Note to ERAC Delegates

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2015) /06/2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH & INNOVATION Directorate A - Policy Development and Coordination The Head of Unit A.2 - Programming and Interinstitutional Relations Brussels, 12 June 2015 Note to ERAC Delegates Please find attached for information an update on the European Semester 2015, focusing on the outcomes as regards the R&I aspects. ERAC would have a discussion in the Autumn 2015 when more information will be available on the European Semester 2016 and the review of the Europe 2020 strategy. Don Jacques Faggianelli Enc.: Annex 1: European Semester Thematic Fiche 'Research and Innovation' Commission européenne/europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel Office: ORBÁN 01/49 - Tel. direct line

2 UPDATE ON THE EUROPEAN SEMESTER 2015: OUTCOMES AS REGARDS THE R&I ASPECTS 1. General overview ERAC - Standing Information Point 7 July 2015 On 13 May 2015, the Commission issued its proposals for country-specific recommendations (CSRs) for each Member State 1 in the context of the European Semester process, along with an overarching Communication on how to strengthen and sustain the recovery and how the streamlined European Semester is being implemented. The overall number of CSRs has been significantly reduced compared to previous years, in order to focus them on a limited number of key priority issues of macro-economic and social relevance that require action by Member States in the short term. This is part of the streamlining of the Semester process, aimed at fostering national ownership, accountability and implementation. As reminded in the Communication, the other key element of this streamlining of the European Semester was the publication of the Commission's country-specific analyses ('Country Reports') three months earlier than in previous years (on 27 February 2015). This has allowed for a more intensive outreach at political and technical levels and for a deeper discussion with Member States and social partners on key issues underpinning the Commission's analysis in advance of the CSRs adoption. The ERAC workshop of 17 March 2015, organised by DG RTD on the R&I chapters of the Country Reports, was part of this new approach. The overarching Communication lays the ground for this year's CSRs, starting from the Commission's analysis of the present economic situation: - Growth is returning to the EU, with Europe's economies benefitting from many supporting factors at once. Oil prices are relatively low, global growth is steady, the euro has continued to depreciate and economic policies in the EU are supportive of growth. The Commission forecasts GDP growth to be 1.8% in the EU (1.5% in the euro area) in 2015 and expects the trend to accelerate to 2.1% in 2016 (1.9% in the euro area). - However, these positive developments are largely short-term. The EU still faces underlying weaknesses as a result of the crisis and of the low longer-term growth trends already experienced pre-crisis. For instance, the trend in declining productivity growth has not yet been reversed. - In this context, the 2015 CSRs focus on encouraging the national efforts needed to overcome these weaknesses and build a robust and balanced recovery that is sustainable beyond the short run. In this respect, it is critical that Member States make full use of the opportunity offered by this nascent economic recovery to deliver on structural reforms..europa.eu/europe2020/maldng-it-happen/countrv-specifie 2

3 - The 2015 CSRs focus thus on four key objectives: i) removing barriers to financing and supporting investment, ii) improving the business environment and productivity, iii) adapting public finances to make them more supportive to growth, iv) improving employment policy and social protection. - Concerning the objective of adapting public finances to make them more supportive to growth, while the Communication stresses again the need for Member States with high deficits or debt levels to make further efforts to achieve fiscal sustainability, it also clearly calls on the Member States with fiscal space to take measures to support productive investment. Changes in the composition of public finances are critical to make them more supportive to growth. - Finally, it is to be noted that the Communication refers to the importance of monitoring the European Research Area (ERA) and the Innovation Union (IU). The Commission also issued on 13 May 'thematic fiches' comparing Member States' performance in the main policy areas relevant to boost investment, accelerate structural reforms and pursue responsible growth friendly fiscal consolidation. The 'Research and Innovation' thematic fiche is annexed to this note. It includes a horizontal analysis of the R&I parts of the Country Reports, identifying key challenges that need to be addressed in order to boost R&I performance. 2. The Country-Specific Recommendations addressing R&I The 2015 Commission CSR proposals for Estonia, Germany, Latvia and the Netherlands include a CSR addressing research and innovation. Two of those CSRs (for Germany and the Netherlands) are focused on the need to increase public R&D investments 2, following from the analyses in the Country Reports and in line with the overall orientation set in the overarching Communication accompanying the recommendations ("Member States with fiscal space should take measures to support productive investment"). Concerning both Estonia and Latvia, the aim of the CSRs is to support the pursuit of the on-going reform process in the context of their smart specialisation strategies and in particular the effective implementation of the previously announced policy measures. Finally, it should be noted that for five Member States (in addition to the four Member States with a CSRs on R&I), the Commission proposals for Council Recommendations address R&I aspects in the recitals, which set the framework against which the CSRs are established. These recitals are in line with the 2014 R&I CSRs for these countries and focus mainly on: entrepreneurship, business dynamism and administrative barriers for Belgium, efficiency in translating R&D investments into innovation for Finland, knowledge transfer for Portugal and quality and industry relevance of the science base for Slovakia. In the case of Spain, in addition to the two elements of the 2014 CSR (funding and set up of the State Research Agency), the recital also mentions the need for measures to make the business environment more innovation-friendly. The Commission's proposals for CSRs are currently being discussed with the Member States in the various Council configurations. Heads of State and Government are 2 For NL, the CSR covers also the need to "work on framework conditions for improving private R&D expenditure" 3

