
Global strategies in all research and innovation policies are necessary — Europe needs to strategically
develop international relations and co-operations by
strengthen links and alliances to the era and to the
European innovation system:
• Develop Europe’s international relations and cooperations in research and innovation
• Focus on opening the era to the world
• Focus on ensuring mutually beneficial mobility and
complementarity of programmes
• Develop new approaches and new competencies for
new partners in developing countries and emerging
markets
• Develop new platforms for global priorities and new
instruments for improved impacts
World class research infrastructures are needed for excellence and attractiveness — excellent research infrastructures are needed to meet Grand Challenges with innovations, through cooperation between ms and the
public and private stakeholders, to facilitate transdisciplinary research and innovation:
• Pursue ambitious investments along the lines of the
esfri road map
• Develop databases for social sciences and the humanities as part of esfri
• Develop attractive conditions for young researchers
access to and use of research infrastructures
43
appendix
appendix 4
speech by tobias krantz
Dear commissioner, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
I am very glad to see that so many of you have ignored
the urge to spend time in the sun, swim, or just lay under an umbrella reading a page-turning novel. Instead
you have decided to join us at this important conference — for that I am very grateful.
When I was appointed Swedish Minister for Higher
Education and Research just a couple of weeks ago I
said that I believed it to be the most important job in
the government. How we handle the “knowledge policy issues” is more important now than ever.
The Swedish presidency of the European union has
a lot of difficult tasks to handle. Our priorities are obvious. There are two issues that outshine all others in
urgency — European economic recovery and climate
change. In both of those grand challenges — knowledge, education and research plays important roles.
The financial crisis has affected us all. The road
ahead is not clearly mapped, but the desired destination is clear. Europe must recover and find new ways to
be competitive in the era of globalization. In times of
economic turmoil, it’s important to remain farsighted.
Investments in research are not a “quick fix” for the
crisis at hand, but it is vital when building an economy
that will stand strong when again challenged.
Other countries have realized the importance of
investments in research. President Obama’s recovery
plan for the United States contains a massive increase
in funding for research. Developing economies in Asia
and Latin America are also putting a lot of money into
their research. Later today, we will hear speakers from
other parts of the world telling us their story. I’m looking forward to their presentations, although we Europeans might get a thing or two to think about.
We, who in different capacities are involved in European research and innovation policy, have a great
responsibility. We must come together and make our
voices heard, so that the long-term perspective isn’t
lost in the European debate.
One basic condition for achieving more in our field
is obviously more money. The Lisbon agenda states
a goal that every member state should spend at least
one percent of gdp on research. I am very proud that
the Swedish government has introduced a research bill
with such a large increase of funding that we reach
that target this year. It is my hope that more countries
will follow.
On the European level it’s about priorities. The European Union’s budget must become more modern.
Sweden calls for a shift in the budget — from the past
to the present. Investments in research have a much
44
higher added value than agricultural subsidies. But the
shift is not just important for creating growth in Europe. It will also send the signal that Europe still stands
for the classical strive for knowledge.
But more money isn’t enough if we don’t have systems to distribute them efficiently and accurately. And
we have a lot of problems to deal with — both in our
own countries and on the European level.
Let me start by saying a few words about the general
big debates when it comes to research policy, and then
move on to the Swedish priorities for the presidency of
the European union.
The first one of those always-present topics is quality
— and how to best achieve it. We have a lot of excellent
research in Europe but we know there is a need to improve. In order to be competitive, we must make sure
that our investments are put towards the best environments. It’s far to common today that research grants
are distributed without enough quality assessments.
In my opinion, peer-review must be the standard — all
over Europe.
When discussing research policy you always, often
sooner than later, come to talk about the so-called conflict between basic research and applied research. For
me, it’s really not a conflict. It’s obvious that we need
both.
The basic research is vital to the academic freedom.
Researchers must have the guts and the resources to ask
the impolite and uncomfortable questions. Sometimes
curiosity is a good enough reason to start a research
project, you’ll never know what it might lead to. That
does not mean that private companies can’t fund a research project — they certainly can. It just means that
they will have to be prepared to get an answer they
may not like.
And who can say for certain what kind of knowledge or what kind of technique we’ll need in the future?
Once upon a time Sweden was the leading country in
the world on research and development of radios based
on vacuum tubes. All our resources in that field went
into improving that very technique and all was well—
until the day the Americans invented the transistor radio. All of a sudden all our knowledge on vacuum tubes
was pretty much useless.
My point is this — if we only invest in applied research, soon we’ll be left without any research to apply.
But what good is a brand new technique or a new
miracle drug if it’s left in a desk drawer at a university?
That leads me to the next great challenge for European
research — how to boost our innovation systems in order to get the most out of our research investments.
Innovation and commercialization is not something
appendix
that the sector can solve by itself. It has a lot to do with
the entrepreneurial climate, the business climate and
the taxation system. But there are things we can do.
It’s my experience that brilliant researchers are not
always great businessmen, although some are. In Sweden we have the extraordinary example of Alfred Nobel who both invented the dynamite and commercialized it to make the fortune that today is used to fund
the Nobel Prize. But renaissance people like Alfred
Nobel don’t come around that often. Instead I believe
in match making. Universities should be better at helping their employees find a venture capitalist to help
fund the development of their own inventions.
Many researchers hesitate to commercialize an idea
because it could hold them back in their academic career. When applying for tenure or a professorship many
believe, often correctly, that a couple of published articles beats two years building up a company based on
a new idea. We must find ways to make it easier to go
back and forth between the academic world and the
private sector.
The last of great issues I’ll mention is about research
infrastructure. I’m very much in favor of mobility
among researchers. A change of environment is often
very good for researchers — new surroundings give new
perspectives. But in the era of globalization, when it’s
easier than ever to migrate — Europe must try harder to
be able to keep our best minds — and to attract others.
Big investments in research are one important factor, having state of the art research facilities is another.
On that area, Europe has clearly been lagging behind
the us and Asia. Being in Lund, it feels natural to use
the European Spallation Source as an example.
In the beginning of the 1990’s it was determined
that the world could use three spallation sources — a
research facility often compared to a giant microscope,
used in material research.
It was stated that one should be located in the us,
one in Asia and one in Europe. Both Japan and the us
have spallation sources up and running, but Europe has
not been able to reach a decision until recently.
Obviously I am very pleased that the location of the
European Spallation Source will be Lund in Sweden,
but it’s taken way to long to get here. In order for Europe to compete with the rest of the world—we need
better decision making skills when it comes to large
investments. Otherwise we will loose our best researchers to other continents.
Those are some big issues that are always interesting
to debate. However, when choosing priorities on the
research field for the Swedish presidency of the European Union — we had to limit ourselves. We have
chosen three areas where we think we can make a difference during our six months.
First. We will increase focus on the knowledge triangle. We must strengthen education on all levels, increase
the investments in research and find ways to boost our
systems for innovation. But we must also find ways to
interlink these three areas and enhance the cooperation between research, education and innovation.
Second. We want to develop a new governance structure for the European Research Area — the era. Our
goal is an era characterized by relevance and efficiency. This is important both in general but also as an
argument when debating the budget review. We must
be able to argue that money invested in European research is money well spent. A more efficient system is
a prerequisite for winning that fight.
A better era calls for a new partnership between
the Commission and the member states. The member
states must engage themselves more in the development of the era, allowing better flow of knowledge
and resources between member states. Europe can get
a lot more out of the resources that we invest through
more cooperation and better coordination between
member states. It is important to emphasize that political will and determination must go hand in hand
with academic freedom.
Third. We want to start the debate on the next framework program. I believe that the next framework program should have a new aim. Instead of being overly
bureaucratic with a technical thematic structure — I
believe it should be focused at achievements. We should
use the European research program to build knowledge
to meet the grand challenges we face — climate change, water shortage, poverty, diseases. This will not only
help improve Europe’s competitive advantage, I believe
it will also make the framework program easier to understand and more accepted.
Dear friends,
To mismanage research policy in our time would be a
historical mistake — one we just can’t afford to make.
We need more cooperation — between countries, between institutions, between the public and private sector, between individual researchers. We must raise our
level of ambition — both at home and at the European
level. This is especially important during the financial
crisis and recession that Europe now has to deal with.
Investments in research are vital for Europe’s strength
in the future. We must keep the longer perspective in
mind and be bold enough to make the right decisions
in these difficult times. Today’s research is tomorrow’s
welfare.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. This conference in
Lund is the starting point for all our efforts the coming
months. I hope that there will be many debates and I’m
really looking forward to seeing what you will decide
to put in the Lund declaration.
Thank you for listening.
45
appendix
appendix 5
speech by janez potočnik
Dear Dr Omling,
Dear Dr Gustafsson,
Honourable Vice-Chancellor,
Honourable Mayor,
Dear Minister,
Dear Colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen
I like the title of today’s event — ”New Worlds New
Solutions” — not only because it saves me from having
to think of a memorable title for my speech.
In four words, you have managed to describe the situation we are confronted with today:
So what is the NEW WORLD?
It’s a world that’s been described as ”flattened” where
the global competitive playing field is being levelled
out. This is obvious from the new players in Asia and
the bric countries that are threatening the competitive
position of Europe. But it is the spikes and imbalances
— in the consumption of energy, food, water and our
planet’s resources; in the profits and losses, the debts
and savings rates — and it’s myriad of impacts has spun
off a new world of problems — ones that we have to find
solutions for. So the topic is very timely. Because our
world has recently been shattered by financial shocks
and economic crises — and is facing challenges that
could lead to even bigger shocks: climate change, migration, pandemics, food and energy security. It sometimes seems like our world is falling apart at the seams!
So yes, we need new solutions. And yes, those solutions have to help us avoid or even benefit from these
shocks. We need also to think about how European
research and innovation programmes and policies can
contribute.
The crisis shows us just how interconnected we’ve
become — a banking collapse in the us nearly brought
the world financial system to its knees. There are other
indicators too, like the fact that 9 out of 10 people today are part of the wto, or that the internet - which
respects no borders and connects the world’s peoples,
societies and economies in a way few could have imagined in the past — is ever more important in our lives.
Our solutions obviously need to be global. Current
problems have shown us that more than ever we need
real global governance. Europe has risen to this challenge to shape a new financial order, both at the recent Brussels Summit and through its involvement in
the G20. We have shown that we can respond together
when a new global financial order is needed.
Governance is an issue I will return to later, but, as I
said, there are other challenges. They were here before
the crisis and will remain long after those green shoots
have blossomed. And we need to think about them in
46
new way. You may have heard the expression ’rose tinted glasses’; well we need to look at the world through a
new type of lens — one that focuses on sustainability!
The financial and economic crisis has shown us just
how important sustainability is: how unsustainable
profits can be and how unsustainable structural imbalances can be, between those countries that consume
using borrowed money and the emerging economies
that cover deficits by spending their savings.
Sustainability is first and foremost about responsibility; about responsible thinking for tomorrow and for
today.
This will mean finding a new model for (global) economic development that marries economic, social and
environmental objectives: you can call it the trio of profit, people and planet. The need for a sustainable use of
our planets resources; a sustainable model for food production; a sustainable, greener industrial production.
These two major concepts of sustainability and governance will, I am sure, shape policies for decades to
come. Europe has made sustainability one of its core
political priorities. It has already become a new rationale for Europe, and along the way has changed our
raison d’être fundamentally. We are evolving from a
union formed for peace and prosperity to one which
— although we should never forget its past — now must
focus more on people, planet and profit — on sustainability. That was the essence of the original Lisbon
strategy. It is more than ever valid now — and easier to
be understood than a decade ago.
So what are the solutions?
