APPENDIX 1: MEMORANDUM BY UNIVERSITIES
UK
Recent developments
A compromise proposal put forward by the German presidency
suggests a two-phase approach to the EIT. A limited number of
KICs would be set up in the first instance (within the next 2
years) and on the basis of a review of these activities a longer
term concept of the EIT would be developed and further KICs rolled
out, probably in 2012-13. It has been proposed that the initial
phase would see the creation of 2-3 KICs focusing on climate change
and renewable energy.
The compromise also proposes that university degrees
shall be those awarded within a KIC but that only an 'EIT label'
is envisaged.
It is understood that the EIT Governing Board will
be formed through a similar process to that previously established
with the setting up of the ERC Scientific Council, but this is
not stated explicitly. Future funding of the EIT remains the core
challenge with the expectation that this is raised mainly from
the private sector.
The proposals put forward by the German presidency
were discussed at an informal meeting of the Competitive Council
on 26/27 April and were broadly agreed.
UUK's comments on recent developments
We feel that the German compromise represents a significant
step forward. We would however like to highlight the following
issues/concerns:
Two-phase process
We would support the development of a first, more
modest, phase for the EIT. This would allow what is effectively
a new and untried initiative to be piloted. Our understanding
is that the first phase would be developed in collaboration with
the Commission, with a second phase being developed on the basis
of a 'Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA)' submitted to the European
Council and Parliament in 2012. Clarification over how the first
phase will be managed and the legal basis of this is still needed
i.e. does Commission have right of initiative in this area and
will sufficient independence from political interference be guaranteed
in the short term?
It is important that the review of the first phase
is independently carried out and is conducted after a period of
time that would allow any impact to be effectively measured. Safeguards
should be built into the review process to ensure that the move
to a second phase is not regarded as a foregone conclusion and
to ensure that any lessons learned can be truly taken on board
and built into the SIA before it is submitted and the second phase
rolled out.
Budget
The indicative financial envelope for the implementation
of the EIT Regulation over the 6 year period from 1 January 2008
is set at EUR 308.7 million. The compromise position elaborates
on the financing of the EIT, making a distinction between financing
for the EIT and the KICs, and states that the 'EIT shall be financed
in particular through contributions from the budget of the EU'.
It is therefore assumed that community funding will support start
up costs and sustain the EIT infrastructure (although it is not
totally clear at this stage what this might be). A key question
raised by the German presidency compromise is, is the original
c€300m still needed for a scaled down first phase? It also
raises the question of whether the original proposal of c.60 personnel
to run the EIT is still appropriate. It will be important that
the budget and machinery set in place for the first phase is proportionate
to the scale.
It is proposed that the Community contribution to
the EIT will be funded from the unallocated margins of Heading
1A of the Community budget. The unallocated margins are, however,
intended for 'emergencies' and unforeseen expenditure. UUK would
share the UK government's concern over 'raiding' the unallocated
margins of heading 1A at such an early stage of the budget's life.
EIT priorities
As stated above, the proposals currently under review
suggest that the EIT would focus on climate change and renewable
energy (these are included in the compromise text in square brackets).
Whilst these appear to be sensible areas for the EIT to focus
on in the first instance, this does raise the question of how
this decision was reached and who made it (this is currently not
clear), and whether the EIT Governing Board itself should be deciding
the key priority areas rather than the Commission (the deciding
of EIT priorities was intended to be a key role for the Governing
Board).
Education
The most recent text that UUK has seen proposes the
following in the area of education:
Degrees and Diplomas related to education shall be
awarded by participating universities according to national rules
and accreditation procedures.
The agreement between the EIT and the KICs shall
provide that these degrees and diplomas may also be labelled EIT-degrees
and diplomas.
The EIT shall encourage participating universities
to award joint or multiple degrees and diplomas, reflecting the
integrated nature of the KICs. However, these may also be awarded
by a single institution
UUK are pleased that the EIT will not have its own
degree awarding powers—the current proposal is far more
acceptable than that originally proposed. We would, however, suggest
that if the EIT is to be effective in meeting the needs of students
and industry the provision of education activities should not
be over prescribed from the outset. The type and scope of education
provision should be decided by the partners (universities and
industry) based on their assessment of the needs in the area covered
by the KIC. This can then be agreed with the EIT. This will allow
KICs respond to demand and tailor provision to the specific needs
they have identified. At present the Commission's text is too
prescriptive and will not allow the kind of flexibility needed.
We would prefer it is the legal document proposed
only that education activities shall be undertaken as part of
the KIC based on partners' own assessment of the needs and demand
in that area. If it were decided that this would involve developing
degree programmes or diplomas (they should be free to decide if
this, or other forms of provision, are appropriate) we would support
the statement that any degree and diplomas shall be awarded by
participating universities according to national rules and accreditation
procedures etc.
UK government position
We are pleased that the UK government have taken
on board a number of the concerns raised by the university sector
and others, and have reflected these in discussions in the Council.
We are particularly encouraged that the UK government have pushed
for further clarity on the budget and education function of the
EIT. The UK government have set up an EIT stakeholders group,
including representation from the UK academic and business communities,
which has provided us with a valuable opportunity to inform the
UK's formal discussions in Brussels.
1 June 2007
| 
