first policy dialogue nicosia, cyprus april 25, 2014

Nicosia, Cyprus – April 25, 2014 - First policy dialogue

First Policy Dialogue Nicosia, Cyprus

April 25, 2014


OverviewMain findings of the country profile of Cyprus


Source: Eurostat, 2011 and Sixth monitoring report FP7

FP Performance and wider innovation indicators for Cyprus 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

CYPRUS 151 228 384 0.24% 0.48% 0.48%

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 lead

FP6 national market share lead

FP7 national market share lead

CYPRUS 8 25 64 0.05% 0.27% 0.33%

TOTAL: 16 103 9 407 19 180

As for the most of the EU 13 countries, Cyprus has improved the market share between FP5 and FP6, keeping the same percentage with FP7.

Cyprus organizations are more project leaders in FP7 than in FP6 and FP5.

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



CY 6 24 55 0.08% 0.38% 0.46%

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 76.8CZ 7.1 23.9 69.0

EE 7.3 13.6 79.1

HR 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 10


RankEU 13

RankEU 28 Organisation Participation

sCountr

y

1 87 UNIVERSZA V LJUBLJANA 137 SI

4 161 UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS 90 CY

5 173 UNIVERSITY OF TARTU 84 EE

14

338 KAUNAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 44 LT

15

351 VILNIUS UNIVERSITY 43 LT

21 448 UNIVERSITY OF MALTA 35 MT

22

455 UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA 34 LV

22

455 TALLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 34 EE

28

551 RIGA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 28 LV

HEI - Top performer reference countries (SI, LV, EE, LT, MT)


Organisation Participations

UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS 90

THE CYPRUS RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION 23

CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 17

AS CYPRUS COLLEGE LIMITED 5

EDEX-EDUCATION EXCELLENCE CORPORATION LIMITED 3

SCHOLAI FREDERICKOU 2

OPEN UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS, FREDERICK UNIVERSITY, NEAPOLIS UNIVERSITY AND THE CYPRUS INSTITUTE LIMITED 1 EACH

HEI– Cypriot 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 65CZ 13.3 4.3 18

EE 2.8 4.7 46

HR 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 Category Organisation Participations Country

1 REC INSTITUT JOZEF STEFAN 120 SI

2 REC INSTYTUT PODSTAWOWYCH PROBLEMOW TECHNIKI POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK 52 PL

3 REC BAY ZOLTAN ALKALMAZOTT KUTATASI KOZHASZNU NONPROFIT KFT. 43 HU

4 REC INSTYTUT CHEMII BIOORGANICZNEJ PAN 43 PL

5 REC MAGYAR TUDOMANYOS AKADEMIA SZAMITASTECHNIKAI ES AUTOMATIZALASI KUTATO INTEZET 34 HU

6 REC MAGYAR TUDOMANYOS AKADEMIA WIGNER FIZIKAI KUTATOKOZPONT 29 HU

7 REC MAGYAR TUDOMANYOS AKADEMIA ENERGIATUDOMANYI KUTATOKOZPONT 26 HU

8 REC Unitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii 26 RO

10

REC TECHNOLOGICKE CENTRUM AKADEMIE VED CESKE REPUBLIKY 25 CZ

10

REC RUDER BOSKOVIC INSTITUTE 25 HR

Research Centres: EU 13 TOP 10


REC - Top performer reference countries (SI, LV, EE, LT, MT)

Organisation Participations Country

INSTITUT JOZEF STEFAN 120 SI

LATVIJAS ZINATNU AKADEMIA – LATVIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 21 LV

ESTONITAN INNOVATION INSTITUTE 21 EE

LATVIAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL ENERGETICS 16 LT

SLOVENIAN NATIONAL BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING INSTITUTTE 16 SL

LATVIAN STATE INSTITUTE OF WOOD CHEMISTRY 11 LV

CENTER FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY 11 LT

THE CYPRUS FOUNDATION FOR MUSCOLAR DISTROPHY RESEARCH 8 CY



THE CYPRUS FOUNDATION FOR MUSCULAR RESEARCH 8

CYPRUS CENTER FOR EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2

CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY;

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONEMNT AND PUBLIC HEALTH;NEUROSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE; ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL/FAMILY MEDICINE; RESEARCH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE FOR CHILD HEALTH; FREDERICK RESEARCH CENTER

1 EACH

REC – Cypriot 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 21CZ 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