…and where does research and innovation fit in into
this evolving union?
Well clearly research has a crucial part to play, also in
times of crisis. But only if we maintain our commitment to investing in it. Cutting investments in science
now would serve no useful purpose…worse than that, it
would be counterproductive.
That is not just my opinion; history has shown that
countries and companies who do not cut back on spending on research, development and innovation emerge
stronger — Finland, Japan and the us are three high
profile examples. Companies which innovate when
others might be thinking only about their bottom lines have also prospered…Apple, who produced their
first iPod during a downturn, is one example. Another
is Microsoft, which increased its r&d spending between 4q2007 and 4q2008 by 21%. A recent Wall Street
Journal survey has shown that other large us companies have not cut down on r&d, despite decreasing turnover. I have no clear data yet for European companies,
but I hope it will show the same.
appendix
***
Of course no discussion about the role and reach of
research and innovation could be complete without
including the European Research Area. About how era
can help Europe in strengthening its position in this
new world and address the challenges we are facing.
Perhaps now, at the start of this new Presidency, it
would be a good time to remember what our vision for
the era is. Not least because the beginning of a new
six months presidency is always a useful watershed;
a place where we can gather our thoughts and think
about how far we’ve come and where we are going.
So what is the era?
Last December, the eu’s 27 governments signed up to
a joint 2020 vision of this European Research Area and
committed to work together to make this vision a reality. It is a vision of a European open innovation system in which researchers, research institutions and enterprises naturally compete and work together across
borders. A research system at continental scale which
offers the right balance between competition — which
ensures excellence — and cooperation — which ensures
critical mass and impact.
This developing vision of an open Europe of knowledge, research and innovation, has enabled us to take some
bold initiatives which were unthinkable 10 years ago.
We are working together with the Member States and
the research community at large on the different elements that make up the European research ecosystem.
1. We have a partnership with governments to boost
researchers’ careers and their mobility, which will
support brain circulation within Europe and make
it more attractive to the outside world.
2.Our recommendations on knowledge transfer will
support open innovation between academia and industry and the free circulation of technologies and
knowledge.
3.We have proposed and Member States are taking actions to support the modernisation of universities,
creating more excellence through more autonomy
and competition.
4.We have embarked on joint programming of national and regional research efforts, combining efforts
to tackle together our major societal challenges such
as securing green energy or addressing Alzheimer’s
disease.
5. We have brought together Member States to identify 44 research infrastructures of pan European importance and scale, and to set out a roadmap to build
and operate them. And we are developing a strategic
framework for engaging with the rest of the world in
a more organised and coherent way than we do today.
A large part of the 7th framework programme is geared
towards realising this era vision:
We have established the European Research Council
to fund frontier research solely on the basis of scientific
excellence. It is fostering competition and building a
”champion’s league” of research, to which everyone aspires to participate and I am sure it will radically change
Europe’s research system over time.
We have launched large public private with industry
in the form of Joint Technology Initiatives to address
large scale societal challenges, such as those for more
effective and better medicines or more sustainable air
transport. Another example is the Strategic Energy
Technology or set plan where research cooperation
throughout Europe is strengthened through the setting up of industrial initiatives and research alliances.
And we are responding to the ’globalisation’ and the
’flattening’ of our world by building greater international cooperation into the Framework Programmes
through thematic ’focusing’ as opposed to capacity
building.
And outside of era — our more ’traditional’ world
— we have seen the growth of links to other relevant
policies — not only education and innovation, but also
other, more sectoral policies. Yet another reflection of
a world where seemingly everything is becoming increasingly interconnected. Research as a supply side
measure should be combined with demand side measures, such as regulation, standardisation and public
procurement. The Lead Market Initiative is a good
example, which combines a number of demand-side
policy instruments.
The wider relationship between research and innovation — and the importance of this relationship — is
now becoming clearer and clearer. Moreover, the rise of
new innovation players and major societal challenges
may require new eu policy responses to foster innovation. We need a new approach to innovation which
cuts across all policy areas and links the promises and
potentials of research and technological development
to the objectives, targets and regulatory framework set
by sectoral polices addressing societal challenges. We
are going to have to make even more innovative policies…
***
So how will we combine our efforts effectively— across
borders, across Science and technology fields, across
policies and across sectors — to get to the solutions?
This is about governance and I have spoken about the
importance of governance, particularly in building the
European Research Area. I have tried to paint you a
picture of a new world of problems and policies, interlinked and with their own domains, goals and objectives.
This raises a fundamental question — is this truly
governable as it is?
It’s a complex situation, with varying levels of engagement. Some member states have different ministries
for each of the three elements of the knowledge triangle: education, research and innovation. Some think
of putting all three elements together and even link it
47
with other policy areas, like sectoral issues or international cooperation. For me, this last case is certainly
difficult to manage. Each ministry should have a certain focus and create the interfaces with the other
policy areas to cooperate in a strategic and coherent
manner to address overarching priorities — such as the
grand societal challenges of our times. This is also true
when we look at the role of Member States and the
Commission in the governance of era.
era governance is about setting priorities and focusing on where we can make a difference — the Commission and Member States as partners!
era governance is about managing a new partnership
between the Member States, the Commission and international partners. This idea of improved governance
is already hard-wired into the existing era — partnerships that we have launched together.
Time and experience will tell which of those work
best and will help us improve further partnerships for
even more ambitious initiatives. But clearly governance is not about and should not be about dictatorships —
certainly not a ’Brussels dictatorship’. We are not searching for a new balance of power; we are searching for
a new partnership that ensures coherence between the
different actions and where we can together deliver on
our common objectives. Power games are counterproductive and a lost energy. Only results should count.
I would like to see partnerships which allows each of
us to focus on what we do best while enabling that best
practice to contribute to a greater whole — by creating
’interfaces’ between
those with greater expertise and with policy areas
and — crucially — between regional, national, European and global levels. era governance is about creating the right interfaces and managing the partnership
to build an era.
As era is increasingly engaging all policy levels —
regional, national and European — we need to be in a
position to make sure that these levels can and want
to engage with each other. These are the interfaces I
spoke about earlier.
These interfaces are all about access…but for whom?
era governance would be nothing without the relevant people, the research stakeholders. And we have
to remember that as we open up all of these levels of
research like an onion, layer by layer, we will find more
and more stakeholders who want — and deserve — to be
involved. We have to accommodate them. They have to
know that they ’own’ research as much as the traditional scientific community. That they are responsible for
their own future.
So era governance is about involving everyone
in the creation of era, not only the experts that meet
up in Brussels, but the wider scientific community,
industry and societal stakeholders at all levels — be it
Community, national or regional.
—
48
appendix
And let me add another point: era governance is not
about preparing for fp8 — focusing our discussions
on that point only would be wasted opportunity. fp
is only one instrument of many: Important, but only
one.
Ladies and Gentlemen
In one of my last speeches, I spoke about the problems
of not having a research crystal ball into which we
could all stare and work out exactly what was going to
happen in the future.
And because we don’t have one, we need to be prepared. Perhaps more prepared than ever for those ’shocks’
which because of the jigsaw puzzle world we live in today, can spread faster, deeper and more fundamentally
than we could ever have imagined in the past.
We need to understand that we cannot handle these
alone anymore — not a single member state and even
not as the eu on its own. Once we grasp this, we need
to work out the priorities that we want to address together and the processes and structures that will get
us there.
So I cannot pretend that we are there yet. But we
do have a joint era vision and we have engaged in the
Ljubljana process and we already launched a number
of initiatives. So we are at least on the way to making
the ”strategic, ambitious and well-coordinated policy
for research and innovation in Europe” that Cecilia
Malmström, the Swedish Minister for eu affairs, called for in her speech of May this year. I hope that by
the end of the Swedish Presidency we will have a clear
idea of what impulses ministers should give at home
and at the eu level to deliver on this era vision. This
is an important deliverable — not least to ensure that
research and innovation will take its right place in the
post 2010 Lisbon strategy.
But for some our era vision may not go far enough
— we need only to look at the 2030 vision of the European Research Area Board. erab will be publishing it
in just a few weeks, pointing out to what they see as
flaws. The report describes the inevitability of a ’New
Renaissance’ in Europe.
A new renaissance of ideas and powerful forces
which make up our world today and which will change
the way we think, live and interact with each other in
the same way that the Renaissance of the 15th and 16th
Centuries did. It puts forward an idea of a need for ’holistic’ view in research, as opposed to one which looks
only locally or even only across blocs, like the eu.
I think these are the new solutions to which you refer to in the title of the event.
I would like to end by wishing the Swedish Presidency the best of luck — it seems to me that you have
hit the ground running.
Of course — I would have expected nothing less
from the country which has the highest r&d intensity
in Europe.
Thank you!
appendix
appendix 6
The Swedish EU Presidency Conference
Lund University, Sweden
new worlds, new solutions
July 7–8 2009
the world of 2025
as seen from asia
‘Asia as a Future Career.’
Krishnan Srinivasan
Globalization
The concept and momentum of globalization are of
Western origin. Hence, there is a presumption among
the majority of people in Asia that the South and East
are victims of globalization and never its proponent.
Asian economies, despite their dynamism and considerable size, are still termed as ‘emerging economies’,
while the economies of the West, however embattled,
have apparently already ‘emerged’. The relationship
between the Occident and Orient seems determined
ineluctably as always between donor and recipient,
active and passive, emerged and emerging. We must
change this imperial paradigm and Western mind-set
of the Europe-Asian engagement. To give one recent
example, the reaction of a certain European Union
foreign minister, and the Union as a whole, after this
minister was declined a visa to a small Asian country
was neither acceptable nor productive.
By 2025, the United States and the European Union
will no longer be the twin colossi bestriding the globe.
The world will be shaped towards a far more interactive community, and Western universalism may continue in three respects: the definitions of time and space,
and the common use of one language. Time, in respect
of the clock, the time-zones, the International Date
Line, the calendar and the millennium; space, in terms
of the definition and delineation of the borders of continents and countries. The medium of the Internet,
air and maritime traffic, and the most common usage
in international forums, English, will be the lingua
franca. It is still unclear whether the major Asian states, as they rise to world power, will project their own
cultural values in order to reshape the new international order. It would seem logical to expect them to do
so, but since their rise is so closely bound up with the
process of modernization along Western lines, it is difficult to discern at this stage what changes they may
favour. But in most respects, the world of 2025 will be
a far less Western world. There will be no further attempt to graft Western institutions on non-receptive
countries, and the value-system based on Western history and experience may not be universalized but be
confined to the West.
‘Emerging’ Asia
With the largest concentration of the world’s population, concerns over the sources and causes of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
seemingly insolvable inter-state and would-be state
problems and imminent conflicts, stresses of abject
poverty, food shortages and climate change, the phrase
‘Asian century’ is a misnomer. This is a continent that
enjoys neither political nor commercial unity; nor any
common security agenda. Its multilateral structures are
very weak and systems of governance vary from dystopia and communism to liberal democracy. Nevertheless, the new international landscape will have to take
account of the spectacular economic growth over the
past decades in certain parts of Asia, with the benefits of low cost labour, high savings rates, prudential
management, vast territory and resources, and rapidly
growing infrastructure and technology.
None of the big emerging Asian nations are integrated into any alliance system with the West. While
no military confrontation is envisaged, this will represent a challenge because these countries have regarded
West-dominated international society, which developed in the 18th to 20th centuries, as not being just or
neutral, and themselves as being targeted by interventionist strategies. The new Asian powers that have blamed the Western world order for denying them their
fair share of status and authority, will strongly resist
external interference, let alone intrusion or intervention. Their rise to a more dominant position in world
politics is likely to challenge the liberal solidarist view
of international society. There will be shifts in global perceptions of global security needs, and on who
should and could police the world, and how.
The characteristics of power in the twenty first century will include physical size, a large working- age population with total factor productivity, (meaning the
value added from all forms of production including
labour and capital), a strong national identity, the size
49
of the economy, modern technology, military prowess, a
stable and strong currency, knowledge-based and capital
exports, access to resources including energy, attractiveness to investable funds, a cultural endowment that will
radiate beyond its borders, and the ability to withstand
environmental degradation and climate change.
A set of core factors is usually needed for growth:
macroeconomic stability (low inflation, tight monetary policy and fiscal deficit reduction), institutional
capacity (legal, financial, health, bureaucratic systems),
openness (to trade and foreign direct investment, new
technology and larger markets) and education (skills).
The strong economies of Asia will possess these characteristics to a varying degree, along with a range of
economic, technological, military and political power
assets, a capacity to contribute to international order
regionally and globally, a degree of internal cohesion
and a capacity for effective state action. There are past
examples of countries with a strong economic base
that have deliberately chosen to refrain from exercising influence in world affairs, but Asian countries will
not show similar self-restraint. They have displayed,
and will prove, that opening their economies can be
married to a strong assertion of national sovereignty.
Because of its huge stake in the us economy, China in
particular will no longer be a consumer of whatever
international order the West chooses to dispense. Indeed, as the North Korean nuclear crisis demonstrated,
the international community cannot operate in Asia
without China’s support. No Asian nation will be in
a position to challenge the United States militarily for
the foreseeable future, but they are likely to become
increasingly assertive whether the West likes it or not.
In the next few decades, inter-Asian trade will resemble the volumes of North America-Europe and
North America-Pacific exchanges of the 20th century.
As economic gravity shifts, so will trade flows, finance,
investment, movements of labour and global consumption. In terms of purchasing power parity, three of the
world’s top four economies are already in Asia, namely
China, Japan and India; and three quarters of another
trillion dollar economy, Russia, is also in Asia. India’s
share of the world product should rise from 8% today
to nearly 15% in 2025 and China’s from 12% to 20%, and
these gains will be mainly at the expense of Europe and
Japan, Japan’s share declining due to its working age population that will drop by 40% before mid-century. But
Japan’s influence on the evolving scenario should not be
discounted. Japan is a world leader in many fields — science and technology, robotics, digital electronics, alternative energy, computer games and nano-science, and
the Japanese have a highly developed sense of their unique place in the world and a determination to do whatever is necessary to preserve their independence. Over
the long run, it is conceivable that Japan will emerge as
an interlocutor and even as a balancer in the triangular
relationship with China and the United States.
At a time when big is beautiful - big markets, big
populations, big militaries, and big ambitions, the per
capita income of the Asian emerging nations will be
50
appendix
smaller than that of the industrialized countries, but
in terms of spending, their expenditures will be many
times higher. About 150 million in India with an aggregate purchasing power equivalent to about the
whole of the European Union watch televised cricket
matches. China and India will make up 2/3rds of the
increase (China 52%, India 12%) in the global middle
class by 2030, and the purchasing power of India and
China together will far exceed the combined consumer class populations of the European Union and the
usa by mid-century although their per capita income
will still only be a fraction of what it is in the developed countries. The engine of new demand growth and
spending power will shift to the emerging economies,
especially in Asia, with their higher growth rate; and
their larger share in global investment portfolios and
foreign direct investment will rise sharply. The per capita disparity will however mean there will be extreme
price sensitivity in the Asian market. The implications
of this development on production, out-sourcing, investment, pricing, sales, advertising and marketing in
this century will obviously require urgent research and
analysis, and will have a bearing on the future shape of
European industry and manufacture.
The big Asian economies will emerge relatively
stronger from the present global recession compared
to others, while usa, Europe and Japan will be weakened. Through most of the Cold War, Asian countries
other than Japan stood outside, or on the margin, of
the Western dominated world economy and its Bretton Woods institutions. Now the international and financial architecture constructed after 1944 has to be
made relevant with the greater active participation of
the Asian economic powers. China, with the world’s
third largest economy and largest dollar reserves, has
around the same quota and voting rights in the imf
as Italy, Belgium or the Netherlands (3.7%; cf eu 32%,
usa 17%; usa +eu +Japan 53%) – yet China is essential
for injecting liquidity into the global system and providing a safety net for the us economy. The eu must
relinquish this anachronistic power-sharing structure
to accord with the new realities, and it makes equally
little sense to exclude Russia and Iran from the wto.
Since the Euro currency has a relatively limited role
in Asian exchange, it may be prudent to keep an open
mind about a new global currency disconnected from
individual countries to replace the dollar, and as to how
the SDRs are valued.
Climate change
The rapid expansion of the Asian economies means the
driving force of the new energy order is in Asia, with
obvious implications for global warming and climate
change. Between China and India, they will account
for 70% of the increase in global energy demand, and
the two countries are projected to double their energy
consumption by 2030: this will mean fiercer competition for scarcer crude. The scramble for resources in
this century will lead to a form of neo-mercantilism
appendix
in the quest for monopoly access to raw materials and
products of nature like water sources. Environmental
conflicts are likely first to arise in the poor developing
world as a result of reduced agricultural production,
economic decline and population displacement, compounded by river water-sharing problems, mass migrations and ethnic and racial strife. The Living Planet
Report for 2008 suggests that humankind is using 30%
more resources than the earth can replenish each year,
and that if there is no remedial change, we shall need
two planets to sustain our existing life-style. This argues strongly for a new international mechanism to
regulate the use of our global commons. Will the European Union be inclined to give a lead in this? And
to set more ambitious commitments to cuts in carbon
emissions than 3% below 1990 levels by 2020, and to
pioneer new and effective carbon trading models beyond the Clean Development Mechanism?
The South, even large polluters like China and India,
still sees climate change as largely a Northern agenda
to retard their progress. Therefore there will have to
be a search for lower-cost ways of controlling carbon
emissions other than by restricting economic growth.
Without nuclear power, it is difficult to reduce greenhouse gases even as people’s needs are met, and to generate sufficient energy from renewables. Sweden is to
be congratulated as the first advanced country which
has decided to phase out fossil fuels, build modern nuclear plants on 10 existing sites, and emphasize wind
and hydro power generation with a view to reducing
green house gas emissions to zero by 2050.
The European Union
The eu aspires to be an innovative and dynamic economy, but this requires the ability to pursue internal
economic reforms and decision-making structures
to implement policies which support innovation at a
time when the eu is beset by multiple preoccupations:
ageing populations, fiscal problems, the future of the
Euro, economic slowdown, ailing health services, failing pension schemes, and debate on the vaguely defined European social model as opposed to so-called
Anglo-Saxon forms of global competitive capitalism.
Among other challenges for the eu are the need for
coherent internal governance, further rounds of enlargement, financial solidarity in an asymmetric economy, the political and military profile, immigration issues and management of diversity, use of biofuels, and
normative and moral issues like biotechnology. When
the current economic crisis is over, these concerns will
remain; and there will be the Lisbon Treaty and future
membership expansion to deal with.
Despite being the most powerful and choate political and economic association of states in the world,
it is the political dimension that will define the European Union as a meaningful international player.
Europe is increasingly turning away from power into
a self-contained world of laws, rules, transnational negotiation and cooperation. Its external relations are
based on normative values such as democracy, the rule
of law, and pluralism. It seeks partnerships, cooperation and engagement on a wide range of global issues
like globalization, terrorism, proliferation, energy and
environment. It is respected for conflict resolution and
nation-building, especially within Europe, and peaceful consensual politics, but not as an actual or potential
political and military force with geo-strategic capacities. The European experience in Iraq and Afghanistan
is not likely to alter that perception. Internationally,
the Union’s voice is often contradicted by its internal
dynamics. It has no agreed common foreign and defence policy, which is hardly surprising in an entity that
is not a state but a transnational decentralized con-federal construct. For the same reason, the abundance
of ‘soft power’ generated by its constituents, Italian
opera, French couture, Belgian cuisine, and the like, is
difficult to replicate in any way at the pan-eu level.
The eu has to be content to exercise influence outside Europe through reconstruction and peace-building
operations. The present economic crisis is having a devastating effect on poor developing countries and has
become the invisible face of the recession. Therefore
the eu must continue to be a leading donor of official development assistance on concessional terms and
show determination to bring the languishing Doha
Development Round to a successful conclusion.
The usa is expected to pay greater attention to Asia
in future, in view of its changing threat perceptions.
American military strength and reach will be an asset in contributing to world stability. The usa will
attempt to provide world leadership in the first decades of this century; nevertheless Washington will be
increasingly obliged to cooperate with others. The eu
will have to adjust its perspectives likewise. With its
export-oriented economy, investments to and from the
usa, dependence on energy imports from the Middle
East and Russia, and links through migrant workers
and immigrant communities to the Muslim world, the
eu has to be outward and not inward looking. It goes
without saying that although it may be tempting for
the bigger eu member states to forge separate engagements with some powerful Asian counterparts, the
eu’s unique selling point will be to stay united.
It will be in the eu’s interest to cooperate closely
with the new fast-growing economies of Asia which
now produce about 23 percent of global gdp, and whose share is rising. The eu must develop a more comprehensive dialogue as an indispensable partner for peace
and economic progress, and as an important source of
technology. Such partnerships and common understandings are critically needed against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seen in the larger
Middle East, North Korea and Pakistan; and China,
though having a huge part in Asian security issues such
as the Korean crisis, has itself a somewhat questionable
role in proliferation. Likewise, the world-wide defence
against terrorism cannot be effective without cooperation between the eu and the countries of Asia where
much of this terror originates. The asem (asean + 3
51
[China, Japan, Republic of Korea] + 3 [India, Pakistan,
Mongolia] and Europe Meetings) framework requires
to be strengthened considerably.
Asia and Europe must also work together for an
effective and legitimate multilateral system, with a
functioning United Nations at its core. It is difficult
to justify low Asian permanent representation in the
Security Council when the eu with less than half the
population of India alone is represented by two, and
perhaps three members in any future expansion. There
is no Asian consensus on the expansion of the un Security Council, but the big Asian powers will want to
be an active part of the world multilateral system in order to exercise global influence and facilitate a revision
of the international order and norms to reflect their
formerly neglected interests, concerns and values.
Europe professes to be open and outward-looking,
but that is not how it appears to those outside the eu.
In terms of economic or military power, Europe cannot aspire to a major role in shaping world events in
this century. Its share of the world’s product has declined in the last five years, and it will have to compete
in an ever-stiffer competition for raw materials in the
coming decades. Its present dependence on energy imports make it vulnerable, and the extent of its self-sufficiency is steeply declining. By 2030 the production of
oil and gas within the eu is expected to decline by 73%
and 59% respectively, and at least two-thirds of its requirements will thereafter have to be met by imports.
The eu’s fertility rate is expected to continue falling
with a drop in working age population, and by 2040
the average gdp growth is likely to be around 1.25%,
with low growth in total factor productivity. The European Union’s share of world gdp is expected to fall
from about 30% to 10% by 2050. No member country
has the 2.1 birth-rate per woman that is needed to keep
the population stable and one third of the population
will be 65 or over by 2050. Contrary to much current
public opinion in Europe, the approval of the Lisbon
Treaty, a strategically calculated enlargement programme, more legal immigration, and increased flexibility
in the workplace including fewer holidays and increasing the retirement age, may prove essential for future
economic competitiveness.
