Innovation in Brussels: Fine words, but we need action, too

Words matter. Read speeches, study organisational titles, and you can quickly spot what a political leader perceives to be important, popular or both. European Commission President Barroso’s reshuffling of portfolios in the last few days in Brussels has been a word-fest for ‘innovation’, ‘entrepreneurship,’ ‘digital agenda’, ‘climate action.’

That’s great. But will it go beyond words to action?

The new-look Commission sees innovation finally getting the focus and attention it needs, nuzzling in between science and research in the renamed, Science, Innovation and Research Directorate. This is welcome indeed: whatever the objections of basic researchers, the fact is that the public expects a return for the money invested in science and research in the shape of innovation – be that new companies, safer roads, or renewable energy sources. And for years, many business leaders have been saying that the Commission needs something akin to a ‘Chief Innovation Officer.’

But innovation is not only promoted within its own directorate, it is now recognised as pivotal to the success of so many of the others. Innovation will be the underpinning of the new Climate Action portfolio, of environment, health, maritime affairs, security, and so on. Detractors may say that their new bedmate will result in science and research becoming too commercial in outlook, but the fact is that innovation is now valued not only because it promotes economic growth, but because it is needed to lead Europe to a sustainable future.

The Commissioner to-be for Research, Innovations and Science, Maire Geoghegan –Quinn, is well-regarded for her experience of how the EU operates. From her viewpoint of a decade at the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg it is possible to have a long-range perspective on Brussels and Strasbourg, whilst poring over the accounts means being in the thick of the minutiae of how the whole machinery operates. And one might argue that there’s no one better to cut through the bureaucratic tangles of the Framework Programme, caused by absurd financial regulations and auditing requirements, than an auditor.

However, it is alarming that she has zero experience or background in research. That’s why the still-awaited announcement of who will become the Commission’s first Chief Scientific Advisor – another change promised by Barroso – is critically important.

But that isn’t the only shoe we’re waiting to be dropped.

For the legions of Commission staff, corporate lobbyists and academic grant-hunters, the real meaning of the new titles will only become clear after the organisational details – who does what inside the Commission staff – get fully worked out.

For instance: Which commissioner will take the lead in developing the EU’s planned Innovation Act, a vital piece of legislation to be drafted next year? Will it be the new ‘innovation’ commissioner? Or will it be the new ‘industry and entrepreneurship’ commissioner – who, according to the preliminary details, will be the top bureaucrat to whom the Innovation Act planners will actually report? Or – and this is more likely given the way Brussels often works – will it be a muddle of mixed responsibilities?

Likewise, how will the ‘entrepreneurship’ staffers work with the research, digital agenda, climate action, energy and environment staffers – all of whom are reporting under the new commission to different bosses, yet in theory ought to be interconnected? How will we get any innovations if the programmes and policies for entrepreneurship aren’t integrated with those for specific subject-areas?

And how will the directorate-general that reports to the new climate action commissioner work with their colleagues in environment, research, industry and other fields? If, as now appears likely, research for climate change ends up being managed by another part of the Commission, what exactly are the responsibilities of the new ‘Climate Action’ commissioner – aside from acting as a kind of ambassador plenipotentiary for treaty negotiations? (Oh, sorry, that’s the newly appointed foreign-affairs chief, Catherine Ashton.)

This is all very ironic. For the past six months, at the urging especially of the current Swedish presidency of the EU, there has been a mounting chorus of pleas for greater coordination, greater coherence – greater common-sense – in the way the EU organizes its 1001 research, development and innovation activities.

This, by contrast, is beginning to look suspiciously like more confusion, not less.