European Framework Programmes for RTD - Experiences of Candidate Countries and Perspectives for not-yet Candidate SEE Countries

(1)

European Framework Programmes for RTD - Experiences of Candidate Countries and

Perspectives for not-yet Candidate SEE Countries

Klaus Schuch

CSI - Centre for Social Innovation 2001-10-06

ZENTRUM FÜR SOZIALE INNOVATION CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION

(2)

Look Who’s Talking?

Research Manager at the CSI

Adviser to the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Austrian Ministry for Education, Science and

Culture

INCO-NCP (until February 2001)

Head of the Unit for International Co-operation at the BIT - Bureau for International Research and Technology Co-operation

Director of the Austrian Science and Research Liaison Office in Sofia

Assistant Researcher at the Vienna University for Business Administration and Economics

(3)

Objectives of this Presentation

 systematising the integration process of CECs in the FP

 discussing the results of CEC accession to FP5

 delivering policy recommendations for SEE involvement

(4)

A Scattered Map

E U m e m b e r c o u n t r i e s a s s o c i a t e d t o F P 5 n o t a s s o c i a t e d t o F P 5

(5)

Three Phases of RTD Co-operation with Candidate Countries

 contact phase, characterised by creating opportunities for scientific meetings

 co-operation phase, characterised by the execution of numerous joint RTD projects

 association phase, characterised by solving political, legal and operational problems encountered in the process of association

(6)

Phase One: PECO

 2 531 fellowships

 54 networks

179 conferences

223 joint projects

131 participations in FP3 projects

and 147 participations in COST-actions

with an overall final budget of 93 million ECU

(7)

Phase Two: COPERNICUS

• to enhance collaborative RTD across Europe

• to promote technology transfer

• to strengthen research capacities and focus research to the socio-economic needs of the CEECs/NIS

• to transfer and to develop knowledge and

technologies likely to contribute to the rehabilitation of the economy in the target countries and

• to strengthen relations between industrial

enterprises, research organisations and universities 723 projects incorporating more than 4 000 partners (> 50

% from the CEECs and NIS) were funded

(8)

Phase Three: Association

• structural support: FEMIRC/NCP

• accompanying measures for capacity building

• centres of excellence

• association agreements

first discussion at a Structural Dialogue meeting at ministerial level on the 14th of May 1997 and reconfirmation in the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council (12/13th December 1997)

negotiation mandate was received during the Austrian EU Presidency on the 13th of October 1998

(9)

Major Steps Towards Association

Major Steps BG CZ EE HU LV LT PL RO SK SI

Start of Exploratory Talks 13.07.98 22.01.98 08.12.97 21.01.98 19.03.98 08.07.98 15.12.97 15.06.98 10.07.98 16.12.97 Decision of the European

Commission 24.02.99 08.02.99 08.02.99 08.02.99 08.02.99 08.02.99 08.02.99 24.02.99 24.02.99 08.02.99 Decision of the Council 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99 20.05.99

Entry into Force 01.09.99 01.08.99 01.06.99 01.08.99 01.08.99 01.10.99 04.09.99 01.07.99 01.09.99 01.08.99 source: European Commission (2000b)

(10)

Model of Digressive Financial Support for Calculating the CEC’s Contribution to the FP5 Budget

t o t a l y e a r l y c o n t r i b u t i o n ( 1 0 0 % ) a c c o r d i n g t o G D P

8 0 %

6 0 %

4 0 %

2 0 % 6 0 %

r e d u c t i o n i n 1 9 9 9

4 0 % r e d u c t i o n i n 2 0 0 0

2 0 % r e d u c t i o n i n 2 0 0 1

f r e e u s e o f P H A R E f u n d s t o c o v e r p a r t l y t h e n a t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n

1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2

(11)

Benefits from Full Participation

 unlimited access to European know-how

 direct R&D co-operation with EU member states

 significant experience for future full membership in the EU

 stimulation of competitiveness and economic growth

 possibilities for gaining new markets through R&D co- operation

 possibilities for technology stimulation in the business sector and

 creation of new jobs

(12)

So Far - So Good?

(13)

First Experiences from CEC Participation in FP5 (1)

Under the first calls for proposals in FP5 launched between March and June 1999, more than 11000 proposals have been received. More than 3200 proposals were retained for

negotiations by the European Commission services.

However, organisations of the candidate countries made up just 5,6 % of all proposers and 4 % of the proposers in proposals retained for negotiations.

(14)

First Experiences from CEC Participation in FP5 (2)

• The economically more advanced Candidate Countries outperform their economically weaker Central

European neighbours also in terms of European RTD competitiveness

• In general, all CECs - including the forerunners Poland and Hungary - only score between the least involved European member countries under FP5, Ireland and Luxembourg.

(15)

First Experiences from CEC Participation in FP5 (3)

• Although the economically more advanced Candidate Countries also show internal specialisation patterns, they seem to be more balanced with regards to

international sector comparisons

• The less economically advanced Candidate Countries stand out by pronounced scientific-technological

specialisation patterns under FP5 with either striking positive positions or striking negative positions (both in terms of submissions and selections).