4 expected to endorse the recommendations at the European Council of June The CSRs will then be formally adopted in July.

5 Analysis of key issues stemming ftom the Semester Country Reports The Netherlands Germany Latvia Estonia - Public R&D intensity in the Netherlands, at 0.84% in 2013, is lower than in most of the Member States with similar levels of economic development and education attainment which have continued to raise their support to public research in recent years, while the Netherlands slipped from holding the fourth position in terms of public R&D intensity in the EU in 2011 to the eighth place in Moreover, the overall level of public support to R&D is expected to decline over the period : for this period, direct support for R&D is expected to decrease by 6% and indirect support through fiscal instruments by 7%. - Balanced headline budgets and structural surpluses in the years to come create scope for investment in the economy's future growth potential. - While Germany is close to achieving its R&D expenditure target of 3% of GDP, other leading innovative economies are investing even more. - In Latvia, following an external evaluation of the performance of its research institutions, a new institutional funding system is being introduced to allocate more resources to institutions assessed as excellent at international level. Incentives have been introduced for research institutions to merge in line with the Smart Specialisation Framework. However, the reform process is still at an early stage and needs to be supported by adequate resources. Discussions on the implementation of the Smart Specialisation Strategy are still on-going and work is still needed on detailed implementation plans and monitoring mechanism. - The situation in terms of resources is also a major concern and puts at risk the effective implementation of the reforms. Public R&D intensity decreased over the last year from 0.51% to 0.43%. R&D funding has become excessively dependent on EU structural funds, which have been used to replace national funding: national budget for R&D (GBOARD) has been reduced by half since In Estonia, the Research, Development and Innovation Strategy and the Entrepreneurship Growth Strategy provide the appropriate framework for the reform process in the context of the smart specialisation strategy. It is essential now to ensure the coordinated and effective implementation of the two strategies. This requires notably improving the coordination between different Ministries and agencies and ensuring appropriate involvement of stakeholders. - Key steps of the reform process expected in 2015 include the set-up of an applied research programme in support of public-private projects in the smart specialisation areas, the piloting of seven Technological Competence Centres and some improvements in the innovation voucher scheme aiming to enable SMEs to collaborate with public research. 5

6 European Commission EUROPEAN SEMESTER THEMATIC FICHE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION Research and innovation (R&I) is at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy, given its essential role in triggering smart and sustainable growth and in addressing societal challenges. Beyond the direct impact of R&I new, innovative and greener products, processes and services; scientific publications; patents R&I has a broader economic impact, translating into greater market shares, higher productivity, industrial competitiveness and resource efficiency. 1. The main R&I policy challenges in the Member States R&I systems are complex ecosystems which need various elements to perform. Given the diversity of national R&I systems across the EU, it is important to identify the main bottlenecks in each. The R&I policy analyses in the Commission's Country Reports 1 are therefore based on a two-step approach: 1. Identifying, for each Member State, based on a set of R&I performance indicators, what its main R&I policy challenges are: that is, finding the main bottlenecks impeding the full contribution of R&I to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and; 2. Assessing the adequacy of the policy response to the identified challenges. The main R&I policy challenges identified in the 2015 Country Reports can be grouped in three broad categories: 1.1 Quality of the public R&I system: level and efficiency of public spending The public R&I system (composed of higher education institutions and other public organisations performing research and innovation such as public research centres and institutes) plays a key role in generating the knowledge and talent needed by innovative firms. Analysing its quality across Member States helps identify those Member States where this is a bottleneck to be tackled. 1 en.htm Thematic fiches are supporting background documents prepared by the services of the Commission in the context of the European Semester of economic policy coordination. They do not necessarily represent the official position of the Institution.