The labour pool in the Arab world will increase by
over 100 million by 2020, and that of sub-Saharan Africa by 250 million. The consequences of these demographics rightly cause great concern to Europe, though
it will need a measure of controlled immigration to
enhance its economic productivity, and research is
needed on how to reconcile the increasingly securitized eu immigration policy with the need to refresh
the aging European labour market, and not only at the
top end. Many migrant communities in Europe remain
marginalized, and despite the rousing speeches of politicians extolling the virtues of tolerance, are considered a burden rather than a positive contribution.
The problem basically concerns the authority of the
secular state and its impact on religious minorities in
general and Muslims in particular, who already num-
52
appendix
ber 16 million or 3 % of the eu’s population. Perhaps
only a new settlement between the member states and
religion can successfully incorporate the growing religious minorities in Europe. The eu has to define and
refine its attitude to Islam, the Arab world and Muslim
immigration, since Islam has become Europe’s second
largest religion.
European Competitiveness
The eu has been living on borrowed money with governments borrowing large percentages of national
gdp. The amortization of these borrowings will add to
the burden of public services that are already too large
a proportion of the total economy, which has reduced
the incentives for responsible consumption. Funding
the welfare state at these levels will no longer be possible unless the economy grows bigger. Despite stringent rules, fiscal discipline has not always been met even
in better times, and the next generation of governments will have to face their electorates with these realities. The eu must spend less, consume less, save more
and stimulate production. It has to invest in its inherent vitality, adaptability and creativity, concentrate
on public education, science and basic research, rein
in the deficit, and maximize the resources of advanced
technology. The key will lie in enhanced innovation,
investment and research in knowledge-based industries like nanotechnology, biotechnology and green
engineering.
Many nations have enjoyed rising living standards
despite budget deficits( Japan, Italy and Korea); appreciating currencies ( Germany, Switzerland); high interest rates( Italy and Korea) high wages with periods of
labour shortage( Germany and Sweden, Switzerland)
and limited natural resources ( Germany, Japan, Italy,
Switzerland, Korea), which shows that the stock of factors at any one time is less important than the way in
which the factors are created, upgraded and deployed.
To achieve competitive status, European firms must
demonstrate energy efficiency by recycling water and
reusing heat generated in the production process, and
either reduce costs or identify differentiated products
that command premium prices. Competitive advantage
may lie in narrowly defined industries or industrial segments. Innovation and improvement in logistics, methods and technology are central, as is domestic demand,
local competition and the presence of supplier and related industries. Signs of an upgrading economy are when
areas of traditional manufacture are vacated and less
productive jobs are moved to other countries through
foreign investment and foreign outsourcing. The eu
should take a leading role in opposing protectionism in
all its manifestations: it was a shame that the g-20 failed
to agree to an absolute standstill on all barriers to trade
and capital, so that countries could not shelter under
wto rules to raise tariffs and non-tariff restraints.
Encouraging local domestic suppliers sustains competitive advantage, so domestic rivalry is a national asset. A supportive services industry requires a corps of
appendix
specialized, skilled professional and technical personnel, and opening service industries to both domestic
and international competition spurs productivity. The
role of Government, whether in Brussels or member
countries, is important for determining national economic agendas, subsidies, policies for capital markets,
education including an apprentice system, shaping local demand, tax policies, and anti-trust laws. Government procurement can be an upgrading force by seeking new products and services, pushing local suppliers
into new areas, demanding stringent product specifications, seeking sophisticated products, setting specifications with an eye to what the most advanced markets
value, and generating competition by being accessible
to foreign suppliers.
Summation
Henry Kissinger sees the two major world problems of
today as being the movement of the centre of gravity
from the Atlantic region to Asia and the impact of a
globalized economy on the world order. These are not
problems but opportunities. But such opportunities
can be seized only through a clear agenda, planning
and foresight. There was a moment, during a previous
phase of globalization by way of European expansion
in the nineteenth century, when Benjamin Disraeli
described the East as ‘a career’. It will be so for Europe again, but this time in an entirely different sense.
China will become a viable great power on a global
scale, probably one of the greatest that the history of
our planet has ever seen. It is a safe bet to assume that
young persons everywhere in the world today will live
to see a very different politically and economically
multi-polar planet in which Asia will be a major participant. Research bearing on the future of the European Union, to be meaningful, will need to be planned
and undertaken keeping this changed international
context in mind.
Krishnan Srinivasan was Indian Ambassador to Zambia,
Botswana, Nigeria, Benin, Cameroon, the Netherlands
and Bangladesh before being appointed first Secretary and
then Foreign Secretary or head of the diplomatic service.
Thereafter he was Deputy Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. He has been a Fellow at Oxford, Cambridge
and London Universities, the Netherlands Institute of
Advanced Studies and the Swedish Collegium at Uppsala.
Currently he is a Visiting Professor at ASCI Hyderabad
and a Fellow of the Azad Institute of Asian Studies at Calcutta. His most recent book is ‘Towards the New Horizon:
World Order in the 21st Century’.
53
appendix
appendix 7
The Swedish EU Presidency Conference
Lund University, Sweden
new worlds, new solutions
July 7–8 2009
the world of 2025
as seen from africa
Neville Alexander
Introductory remarks
By way of introduction to this attempt at scenario setting 1, let me state clearly that while it is possible in
certain dimensions of the subject to speak in terms
of the continent as a whole, it is impossible to do so
in all its dimensions and even in those where I do so,
my South African provenance will undoubtedly show.
“Africa”, like “Europe”, while it is certainly more than
a mere geographical expression today, consists of diverse peoples and states, each with its own historical and
social specificities. On the other hand, of course, and
especially in relation to the ways in which Europeans,
generally speaking, have viewed it, the continent shares
many features and has been subject to many processes
that are common to virtually all of its inhabitants and
its political entities. It is, therefore, possible in this stereotypical sense, to speak of and for Africa as a continental unit among similar entities in the global village.
In moving from this African “Other” to an African
“Self”, which is what I have been asked to do, so that
I can ponder “Europe” as such an “other” entity, I shall
perforce focus on precisely those issues that have been,
and continue to be, experientially shared by Africans.
My focus is more precisely determined by the request
that I consider what Africans would expect European
scientists and scholars to prioritise in a research agenda for the 21st century. This makes it easier to restrict
myself to a few central questions, specifically those
relating to the global political economy and to the cultural and ideological implications of the resultant and
growing self-assertiveness of the African elites and of
Africa’s intellectuals, more specifically.
In order to preclude any misunderstanding, I should
also like to make it clear that, methodologically, I am
usually averse to the kind of generalisations that scenario setting entails. In particular, the fact that agency
is ascribed to putative collectivities which in reality
1
do not act in concert and whose common objective
interests can only be inferred post eventum, is highly
problematic. However, this approach does facilitate the
painting of a broad-brush picture of trends and possibilities and, as such, is a valid undertaking if we bear in
mind these qualifications.
Africa, the philosophy of history and globalisation
Progressive and radical African scholars have arrived
at a lucid and succinct analysis of the position of the
continent and its peoples in the era of 21st century globalisation 2. I shall note here only a few of the relevant
facts and trends in order to get to the focus of this conference as quickly as possible.
To begin with, it is common cause among us that globalisation started some 500 years ago with “the (colonial) expansion of Europe”. Africa and Africans played
a major, indeed a pivotal, role in the first phases of this
process, mainly as the suppliers of forced labour in the
form of chattel slaves to be exploited in “the new world”.
Without the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, capitalism and
modern industrial society would not have evolved as they
did. In spite of a few important studies of this historical
fact, the best of which were written and published in
the 1950s and 1960s, there is no serious modern analysis
of the (enforced) contribution of the African continent
to the development of capitalism. In my opinion, if we
are to arrive at a more inclusive and equitable, i.e., holistic, analysis of our common heritage as citizens of the
21st century, this history should be reopened as a field for
research from a totally different angle of vision (Standort). Rather than the Eurocentric or, conversely, anti-European perspectives from which it has been approached
hitherto, it needs to be seen as a stage in the evolution
of civilisation with all the barbarities that it entailed.
If this were to happen, it cannot be approached simply
from the prospective angle of European slave masters
and mercantile capitalists pursuing their own selfish
interests. Instead, it has to be approached retrospectively — not teleologically, I wish to emphasise — as one
of many processes that made possible the emergence
of modern market economies and of the socio-political features attendant on those economic relations. Of
course, this approach immediately raises in the ironic
Address delivered at the Conference: New Worlds – New Solutions. Research and Innovation as a Basis for Developing Europe in a Global Context held at Lund 7–8 July 2009.
2
One of the best summaries of this position is Sawyer 1999
54
mode the question of agency as captured in Brecht’s famous formulation: Who built Thebes?
Against this background, I want to suggest that the relationship between Africa and Europe is no less than one
of the defining questions of our humanity. With hardly
any exceptions, if keywords like “racism” or “slavery” are
mentioned, the mind immediately darts to images of
Africans being exploited and tormented by Europeans.
This stereotypical response is deeply entrenched in the
psyche of all African people. It is a chain from which all
of them try to free themselves but with only scant success. Given the gory history of the Atlantic slave trade
(the greatest crime in history, as Reginald Coupland
called it) colonial conquest, imperialist partition of the
continent and subsequent neo-colonial exploitation, it
is of great interest to scholarship to record that there is
a profound ambivalence in this relationship on the part
of probably a majority of Africans. It is the ambivalence
that characterises the interaction between prison warders and prisoners in a maximum security prison. It is
a Jekyll-and-Hyde bond, a love-hate thing which it is
often difficult to describe without falling into platitudes. The prisoner who is tormented by the brutalised
warder is at the same time totally dependent on him for
his physical and emotional sustenance. The result is a
profound neurosis, one which finds expression in the
extremes of slavishness and homicidal hatred.
Before we fall into the trap of stereotyping the responses of ‘Africans’ by generalising, it is proper to remind ourselves that different views of Europe are held
by different classes of people in Africa. The most rejectionist and alienated views are certainly those of the radical intelligentsia. The images of Europeans that prevail in these circles are based on a particular view of the
history of the relationship between Europe and Africa.
These images are those of slave masters, rapists, land
robbers, pirates, warlords and worse. To quote two examples from South Africa: in his famous work entitled
The Contribution of the Non-European Peoples to World
Civilisation, B M Kies wrote, among other things, that
There are four main reasons for [...] (the) advance in civilisation
whereby mankind in Europe was to emerge from a thousand
years of darkness to bound ahead of all existing cultures. None
of these has anything to do with a mystical psyche in persons
of a particular colour or skull-shape. The first reason is the
organisation of those gigantic plundering raids organised by
the Popes, the feudal kings and the feudal nobility, and falsely
described as ‘Crusades’ for ‘Christianising’ the ‘pagans’[...]. The
second reason for this tremendous advance of civilisation in
Europe is that this sanctified robbery enriched not merely the
Popes, kings and nobles, but even more so the merchants who
transported the plunderers and, under their arms, extended
and enriched their own commercial interests at the expense of
their Mohammedan rivals [...]. (Kies 1953:36)
Mnguni (1952:18), in another well known work of South
African historiography, wrote matter-of-factly
And so the whole colonial world was conquered and enslaved
by Europe during the 15th to 19th centuries. And it was on the
ruins of the colonial world that Europe rose to splendour, global
mastery and ‘Western’ civilization. The hands of the dispossessed tribalists of the Americas, of Asia and of Africa built up
Western, European, civilization. Africa made a particularly heavy and notable contribution to ‘Western’ civilization, for it was
from Africa that the main supply of slaves came for two continents - the Americas and Africa itself. The slave traffic, traffic
in human beings, was the most important and major trade of all.
