Czech Republic in the EU Framework Programmes for R&D&I: success or failure? Vladimír Albrecht Technology Centre AS CR albrecht@tc.cz
European Research Council (curiosity driven frontier research) HORIZON 22, 214 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%
billion Evolution of budgets of Framework Programmes 1984 22 (227) 12 1 will be likely proposed 8 6 4 2 FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 H22 FP9 1984 1989 New member states
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 (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/r_%26_d_expenditure#r_.26_d_expenditure_by_sector_of_performance) 4, 3,5 3, 2,5 CR 215 : 67% increase with respect to 25!!! 2, 1,5 1,,5, 25 215
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,
GERD - euro per capita in PPS Trend of GERDs per capita (PPS) in the period 26-215 1 2 V4 GERD 214 215 represented some 5,7% of the EU28 GERD 1 8 6 4 2 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 213 214 215 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
obsolete maturation innovation NEMESIS (New Economic Model of Evaluation by Sectoral Interdependency and Supply GDP gain in the period 27-223: 38 billion, 1 invested into FP7 increases GDP by 9
NEMESIS (New Economic Model of Evaluation by Sectoral Interdependency and Supply
27-213 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 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/27-213/index_en.cfm 7 6 5 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 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 27-213 summary EU membership fee (M )
Received percentage of the FP7 distributed budget in the years 27-213 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 27-213
27-213 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 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 GERD ( M PPS), 27-213
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)
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) 12 1 8 6 4 2 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
Participations per one million inhabitants EU28 activity in preparing H22 project proposals 3 25 Participations per one million inhabitants 2 15 1 5 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
participations per summary FTE (214-216) 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
participations per ME GERD (214-215) 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 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 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
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
requested contribution from H22 (M ) participations in H22 Basic EU28 statistics of grants on participations and requested contribution from H22 45 8 4 7 35 6 3 25 2 15 1 5 4 3 2 5 1 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
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 (???) 3 25 2 15 1 5 CY: 768 657 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 H22 contribution per researcher FTE Comparisons: Per researcher EU15: 11 423 EU13: 3 812 CZ: 3 393 Per million spend on R&D: EU15: 63 277 EU13: 67 254!!! i.e. by 6,7% more CZ: 39 751 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
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).
TOP 15 institutions of the FP7 FP7 TOP15 institutions country Participations Support (M ) CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE FR 1524 793 FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG DE 125 568 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD UK 719 437 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE UK 737 424 COMMISSARIAT A L ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVES FR 745 423 MAX PLANCK GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V. DE 665 412 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON UK 6 351 EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZUERICH CH 562 337 IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE UK 657 325 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE CH 58 35 INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA RECHERCHE MEDICALE) FR 43 295 KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN BE 549 263 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS ES 79 26 THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK 414 234 CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE IT 694 23
TOP2 institutions of the H22 (214 216) 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
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%
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%
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)