tallin, estonia – june 17, 2014 - first policy dialogue first policy dialogue tallin, estonia june...

Tallin, Estonia – June 17, 2014 - First policy dialogue

First Policy Dialogue Tallin, EstoniaJune 17, 2014


OverviewMain findings of the country profile of Estonia


Source: Eurostat, 2011 and Sixth monitoring report FP7

FP Performance and wider innovation indicators for Estonia benchmarked to EU 28 and EU 13 averages


Evolution of participants FP5/FP6/FP7

TOTAL FP5 TOTAL FP6 TOTAL FP7 MARKET SHARE FP5 MARKET SHARE FP6 MARKET SHARE FP7

ESTONIA 205 355 433 0.32% 0.75% 0.54%

TOTAL: 64 153.00 47 245.00 79 731.00

Evolution of lead partner FP5/FP6/FP7

FP5 lead FP6 lead FP7 lead FP5 national market

share leadFP6 national market

share leadFP7 national market

share lead

ESTONIA 17 23 47 0.11% 0.24% 0.25%

TOTAL: 16 103 9 407 19 180

As for the most of the EU 13 countries, Estonia has improved the market share between FP5 and FP6, loosing something in percentage with FP7.

Also for the number of projects coordinated, Estonia improved between FP5 and FP6, loosing something with FP7.

Source: e-Corda

FP5/FP6/FP7 evolution


Beneficiaries in mobility programmes – FP7 People

Activities included: 1. Initial Training of Researchers 2. Life-long Training and Career Development (including Co-funding) 3. Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships 4. International Dimension – European and world Fellowships

If we assume that being part of a network has an impact to participation, it is useful to look at the mobility programmes over time.

Developments in the participation in the mobility programmes

FP5participants

FP6participants

FP7Participants(2007- 2011)

FP5 nationalmarket shareparticipants



EE 29 21 41 0.37% 0.34% 0.34%

Source: e-Corda


OverviewFP7 participants per target groups

Source: e-Corda


FP7 participants per target groups High Education Institutions in % Research Centres in % Private Companies in %

BG 15.9 33.0 51.1

CY 12.2 11.0 76.8

CZ 7.1 23.9 69.0

EE 7.3 13.6 79.1HR 24.5 18.9 56.6

HU 9.9 22.4 67.6

LT 12.4 19.1 68.5

LV 20.7 39.7 39.7

MT 3.3 16.7 80.0

PL 18.5 24.8 56.7

RO 13.7 27.4 58.9

SI 6.8 19.3 73.9

SK 15.2 25.8 59.1

EU13 13.2 23.7 63.1

Participation in FP7 pursuant to the 3 main categories of beneficiaries: Private enterprises, Research centres, Higher Education Institutes