This traffic laid Africa in ruins. The total European slave trade
in Africa cost some thirty million lives, ruined the tribal and
feudal civilizations of the indigenous peoples, and enabled the
masters of Europe to live in luxury and democracy.
Similar images of Europe are legion in the historiography of African scholars.
Africa, it is generally agreed, is the cradle of humanity. Yet, this crucial index to the significance of Africa’s
contribution to world civilisation has not hitherto
bestowed on the people of the continent any sense of
their own importance. Instead, their relations with Europeans during the past five to six hundred years have
made many of them - especially the middle-class elite
and the employed workers who live in the cities — believe that they are barely normal human beings because
they, literally and figuratively, do not approximate the
European “norm”! Technology and consumer goods,
which for most Africans have their source somewhere
in Europe, depending on who the original conquerors
were, have bludgeoned the people into submission, hegemonised their minds to the extent that only radical
conscientisation and profound social transformations
can restore their dignity. The crudest but most telling
example of the kind of mental amputation I am referring to here is the way in which so-called beauty contests are designed and staged on the assumption that
the ideal female form and being is to be found in Europe. The undignified spectacle of African women trying
to look like European women moved Mwalimu Julius
Nyerere to say in the early ‘sixties that beauty contests
are unnecessary since we are all beautiful.
As against this attitude of inferiority, the radical intelligentsia is at pains to make the point that the difference between pre-industrial Europe and ancient
Africa was an accident of geography, in particular the
fact of the impenetrable equatorial forests, the belt
of pestilence north and south of the equator and the
‘recent’ aridity of the Sahara Desert. They are usually
at pains to insist on the Africanity of ancient Egypt,
Kush, the great West African empires of the African
Middle Ages and of the other now well known high
cultures of Africa. The historical writings of Ki-Zerbo
and Cheik Anta-Diop are among the best known attempts by African scholars to correct the eurocentric
picture. Together with the inspirational works of European scholars such as Basil Davidson, they have gone
some way towards restoring the pivotal place in human
history and the dignity of Africa’s past.
The imposing challenge of Europe has made many
African intellectuals try to find in their past and in
their cultures events, artefacts and patterns of behaviour that are comparable to “the great tradition” of
55
Europe, taken as a whole. Until recently, however, even
the best works of African historiography were seldom
written in the self-evident manner in which history
ought to be written but always in a mode that, explicitly or implicitly, used European history as the yardstick of excellence or of significance. The sense of inferiority which is manifest in this behaviour is painful to
record but too widespread to ignore.
Today, images of Europe are no longer the dominant
ones among African peoples. The Macdonaldisation of
life on the planet is simply too overpowering for that.
On the other hand, Europeans are seen, in general, as
being in league with ‘America’ in stereotypical terms.
Thus, for example, Haile Gerima, the Ethiopian filmmaker, who lives in the usa, when asked about the prospects of the film industry in Africa, had this to say:
South Africa is crucial to the rest of Africa because it has the
technology and the infrastructure. But this could be a two-edged
sword: it will be a platform for the USA and the rest of the West.
If South Africans merely exploit this by pumping out Hollywood movies and videotapes all the way from the Cape to
North Africa that could be very frightening. But if South Africans develop their own cinema and create an easy platform for
film-makers all over Africa, this will be to the advantage of all
of us. South Africa is a crossroads for African cinema (Quoted
in the Mail and Guardian, 6-12 December 1996, page 29. Emphasis in the original)
The ambivalence of his attitude is clear from the implicit fact that it is because South Africa is in some respects so ‘European’ that it constitutes this crossroads.
The simian imitation by the opportunistic elites
of that which represents power lies at the heart of
the suspicion which ordinary African people have of
Europe. Most rural Africans see Europeans as at best
different and at worst alien. Many consider Europe to
be the source of all their woes and the embodiment of
all that is contemptible. Among African conservatives
and traditionalists of all kinds, whether they belong to
Christian, Muslim or traditional African religions, Europe continues to be seen as the source of all manner
of smut, indecency and libertarian permissiveness. The
African bourgeoisie often resent the European Union
as a kind of sinister philanthropist whose ‘Aid’ tends
to be tied up with debilitating strings to the extent of
undermining the sovereignty of the African ‘partners’.
Thus, for example, the aborted Multilateral Agreement
on Investment (mai) spearheaded by the European
Commission, was resisted and rejected on the grounds,
among others, that it
...calls for free access by foreign companies to any economic
sector of the host country, the removal of any discriminatory
legislation against foreign firms and full guarantee of profit
repatriation. In other words, foreign firms would have the
same treatment as national concerns in as far as domestic regulations are concerned, but would still be treated as ‘foreign’
when it comes to profits repatriation. (Gumende 1996:27)
3
appendix
In sum, there remains a bitter-sweet legacy of both
repugnance and admiration in the phenomenology
of Afro-European relations. The view from Africa is
nicely captured by Haile Gerima when he says: ‘It’s a
sad thing to be born in a Third World country with so
much to say and so few resources’.
It ought not to be necessary to spell out why it is
essential that this, in part, dehumanising legacy of the
colonial era be laid to rest in a 21st century world where
the humanity of all people is taken as given by all except mindless racists. It needs to be stated clearly, however, that if we restore Africa’s pivotal contributions
to the development of world civilisation, the resultant
perspective will turn Africans in the consciousness of
all of humanity from victims and objects into historical agents who are as worthy of global citizenship as
any other group of people. The effect of this kind of
scholarship will have immense and wholesome consequences for all European societies, not least in the
domain of social psychology. Moreover, if this kind of
research were to begin with the consideration of the
contingent but none the less primordial contribution
of the African continent to the emergence of homo sapiens sapientis, it would, vicariously but significantly,
imbue the people of the continent with a dignity that
cannot be undermined by the continued nonsense of
“race” in Europe and elsewhere. This contingency is
no different in principle from that which marks the
fact of the provenance of the industrial revolution in
north-western Europe. It is one, however, the significance of which is studiously avoided in virtually all
writings outside of paleoanthropological texts. Given
the advances we have made in the social sciences and
in the humanities, the time has come especially for Europeans in their own interest to put an end to what
the great Burkinabe historian, Joseph Ki-Zerbo, referred to as the Hegelian “negation of Africa” as “a world
without history” 3. Perhaps, also, the time has come to
work out in practice the implications of the insight
deriving from genomics and paleoanthropology that,
ultimately, “we are all Africans”!
By way of rounding off this section of my analysis,
I should like to refer to the fact that I have for a few
years now considered that one of the most important
strands of research in the social and historical sciences
is that which focuses on the relationship between “tradition” and “modernity”. In a few words, the direction
in which I believe we should look is one which will
help us to establish intellectually and in practice for the
majority of the affected people in Africa and elsewhere
in the South the continuity between their respective
traditions and their adapted modernity, thereby countering the alienation that comes with not being able
to trace a linear connection between their traditional
society and the (European) Renaissance, Enlightenment, scientific method, industrial revolution, in short
“modernity”. The intellectual, moral-philosophical and
practical challenges posed by this kind of question are
all too obvious. I believe that one of the most important
See Abdelmadjid 2003:30-33
56
appendix
areas of research in this context is the ways in which
we appropriate and constitute reality by means of our
own languages 4. Here, it would seem, is a fertile field
for collaborative research involving most immediately
African and European scholars.
Aid, development and growth
The numerous post-World War II economic and development aid experiments, usually under the aegis of the
Bretton Woods institutions and related agencies have,
on balance, failed dismally to address the real challenges of economic underdevelopment in Africa. Indeed,
the consensus among African scholars is that they have
perpetuated and even deepened the state of material and
social stagnation we inherited from the colonial era. It is
to be expected that depending on our angle of vision, we
will differ fundamentally on the interrelated set of causal factors relevant to this state of affairs. Nonetheless,
the position as described by Sawyer (1999) is one that is
widely held by African scholars. Referring to the hegemony of neoliberal economic doctrine in the post-colonial African environment, he writes that it is clear that
[…] it is not the indigenous industrialists and farmers who gain
most from the opening up of the national economies. […] (Prospects) for capital accumulation and investment within the
domestic economy are under constant threat. […] (We) note
the erosion of the capacity of the marginalised and dependent
sub-Saharan African state to generate enough production, savings and investment, to ensure sustainable development and
to provide for the basic needs of its own. At the same time, it
is constrained by international institutions and arrangements,
including aid conditionalities, which reinforce and seek to extend the openness and dependence of their economies. Compounding the situation is the fact that the leadership of those
states, including the services elite and the special aid bureaucracy, is, in any event, locked into an ideology that limits the
scope of the state to intervene in the market place to secure
the fundamental well-being of its people. (Sawyer 1999:11).
Hardly anything has changed in the decade since these
words were written. Lest I be accused of promoting a
sense of victimhood, let me stress that in fact, many
of us insist that the political and cultural leadership of
the African continent has to take the lion’s share of the
“blame” for this sorry state of affairs. The self-seeking
venality, the vacuous pomposity and status-consciousness with all the corrupt and wasteful practices entailed
by them are as disgraceful and reprehensible as they are
elsewhere in the modern world. Africa has produced
only a very few exceptions to this awful breed of modern
“leaders”. It is a fact, however, that it is the global system
and the position of the continent in the international
division of labour, its function as a supplier of fossil fuels and other minerals and raw materials that have to be
interrogated afresh. And, in this context, the umbilical
historical and continuing unequal relationship between
“Europe” and “Africa” requires a totally new approach,
one which over the next generation or two should lead
to a radical transformation of consciousness and behaviour on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea. Above all,
the intellectual stain of “race” with its attendant nocebo
effect 5 as far as African people, speaking generally, are
concerned, has to be analysed and addressed in practical terms from the standpoint of a new, i.e., a 21st century, humanism. This, it seems to me, is another field
in which collaborative research between African and
European social scientists and other scholars in the humanities would be extremely useful for all of humanity.
Such research would seek to take a fresh look at how
we conceptualise and appropriate nature, what weight
should be attached to conquest and accumulation of
wealth and power in former epochs of human endeavour and of interaction between the peoples of Europe
and Africa, among others, with a view to arriving at a
more equitable division or a sharing of responsibility
for sustainable development on a global scale. Given the
vicissitudes of the Kyoto Agreement, it seems to me that
the sooner and the more earnestly we address this matter, the better it would be for all of humanity.
In this context and against the background of the collapse of the international financial system, I believe that
it is our intellectual duty to revisit uncomfortable questions which, in the minds of probably a majority of theorists and strategists, are associated with empty utopian
dreams and even with the philosophical taboo of denying the existence of some kind of static and unchanging
human nature! One such question which, if posed and
followed to its logical conclusions, might change not
only school and university curricula but also the global
system of political economy was highlighted by André
Gorz (1989:109–125), among others. I refer to the paramountcy of the principle of sufficiency. What would
happen in the domains of ecology, economics, education
and politics, especially international relations, to name
the most obvious, if men, women and especially today’s
and tomorrow’s children were to accept the truth of the
English adage that “enough is as good as a feast”? Is it
possible to reorientate our societies towards the realisation of this insight as one of a few foundational tenets of
a humanism of the 21st century? Can we refashion society in this century in such a way that the imperatives of
economic rationality are put in question and once again
constrained by value systems that are appropriate to a
modern hyper-technological epoch? Might the threats
to the environment and to survival of the human species
that derive precisely from the effects of that rationality
be used as a point of departure for rethinking the possible purposes and the modalities of life on earth? This,
too, would be blue-sky research at this stage but it would
not remain so for very long, I think.
4
See Alexander 2005.
