The evolution of European security research and innovation programmes: changing purposes and rationales Jean-Marc Suchier ETTIS R&I strategies and policy priorities in new mission-oriented programs: The case of security” Brussels, 18 September 2014

THE FIRST STEPS IN EUROPE 1/2  Situation of security research in 2000  Not covered at EU level  No national programme  The triggers  End of Cold War  Development of international terrorism: it can strike anywhere  September 11, 2001  12/12/ European Council document : “European Security strategy” “A secure Europe in a better World”  We need new security instruments  We need common instruments for all Member States

THE FIRST STEPS IN EUROPE 2/2  March Recommendations from Group of Personalities (GOP) to develop a European Security Research Programme (ESRP)  For improving European security  For improving European competitiveness  In full respect of civil liberties and ethical principals  ESRP must  Be complementary to nationals efforts  Finance mission oriented research from capability to demonstrator projects  Be focused on technology  Technology is not security, but no there is security without technology  Take benefit of dual civil/military research  Recommendation to put in place an advisory board to help prepare an agenda for implementation of ESRP

FEW COMMENTS ON SECURITY CONTEXT IN /2  What is security ?  Vague and inconsistent definitions among Member States (MS)  Covers many different and disconnected domains  Who is in charge of security?  The Member States  security is under MS responsibility  With various organisation/management of security matters  EU defines security rules for a few domains (airports,..)  But MS decide on implementation  MS usually have very limited resources available for security investments  What are the key perceived threats?  Mainly terrorism and organised crime  Perception of “insecurity” widely dependant on country, culture, age,… and events  Societal aspects: only a concern to take in consideration

FEW COMMENTS ON SECURITY CONTEXT IN /2  Who develops security solutions?  Mainly defence and aeronautic companies, located in a few MS  What is the security market?  Regulated  Operators invest in security solutions only to follow regulations ‒ No ROI for security  Fragmented  MS defines their rules and protect their national market  No major investment from industry  Industry needs market visibility  In security, the market is mainly defined when regulation is clear and stable and when funding for implementation programme is available

PREPARATION OF ESRP 1/2  The Preparatory Action for Security Research (PASR)  A 3 year programme ( ) before FP7  Limited budget (15M€ /year) for small projects  Goals  To investigate a few research topics  To help defining the ESRP content  Outcome  Not very useful for preparing ESRP content, because of projects schedule  But helped putting in place a new security research community  Managed, at DG Entr, by a team with a successful experience in air transportation  ACARE, SRIA

PREPARATION OF ESRP 2/2  The European Security Research Advisory Board (ESRAB)  50 members from  Governmental agencies  Research labs  Industry  Tasked by EC to propose a content and priorities for ESRP  Focused on short term technology needs  No basic research, but applied research on existing technology for security solutions  Mission oriented  Border, Critical infrastructures, Crisis management,..  Does not cover digital security (DG Infso)  Societal aspects covered in parallel (Security & Socierty)  Outcome (ESRAB report)  Good results for short term technology priorities  The societal aspects not seen as a major potential problem for security research  Good basis for the first calls of FP7 security theme (ERSP)

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND INNOVATION FORUM  In parallel with ESRP, a new advisory board in place: ESRIF ( )  The goal: to define a strategic security research agenda (ESRIA)  For mid and long term needs  Based on the ACARE model  Concept of security covers man-made and natural catastrophic events  The main difficulty  No major European policy document yet published (beyond the high level definition of “European Security Strategy”)  Which strategy options to use for the agenda?  Outcome  A strong message requesting that societal aspects be of major concern in ESRP ‒ DG Entr put in place a Societal Impact Expert Group (2008 – 2013)  A raising understanding that ‒ Technology is only one of the parameter ‒ Resilience is an important aspect of security ‒ European citizens must be involved  A weak and almost useless “strategic agenda”

STATUS AT FP7 ESRP COMPLETION  Overall, ESRP is a successful programme  >1,4B€, >200 funded projects  Modest impact on European security  Many new technology products  But limited real innovation  No major new security solutions so far  It takes years from research to innovation  Raising understanding that societal issues are crucial  The weaknesses  Work programme more a concatenation of MS needs than answer to EU policies  Lack of fast track mechanism  Very difficult to build a long term strategy in security

TOWARDS HORIZON 2020  Focused on societal challenges (Secure societies), and pushing for  More innovation  Looking for higher TRLs  PCP (Pre Commercial Procurement) and PPI (Public Procurement of Innovative solutions)  Deeper cooperation of all stakeholders  Enhancement of the societal dimension  Covering Cyber security  Proposing a new fast track mechanism ?  A few open questions  Will PCPs and PPIs be efficient?  How to extract from EU policy initiatives effective research agendas?  How to effectively enhance the societal dimension?  All topics of interest for ETTIS

Thank you for your attention