7 There are a number of relevant objective indicators to assess the quality of the public R&I system. Among those, some use "bibliometrics" to measure the impact of scientific publications on the generation of new science. Others focus on how many of the prestigious 'European Research Council' grants are given to researchers in a country, as these are considered to award scientific excellence. Finally, the number of top performing universities in a country according to international rankings provides relevant information about scientific performance. All those indicators point to a clear and persistent 'East-West' science divide in Europe, with overall lower quality of public R&I systems in all Central and Eastern European countries (as well as Cyprus and Malta) compared to the other Member States. This is complemented by a 'North-South' differential, as Greece, Portugal, Spain and France performing just below the EU average, and holding an intermediate position between Central and Eastern European countries and Northern Europe. Chart 1 presents: - On the vertical axis, a bibliometric indicator of scientific excellence: the percentage of highly-cited scientific publications among all national scientific publications 2, and; - on the horizontal axis, an input indicator: the public R&D intensity, i.e. the level of expenditure on Research and Development performed in the public research system as a % of GDP. 2 As it is necessary to analyse the citations in a window of several years after the publication date, the most recent data concern publications made in

8 Chart 1: Highly-cited publications (scientific publications within the 10% most cited scientific publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country) versus public R&D intensity (government exp. on R&D plus higher education exp. on R&D) NĽ DK o м (A S 1 10 Λ 3 α Ό š 8 o >. f O) 'x 6 MT CY SK EL RO HR» LV BG HU LU IE IT CZ 'lt PL UK BE ES FT SI EU EE FR AT DE SE Fl 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 Public R&D intensity, ' 1,0 1,1 1,2 Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation - Unit for Analysis and Monitoring of National Research Policies. Notes: (1) Fractional Counting method. (2) EL: Data: Eurostat, Science Metrix/Scopus (Elsevier), Chart 1 shows various typical situations: - Based on both the indicators used, Latvia, Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania are the Member States with the weakest science base: the low quality of the public R&I system in these Member States is a key bottleneck to be addressed, in particular through capacity-building. For these countries, increasing investment will need to go hand in hand with far-reaching reforms to increase efficiency. - The Netherlands and Denmark, followed by the United Kingdom, Belgium and Sweden, are the Member States with the strongest science base. Their key challenge is to translate this world class science base into an increased innovation intensity in the economy. 3

9 - Some Member States like France and Finland do not show a level of scientific performance in line with their level of public R&D expenditure, highlighting an issue with the efficiency of investment. Chart 2 shows recent trends in public R&D intensity (growth on the horizontal axis vs. absolute level on the vertical axis). Chart 2: Public R&D intensity (government expenditure on R&D plus higher education expenditure on R&D as % of GDP) 1,1 1,0 0,9 NL Fl SE AT DE л DK EE 'CZ 0,8 FR Ě 0,7 EU ш LT»BE.<2 Ξ 0,6 0,5 0,4 UK HR HU PT Sl 4 β ES IE IT LV 1» CY PL LU SK EL MT o,3 RO BG 0, Public R&D intensity - compound annual growth (1> (%), (2 > 14 Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation - Unit for Analysis and Monitoring of National Research Policies. Data: Eurostat. Notes: (1) FR, LU, RO, SI: Breaks in series were taken into account when calculating compound annual growth. (2) PT: ; EL: Various typical situations can be noted: - In some Member States, such as Denmark and Germany, the level of funding of the public research system continued to increase throughout the crisis, from an already high level of public R&D intensity. 4