(16)

Relative Position of Strong and Weak Sectors in CECs under FP4 and FP5

Q o L ( + 0 )

Q o L ( - - ) Q o L ( - )

Q o L = Q u a l i t y o f L i f e I S T ( - 0 )

I S T ( + )

G r o w t h ( + ) G r o w t h ( + )

E n v i r o n m e n t ( + )

Q o L ( - ) I S T ( + + ) G r o w t h ( - - ) E n v i r o n m e n t ( + ) E n e r g y ( - )

E n e r g y ( + ) Q o L ( + 0 )

I S T ( - 0 ) G r o w t h ( + )

S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( - ) Q o L ( + )E n v i r o n m e n t ( - 0 ) S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( - )

S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( - 0 ) S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( + )

Q o L ( + ) I S T ( - ) G r o w t h ( - ) E n v i r o n m e n t ( - )

S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( + ) B a l t i c C o u n t r i e s a g g r e g a t e d t o a B a l t i c C l u s t e r

(17)

Data Basis

empirical analysis based upon

6247 submitting project teams and 1231 selected project teams from the CECs in COPERNICUS (FP4)

2542 submitting project teams and 696 selected project teams from the CECs in Activity 1 projects (FP4)

3035 submitting project teams and 511

selected project teams from the CECs in first FP5 calls for proposals

and upon the usage of z-transformations

(18)

The Absolute Number of Selections

Depends upon the Absolute Number of

Submissions _r

²

_{= 93,12}

SL

SK RO

PL

LT LV

HU

EE

CR

BG

submission 1999

800 700

600 500

400 300

200 100

0

selections 1999

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

(19)

But what is important for a high

number of submitted projects?

(20)

Hypothesis

The absolute number of submissions depends upon the absolute level of GERD (gross expenditure on R&D)

(21)

The Absolute Number of Submissions Depends upon GERD

SL SK

RO

PL

LVLT

HU

EE

CR

BG

GERD in Mio E absolut

1200 1000

800 600

400 200

0

submission 1999

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

(22)

Result

r

²

= 78,14

yi= 139,129926 + 0,601830 Signif F = 0,0007

Sit T = 0,0007

H1 = 

(23)

And there is much more

evidence for the correlation between successful FP5

participation and the quality of

the overall S&T system!

(24)

The absolute number of selections depends on the absolute level of GERD the % of

GERD for RTD infrastructure investments, GERD spent by each researcher and the

growth rate of employment of researchers (1994-1998)

r²= 91,02

yi= -14,454780 + 0,06230 + 2,761738 + 0,001612 -0,31594

Signif F = 0,0228

Durbin-Watson Test = 2,7490

(25)

There is a Need for Upgrading the National RTDI Systems

•to put more emphasis on applied research

•to stimulate innovation in industry and particularly SMEs

•to reform of public R&D systems including the university sector

•to create research programmes of national significance

•to operate funds to stimulate R&D and innovation

•to implement and upgrade technology transfer systems and institutions

•to establish institutional infrastructure and bridging institutions to support innovations in SMEs (e.g. technology parks, business innovation centres, incubators, innovation agencies and that like) and

•to establish new institutions with strategic R&D relevance such as the National Evaluation Institute in Slovenia, the Fraunhofertype Zoltan Bay Institutes in Hungary or the Foundation for Polish Sciences

(26)

There is a Need for Flanking Measures for FP Participation at the Operative Level

•a need for training courses on proposal writing

•a need for implementing efficient systems to monitor the national participation

•a need for raising general awareness on European RTD Programmes and to identify and asses the existing potential for European RTD efforts

•a need to motivate companies to participate in EU RTD programmes

•a need for trans-European partner search

•a need for training courses on project management and

•a need for qualified personnel in intermediary organisations

(27)

Polish Considerations at the Start of its FP5 Involvement (1)

•low level of research financing

•low involvement of enterprises

•qualifications and equipment of a considerable number of research groups not matching world standards

•strong areas of Polish science only partially corresponding to scientific and technological themes of FP5

•lack of information about EU RTD Programmes

•lack of international contacts to build a consortium or to be invited into an existing one

(28)

Polish Considerations at the Start of its FP5 Involvement (2)

•incompatibility of legal and financial rules between the Polish practice and FP5 regulations

•lack of organisational support in legal and financial matters

•weakness in protecting the IPRs

•lack of resources necessary for preparation of proposals

•lack of sources of co-financing

•lack of manpower and

•insufficient incentives and lack of motivation.

(29)

Polish Homework: The SCI-TECH Programmes under PHARE

• e.g. institution and capacity building for the National Contact Point network,

• auditing and benchmarking of selected Polish research institutions interested in FP5,

• support to SMEs to prepare for CRAFT projects and participation in FP5,

• implementation of a Feasibility Award Fund and

• establishment of a monitoring system for the Polish participation in FP5

(30)

Status Quo in SEE?

(31)

Perspectives for SEE in FP6 and ERA

project by project participation?

a specific programme!

accompanying measures?!

full association?

who pays?

what rules? what topics?

CoE? European chairs? Twinning?

Training?

who pays?

(32)

Instead of Lip Services

national endeavours - including strategies and instruments - are necessary

based upon that, international support should be approached:

CARDS

Stability Pact SECI

bilateral programmes World Bank ...

(33)

ZENTRUM FÜR SOZIALE INNOVATION CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION

Klaus Schuch Koppstr. 116/11 A-1160 Vienna Tel.: ++43/1/495 04 42-32 Fax.: ++43/1/495 04 42-40 e-Mail: schuch@zsi.at URL: http://www.zsi.at

European Framework Programmes for RTD - Experiences of Candidate Countries and Perspectives for not-yet Candidate SEE Countries