Source: e-Corda


HEI: EU 13 TOP 10Rank ORGANIZATION PARTICPATIONS Country

1 UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA 137 SI

2 CHARLES UNIVERSITY OF PRAGUE 100 CZ

3 BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIES 93 HU

4 UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS 90 CY

5 UNIVERSITY OF TARTU 84 EE

6 UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW 80 PL

7 CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE 72 CZ

8 WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 62 PL

9 JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY 56 PL

10 CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY 48 HU


ORGANIZATION PARTICPATIONS

UNIVERSITY OF TARTU 84

TALLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 35

ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 11

TALLIN UNIVERSITY 11

ESTONIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS 1

ESTONIAN INTERUNIVERSITY POPULATION RESEARCH CENTRE 1

ESTONIAN ACADEMY OF SECURITY SCIENCES 1

HEI – Estonian organizations in FP7


% EU13 Nb of projects per beneficiary % Top 3 in the country

BG 11.2 3.0 24

CY 1.7 1.9 65

CZ 13.3 4.3 18

EE 2.8 4.7 46HR 3.7 3.2 57

HU 11.4 5.8 30

LT 3.2 3.4 59

LV 4.3 4.0 43

MT 0.9 1.4 71

PL 20.8 4.9 21

RO 13.9 3.4 22

SI 6.4 6.5 70

SK 6.4 2.7 23

EU13 100.0 4.2 31

Research Centres performance

Source: e-Corda


Rank Organisation Participations Country

1 INSTITUT JOZEF STEFAN 120 SI

2INSTYTUT PODSTAWOWYCH PROBLEMOW TECHNIKI POLSKIEJ AKADEMII

NAUK 52 PL

3BAY ZOLTAN ALKALMAZOTT KUTATASI KOZHASZNU NONPROFIT

KFT. 43 HU

4 INSTYTUT CHEMII BIOORGANICZNEJ PAN 43 PL

5MAGYAR TUDOMANYOS AKADEMIA SZAMITASTECHNIKAI ES

AUTOMATIZALASI KUTATO INTEZET 34 HU

6MAGYAR TUDOMANYOS AKADEMIA WIGNER FIZIKAI

KUTATOKOZPONT 29 HU

7MAGYAR TUDOMANYOS AKADEMIA ENERGIATUDOMANYI

KUTATOKOZPONT 26 HU

8UNITATEA EXECUTIVA PENTRU FINANTAREA INVATAMANTULUI SUPERIOR,

A CERCETARII, DEZVOLTARII SI INOVARII 26 RO

10

TECHNOLOGICKE CENTRUM AKADEMIE VED CESKE REPUBLIKY 25 CZ

10

RUDER BOSKOVIC INSTITUTE 25 HR

Research Centres: EU 13 TOP 10


Organisation Participations

EESTI INNOVATSIOONI INSTITUUT 21

ESTONIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 6

TARTU OBSERVATORY 6

INSTITUTE OF BALTIC STUDIES 5

PRAXIS CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES 5

ESTONIAN INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT/STOCKOLM ENVIROMENTAL INSTITUTE TALLIN CENTRE 4

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL PFHYSICS AND BYOPHISICS 4

INSTITUTE OF CYBERNETICS OF TUT 4

REC – Estonian organizations in FP7


% EU13 No.of projects per beneficiary % Top 3 in the country

BG 6.5 1.6 15

CY 4.4 2.0 21

CZ 14.4 1.8 14

EE 6.1 1.5 13

HR 4.2 1.9 29

HU 12.9 1.9 15

LT 4.3 1.3 12

LV 1.6 1.2 26

MT 1.7 2.0 33

PL 18.2 1.6 11

RO 11.2 1.6 10

SI 9.1 1.6 12

SK 5.5 1.6 18

EU13 100.0 1.7 15

PRC performance

Source: e-Corda


Small and Medium Enterprises performance

% EU13 No. of projects per beneficiary % Top 3 in the country

BG 6.5 1.7 20

CY 5.2 1.8 23

CZ 13.8 1.6 8

EE 7.5 1.5 14

HR 3.0 2.0 44

HU 14.4 1.9 18

LT 4.7 1.3 14

LV 1.8 1.2 30

MT 1.8 2.2 38

PL 16.9 1.5 12

RO 10.3 1.7 14

SI 9.0 1.6 16

SK 5.1 1.5 19

EU13 100.0 1.6 17

Source: e-Corda


Organisation Participations

ARDORAN OU 6

ESTONIAN PUBLIC BROADCASTING 6

ELECTRONICS DESIGN LTD 5

ASPER BIOTECH AS 4

CYBERNETICA AS 4

PRC – Estonian organizations in FP7


TOTAL EU 27

WithEU15

WithEU 12

With candidate andassociated countries

With nationalstakeholders

EE 4,493 3,622 871 921 292

Geographical overview Estonia collaborative links for all the programmes of FP7

Source: Sixth Monitoring report FP7 – Table B3 of EU27 Collaborative links for all programmes. E-Corda estraction date: 2013/02/26. Croatia is included in the “Candidate countries”

EU 15 countries with which Estonia cooperates the most: -UK: 521-DE: 516-IT: 366-ES: 340-FR: 321

EU 12 countries with which Estonia cooperates the most: -PL: 123 -RO: 93-HU: 91Candidate and associated countries: -NO: 167-CH: 111-TR: 84


OverviewFP7 participants per Thematic Priorities


FP7 Thematic PrioritiesHealth Health

KBBE Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

NMP Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies

Energy Energy

ENV Environment

TPT Transport (including Aeronautics)

SSH Social Science and Humanities

SPA Space

SEC Security

Other Instruments

RSME Research for the benefit of SMEs

People IAPP ITN Strengthening, quantitatively and qualitatively, the human potential in R&D in Europe (Marie Curie actions)


SPA: Space; SEC: Securuty; TPT: Transport


Participation in ERC

Participation in ERC / FP7 (2007-2013)

CYPRUS 4

ESTONIA 2

SLOVENIA 1


OverviewFunding Issues

Structural Factors affecting participation to EU programmes

Source: e-Corda


Contribution to EU budget 2012 (%)

Return on FP7 2007-2012(%)

Return on Structural Funds 2007-2013 (%)

BG 0.27 0.28 1.98

CY 0.12 0.22 0.19

CZ 0.99 0.68 7.77

EE 0.11 0.23 1.00

HU 0.60 0.75 7.36

LT 0.21 0.17 2.00

LV 0.15 0.16 1.34

MT 0.04 0.05 0.25

PL 2.53 1.17 19.57

RO 0.95 0.41 5.68

SI 0.24 0.45 1.23

SK 0.46 0.21 2.36

Sources: Eurostat and Sixth Monitoring report FP7

Returns on EU budget


ERDF-FP7 participation

FP7 contribution 2007-2013(m euro)

ERDF earmarked budget for R&D 2007-2013 (m euro)

85.8 655

• Is the ERDF perceived as investment for future participation in FP7/H2020?