10 - Several Central and Eastern European countries (in particular Slovakia, Estonia and the Czech Republic) also display strong growth rates in public R&D intensity since thanks in particular to significant mobilisation of European Structural Funds. - Some Member States which already had a public R&D intensity well below the EU average (as well as a low quality of the public R&I system as shown on Chart 1), such as Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Hungary, have experienced budget cuts in their public R&D in recent years instead of building R&I capacities through more investments: these cuts risk delaying considerably the transformation of these countries into knowledge-based economies. - Negative trends in Member States with a high quality public R&I system, such as the United Kingdom, are worrying as they risk undermining those countries' strengths. However, merely increasing investment will not get the job done. Ambitious reforms of national R&I systems are needed to increase the efficiency of funding of those systems and their capacity to leverage business investment. The Country Reports identify various reforms around three priority axes: quality of strategy development and of the policy making process; quality of programmes, resource prioritisation and funding mechanisms; and quality of research and innovation-performing institutions. 4 Among these, the use of international panels to allocate project-based funding and the use of performance criteria in distributing institutional funding are most often identified as drivers to increase the efficiency of public R&I spending. Progress in relation to one or more of these drivers is notably required in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain. Moreover, in some Member States (e.g. Croatia and Romania), excessive fragmentation at the level of research-performing institutions is an obstacle to increasing the efficiency of the public research system. 1.2 Leveraging business R&I through public-private cooperation Some Member States urgently need to increase the overall quality of the public science base; while others need to better harness the strengths of their science base to create economic wealth and jobs. This requires in particular fostering science-business links and cooperation between the public R&I system and the business sector. Chart 3 below displays on its vertical axis one of the most significant indicators about the level of public-private cooperation in R&I: the volume of research which is performed in the public R&I system and which is funded by business (as % of GDP). These indicators are particularly relevant ones as 'contract research' or direct investments by firms in concrete projects carried out by public research organisations provide clear indications of strong public-private engagement in R&I. 3 As a result, in Estonia and the Czech Republic, public R&D intensity is now higher than, for example, in Spain or Italy (even higher than the EU average). 4 Annual Growth Survey 2015 (section on 'Structural reforms at Member States level') and Communication 'Research and Innovation as sources of renewed growth', COM(2014)339 final: 5

11 Chart 3 also takes into account the level of business R&D intensity (on the horizontal axis): if a country does not have much business R&D, the possibility of public-private cooperation is obviously very limited. Chart 3: Public expenditure on R&D (government expenditure on R&D plus higher education expenditure on R&D) financed by business enterprise as % of GDP C) versus BERD intensity (business enterprise expenditure on R&D as % of GDP) s 0,12 CO 0ä11 LT DE 8 *4,10 5? CO «0,08 <ň o NL! 0,08 0,07 C Φ '5 3 ο,οβ Jd S 0,05 α 0,04 Ř ő 0,03? 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,0 LV RO m EL HR m SK CY PL% BG MT s 0,5 ES LU IT PT EE m HU UK cz IE EU BE» FR 1,0 1,5 BERD intensity, 2013«Sl» Fl AT 9 SE DK 2,0 2,5 Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation - Unit for Analysis and Monitoring of National Research Policies. Data: Eurostat. Notes: (1) Public expenditure on R&D financed by business enterprise does not include financing from abroad. (2) BE, AT: 2011; DE, IE, ES, FR, IT, CY, PT, EU: Countries with a low performance level on the indicator of public-private cooperation are most often also those with an overall low-quality science base. However, some Member States with an average or even excellent science base clearly do not have a level of publicprivate cooperation as high as could be expected. This includes Portugal, Italy, Luxembourg, Ireland (Member States with an average quality science base), as well as, e.g., Denmark and Sweden (despite their scientific excellence). The Country Reports identify several factors which explain the low level of public-private cooperation, and which need to be addressed to raise it: 6

