1. Campaign for a FP7 more engaged with sustainability and social justice Framework programme 7 : Civil society as an actor of research and innovation ?! Claudia Neubauer, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, France European Science Social Forum 13 December 2005, Brussels, EPHA-EGA

2. Presentation 1)A short analysis of FP7 : semantic analysis analysis of the budget 2) Civil society organisations and knowledge production 5) Propositions for FP7 4) CSOs and FP7 (elaboration, participation, instruments) 3) Campaigning for another Framework Programme

3. Analysis of a few general terms used in FP7 proposal from EC 1 (0) Civil society (NGOs or CSOs) 2Democracy24Business & economy 1Dialogue91Competitiveness / competitive 15Citizens50Industry & SME

4. Analysis of a few terms used for Thematic Priorities in the FP7 proposal from EC 6renewable energy31Nuclear energy, nuclear fission, fusion energy 1Sustainable agriculture 15Nanotechnologies, nanosciences 2Public health18Biotechnology

5. Proposed budget of FP7 priorities 541 Nuclear Activities of the JRC 395 Nuclear Fission 2167 Fusion Energy research (2007-2011) 3103EURATOM 798 Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities 3987 Security and Space 5981 Transport (including Aeronautics) 2552 Environment (including Climate Change) 2951 Energy 4865 Nanotechnologies and New Production Technologies 12756 ICT 2472 Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology 8373 Health Overall budget in million EurosThematic priorities

6. Short Analysis of the budget for Energy Budget in million Euros much less than 38 much less than 479 8210421260FP5 24300824728901230FP6 (2002- 2006) ??216795 67% 2951 421/year 3103 (2007-2011) 620/year FP7 (2007- 2013) % of the renew. energy budget to Euratom Renewable energies in overall budget Fusion Energy Research % of the overall energy budget to Euratom budget Overall Budget for Energy Euratom Budget FP

7. What does FP7 stand for? What is the vision for the futur that it portrays?  A society driven by technology, not one that focuses on solving societal problems  Nanotechnology is very prominent in FP7 (in convergence with bio- and info- technologies and cognitive neurosciences). It is likely to be of little use in creating an appropriate technology that will help the majority of the European inhabitants.  There is no attempt to really prioritise research into pressing global and European problems of exhaustion of natural resources (e.g. water shortage), public health, discrimination and exclusion, impacts of new technologies, sustainable fisheries or low input agriculture.  And remember: No less than 30% of FP6 budget has been used to subsidise industry research (more than half of it provided to a few large global companies).

8. CSOs and knowledge production  Medicine: Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (MSF); co-production of research and clinical protocols (AIDS) ________________________________________________________  Environment: popular epidemiology ________________________________________________________  Toxicology: endocrine disrupters (WWF) ________________________________________________________  Agriculture: on-farm conservation of genetic resources; gene flow from GMO plants ________________________________________________________  Software: free software movement ________________________________________________________  Climate change: NGOs as advisors for policy-makers

9. Civil society (non profit sector, social and solidary economy sector) has become a major location for knowledge, innovation and expertise (« third sector of knowledge production »). A high quality research is possible starting from socially driven demands. Innovation is not limited to specialised professional institutions but can emerge from bottom-up civil society initiatives. Not to tap into and enhance these new knowledge-society dynamics would be actively counter-productive to Europe’s aspiration towards a knowledge-based society.

10. FP7 and Civil Society organisations SCOs are absent from the elaboration process of FP7. Themes that reflect societal needs are absent or not given enough priority. There are no specific instruments to support SCOs.

11. The European Science Social Forum Network ESSF: a free Alliance of civil society organisations for another European Science Policy (www.essfnetwork.org) OBJECTIVES:  promoting a model of scientific and technological research and progress engaged with a solidary and sustainable society  Influencing and improving the European Science policy  coordinating campaigns and actions, sharing information The present challenges require new forms of cooperation between scientists, citizens and policy makers.

12. Campaigning on FP7 Climate change and Energy : Renewable energy generation, Energy efficiency tools, Efficient low-carbon transportation and transport systems Conflict and social processes: Non-violent conflict prevention, Social processes for overcoming gender and racial discrimination Health: Tackling major diseases using different available tools, Mechanisms for identifying and achieving public health goals Agriculture: Low-input and sustainable food production, Soil conservation, sustainable fisheries Genuinely responsible resource use: Resource efficient & clean production Waste reduction, Sustainable consumption and lifestyle, Water conservation (links to agriculture), Appropriate technologies for the developing world Understanding systems: Improved understanding of environmental processes related to climate change and industrial pollution, Reallocation of funds away from molecular biology to traditional biological disciplines, Models of sustainable systems in both physical and social dimensions Socially-responsive research processes Developing a freer exchange of scientific information and open knowledge through new intellectual property tools, Generation of mechanisms that ensure the clear and transparent separation of civilian and military research and applications, Studies of the ethical, social, economic and environmental impact of new technologies and products within Europe and the Global South. A Petition to the European Parliament, amendments for the texte of the EC, participation at conferences: An alternative set of priorities can be advanced which focus on some of the largest problems society is facing:

13. Propositions for FP7  At least €2bn (5%) of FP7 money should be invested in dedicated programs to enhance NGO - academic joint research and innovation projects. (CRAFT, CURA)  Support the professional mobility of researchers between the non profit sector and public research institutions.  Support the formalisation of new democratic processes in order to define priorities for research budgets, as for instance a broad structured public debate around a participatory procedures, e.g. Consensus conferences, to tackle themes of high scientific, technological and societal interest.

14.  Open systematically the evaluation process for European projects to civil society representatives: a) choice of projects, b) evaluation of the work done in the projects.  Reorientation of the policies of research and innovation towards the requirements of sustainable development, and the general interest (defence of the common goods, preventive public health, etc.), support public and citizen expertise and research and plural innovation guaranteeing the plurality of the choices and the search for alternative models.  Reconsider the priority themes and the allocated budgets.

15. A few good contacts with members of the ITRE committee Campaigns of different European civil society organisations on specific domains (environment, health, agriculture, etc.), ex. health: EPHA, MSF, BukoPharma for a first time such an important mobilisation of organised civil society on a R&D framework programme We have few ideas (and few illusions) of how much our propositions will be taken into account by the European Parliament and the European Commission How to go on?! Timetable on FP7 (as agreed in ITRE meeting) 1st exchange of views on draft reports: 16-01-06 2nd exchange of views on draft reports: 25-01-06 Dead line for amendments: 26-01-06 1st exchange of views on amendments: 13-02-06 2nd exchange of views on amendments: 20-02-03 Vote in ITRE: 21-02-03 Vote in Plenary: March

16. How to build the participation of citizens in scientific and technical choices ? Commun ity Universit y Research Alliances Associati ve Expertise Independ ent Institutes Science shops Consens us conferen ces « Tiers secteur Scientifiq ue » Co- producti on of knowled ge Participa tory Processe s Evaluatio n of technolo gies Public debates