Czech Republic in the EU Framework Programmes for R&D&I: success or failure? Vladimír Albrecht Technology Centre AS CR

Transcription

1 Czech Republic in the EU Framework Programmes for R&D&I: success or failure? Vladimír Albrecht Technology Centre AS CR

2 European Research Council (curiosity driven frontier research) HORIZON 22, , 77 bil. Excellent Science Industrial Leadership Societal challenges Leadership in Enabling Health, demographic and Industrial change and wellbeing Technologies Future and emerging technologies Information and communication technologies Nanotechnologies Advanced materials Biotechnology Advanced manufacturing Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine, maritime research, bio-economy Secure, clean and efficient energy Smart, green and integrated transport Climate actions, resource efficiency and raw materials Joint research centre Widening participation (1% of H22 budget) Science with and for society European Institute of Innovation and Technology Space Marie Curie-Sklodovska Europe in changing actions world: inclusive, Access to risk finance Joint programming innovative societies P2P Technology Secure societies Research protecting freedom Joint Technology Innovation in SME infrastructures and security of Europe Initiatives (industry and its citizens driven research) 36,8% 22,3% 36% 4,9%

3 billion Evolution of budgets of Framework Programmes (227) 12 1 will be likely proposed FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 H22 FP New member states

4 EU-28 (¹) Euro area (EA-19) (¹) Sweden (¹) Austria (¹)(²) Denmark (¹)(³) Finland Germany (¹) Belgium (¹) France (¹)(³) Slovenia (¹)(³) Netherlands (¹)(³) Czech Republic (¹) United Kingdom (¹)(³) Ireland (⁴) Estonia (¹) Hungary Italy (¹) Luxembourg (¹)(³) Portugal (¹)(³) Spain Slovakia Lithuania (¹) Poland Bulgaria (¹) Greece (¹)(³) Croatia Malta (¹) Latvia (¹) Romania (³) Cyprus (¹) South Korea (³)(⁵) Japan (³)(⁶) Switzerland (⁷)(⁸) United States (³)(⁹) Iceland (³) China (except Hong Kong) (³)(⁶) Norway (¹) Russia Turkey (⁶) Serbia (⁶)(⁸) Montenegro (⁶)(⁸) 4,5 EUROSTAT ( 4, 3,5 3, 2,5 CR 215 : 67% increase with respect to 25!!! 2, 1,5 1,,5,

5 EU-28 (¹) Euro area (EA-19) (¹) Sweden (¹) Austria (¹) Denmark (¹) Finland Germany (¹)(²)(³) Belgium (¹) Slovenia (¹) France (¹) Netherlands (¹)(²)(³) Czech Republic (¹) United Kingdom (¹) Ireland (¹)(³)(⁴) Estonia (¹) Hungary (²)(³) Italy (¹) Luxembourg (¹)(³) Portugal (¹) Spain Slovakia (²) Lithuania (³) Poland Greece (¹) Bulgaria (¹) Croatia (²)(³) Malta (¹) Latvia (¹)(³) Romania Cyprus (¹) South Korea (⁴) Japan (⁴) Switzerland (⁵) United States (¹)(²)(⁶) Iceland (³) China (except Hong Norway (¹)(³) Russia Turkey (³)(⁴) Serbia (⁴) Montenegro (²)(⁴) 4,5 Strategy EUROPA 22: by 22 R&D expenditure =3% GDP 2% private sector, 1% government sector 4, 3,5 3, Private non-profit sector 2,5 Higher education sector 2, Government sector 1,5 Business enterprise sector 1,,5,

6 GERD - euro per capita in PPS Trend of GERDs per capita (PPS) in the period V4 GERD represented some 5,7% of the EU28 GERD CZ SK HU PL EU28 AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

7 obsolete maturation innovation NEMESIS (New Economic Model of Evaluation by Sectoral Interdependency and Supply GDP gain in the period : 38 billion, 1 invested into FP7 increases GDP by 9