5
I am consciously importing this concept from the medical and individual-psychological into the social-psychological domain. In the latter context, I use it to refer to the
debilitating, voodoo-like effect which centuries of ongoing denigration and undermining of the dignity and self-worth of black, specifically African, peoples by conquerors
and other people of European descent has had on their mental disposition and creative energies. However, just as in the medical sphere, the nocebo effect can be countered, it
has been demonstrated (Black consciousness, “black is beautiful”, etc.) that African people can and do liberate themselves from its evil grasp.
57
The advent of Asia
During the past decade, more or less, an almost imperceptible change in the pattern of international relations in Africa has begun to take shape. Although the
United States and Europe continue to be Africa’s most
important trading partners, China and India are fast
catching up and if present trends continue, there is no
doubt that these two powers, especially China, will soon
displace the rest. There is also a renewed interest on the
part of Japan and Russia in trade with and investment
in Africa. These developments signal the beginning of
the end of the dominance, indeed the virtual monopoly,
of European economic interests in the continent.
The newcomers from Asia have the inestimable advantage of not being burdened with the legacy of colonialism and slavery in Africa. They appeal in particular
to what has been called “the cheetah generation” of
young African entrepreneurs committed to democracy,
transparency and accountability 6. A recent analysis
by Taylor (2009) of the emerging pattern and scale of
Chinese investments in and trade with Africa demonstrates all too clearly that as far as Africa is concerned,
this is the wave of the future. The evolving relationship
between Africa and China is by no means a simple one,
however. For one thing, while the Chinese enterprises
are interested in Africa as a stable supplier of raw materials, especially crude petroleum 7, the export to African states of cheap manufactures made in China in the
long term undermines the development and consolidation of manufacturing capacity in the African partner
countries. Another important point to note is that
[…] Sino-African relations are processes not of colonization
but of globalization and the reintegration of China into the
global economy — a project that has enjoyed the hitherto enthusiastic support of Western capitalism” (Taylor 2009:29)
Crucially, the Chinese leadership perceives Africa as a
vital lever for entrenching China’s status as an emerging
superpower. In spite of the obvious political issues implicit in its de facto support for tyrants and dictators on the
continent because of its eschewing of “conditionalities”
for its development aid and infrastructural investments,
the African political class realise that the post-Cold War
competition between Asia and the West creates a space
that can enhance their political autonomy and restore the
sovereignty of the national state which had been undermined at the height of the bitter medicine of structural
adjustment programmes. Citing a South African journalist, Edwin Naidu, Taylor (2009:33) maintains that
[…] China is seen as a refreshing alternative to the traditional engagement models of the West […]. African governments
see China’s engagement as a point of departure from Western
neo-colonialism and political conditions.
6
7
appendix
The Chinese leadership, naturally, emphasises the common anti-colonial traditions it shares with the peoples
of Africa and promotes the idea of a post-Washington
consensus model of a new development path. According to Joshua Cooper Ramo 8, this “Beijing Consensus” has three components, viz.
• commitment to innovation and constant experimentation, instead of the allegedly one-size-fits-all
approach of “the West”;
• rejection of per capita gdp as the ‘be all and end all’,
i.e., sustainability and equality must be equally part
of the policy;
• self-determination and opposition to any hierarchy
of nations.
Although Sino-African relations are dynamic and interactional patterns are yet to become predictable, there
is no doubt that
[…] China’s presence in Africa is here to stay and Western actors need to be cognizant of both the opportunities and challenges that this throws up to established players on the continent. (Taylor 2009:34)
The “Asian” view of Africa is almost the exact opposite
of the kind of Afro-pessimism that is so fashionable in
Europe and which has communicated itself infallibly
to many African intellectuals. Vijay Mahajan, an Indian academic, recently published a book entitled Africa
Rising in which he paints an extremely positive picture of the continent and compares the negative views
about Africa to the similar views about the Indian subcontinent that used to be so widespread until recently.
He argues that Africa
[…] has reached some kind of unnoticed inflection point. It’s
much larger, much more populous, much richer and much more
profitable than most international companies recognise — apart
from a handful of extraordinary international operators who
are not particularly advertising the fact. (Cohen 2009)
Cohen (2009) goes on to comment that Mahajan might
be guilty of “marketing sunshine” but he holds on
to the fact that the author’s assessment is “[…] a refreshing contrast to “pity the poor place” views peddled by rock stars and aid agencies that predominate
(sic) developed-world consciousness” and he concludes
anti-climactically that this positive outlook on the
continent “helps explain why Indian and Chinese business people are more enthusiastic investors than many
first-world companies”.
The implications and consequences of these trends
are obvious. Most important is undoubtedly the fact
that the new space for more autonomous domestic and
foreign policies necessarily leads to a reorientation on
See Cohen 2009.
China is the second largest consumer of African crude today and since it is virtually excluded from Middle Eastern sources, this dependency on African sources is vital to its
industrial engine. (See Taylor 2009:31)
8
Ramo, J. 2004. The Beijing Consensus: Notes on the New Physics of Chinese Power. London: Foreign Affairs Policy Centre. Cited in Taylor 2009:33.
58
appendix
the part of most African countries. Instead of the usual
North-South axis, there is a turning towards a SouthSouth axis and, ironically, a South-North axis. This
reconfiguration of the global game of nations provides
the leadership and the intelligentsia of all nations with
the historic opportunity to explore different paradigms
based on different sets of values from those that have
hitherto determined the parameters within which the
game has been played. It is not simply that the rules
can or even should be revised and rewritten. It may well
be that a new game has to be conceptualised if life on
planet earth is to be prolonged in a sustainable way and
in a peaceful environment. There is no guarantee that
things will turn out positively. At all costs, scholars and
political leadership on both continents as well as in Asia
have to avoid the situation where the doleful prophecy
of Moeletsi Mbeki (2009:38) might be realised:
Apart from the brain drain, the story of Africa today is the
resurgence of the scramble for natural resources, but this time
by both West and East. Africa is benefitting to some extent
from this new scramble by way of higher commodity prices,
increased royalties, new sources of no-strings-attached foreign
aid and soft loans. But this will not necessarily lead to a solution to the continent’s development challenges; it merely
entrenches, as in the past, a parasitic bureaucratic bourgeoisie
living off state revenues. As competition between West and
East for resources intensifies, Africa is likely to be caught in a
second cold war — a war over resources. […].
At this very moment, Prime Minister Tsvangirai of
Zimbabwe is demonstrating how conscious some of the
leaders of Africa are with regards to the possible trap
of what he calls a ‘Look West’, ‘Look East’ policy. After
his recent European safari in quest of financial support
for the rebuilding of the disintegrated Zimbabwean
economy and after his Minister of Finance negotiated
a us $950 million soft loan from China, he said, among
other things, “[…] we are not limited to a ’Look West’ or
‘Look East’ policy, […] we are committed to engaging
our friends in all parts of the globe” (Banya 2009)
Co-operative research
My contribution to this discussion has focused on what
we might call the software of the relations between the
African “Self” and the European “Other”. I have done so
because I believe that the longer term relations between
the two continental entities are implicated in the evolution of the global village. If we do not want our little
planet to become some kind of doomed space vehicle,
we have to re-examine how it works and how our ways of
working are affecting it, we would be doing no more than
rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. This does not
mean, of course, that in the short to medium term, there
are no urgent reforms that require to be researched on
a co-operative basis by European and African scholars.
Some of the more obvious fields that should be given immediate attention include climate change, food security,
the aids pandemic, poverty in general and the causes
of civil conflict and wars. As a sociologist of language, I
am professionally very interested in research relating to
the organisation of multilingual and multicultural societies. In this connection, Africa and Europe have much
to learn from each other, also because their respective
points of entry to this social reality are so different because of their different histories. From the point of view
of enhancing the possibility of relatively harmonious,
socially cohesive polities, research in the social and human sciences has to explore and exploit the strengths of
their own as well as those of the natural and exact sciences by means of inter- and trans-disciplinary consortia
of researchers and research teams.
In conclusion, I should like to acknowledge the inestimable value of the material and academic support
that European, especially Nordic, institutions have
given to make it possible for pivotal African research
networks such as, among others, codesria 9 in Senegal and the National Research Foundation in South
Africa to operate independently under very difficult
conditions over many years. It is precisely this kind of
co-operation that, in my view, will optimise the knowledge production processes that will enrich Europe and
Africa as well as humanity at large.
9
The Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa
References cited
Alexander, N. 2005. The potential role of translation as social
practice for the intellectualisation of African languages. In
Salmi, L. and Koskinen, K. (eds). Proceedings of the XVII World
Congress International Federation of Translators. Paris: FIT.
Banya, N. China extends $950m loan to Zimbabwe. Business Day
(South Africa), 1 July 2009.
Cohen, T. India, China like Africa — with reason. Business Day,
(South Africa) 22 June 2009.
Gorz, A. 1989. Critique of Economic Reason. London and New
York: Verso.
Gumende, A. 1996. ‘Globalisation or re-colonisation ?’ Southern
Africa Political and Economic Monthly 10(1)27
Kies, B. 1953. The Contribution of the Non-European Peoples to World
Civilisation. Cape Town: Teachers’League of South Africa.
Mbeki, M. 2009. Architects of Poverty. Why African Capitalism
Needs Changing. Johannesburg: Picador Africa.
‘Mnguni’. 1952. Three Hundred Years. Cape Town: New Era Fellowship
Sawyer, A. 1999. Globalisation and social sciences in Africa. African Sociological Review 3(1): 1-19.
Taylor, I. 2009. China’s continuing growth in Africa. In Europa
Regional Surveys of the World. Africa South of the Sahara 2009.
38th Edition. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group.
59
appendix
appendix 8
ex post reflections
The formal outcome of the Conference in Lund is encompassed in the Lund Declaration and in the Addendum attached to the Declaration. What remains is the
process of drawing conclusions of all this and setting
in motion the needed activities.
The Lund Declaration and the Addendum are provided in the Appendix 2 and 3 and in the web to which
the linkages are provided in Appendix 11.
In the Declaration it is said:
1. That European research must focus on the Grand
Challenges of our time moving beyond current rigid thematic approaches. This alls for a new deal
among European Institutions and member states in
which European and national instruments are well
aligned and cooperation builds on transparency and
trust.
Comment: There is a need to set up the process in identifying
and structure the efforts to match this declaration point. A
60
first step would be to set up a task force to make relevant preparations – preferably already in the Spring of 2010. Such work
could include setting up an eu alert function and other mechanisms to serve the task of mobilizing work of preparation
for handling the Grand Challenges (outlook, identification,
priority setting, design of appropriate institutions etc.)
2.These activities should involve stakeholders of various kinds.
Comment: already in the beginning of setting up the process
it is important to assure that a reasonable presence of varying
kinds of stakeholders are drawn into this work.
3.The call to the Council and the European parliament
to take this process forward in partnership with the
Commission.
