R&D Vision for the future of the Ispra site: from "JRC Ispra" to "EC Ispra"

14/12/2017 , No comments
Ispra, 14th December 2017

NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF MR G. OETTINGER
VICE-PRESIDENT BUDGET & HUMAN RESOURCES

Subject: R&D Vision for the future of the Ispra site: from "JRC Ispra" to "EC Ispra"

Dear Mr Oettinger,

First of all, we wish to express our great appreciation for your visit to the Ispra site on 21st December. We are confident that you will experience a very stimulating and welcoming working environment.
We also wish to take this opportunity to exchange with you our vision for the future of the Ispra site, which we outlined - a year and a half ago - to your predecessor Ms Georgieva.

Towards a more streamlined JRC and a stronger Ispra site
We are convinced that the Commission would greatly benefit from a more intensive exploitation of the infrastructure and facilities available at Ispra, and from increased investments in the site. Ispra hosts the third largest Commission site, it is located at the very heart of Europe and it is nearby major transport links. It offers great facilities and opportunities such as, for instance, the European School of Varese and – ­­very soon – a conference centre able to host international meetings of up to 500 participants. Due to its geographical position, the site offers itself as an ideal hub for science diplomacy with focus on the Mediterranean and Danube regions, thus offering new impulses to the EU integration process.

Our vision for the future of the Ispra site comprises the following developments:
  1. 1. Host local antennas of policy DGs at the Ispra site, to build closer connections between policy and science, fostering a more efficient and effective collaboration;
  2.  
  3. 2. Free the JRC to focus on its scientific role to underpin policy-making, by entrusting routine tasks not compatible with the JRC strategy under the direct control of policy DGs. While in the JRC implementation review 2017[1] some of these activities are flagged for possible outsourcing, we consider more reasonable and effective to attach them and their related staff directly to the relevant policy DG. In some cases, legal constraints make externalisation even impossible;
  4.  
  5. 3. Consider Ispra as the hosting site of future new structures, for instance, a new DG or entity for Security and Defense, enabling synergies with existing and future JRC activities in related areas;
  6.  
  7. 4. The Ispra site already hosts a very advanced crisis management infrastructure, and can provide increased resilience through decentralisation and geo-distribution of vital Commission services, thus guaranteeing business continuity in case of extreme events impeding their normal functioning at other major locations;
  8.  
  9. 5. Renaissance of the idea of applied science diplomacy, as formulated in the treaties, making the Ispra site the hub to promote an active partnership between Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

The enabling factor: from "OIB and JRC site management" to OII (Office Infrastructure for Ispra)
In a previous note sent on 26th May 2016 to VP Georgieva[2], referring to the major JRC reorganisation that took place on 1st July 2016, we already anticipated that "we consider the JRC reorganisation as a first step setting the framework to be followed by further moves towards a full integration of the Ispra site within the framework planned for the whole Commission." In her reply[3], VP Georgieva recognised the validity of the points raised by us, stating at the same time that "the Director General of JRC decided that the best way forward was to create a dedicated entity within JRC to ensure the infrastructure governance for all JRC sites. This entity has been included in the proposal for reorganisation of the JRC which has been adopted by the College on 25 May 2016."
A second phase of this reorganisation will be implemented on 1st January 2018, following a path that is consistent with our initial proposal: all Ispra infrastructure and logistics services are to be brought together under a single Department called "Site Management Ispra".
We ask now for your political support to take the final step: to review the 2015 evaluation of the JRC that led to the decision of keeping infrastructure management under the responsibility of the JRC, and merge this JRC Department (JRC.R.I) with "OIB Ispra" (which is already in charge of Ispra social infrastructure), forming a unique Office for Infrastructure, either as a new OII or as part of OIB, such that the Ispra site is structured and functions as any other major Commission site.
A neutral management of the site infrastructure guarantees harmonised services to any DG that wishes to host some staff at the Ispra site.

Further benefits deriving from our vision:
  • A comprehensive and consistent use of "Offices" promises an increased efficiency and the reduction of the cost of support functions
  • It  will encourage breaking down of silos, and facilitate staff mobility
  • Investments aimed towards growing the Ispra site may help to reduce the strain caused by infrastructure shortages and high costs of rented buildings elsewhere
  • Increased overall staffing levels at Ispra could have a positive budgetary impact, in consideration of the lower cost of living as compared to Brussels and Luxembourg
  • Contractual Agents working for "Offices" may be offered contracts not limited to 6 years duration

Conclusion
We understand that our strategic perspective for the Ispra site would imply significant changes. We trust that you will find the time for an in-depth analysis and reflection with your colleagues in the College. We would also appreciate the possibility to further discuss our ideas with you in more detail early next year.

Kind Regards,


Cristiano Sebastiani
President R&D
Robert Kenny
Political Secretary, R&D Ispra


Cc: Mr Selmayr, Mr Navracsics, Mr Italianer, Ms Souka, Mr Šucha, Ms Rute, Ms Vitcheva

9 March 2018: Reply from Commissioners Oettinger and Navracsics

[1] See Section 3.3, p.19: “the JRC does significantly more data mapping than data analysis, i.e. less ‘making sense of data’ than promised in the strategy. Data mapping is more a routine job and a science organisation loses focus doing such work. If it is work under contract, then there can be good reasons to hand it over to private providers.”
[2] See annex 1
[3] See annex 2

No comments :

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )