1 / 11

ERA GROUPS- OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES AND EMERGING THEMES Jane Peters Rapporteur International Science and Innovation Unit J

2. ERA Groups Review. Background. ERAC agreed in December 2010 to review four core" ERA Groups (GPC, SFIC, SGHRM, KT).Deadline set for completion was this meeting- in retrospect a more compressed timetable than would have been ideal .Questionnaire circulated late December 2010.Interviews with SG

benjamin
Download Presentation

ERA GROUPS- OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES AND EMERGING THEMES Jane Peters Rapporteur International Science and Innovation Unit J

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 1 ERA Groups Review ERA GROUPS- OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES AND EMERGING THEMES Jane Peters (Rapporteur) International Science and Innovation Unit Jane.Peters@bis.gsi.gov.uk

    2. 2 ERA Groups Review Background ERAC agreed in December 2010 to review four core ERA Groups (GPC, SFIC, SGHRM, KT). Deadline set for completion was this meeting- in retrospect a more compressed timetable than would have been ideal . Questionnaire circulated late December 2010. Interviews with SGHRM and GPC chairs undertaken. 20 Member States and 2 Associated Countries replied on some or all of the Groups. Commission also replied (see R-J Smits letter for their high-level views)

    3. 3 ERA Groups Review General Conclusions 1 Work of Groups did have impact at national level, even if this was patchy at times. There is a clear consensus that all the groups need to continue in some form, though with revised mandates taking account of developments like Innovation Union and the ERA Framework.

    4. 4 ERA Groups Review General Conclusions 2 Concerns expressed about the level of commitment by MS to the work of some of the Groups. Conversely also concerns about burdens of participation (especially from smaller MS). Concern about weakness of links between the Groups. Concern that the Groups work was not sufficiently visible to the wider world of ERA Stakeholders.

    5. 5 ERA Groups Review Group Specific Points- GPC Largely delivered mandate. Continuing work needed on monitoring development of JPIs which have already been launched rather than launching further ones. Future role could also include further work on developing and refining the Framework Conditions. Possible Foresight role identifying future JPI candidates in long term.

    6. 6 ERA Groups Review Group Specific Points- SFIC Divergent views on how far delivered its mandate and how far it has developed a strategic overview. Concerns about levels of commitment by some MS and about adequacy of preparation for initiatives. Smaller MS on the whole more satisfied with its performance than larger ones. Strongest calls for future mandate to focus on development of European R&D internationalisation strategy in light of Innovation Union though wide range of other topics also suggested

    7. 7 ERA Groups Review Group Specific Points- KT Again varied views on how far delivered its mandate and evidence of very varied levels of commitment. Most deliverables likely to be completed by May. Most work done in sub-groups. Some want future work confined to monitoring implementation of the Recommendation and Code of Practice; majority want wider future mandate related to IP aspects of Innovation Union.

    8. 8 ERA Groups Review Group Specific Points- SGHRM Majority feel delivered much of a very ambitious mandate. Concerns that most work done by specialist sub-groups and some issues (e.g. pensions and social security) have largely been handled outside Group. Need to ensure membership is flexible and genuinely expert on the specific issues under review. Mandate remains relevant but needs adjustment to reflect changing environment and greater focus on careers rather than purely mobility issues.

    9. 9 ERA Groups Review Governance Issues 1 Little support for the proposition that all Groups should have entirely common governance structures. In particular no consensus on length of mandate- though might be a case for linking mandates to that of ERAC (due for review end 2012). Support for view that all should have elected MS chair backed up with elected MS vice chair. Could strengthen co-ordination if Group chairs were also ERAC members.

    10. 10 ERA Groups Review Governance Issues 2 Clear majority support GPC and SFIC reporting to ERAC rather than direct to Council (though not unanimous view). ERAC needs to engage closely with Groups- not just receive their reports! Consider formalising role of sub groups in delivering Group mandates as a possible way of providing expert input and limiting burdens of participation. Groups would set strategic direction but full meetings might be more limited in number

    11. 11 ERA Groups Review Next steps Discussion of the review at this meeting. If ERAC agrees, the Groups will be invited to comment on the review and the Commissions views presented in R-J Smits letter. Next ERAC meeting will finalise an opinion on the review and revised Group mandates, governance arrangements etc Based on this, Presidency will draw up a proposal for future action to be put to the May Competitiveness Council.

    12. 12 ERA Groups Review Thank you Jane Peters Jane.Peters@bis.gsi.gov.uk

More Related