Comment: the various steps that need to be taken must be prepared. Working groups should be set up to formulate the potential agenda, connected to all the eu institutions involved.
appendix
appendix 9
list of participants
Name
Organisation
Country
Abplanalp Balz
Abrahamsson Kenneth Aim Karel Albin Maria
Alexander Neville Alfoldi Katalin
Alix Jean-Pierre Ancker Johan
Andersson Bertil Andrée Dan Anell Lars Annerberg Rolf Anvret Maria Appelquist Joakim Arentoft Michael Arjon Roman Arnold Erik Aukrust Lars Espen Baer Jean-Michel Barkman Andreas Baron-Bradshaw Michele Bausch Raymond Bell Linda Bengtsson Tommy Benik Michal Beramendi Ana Bergeret Pascal Berglund Erik Betti Arianna Bexell Göran Bishop Stina Bjelke Katarina Bjerén Fürstenbach Pia Blomqvist Göran Borchsenius Annette Borg Luuk Borras Susana Bouchet Bertrand Breathnach Marcus Breidne Magnus Brogren Charlotte Brogren Maria Bundule Maija Burgelman Jean-Claude Byberg Eva-Marie Bystedt Anki Bäckblom Göran Börjesson Lars Chen Deliang Christofidis Constantin Cohen Jay Cools Etienne Swiss Mission to the EU Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Dept of Occupational and Environmental Medicine PRAESA, University of Cape Town Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU CNRS Teknikföretagen Nanyang Technological University Singapore Swedish Ministry of Education and Research Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research Forskningsrådet Formas Svenskt Näringsliv VINNOVA European Commission European Commission Technopolis The Research Council of Norway European Commission European Environment Agency French permanente representation Fonds National de la Recherche VINNOVA Centre for Economic Demography, Lund University Office of the Government of the Czech Republic Vetenskapsrådet Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Frontex European Commission Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Lund University Utbildningsdepartementet Utbildningsdepartementet Stockholms universitet Riksbankens Jubileumsfond Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation EUREKA Secretariat Copenhagen Business School French Ministry for Higher Education and Research Forfas Tillväxtanalys VINNOVA Näringsdepartementet Latvian Academy of Sciences European Commission Utbildningsdepartementet Ministry of Eneterprise, Energy and Communications Swedish Mining Research Foundation (MITU) Vetenskapsrådet ICSU European Investment Bank JayMCohen LLC S&T Consulting Ministry of Belgian French (-speaking) Community Belgium
Sweden
Czech Rep
Sweden
South Africa
Hungary
France
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
eu
eu
uk
Norway
eu
Denmark
France
Luxembourg
Sweden
Sweden
Czech Rep
Sweden
France
eu
Netherlands
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Denmark
Belgium
Denmark
France
Ireland
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Latvia
eu
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
France
Luxembourg
United States
Belgium
61
Name
Organisation
Cooper Quentin Corpakis Dimitri Crumley Carol Dahlén Tommy Davies Ged De La Bourdonnaye Armel de la Torre Clara Decoster François Dewandre Nicole Deviþienë Jûratë Diederich Leon Domeyer Jan-Thede Duszynski Jerzy Edman Peter Ehmke Adelheid Ehni Hans-Joerg Eijlander Philip Ekberg Tim Ekström Anna Eliasson Kerstin Engelbrecht Jüri Engelen Jos Ericsson Mats Eriksson Per Feifel Raimund Fellenius Erik Felthaus Jimmy Bruun Fiala Ales Flodström Anders Fornusek Josef Foti Klara Fräjdin-Hellqvist Ulla-Britt Gabriel Irene Gago José Mariano Gannon Frank Gay Steffen Georghiou Luke Gibson Hazel Gilbert Samuel Abbou Gokgoz Fazli Mehmet Grabert Martin Grevby Cecilia Gruber Sieglinde Grundova Sarka Guillou Marion Gupta Joyeeta Gustafsson Lena Gustafsson Gunnel Gustavsson Tomas Guy Ken
Gvishiani Alexei Haak René Halicka Ewa Hall Timothy Hallberg Anders Hansen Holst Charlotte Harper Jennifer Harutyunyan Lyudmila BBC European Commission University of North Carolina Forskningrådet för Arbetsliv och Socialvetenskap Global Energy Assessment Council Ministry of Higher Education and Research The European Commission Ministry of Research European Commission Ministry of Education and Science Ministry of Research German Embassy Stockholm Ministry of Science and Higher Education Biovitrum AB European Platform of Women Scientists AISBL University of Tuebingen Tilburg University Utbildningsdepartementet Saco Utbildningsdepartementet ALLEA NWO European Commission Lund University Uppsala University (UU) Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Danish Ministry of Science European Commission Swedish National Agency for Higher Education CSZE Eurofound Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research Austrian Ministry for Science and Research MCTES Science Foundation Univ Zurich University of Manchester UK Government Eazy + groupe TuR&Bo (Turkish Research & Business Organizations) COST Office FAS European Commission CzechInvest INRA Institute for Environmental Studies VINNOVA Vetenskapsrådet Vetenskapsrådet JRC-IPTS European Commission Geophysical Center RAS Federal Ministry of Education and Research Warsaw University of Life Sciences European Commission Uppsala Universitet Danish Ministry of Science, technology and innovation MCST Yerevan State University 62
appendix
Country
United Kingdom
eu
United States
Sweden
uk
France
eu
France
Belgium
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Germany
Poland
Sweden
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Netherlands
Netherlands
eu
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Denmark
eu
Sweden
Czech Rep
Ireland
Sweden
Austria
Portugal
Ireland
Switzerland
uk
uk
France
Turkey
Belgium
Sweden
eu
Czech Rep
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
eu
Russia
Germany
Poland
eu
Sweden
Denmark
Malta
Armenia
appendix
Name
Organisation
Hawdon Brendan Heimann Bettina Hellener Søren Helve Helena Hennart Florence Henningsson Jan Hensing Janna Hernes Gudmund Hesse Rüdiger Hetzler Antoinette Hjelmborn Carl-Albert Hjelmquist Erland Holling C. S Honeth Peter Hultman Lars Härtel Carlos Imboden Dieter Iwarsson Susanne Jacob Michael Jacobs Howy Jacobsson Gunilla Jarrick Arne Jennerholm Mattias Jitäreanu Gerard Johansson Peter Johansson Arne Johansson Christina Johansson Thomas B Jónasson Hallgrímur Jong de Pieter Jowell Roger Kaler Claudia Kara Jan Kara Okan Karlqvist Anders Karlsson Mikael Kauppi Lea Kauppinen Petteri Keet Peter Kentner Susan Kipling Jeff Kirsebom Bjarne Kleinschmit Andreas Klotz Gernot Klusacek Karel Kolar Jana Kopicova Miroslava Koppel Andres Kortekallio Eeva-Liisa Krantz Tobias Kriger Robert Krogstrup Hanne Kathrine Kuett Waldemar Kukenheim Ruud Kveseth Kari Kåberger Tomas Källman Stefan Lagriffoul Pierre-Henri European Commission DG RTD EURAGRI Technical University of Denmark University of Tampere Service Public de Wallonie Foreign Ministry Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Fafo
Max Planck Society Lunds University Swedish Permanent Representation to the EU Forskningsrådet för arbetsliv och socialvetenskap University of Florida (former connection)
Ministry of Education and Research Linköpings universitet GE Global Research – Europe Swiss National Science Foundation Lunds universitet Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications University of Tampere Högskoleverket
Vetenskapsrådet Utbildningsdepartementet National Authority for Scientific Research Association of Swedish Engineering Industries Vetenskapsrådet Utbildningsdepartementet IIIEE, Lund University Rannís Neth-ER City University Fed. Min. for Transport, Innovation and Technolog Czech Embassy TUBITAK Polarforskningssekretariatet European Environmental Bureau The Finnish Environment Institute General Ministry of Education Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres GSK R&D Swedish Perm. Rep. to the EU Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform – FTP CEFIC AISBL Technology Centre ASCR MHEST Ministry of Education,Youth and Sport General Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Employment and the Economy Utbildningsdepartementet National Research Foundation Aalborg University European Commission Leiden University Medical Center The Research Council of Norway Energimyndigheten Ministry of Agriculture Cordis Country
eu
Denmark
Denmark
Finland
Belgium
Sweden
Netherlands
Norway
Belgium
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Canada
Sweden
Sweden
Germany
Switzerland
Sweden
Sweden
Finland
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Romania
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Iceland
Belgium
uk
Austria
Czech Rep
Turkey
Sweden
Sweden
Finland
Finland
Netherlands
Germany
uk
Sweden
Belgium
Belgium
Czech Rep
Slovenia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Finland
Sweden
South Africa
Denmark
eu
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Sweden
France
63
appendix
Name
Organisation
Country
Lande Trygve Langer Jerzy Lapadatovic Mimmi Larsson Allan Lawrence Roderick Ledin Anna Lekesova Lucie Lema Juan M. Lesniewska Cecylia Liljelund Lotta Lindblad Sverker Lindencrona Eva Lonnroth Sjodén Anna Lundberg Anders Lynn David Madfors Magnus Madsen Just Jakob Madunic Kruna
Maerkedahl Inge Mahr Armin Makarow Marja Malmqvist Klas Malmqvist Magnus Marin Michèle Marklund Göran Marks John Marmot Michael Martinez Alonso Carlos Mas Colell Andreu Mateju Petr McCarthy Kevin McGlade Jacqueline McIntyre Cynthia McKelvey Maureen Meidani Anastasia Melander Fredrik Metzlaff Karin Meyer-Krahmer Frieder Mieling Helga Milagros Candela Mischler Caroline Modéer Camilla Moenig Walter Moldan Bedrich Moor Bruno H. Moroni Marc Moth Wiklund Annette Moum Torbjørn Mourad Daniel Muldur Ugur Mustonen Riitta Müller Pedersen Hans Møller Morten Nakicenovic Nebojsa Naus Cynthia Neergaard Anders Nekvasil Vladimir Niblaeus Kerstin The Research Council of Norway Polish Academy of Sciences, Inst. Phys. Riksdagens utbildningsutskott/Committee on Educa Lund University University of Geneva Technical University of Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs University of Santiago de Compostela Ministry of Science and Higher Education Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications Vetenskapsrådet och Göteborgs Universitet VINNOVA Health Directorate, DG Research European Commission
Swedish Federation of Young Scientists Wellcome Trust Ericsson Danish EU Research Liaison Office VINNOVA Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation Federal Ministry of Science & Research European Science Foundation Lund University Bioventia AB INRA VINNOVA ESF University College London Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation European Research Council Czech Science Foundation European Commission Directorate-General Research European Environment Agency US Council on Competitiveness University of Gothenburg University of Toulouse II & INSERM U558 Nordiska ministerrådet European Plant Science Organisation, EPSO State Secretary BMVIT Permanent representation of Spain to the EU
General Directorate for Competitiveness, industry Vetenskap & Allmänhet Federal German Ministry of Education and Research Charles University State Secretariat for Education and Research Ministry of Higher Education and Research Swedish Research Council University of Oslo Ministry of Education, Culture and Science European Commission Academy of Finland Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation European Commission IIASA NWO REMESO, Linköping University Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic European Commission Norway
Poland
Sweden
Sweden
Switzerland
Denmark
Czech Rep
Spain
Poland
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
64
eu
Sweden
uk
Sweden
Denmark
Sweden
Denmark
Austria
France
Sweden
Sweden
France
Sweden
Netherlands
uk
Spain
eu
Czech Rep
eu
Denmark
United States
Sweden
France
Denmark
Belgium
Germany
Austria
Spain
France
Sweden
Germany
Czech Rep
Switzerland
France
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
Belgium
Finland
Denmark
eu
Austria
Netherlands
Sweden
Czech Rep
Sweden
appendix
Name
Organisation
