European Commission competitive funding programmes for science and research : a comparison of SEE countries performance

Michael Kilcommons, Lorena Rivera Léon & Alasdair Reid Technopolis Group

Preliminary findings of a report to UNESCO-BRESCE

May 2010

2

Main issues of the Technopolis paper for UNESCO

For the main EU funding programmes (FP7, etc.), the study provides •  overview of the number of applications by country and

success rates •  comparing between SEE countries and other countries in

transition, e.g. Baltic countries; EU27

•  financial volume of the funds received •  In the context of national R&D funding levels

•  underlining trends observed •  findings and recommendations

Three main pillars of joint European research initiatives

•  FP7 - main EU instrument for funding R&D (and related actions) for the period 2007-13 with a total budget of €50.5 billion •  Specific programmes (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html) •  INCO (notably http://www.wbc-inco.net) •  ERA-NETS (http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu)

•  COST (http://www.cost.esf.org) •  intergovernmental network coordinating nationally funded research

•  EUREKA (http://www.eurekanetwork.org) •  promotes international, market-oriented innovation through support

to SMEs, large industry, universities and research institutes •  Currently 722 running projects with an average budget of €1.8m •  New Eurostars initiative specifically dedicated to research-

performing SMEs

3

SEE eligibility for European research funding instruments

FP6 FP7 COST Eureka Eurostars

Albania X X - 1992 (NIP)

-

Bosnia & Herzegovina

X X 2009 2009 (NIP)

-

Croatia X X 1992 2000 X

FYR of Macedonia X X 2002 2008 -

Montenegro X* X - - -

Serbia X* X 2001 2002 -

Kosovo/UN Res 1244 X - - -

4

*In FP6 Serbia & Montenegro were eligible as a single entity NIP = National Information Point, not yet full member

Some key facts from FP6 for SEE countries

Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina

Croatia FYR of Macedonia

Serbia & Montenegro

Total number of selected FP6 projects

35 (7/yr) 42 (8/yr) 134 (27/yr) 45 (9/yr) 104 (21/yr)

Average # of national partners / project

1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3

Average # of partners / project

14.1 12.7 18.3 12.0 15.4

5

•  Low numbers of national partners = sign of weak national co-operation or restricted national potential (e.g. one leading centre) ?

•  Two larger countries had higher number of average partners & were more ‘internationalised’ (lower % shared participation with other SEE)

Source: ZSI, Analysis of Co-operation Partners of Western Balkan Countries in International Research Co-operation Programmes, October 2009, in framework of WBC-INCO.net

Some key facts from FP6 for SEE

SEE countries tended to be involved in: •  Smaller, shorter-term projects, i.e. Specific Support Actions (SSA)

(38% of all projects) and Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPS) (29%)

•  Limited SEE participation in longer term, more advanced/risky research platforms (Integrated Projects, networks of Excellence) was limited to Croatia and Serbia & Montenegro

2009 WBC INCO-NET report on co-operation patterns concludes: •  SEE countries remain on the periphery of European research co-

operation networks, even in the field of IST where they are most present !

6 Source: ZSI, Analysis of Co-operation Partners of Western Balkan Countries in International Research Co-operation Programmes, October 2009, in framework of WBC-INCO.net

FP6 participation and contribution of SEE

Source: European Commission DG RTD, 2008

Key findings FP7 (2007/08)

•  Success rates of non-EU SEE countries remain below those of EU countries: •  Success rates ranging from 7% (Turkey) to 22% (Montenegro) •  Some improvement from 2007 to 2008 calls for FP7 (learning

effect ?) •  FP7 remains a minor source of additional funds in the non-EU SEE

countries: •  From a few hundred thousand euro for Albania and BiH to €17.5m

for Croatia in FP7 (2007 & 2008 calls) •  Contrasts with high importance of FP7 compared to GERD in

Bulgaria, Greece, Estonia. •  FYR of Macedonia has highest ratio of FP7 to GERD – but in context

of very low national R&D spend

8

Key findings 2 - FP7

•  Looking at FP6 versus FP7, average number of selected proposals per year seems to be higher for Croatia and FYR of Macedonia in FP7 while stagnating for Albania and BiH.

•  For INCO- and ERA-Nets, small number of participations but generally higher success rates – marginal funding but important for policy learning and “networking research teams”.

•  Results from FP6/FP7 data suggest that European funding remains a marginal, if growing, contribution to most national research systems in SEE, which remain on periphery of the ERA !

9

10

Number of eligible proposals with at least one applicant in country and success rates, FP7 (2007/2008)

0

50

0

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

00

30

00

35

00

40

00

45

00

50

00

...........

0

%

5

%

10

%

15

%

20

%

25

%

Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010 For Turkey, in 2007 no. of submitted proposals and not eligible proposals. Data not available for Serbia and Kosovo

Number of eligible proposals with at least one applicant in country and success rates, INCO-NETS (2007/2008)

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

..........

0

%

5

%

10

%

15

%

20

%

25

%

30

%

35

%

40

%

45

%

Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010 Data not available for Turkey, Serbia and Kosovo

Number of eligible proposals with at least one applicant in country and success rates, ERA-NETS (2007/2008)

12 Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010 Data not available for Turkey, Serbia and Kosovo. EU27 success rate based only on 2008 data. All other SEE countries did not participate in ERA-NETS in FP7

Per capita requested EC contributions vs. requested contributions as a % of GERD in SEE

Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010; Eurostat; the World Factbook, 2010 For Turkey, participant EC contribution in Euros of grant agreements signed for 2007 and 2008. Population of AL for 2008 from The World Factbook. For BA and MD 2009 estimate from The World Factbook. GERD data not available for AL, BA, ME, MD. Data not available for Serbia and Kosovo

Options for improving participation in European research programmes

•  Enhance focus of IPA funding and other donor and investment funds (EIB) on R&D capacity building and investing in infrastructure and programmes

•  Re-balance attention from ‘Western-Balkans’ co-operation to integrating SEE researchers in international networks with ‘leading players’ – breaking out of “closed” regional networks

•  Focus efforts on a limited number of national research centres able to participate in ‘networks of excellence’ – recognising ‘scientific specialisation’ (engineering, medicine, physics..)

14

15

Thank you

Comments or queries can be sent to: •  Michael Kilcommons

michael.kilcommons@technopolis-group.com •  Lorena Rivera León: lorena.rivera.leon@technopolis-group.com

technopolis |group| has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Frankfurt/Main, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna

Annex – tables

16

FP6 participation and contribution in SEE

Source: European Commission DG RTD, 2008

Eligible and retained proposals, success rates and requested EC financial contributions in FP7

Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010 For Turkey, in 2007 no. of submitted proposals and not eligible proposals. No. of grant agreements received in given year instead of proposals retained; participant EC contribution in Euros of grant agreements signed for 2007 and 2008. Data not available for Serbia and Kosovo

Per capita EC requested contributions in FP7 calls for proposals, Euro per inhabitant

Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010; Eurostat; the World Factbook, 2010 For Turkey, participant EC contribution in Euros of grant agreements signed for 2007 and 2008. Population of AL for 2008 from The World Factbook. For BA and MD 2009 estimate from The World Factbook. Data not available for Serbia and Kosovo

EC requested contributions in FP7 as a % of GERD

Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010; Eurostat For Turkey, participant EC contribution in Euros of grant agreements signed for 2007 and 2008. GERD data not available for AL, BA, ME, MD. FP Data not available for Serbia and Kosovo