12 - A mismatch between public research capacities and the needs of the economy. For instance, in Luxembourg, the rapid build-up of public research capacities over the last three decades has not always been based on a sufficiently thorough assessment of the potential for developing related economic activities. Smart specialisation strategies should focus resources where competitive economic activities can be developed; this is critical to boost science-business cooperation, with public spending leveraging private investment. - The public support system needs to be designed so that public research capacities mobilise to address the needs of industry and the economy. This requires in particular: o o incentives for public research, notably at institutional level (e.g. through adequate criteria for institutional funding which favour engagement with businesses) and at researcher level (e.g. through recognising experience working with the business sector when developing public sector careers); targeted funding schemes for public-private projects, proofs-of-concept, research agendas defined with industry, PhDs studentships in industry. For instance, in Denmark, a recent evaluation report recommends adjusting the criteria for allocating institutional funding, setting goals for knowledge exchange in triennial universitygovernment contracts, improving recognition and promotion of researchers engaging in knowledge exchange, involving more students in knowledge transfer activities, and increasing proof of concept funding. 1.3 An investment-friendly environment It is only through business investment in R&I that the expected economic impact of R&I can fully materialise. Yet the EU lags significantly behind other leading regions in this respect. It is crucial to step up reforms at the national level to ensure an investment-friendly environment: stimulating Europe's companies to innovate, more quickly implementing measures with a full impact on the innovation ecosystem, and eliminating regulatory barriers. Chart 4 below displays trends in business R&D intensity (growth on horizontal axis vs. absolute level on vertical axis). While some Member States experienced strong growth of business R&D intensity as their economies "catch up", others suffered negative trends over This includes Romania, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Latvia, Spain, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland. 7

13 Chart 4: 2,6 BERD intensity (business enterprise expenditure on R&D as % of GDP) Fi ^SE DK JAT DE Sf FR BE LU m ES NL UK EU IT IE CZ ť EE HU m RO LT LV OY MT m HR EL 9 SK «PL -5 0 S Intensity - compound annual growth (%) (2), (3) Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation - Unit for Analysis and Monitoring of National Research Policies. Data; Eurostat. Notes: (1) IE: (2) NL, RO, SI: Breaks in series were taken into account when calculating compound annual growth. (3) IE: ; ES, SI: ; EL: The Annual Growth Survey 2015 highlights the need to help fast-growing SMEs in innovative sectors to emerge and develop. This will help speed up structural change and transform the EU into a more knowledge-oriented and innovation-driven economy. Moreover, there is clear evidence that growth depends critically upon fast-growing firms, which generate a disproportionally large share of jobs. However, when new firms are founded in the EU, they grow more slowly than in the US or emerging countries; fewer of them join the ranks of the world's largest. Chart 5 below displays the number of employees in fast-growing firms (growth by 10% or more) as a share of the total number of employees. 8

14 Chart 5: Share of employment in high growth (>10%) enterprises, 2012 < 1 16,00 14,00 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. Data: Eurostat. For instance, the low score of Belgium is interesting to note, in contrast to Belgium's good performance on all other indicators previously examined. The weaknesses of Belgium in terms of entrepreneurship and firm dynamics inhibit the renewal its economy needs. This is a bottleneck impeding the full translation of the strengths of its R&I system into economic performance. Although well-designed policies enabled business R&D intensity to increase in Belgium, R&D remains to a large extent concentrated in a limited set of large multinationals. Besides the factors related to the science base, the Country Reports identify other factors and issues to be addressed to enable business R&D and innovation to flourish. These are often issues related to the availability, accessibility and efficiency of direct public support for R&I and other incentives aimed at stimulating business R&D. Administrative burdens linked to public support can be important obstacles, especially for SMEs. In some Member States (e.g. Poland), this concerns the efficiency of the R&D tax credits schemes, as some of these schemes might be skewed towards big companies and need to be fine-tuned to better take into account the needs of SMEs and young companies. Another issue often identified is the availability of a workforce with adequate skills. The Country Reports often mention skills shortages due to mismatches between academic curricula and labour market needs. Access to finance is also an essential aspect and is covered in a separate thematic fiche. In general, fostering an environment favourable to business R&D investment and innovation requires coherently mobilising a range of policies: departing from a 'silo' approach and developing a 'whole government' approach to the policy mix. In many Member States, the key issue is to ensure strengthened and more effective governance. 9

