European Framework Programmes for RTD Experiences of Candidate Countries and Perspectives for notyet

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

2
Look Whos 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
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 (gt 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
10
Model of Digressive Financial Support for
Calculating the CECs Contribution to the FP5
Budget
11
Benefits from Full Participation

• unlimited access to European know-how
• direct RD 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
  RD 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
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

• r2 93,12

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
  RD)

21
The Absolute Number of Submissions Depends upon
GERD
22
Result

• r2 78,14
• yi 139,129926 0,601830
• Signif F 0,0007
• Sit T 0,0007
• H1 ü

23

• And there is much more evidence for the
  correlation between successful FP5 participation
  and the quality of the overall ST 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 RD systems including the
  university sector
• to create research programmes of national
  significance
• to operate funds to stimulate RD 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 RD
  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
Klaus Schuch Koppstr. 116/11 A-1160
Vienna Tel. [phone] Fax.
43/1/495 04 42-40 e-Mail schuch_at_zsi.at URL
http//www.zsi.at