8 NEMESIS (New Economic Model of Evaluation by Sectoral Interdependency and Supply

9 summary support received from the EC (M ) The FP7 Member State support is proportional to the Member State contribution to the EU budget, thus FAIR DISTRIBUTION of the FP7 budget Data source y =,48x + 166,42 R² =,8794 corr =,938 UK FR DE 4 BE ES IT 3 NL 2 1 SE PL Red diamonds = New Member States summary EU membership fee (M )

10 Received percentage of the FP7 distributed budget in the years The portion of the FP7 distributed budget is proportional to the portion of the member state contribution to the EU budget, i.e. FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF THE FP7 SUPPORT 2% y =,886x +,44 R² =,8594 corr =,9274 DE 15% UK FR 1% BE ES IT 3% y =,2836x +,13 R² =,6798 5% NL 2% 1% % % 1% 2% 3% 4% % % 5% 1% 15% 2% 25% MS membership fee (in percent) in the years

11 FP7 support received from the EC ( M) The FP7 Member State support is proportional to the Member State GERD, thus Efficient distribution of the FP7 budget 7 6 y =,164x + 417,13 R² =,7838 corr =,885 UK FR DE 5 4 BE ES IT 3 NL 2 1 EL AT SE PL GERD ( M PPS),

12 Low participation of New Member States in submitting project proposals corresponds to the low level of their GERDs EE Excluded outliers: CY (771, 3624), MT(11,2352), SI (3153, 2743)

13 Received from FP7 ( ) per GERD (M ) The Old Member States received much higher support from the FP7 than the New Member States (likely due to their low researcher s salaries) CY EL BE LU MT NL ES IE IT UK LV EE DK BG SI SE FR AT HU FI PT LT DE RO PL SK CZ

14 Participations per one million inhabitants EU28 activity in preparing H22 project proposals 3 25 Participations per one million inhabitants CY SI LU DK FI EE MT IE BE NL EL SE AT PT ES UK IT LV LT DE HU HR FR CZ BG SK RO PL V4 has 12,6 % of the EU28 population but represents only 5,3% of EU28 participations in the eligible proposals submitted to H22

15 participations per summary FTE ( ) 1,4 1,2 EU28 activity in preparing H22 eligible project proposals Participations per FTE (in R&D) 1,8,6,4,2 CY MT SI EE LU EL LV IT ES HR IE BE NL PT RO AT FI DK BG LT HU UK SE SK DE CZ FR PL

16 participations per ME GERD ( ) EU28 activity in preparing H22 eligible project proposals Given GERD the New member States are more active in preparing project proposals than the Old Member States CY MT EL LV EE SI HR PT BG RO ES LT IE LU IT HU NL FI BE SK DK UK PL SE AT CZ FR DE

17 participation success rate participations in proposals per 1M inhabitants Participation success rates of the EU member states in H22 18% 3 16% 14% 25 12% 2 1% 8% 15 6% 1 4% 2% 5 % BE FR AT NL LU DE SE DK IE UK MT CZ ES FI SK PT EE EL RO PL LV IT LT HR CY SI HU BG participation success rate participations per million inhabitants

18 requested contribution from H22 (M ) participations in H22 Basic EU28 statistics of grants on participations and requested contribution from H DE UK FR ES IT NL BE SE AT DK EL FI IE PT PL CZ HU SI RO CY EE SK LU BG LV HR LT MT participations requested contribution H22

19 H22 contribution per EUR million spend on R&D H22 contribution per EUR million on R&D H22 contribution per research FTE Source: Interim evaluation of H22, EC staff working document (???) CY: H22 contribution per researcher FTE Comparisons: Per researcher EU15: EU13: CZ: Per million spend on R&D: EU15: EU13: !!! i.e. by 6,7% more CZ: CY EL MT EE PT LV ES SI IE NL RO BE HR LU IT HU FI UK BG DK AT LT SK SE FR PL CZ DE per million GERD per researcher EU13 represent 8,5% participations and receive 4,4% of the (so far distributed) funding

20 Collaboration with TOPN institutions in the FP7 and H22 Definition of TOPN institutions 1. TOP institutions = those that received from the EC highest support for their participation to solve the FP projects. (technically: rank the institutions participating in the FP according to their total support that they received from the FP). 2. TOPN = select first N TOP institutions from the ranking sub 1. rational choice of N: N is the smallest number of institutions that participated in solving the FP projects to which the EC allocated 51% of the FP budget distributed among the participants. TOPN can be defined for the whole FP or for some specified part of it (e.g. Societal challenge focused on health research).