15 2. The situation of the Member States vis-à-vis their national R&D intensity target R&D intensity (R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP) reflects the extent of R&D activities undertaken in a given country, both in the public and private sectors. The Europe 2020 strategy set a 3% objective for R&D intensity for the EU as a whole and most Member States have adopted a national R&D intensity target for Europe continues to be a strong global performer in R&D. With only 7% of the world's population, the EU accounts for 24% of world research spending, 32% of high impact publications, and 32% of patent applications. The EU is the destination for 30% of worldwide foreign direct investment, more than the US or Japan. The EU has over the past decade maintained its position on the global scene much better than the US. However, the EU is not up to speed in relation to R&I investments. Insufficient progress has been made towards the Europe 2020 R&D intensity target (EU-28 R&D intensity in 2013 was 2.01%), with EU companies investing less in R&D than in other regions (EU 1.28% of GDP; US 1.96%; Japan 2.60%; China 1.51%) and wide disparities between countries (R&D intensity for Finland 3.31%; for Romania 0.39%). Chart 6 below shows for each Member State the level of its national target and the level of R&D intensity reached in Chart 6: R&D Intensity In 2013< 1 ) and target for 2020 //////// У y ' / R&D InUnslty 201J R&D Intensity Ure Source: DG Research and Innovation - Unit for the Analysis and Monitoring of National Research Policies. Data: Eurostat, Member States. Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) IE: CZ: A target (of 1%) is available only for the public sector. UK: A target for 2020 is not available. IE: The national target of 2.5% of GNP has been estimated to equal 2.0 в /о of GDP. PT: The target is between 2.70% and 3.30% (3.00% was assumed). LU: The target is between 2.30% and 2.60% (2.45% was assumed). 10

16 Table 1 in the Annex shows, for each Member State, the actual growth in R&D intensity achieved until 2013 with the growth needed to reach the target In 24 Member States, R&D intensity has increased , but most Member States need significantly faster growth in R&D intensity to meet their target. The situation is even more challenging for Romania, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Finland, which need to reverse a decreasing trend. In Spain, Sweden and Croatia, the situation over can be best described as stagnation. While Denmark, Cyprus and Germany have achieved their targets,or are soon due to, the level of ambition of these targets can be questioned. Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Ireland, Estonia and to some extent Belgium seem on track to reach their target, but the sustainability of recent trends needs to be carefully assessed in each case. For instance, in Estonia, the growth of business R&D intensity has to a large extent been concentrated in only one sector (shale oil), reflecting more a specific circumstance than the overall attractiveness of the country for business R&D investment. In Hungary, contrasting trends in public and private R&D put into question the sustainability of the overall growth of R&D, as the diminishing public R&D undermines the availability of highly skilled human resources in science and technology. 11

17 ANNEX Table 1: Situation of each Member State with regard to its R&D intensity target R&D intensity 2013 Target 2020 Average annual growth (%) n Average annual growth ("/cí (2Í Average annual growth (%) required to meet the 2020 target Finland 3,31 4, ,7 Sweden 3,30 4, ,8 Denmark 3,06 3, ,3 Germany 2,85 3, ,7 Austria 2,81 3, ,2 Slovenia 2,59 3, ,1 Belgium 2,28 3, ,0 амн France 2,23 3, ,3 2,01 3, ,9 Netherlands 1,98 2, ,4 Czech Republic 1,91 na« Estonia 1J4 3, ,1 United Kingdom 1,63 na Ireland 1, (4> ,0 Hungary 1,41 1, ,6 Portugal 1, < 5 > Italy 1,26 1, ,9 Spain 1,24 2, ,1 Luxembourg 1, <5> Lithuania 0,95 1, ,4 Poland 0,87 1, ,1 Malta 0,85 2, ,0 Slovakia 0,83 1, ,4 Croatia 0,81 1, ,1 Greece 0,80 1, ,0 Bulgaria 0,65 1, ,7 Latvia 0,60 1, ,0 Cyprus 0,48 0, ,7 Romania 0,39 2, ,5 Source: DG Research and Innovation - Unit for the Analysis and Monitoring of National Research Policies. Data: Eurostat. Notes: (1) EL, LU, SE: ; IE: ; MT, HR: ; LT: ; Breaks in series: SE(2005); DK(2007); EL, PT(2008): FR (2000; 2004; 2010); NL, R0(2001),' HU, MT(2004). (2) IE: ; Break in series for DK(2007), NL, RO, Sl(2001), EL, PT, Sl(2008), FR(2010). (3) CZ: A target (of 1 %) is available only for the public sector. (4) IE: The national target of 2.5% of GNP has been estimated to equal 2.0% of GDP. (5) LU, PT: Calculation made on the basis of the lower target. (6) Values in italics are estimated or provisional. na = not available 12