• Are there any projects to develop synergies in the near future?

• S3?

Source: DG Research and DG Regio – Cohesion policy 2007-20013: Research and Innovation


International mobility of researchers

In 2010 in Estonia the percentage of doctoral candidates (ISCED 6) who were citizens of another EU-27 Member State was 5.3%, lower with the EU 27 average of 7.8%₁.In Estonia non-EU doctoral candidates were 1.5% of all candidates (EU average of 20.0%₂)

1 Researchers’ Report 2013 Country Profile: Estonia2 idem

Participation in International networksA recent survey in ICT area demonstrated that the coordinators choose their research team in 49% from previous collaborations and 27% on the suggestion of other consortium members. This means that for a collaborative research, networking and cooperation skills may be as important as research expertise, which represents a barrier for newcomers who are not well connected to European networks.


Beneficiaries of the mobility programmes – FP7 PeopleDevelopments in the participation in the mobility programmes

FP5participants

FP6participants

FP7Participants(2007- 2011)




EE 29 21 41 0.37 % 0.34 % 0.34 %

Source: 5th FP7 monitoring report and e-Corda

Knowledge of English among the population

% population able to hold conversation in English

EE 50

EU 28 49,5

EU 15 56,0

EU 13 43,1

Notes: For % of people able to have an English conversation, UK and IE are excluded. Also only EU citizens are included


Performance v/s Potential

Actual participation (n°projects) 412

Estimate 1 (By population)Difference

238+174

Estimation 2 (By R&D Staff)Difference

198+214

Estimate 3 (By scholarly int. publications)Difference

231+181

Estimate 4 (Success rate)Difference

422-10


The Decision Tree for participating in Horizon 2020

Source: Mirris Scoping Paper - Eurada


OverviewParticipation patterns

Source: e-Corda


“By Necessity”

“By Opportunity”

Attitudes towards FP7

By Necessity: Stands for striving for EU budget=Extra budget

By opportunity: Stands for being EU projects an opportunity to capitalise on excellence

Disclaimer: The above noted statements are not based on the scientific point of view, but are based on the analytical findings


Opportunistic

Laziness

ItalyDenmarkFinlandSwedenGreece

Possible attitude towards FP7 – 2nd part

Strategic approach: Italy –Setting up of a national agency to enhance the participation in EU research - APRE; Denmark, Finland and Sweden: Research and Innovation as key national strategyTactical approach: Greece: role of diaspora and education abroad. The connections of individuals may be an useful source of connection to facilitate the participation in EU research programmes. Belgium: Legal headquarters of many EU organizations.

NetherlandsUK

SpainGreece

France………

Strategic/tactical


OverviewFindings

Source: e-Corda


FP Performance and wider innovation indicators for Estonia benchmarked to EU 28 and EU 13 averages

Source: Eurostat, 2011 and Sixth monitoring report FP7


Key highlights to be addressedMain findings from the scoping paper

Estonia success rate in applying for FP7 is higher than the EU13 average (EE 21.2 % vs EU13 18.4) and very close to the EU 27 average (21.7%) ;

The gain per head of population is 52.3€, compares to an EU 13 average of 13.50€, and close to EU 27 standing at €58.04. The average number of € per beneficiary in Estonia is a bit lower than the EU 13 average (165 k vs 167), and far from EU27 average (324k).


Questions and Answers


What influence is due to structural issues: quality of excellence in R&D capability of drafting good proposals awareness of the stakeholders

What influence have subjective and perception issues: reputation of the R&D eco-system openness for involvement in networks talent to transform an idea into a proposal

What influence have objective issues: date of full membership to the EU size of the population costs of wages number of stakeholders targeted by the FP7 programme availability of national budget quality of research


Questions related to performances of specific stakeholders groups Are there some HEI not participating in FP7 cooperation projects?

Should some of them be more proactive? Are there some RCs not participating in FP7 cooperation projects?

Should some of them be more proactive? How to stimulate better participation of SMEs?

Questions on synergies with Structural Funds Is ERDF funding perceived as investment for future participation in

FP7/HORIZON 2020? Is there any thought to develop synergies between ERDF and

HORIZON 2020 policies? Have R&D stakeholders difficulties to generate a dynamic flow of good

ERDF projects?


What tools should be put in place in order to increase the quantity and the quality of the submitted projects?

How the awareness of stakeholders influence participation? Should Estonia try to increase the amount captured per project instead of increasing the total number of projects funded?

To ensure the higher number of proposals to bring a larger number of primo-users of EU funding or to help current beneficiaries to be involved in more projects?

……………………….

Questions on where to go


For more:

[email protected]

tallin, estonia – june 17, 2014 - first policy dialogue first policy dialogue tallin, estonia june...

Documents