PRC - Top performer reference countries (SI, LV, EE, LT, MT)

Organisation Participations Country

GEOIMAGING LTD 10 CY

XLAB - IT 10 SI

CONSTRUCTION CLUSTER SLOVENIA 9 SI

PRIMETEL – TELECOMMUNICATION 8 CY

SIGNALGENERIX 8 CY

MALTA INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION FOR SMES LIMITED 7 MT

CENTER FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY 7 LT

THE CYPRUS FOUNDATION FOR MUSCOLAR DISTROPHY RESEARCH 6 CY



GEOMAGING LTD (SME) 10

PRIMETEL PLC 8

SIGNALGENERIS LTD (SME) 8

FELDMAN ENTERPRISES LTD 5

RTD TALOS LIMITED (SME) 5

SIGINT SOLUTION LTD (SME) 5

EBOS TECHNOLOGIES LTD (SME) 5

PRC – Cypriot organizations in FP7


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 23CZ 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


TOTAL EU 27

WithEU15

WithEU 12

With EUorganization

With candidate andassociated countries

With nationalstakeholders

CY 3,530 2,836 682 12 474 88

Geographical overview Cyprus 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 Cyprus cooperates the most: - UK: 383- DE: 370- ES: 328- IT: 313- EL: 312

EU 13 countries with which Cyprus cooperates the most: - PL: 88- RO: 67- BG: 67Candidate and associated countries: - NO: 105- CH: 100- IL (Israel): 76- HR (Croatia): 34


OverviewFP7 participants per Thematic Priorities


FP7 Thematic PrioritiesHealth Health

KBBE Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and BiotechnologyICT 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 – Reference countries

Participation in ERC / FP7 (2007-2013) Situation on 18.7.2013

CYPRUS 15ESTONIA 9

LATVIA 7

LITHUANIA 6

MALTA 6

SLOVENIA 2


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 0.19CZ 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 2007-2011(m euro)

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

45,4 70

• 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


FP7 VS ERDF

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

Country FP7/ERDF

The Netherlands 6.20

Cyprus 0.60

Malta 0.20

Slovenia 0.10

Estonia 0.08

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania 0.03

EU 27 0.46


International mobility of researchers

In 2010 in Cyprus the percentage of doctoral candidates (ISCED 6) who were citizens of another EU-27 Member State was 7.8%, in line with the EU 27 average of 7.8%₁. In Cyprus non-EU doctoral candidates were 1.6% of all candidates (EU average of 20.0%₂)

1 Researchers’ Report 2013 Country Profile: Cyprus2 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)




CY 4 6 12 0.05 % 0.10 % 0.10 %

Source: 5th FP7 monitoring report and e-Corda

Knowledge of English among the population% population able to hold conversation in English

CY 73

EU 28 49,5

EU 15 56,0

EU 13 43,1

Best (NL) 90

Worse (HR) 20

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°proposals) 357

Estimate 1 (By population)Difference

155+202

Estimation 2 (By R&D Staff)Difference

45+312

Estimate 3 (By scholarly int. publications)Difference

163+194

Estimate 4 (Success rate)Difference

497-140


The Decision Tree for participating in Horizon 2020Pre-call intelligence

Call scan

Applicant awareness

Applicant readinessProject leader

Single proposer

Consortium facilitatorTargetting partnersProposal drafting

Proposal submissionImplementation

Failure debriefing

Waiting for spontaneous candidatures

Project followerPro-active partner search

Targeted search

Random searche-Platform

Involvement in professional networksPosition in the consortiumContribution to the drafting

of the proposalPassive attitude

Credibility

Opportunistic attitude

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 Cyprus 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

Cyprus has the highest number of FP7 beneficiaries per head of population and the highest gain of FP7 monies per inhabitant in the EU 13 (78.80 €, EU 13 average is 13.5). The average number of € per beneficiary in Cyprus is higher that the EU 13 average: 176 k vs 167.

Cyprus success rate in applying for FP7 is 15.6 %, not far from the average of EU13 (18.1) but there is still a GAP with EU 28 average (21.7)


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 Cyprus 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]

first policy dialogue nicosia, cyprus april 25, 2014

Documents

policy dialogue nicosia

cyprus organizations

policy dialogue source

policy dialogue rankeu

policy dialogue beneficiaries

policy dialogue hei

ecorda nicosia

mt nicosia