Boris Cizelj - Slovenian Business & Research Association, Brussels

What work have SBRA been doing to establish the state of play of European  Regions in terms of Lisbon structural indicators?

Together with Slovenian Government and Municipality of Nova Gorica the Slovenian Business & Research Association is now organizing already the third European Regional Economic Forum (EREF). The Forum looks at the role of regions in implementing the Lisbon agenda.

The Nova Gorica Forum is not the only place where this topic is being discussed, but we place a strong emphasis on systematic comparison of available indicators and on  evaluation of good practice  in regional Lisbon policies and measures.

One of the most serious difficulties European regions are facing at the moment is that those statistics are not readily available.

At EREF-2006 our research fellow prof.P.Sicherl, Director of SICENTER and professor at Ljubljana university has for the first time applied the “time-distance method” to express the gaps between European regions.

Why are these indicators so important?

There are two main reasons:  one, that the regions should have access to the comparative figures at the European level, and the second – having these figures and confronting them with policies applied, important lessons could be drawn from as to the efficiency of the respective policy measures. 

This process of comparison and benchmarking – being part of the Open Method of Coordination - has become frequently used approach thanks to Lisbon Agenda.  And the  regions have become increasingly involved in this exercise.

What have been the biggest differences that you’ve found between the national and regional statistics and indicators?

The gaps are much bigger between regions than between European member states. Statistically this could be expected,  but the sheer size of the differences is quite massive!

For example, looking at the share of GDP spent on R&D, Sweden ranks the highest among member states with 4.27 per cent, and Romania scores the lowest with just 0.38 per cent.

Yet the highest ranking region is Germany’s Braunschweig with 7.11 per cent, while the lowest is the Northwestern region of Bulgaria with just 0.01 per cent – and this according to the most recent data available, which dates from 2002.

Therefore, it is important that the Committee of  Regions have asked the EUROSTAT to start producing statistical series which will illustrate how regions in Europe are fairing in terms of the Lisbon structural indicators. 

The EU institutions also need good statistics in order to be able to propose the right policies for effective regional cohesion, which is now also being linked to the Lisbon agenda.

You mentioned that in revisions to the agenda, regions are no longer ignored but still underestimated, can you elaborate?

With very few exceptions I think that European regions are still struggling to get the treatment they deserve, generally, and of course in terms of Lisbon agenda. 

This is even more the case because, besides most of the instruments of economic policies which are defined at the national level, when we come to research policies, research programmes priorities and so on, the situation is even less favourable.

Practically all the decision made concerning research policy happens at the national level. At EREF we therefore want to emphasize that regions also in the R&D area have a great role to play and present some good examples.

In fact – given the same type of centralized or decentralized set-up (as for example Sweden versus Greece) – the role of regions tends to be more important in countries with more advanced RTDI sector than in the less advanced countries.

The revised Lisbon Agenda is actually making reference to the regions, but there is practically no elaboration on the specific contribution expected from them in achieving the knowledge based competitiveness.

What problems do the scientists and the regions themselves need to address in terms of regional R&D issues?

Well, one of the most immediate and important tasks for the research actors, as well as for the other interested stakeholders, at the regional level is to explain the importance of their work to the general public on one hand, and to the policymakers on the other.

This is often discussed but not implemented. Researchers are neither trained on communication skills, nor do they understand that “selling science” represents part of their broader, societal responsibility. If they fails to do this, who could do it for them? The answer is straight and simple – nobody!

At the regional level researchers should have less difficulties to communicate with policy makers and other stakeholders, making them their allies, and thereby creating better conditions to obtain necessary levels of RTD funding.

Also, researchers should encourage their regions to take a more proactive posture on debates on priorities of the national research program.

To what extent is RTD considered a policy area of secondary importance?

Unfortunately there are very few European regions, and indeed countries, for which one could claim that RTD is treated as a real priority among policy areas. This is essentially a problem of education, tradition and attitude towards the “ivory tower science”.

Politicians also rarely find supporting RTD funding equally rewarding as fighting for more “popular” issues, such as health, environment, public transport, even sport facilities. So, when debating budgets, deputies and government officials and politicians are not as motivated as they should be.

On the other hand,  in most European countries RTD sector remains psychologically largely in the pre-market era, and many research executives seem to fail in presenting a good case – being the strong link between RTD funding and knowledge based competitiveness.

Very few researchers accept the challenge of campaigning to obtain support for their projects from their potential users. This is of course more difficult than competing for state funding.

When will your findings be revealed?

The first results of the project entitled ‘Building and improving support for RTD policy and public spending’ (BIS-RTD) will be discussed in the forum in Nova Gorica; it is a cross-fertilizing situation: the Forum will benefit from the studies done on 7 European regions and 2 countries, while the project partners will benefit from the numerous and well structured Forum participants coming from RTD, regional and national authorities and research agencies, as well as from business.

Case studies, based on an extensive questionnaire have been prepared for 9 regions and countries, as well as for 5 countries of Western Balkans. The studies have addressed  the issues of public funding and communication for research and focusing on the role of RTD public funding in European regions.

Through the presentation of case studies, the participating regions will learn which funding instruments work best and under what conditions.

The forum is expected to adopt a resolution encouraging regions to put RTD at the centre of their development efforts. Further results and recommendations will be produced within the project.

Regional Review article

• Previous article
• Next article