Nihlfors Elisabet Vetenskapsrådet Nilsson Elisabeth Jernkontoret Nilsson Björn O. Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences Noone Kevin Stockholms universitet Nordal Gudrun University of Iceland North Chris DIUS Nowotny Helga European Research Council Okeyo Achola Pala National Museums of Kenya (NMK) Olofsdotter Jönsson Britt Formas Omling Pär Vetenskapsrådet Ormala Erkki Nokia Corporation Oxley Kristin The Norwegian Research Council Parent Anne-Sophie AGE-the European Older People’s Platform ARC, Karolinska Institut & Stockholm University Parker Marti Patermann Christian Peltomäki Antti European Commission Pendrill Leslie EURAMET e. V. Petersson Ingrid AstraZeneca Petri Åsa Ministry of Education and Research Philippe Bourqui CLAP-Publishing Potocnik Janez European Commission Predescu Rolanda National Authority for Scientific Research Putinaitë Nerija Ministry of education and Science Rajagopal T. Embassy of India Reed Allyson Technology Strategy Board Reeve Neville European Commission Reksten Pia Mulvad The Danish Confederation of Trade unions Ritter Wolfgang BLE Federal Centre for Agriculture and Nutrition Rizzuto Carlo Sincrotrone Trieste SCpA Robin-Champigneul Cyril DG RTD Rockström Johan Stockholm Resilience Centre Rodriguez-Pena Angeles Ministry Science and Innovation Rogers Steve European Commission Rohlin Peter Swedish Energy Agency Rouhana Khalil European Commission Ruzicka Vlastimil Ministry of Education,Youth and Sport Saatci Ahmet TUBITAK Samuelson Marianne Swedish Research Council Sandberg Gunnar VINNOVA Sandberg Anders Oxford University Sandberg Olof Utbildningsdepartementet Santa Evelina Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Santos Carla Portuguese Permanent Representation to the EU Schlochtermeier Andre EU-Bureau, PT-DLR Schmid Martin Federal Ministry of Science and Research Schofield Monica TuTech Innovation GmbH Schwaag Serger Sylvia VINNOVA Seiser Christian Austrian Federal Ministry Sennerby Forsse Lisa Swedish university of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Sequeira Keith European Commission Shetty Balkrishna Embassy of India Sibum H. Otto Uppsala universitet Silins Andrejs Latvian Academy of Sciences Silva Rodriguez José Manuel European Commission Slak Janez Slovenian Research Agency Smith John European University Association Smith Ulf Sahlgrenska University Hospital Soboll Horst Ertrac Country
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Iceland
uk
Austria
Kenya
Sweden
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
eu
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
France
eu
Romania
Lithuania
India
uk
eu
Denmark
Germany
Italy
eu
Sweden
Spain
eu
Sweden
eu
Czech Rep
Turkey
Sweden
Sweden
uk
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Austria
Germany
Sweden
Austria
Sweden
eu
India
Sweden
Latvia
eu
Slovenia
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
65
Name
Organisation
Soenen Magalie Ministry of Education and Training of Flanders Soete Luc UNU-MERIT Sogge Sverre Research Council of Norway Sors Andrew Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study Srinivasan Krishnan Azad Institute of Asian Studies Calcutta WWTF Vienna Science and Technology Fund Stampfer Michael Stancic Zoran European Commission Stierna Johan European Commission Stock Günter Stonner David National Science Foundation Europe Sundelius Bengt National Defence College Sundell Björn National Veterinay Instute Sundgren Jan-Eric AB Volvo Svallfors Stefan Sociologiska institutionen Umeå universitet Svedin Uno Formas Svensson Gunilla Stockholms universitet Syka Josef Inst. Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences Tarschys Daniel Riksbankens Jubileumsfond Tataj Daria European Institute of Innovation and Technology Telgenhof Marloes Netherlands Permanent Representation to the EU Titlestad Gard Nordic Council of Ministers Toft Lise Lotte Agency for research and innovation Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation Torne Montserrat Toudal Pedersen Uffe Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation Tel Aviv University Trajtenberg Manuel Karolinska Institutet Tryggvason Karl Utbildningsdepartementet Tygård Britt-Marie Ullenius Christina Karlstad University
Valceschini Egizio INRA Valette Pierre European Commission van den Bergh Babs Ministry of Education, Culture and Science van den Biesen Jan Philips Research Van der Pyl Thierry European Commission van der Zwan Arie Ministry of Economic Affairs van Dyck Luc Initiative for Science in Europe Vass Ilona National Office for Research and Technology (NKTH) Wederking Birgitte creoDK Westerlund Ulf Forskningsrådet Formas UK Eppendorf Westphal Manfred Wijkman Anders European Parliament Vinkel Lise Copenhagen Business School Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation Winther Michael Wittrock Björn Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study Vlckova Hana Permanent Representation of the Czech Rep to EU Volaskov Peter MINISTRY OF HE, SCIENCE & T. von Arnold Sara SLU Ministry of Economic Affairs von Meijenfeldt Frits von Sydow Björn Swedish Research Council Wood John Imperial College Voseckova Anna Czech Liaison Office for Research and Development Vågerö Denny Stockholms universitet/CHESS Ministry of Education and Research Wästfelt Maria Swedish Research Council Zethraeus Tina Belgian Federal Science Policy Ziarko Edward Ministry of Education and Research Øiseth Kari Balke Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien Öquist Gunnar 66
appendix
Country
Belgium
Netherlands
Norway
Hungary
India
Austria
eu
eu
Germany
France
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Czech Rep
Sweden
eu
Netherlands
Denmark
Denmark
Spain
Denmark
Israel
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
France
eu
Netherlands
Netherlands
eu
Netherlands
Germany
Hungary Wederking
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
Sweden
Denmark
Denmark
Sweden
Czech Rep
Slovenia
Sweden
Netherlands
Sweden
uk
Czech Rep
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Belgium
Norway
Sweden
appendix
appendix 10
organisation for
Steering Committee
Prof. Pär Omling, General Director, Swedish Research Council, Chair
Dr. Annette Moth Wiklund, Director International Affairs, Swedish Research Council, Secretary
Mr. Rolf Annerberg, General Director, formas
Prof. Gunnel Gustafsson, Deputy Director General, Swedish Research Council
Prof. Lena Gustafsson, Acting Director General, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, vinnova
Prof. Erland Hjelmquist, Secretary-General, fas, Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
Mr. Gunnar Leman, Swedish Research Council
Representatives of Minstries:
Mr. Dan Andrée, Special Advisor, Swedish Ministry of Education and Science
Dr. Michael Jacob, Desk Officer, Swedish Government Offices, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications
Mr. Mattias Jennerholm, Division for Research Policy, Ministry of Education and Research
Mr. Bjarne Kirsebom, Swedish Permanent Representation to the eu
Dr. Johan Norin, Ministry of Education and Research
Mr. Olof Sandberg, Division for Research Policy, Ministry of Education and Research
Dr. Britt-Marie Tygård, Ministry of Education and Research
Co-opts:
Ms. Åse Berglund, Project manager, Swedish Research Council
Prof. Uno Svedin, Head of International Affairs, formas
International Programme Committee
Prof. Pär Omling, General Director, Swedish Research Council, Chair
Prof. Uno Svedin, Head of International Affairs, formas, Member and executive secretary
Prof. Bertil Andersson, Rector, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore
Prof. Enric Banda, President of Euroscience, Catalan Research and Innovation Foundation
Dr. Clara de la Torre, Director, Inter-institutional relations and legal matters — Framework programme
Directorate-General Research, European Commission
Mrs. Ulla-Britt Fräjdin-Hellqvist, Fräjdin & Hellqvist ab
Dr. John Marks, Former Director of Science and Strategy, Former Deputy Executive Chief, European Science
Foundation
Dr. Kerstin Niblaeus, Former Director General, Council of European Union
Prof. Helga Nowotny, Vice-President of the European Research Council, Vienna Science and Technology Fund
(wwtf)
Dr. Sylvia Schwaag Serger, Director and Head of Division, International Collaboration and Networks, Swedish
Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, vinnova
International Advisory Group
Prof. Gudmund Hernes, fafo, Chair
Dr. Annette Moth Wiklund, Director International Affairs, Swedish Research Council, Secretary
67
appendix
Dr. José Luis García — Troika representative, Profesor de Investigación, Centro de Investigaciones BiológicasCSIC
Prof. Gunnel Gustafsson, Deputy Director General, Swedish Research Council
Mr. Patrick Lamot — Troika representative, Répresentation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’Union européenne
Prof. Jacqueline Lecourtier, Director, French National Research Agency (anr)
Prof. Pär Omling, Director General, Swedish Research Council
Dr. Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation Office of Deputy Director (odd)
Mr. Robert-Jan Smits — European Commission representative, Research DG, European Commission dg rtd-a-1
Dr. Horst Soboll, Research Policy Consultant
Ms. Ilona Vass — Troika representative, Vice President, National Office for Research and Technology
Lund Declaration Group
Prof. Gunnel Gustafsson, Deputy Director General, Swedish Research Council, Chair
Mrs. Tina Zethraeus, Project Manager, Swedish Research Council, Secretary
Mr. Dan Andrée, Special Advisor, Swedish Ministry of Education and Science
Prof. Lena Gustafsson, Acting Director General, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems,
vinnova
Prof. Erland Hjelmquist, Secretary-General, fas, Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
Prof. Uno Svedin, Head of International Affairs, formas
Dr. Annette Moth Wiklund, Director International Affairs, Swedish Research Council
Operative Group
Ms. Åse Berglund, Project Manager, Swedish Research Council, Chair
Ms. Anna Åhlund, Swedish Research Council, Secretary
Prof. Kenneth Abrahamsson, fas
Dr. Johan Appelquist, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, vinnova
Dr. Linda Bell, vinnova
Ms Katarina Gate Lundgren, Swedish Research Council
Dr. Cecilia Grevby, fas
Mr Tomas Gustavsson, Swedish Research Council
Mr. Mattias Jennerholm, Division for Research Policy, Ministry of Education and Research
Mr. Gunnar Leman, Swedish Research Council
Dr. Eva Lindencrona, vinnova
Prof. Uno Svedin, Formas
Mr. Ulf Westerlund, Formas
Dr. Annette Moth Wiklund, Swedish Research Council
Mrs. Tina Zethraeus, Swedish Research Council
In liason with the Swedish Presidency Secretariat for eu Meetings in Sweden in 2009 (ses-09) – Elisabeth Idermark
Rapporteur for the Final Report:
Uno Svedin, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas)
(In consultation with the Lund Declaration Group)
(Technical support: Ulf Westerlund (Formas) and Tomas Gustavsson (Vetenskapsrådet))
68
appendix
appendix 11
informative links to the conference
”new worlds — new solutions”
Swedish Presidency web:
http://www.se2009.eu/en/meetings_news/2009/7/7/research_conference_opened_with_appeal
Lund University’s streaming site:
http://uwap03.uw.lu.se/KongressCentrum5/Catalog/pages/catalog.aspx?catalogId=e69aa0e9-5216-4f3894ea-905686591c5e
The Swedish Research Council (VR) information on the conference, including speeches:
www.vr.se/Lunddeclaration
Swedish Governmental Agency for The Innovation Systems (vinnova) information on the conference:
http://www.vinnova.se/euordforandeskap/Konferensdokumentation-2/New-Worlds---New-Solutions/
Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (fas) information on the conference:
http://www.fas.se/fas_templates/Page____1629.aspx
The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) information on the conference:
http://www.formas.se/formas_templates/Page____5413.aspx
In connection with these references the following link covers the material from a later, but related, conference
in the Swedish presidency dealing with the Knowledge triangle, Gothenburg September 1-2.
http://www.hsv.se/knowledgetriangle
69
70
appendix
appendix
71

New Worlds — New Solutions

Transcription

Similar documents

Real-time monitoring of Multiple Sclerosis care guidelines with

Barnablick (Martin Broby).

Introduction to Sweden and Swedes

Read an extract of the report

Sales sheet - Hedlund Literary Agency

Press - Stunt Records

Svensk-Tysk Ordbok (Swedish Edition) - My

Post-conference Excursions Öland`s Harvest Festival – the

Swedish Examinations