21 TOP 15 institutions of the FP7 FP7 TOP15 institutions country Participations Support (M ) CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE FR FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG DE THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD UK THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE UK COMMISSARIAT A L ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVES FR MAX PLANCK GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V. DE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON UK EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZUERICH CH IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE UK ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE CH INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA RECHERCHE MEDICALE) FR KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN BE AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS ES THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE IT

22 TOP2 institutions of the H22 ( ) H22 TOP2 institutions country Participations CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS FR 569 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V. DE 455 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE UK 317 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD UK 294 COMMISSARIAT A L ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVES FR 291 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DEINVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS ES 286 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON UK 283 CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE IT 281 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 261 MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN EV DE 257 IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE UK 235 KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN BE 214 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT NL 191 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT EV DE 191 THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK 172 Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT Oy FI 159 EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZUERICH CH 159 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE CH 158 POLITECNICO DI MILANO IT 151 DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET DK 146

23 success rate share of participations in proposals prepared jointly with TOP15 3% Preparing project proposals jointly with TOP15 of the FP7 considerably increases the country success rate. Percentage of participations in proposals prepared jointly with TOP15 discriminates (almost precisely) between NMS and OMS. 6% 25% 5% 4% 2% 3% 15% 2% 1% FR DE BE UK IT NL ES SE AT FI DK LU CZ EL IE PT HU PL SI EE SK LT LV RO MT CY HR BG 1% success rate without TOP15 success rate with TOP15 % of participations in proposals prepared jointly with TOP15 Participation success rate EU13: without TOP15 =15,7%, with TOP15 = 23,6% EU15: without TOP15 = 19,3%, with TOP15 = 25,6% CZ: without TOP15 = 17,1%, with TOP15 = 26.7%

24 participation success rate share of participations in proposals prepared jointly with TOP2 Preparing project proposals jointly with TOP2 of the H22 considerably increases the country success rate. Percentage of participations in proposals prepared jointly with TOP2 discriminates (almost precisely) between NMS and OMS. 25% 6% 23% 55% 21% 5% 19% 45% 17% 4% 15% 35% 13% 3% 11% 25% 9% 2% 7% 15% 5% DK FR DE BE UK NL FI AT SE IT CZ EL LU ES PT IE CY PL RO HR SI EE SK MT HU LT LV BG 1% without TOP2 with TOP2 % of proposals jointly prepared with TOP2 Participation success rate EU13: without TOP2 = 9,4 %, with TOP2 = 16,8%!!! EU15: without TOP2 = 12,3 %, with TOP2 = 17,4 % CZ: without TOP2 = 1%, with TOP2 = 19,7%

25 Conclusions The long term low participation of the New Member States in the FPs is the consequence of their long term under-funding of R&D&I. Thus sustainable increase of the NMS GERD per capita, GERD/GDP is advisable. The same holds good particularly for CZ. The Czech Republic has very low the ratio received support from the FP7 or H22/ per million GERD (it is lowest among EU28). However, the CZ has among the NMS the highest percentage of FP7/H22 proposals prepared jointly with FP7 TOP15/H22 TOP2 institutions. The NMS should more collaborate with the H22 TOP institutions (TOP for the total H22 as well as TOP for specific sectors of the H22). Measures making it possible to enhance this collaboration should be mainly implemented at national/institutional level and the EC can accommodate its own measures supporting this collaboration (e.g. in the evaluation of project proposals)