Presented during the Ministerial Round Table on Science and Higher Education. From Bilateral to pan-European Cooperation held over 21-22 May 2010 in Tirana, Albania

1. 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
2

3. 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

4. SEE eligibility for European research funding instruments
FP6 FP7 COST Eureka Eurostars
Albania X X - 1992 -
(NIP)
Bosnia & X X 2009 2009 -
Herzegovina (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 - - -
*In FP6 Serbia & Montenegro were eligible as a single entity
NIP = National Information Point, not yet full member
4

5. Some key facts from FP6 for SEE countries
Albania Bosnia & Croatia FYR of Serbia &
Herzegovina Macedonia Montenegro
Total number
of selected 35 (7/yr) 42 (8/yr) 134 (27/yr) 45 (9/yr) 104 (21/yr)
FP6 projects
Average # of
national
1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3
partners /
project
Average # of
partners / 14.1 12.7 18.3 12.0 15.4
project
• 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 5
Research Co-operation Programmes, October 2009, in framework of WBC-INCO.net

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

7. FP6 participation and contribution of SEE
Source: European Commission DG RTD, 2008

8. 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

9. 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. 25 50
Number of eligible proposals with at % 00 one applicant in country
least
and success rates, FP7 (2007/2008) 45
00
20 40
% 00
35
00
15 30
% 00
25
00
10 20
% 00
15
00
5 10
% 00
50
0
0
0
%
..
Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010 10
For Turkey, in 2007 no. of submitted proposals and not eligible proposals. Data not available for Serbia and Kosovo

11. 45
Number of eligible proposals with at % 30 one applicant in country
least
and success rates, INCO-NETS (2007/2008)
40
%
25
35
%
30
20
%
25
%
15
20
%
15
10
%
10
%
5
5
%
0
0
%
..
Source: eCORDA and CORDIS, 2010 11
Data not available for Turkey, Serbia and Kosovo

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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
15

16. Annex – tables
16

17. FP6 participation and contribution in SEE
Source: European Commission DG RTD, 2008

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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