ifip it-star-meeting 16 . oct. 2003 budapest

• IT-STAR-Meeting Budapest • 1/28 •

IFIP IT-STAR-MeetingIFIP IT-STAR-Meeting 1616. Oct. 2003. Oct. 2003

Budapest Budapest

Mag. Michael WIESMÜLLER Mag. Michael WIESMÜLLER

Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and TechnologyFederal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

Austria and Austria and the IST-Programmethe IST-Programme

Remarks – Lessons LearntRemarks – Lessons Learnt


INDEXINDEX

• Some words on AustriaSome words on Austria• FP 5 (IST) – what happened + someFP 5 (IST) – what happened + some resultsresults• Conclusions from FP 5Conclusions from FP 5• FP 6 (IST) – what is new?FP 6 (IST) – what is new?• IST 6 Call 1 – main resultsIST 6 Call 1 – main results• Lessons learntLessons learnt


Starting point:Starting point:Austria Austria

Macro-IndicatorsMacro-Indicators


Area ..........................Population ................GDP/capita ...............GERD/GDP ..............BERD/GOVERD/OTHGDP/EU-Share .........

• D..................................• S .................................• NL................................• FIN ..............................• DK ..............................

http://www.austria.gv.at/

84.000 sq km8,1 Mill.27.000 $ (=rank 5 in EU 15)1,95% (perhaps: 2,5% in 2005)40% - 40% - 20%2,42% (2001)

• 23,9%• 2,9%• 4,7%• 2,1%• 1,6%

...just to remind you...

AUSTRIAEU-Member since 1995


• „lack“ of RTD-intensive large-industry (compared f.ex. with Scand, NL or IRL)

• low rate of industry research (BERD)• prominent share of the public sector in

R&D (GOVERD)• few RTD-employees• Industrial structure with emphasis on

traditional (low- to mediumtech) sectors

• a lot of highly innovative SME‘s• Growth of RTD > Growth of

GDP• high productivity rate• low unemployment-rate (1999:

Rank 2 in EU)• Gov. Programme in order to

raise RTD/GDP (2,5% in 2005)

Austria‘s famous old structures/high-performance Paradox:AT is dominated by „traditional industries“ (metals, machinery, paper), yet has steep increase of productivity, GDP growth is over average, low

unemployment, growing EU-market share a.s.o.

http://www.tip.ac.at

Some remarks on AT-Innovationsystem


IST in the 5IST in the 5th th

Framework-Framework-programmeprogramme


IST and FP 5 – the dimensionsIST and FP 5 – the dimensions

Budgetbreakdown 5th FP

Quality of Life

IST

Growth

JRC

Energy, Sustainable

develop.

Intern. Role

Promotion of SME's

IHP

Nuclear Energy

Austrian RTD-Expenditures(1999)

ISTKA1: Systems and services for the citizenKA2: New methods of work + electronic commerceKA3: Multimedia content and toolsKA4: Essential technologies and infrastructuresCPA: Cross Programme ActionsFET: Future and emerging technologiesRN : Research Networks

3,6 Bill. €3,6 Bill. €

Total: 13,6 Bill. €


Keyfigures IST FP 5Keyfigures IST FP 5

ATAT

1.2941.294300300

2.0012.001449449

23,2%23,2%8282

126126

EUEU

10.549..........10.549..........2.687 ...........2.687 ...........72.733 .........72.733 .........18.503 .........18.503 .........25,5% ..........25,5% ..........3.463 ...........3.463 ...........5.983 ...........5.983 ........... 2,7%2,7%

Submitted proposals.........................Submitted proposals.........................Successful proposals........................Successful proposals........................Submitted partners ...........................Submitted partners ...........................Successful partners ..........................Successful partners ..........................Pass rate (rel. to proposals) ............Pass rate (rel. to proposals) ............Funding (M€) ...................................Funding (M€) ...................................Costs Partner (M€) ..........................Costs Partner (M€) ..........................Share funding NAS ..........................Share funding NAS ..........................


IST FP 5 – an all over pictureIST FP 5 – an all over picture

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 CPA FET RN SUP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%submitted Proposals

successful Proposals

Succesrate


IST FP 5 – Austrian PerformanceIST FP 5 – Austrian Performance

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

KA I KA II KA III KA IV CPA FET RN SUP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%submitted Proposals

successful Proposals

AT-Succesrate

EU-Succesrate


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

D UK F I EL E B NL S A FIN DK P IRL L

share of funding

GDP-Index (1998)

IST FP 5 – Share of funding vs. share of GDPIST FP 5 – Share of funding vs. share of GDP


IST FP 5 – Cooperation NAS – EU 15IST FP 5 – Cooperation NAS – EU 15

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK

UK

S

P

NL

L

IRL

I

FIN

F

EL

E

DK

D

B

A


IST in FP 5 – Some conclusions (1) IST in FP 5 – Some conclusions (1)

• FP is proven mechanism for internationalisation

and networking of RTD-players

• Quantity of RTD-funding is highly relevant

on national level

• FP has advantages for smaller countries (competition

under controlled conditions, fair access)

• FP allows boost of national strenght

• Good mix between focus and broad coverage


IST in FP 5 – Some conclusions (2)IST in FP 5 – Some conclusions (2)

• Share of funding to NAS-countries is very low (2,7% = approx. share of Sweden)• Too much „small stuff“ (2.700 Contracts!)• Time-to-contract problem: cycles of techn. developm. are shorter than the programme• Administrative overhead is tremendous (INFSO Staff: 1.050) • Impact on europ. competitiveness is too low • Missing link to national activities (coexistence instead of cooperation or intergration)


IST in FP 6 IST in FP 6

What‘s new?What‘s new?


FP 6 Budgets and structureFP 6 Budgets and structure

Budget 6.RP (2002-2006):Thematic Priorities

Total: 16,3 Bill. €

Information Society technologies

32%

Combating major diseases 10%

Advanced genomics and its applications for health

10%

Aeronautics and space10%

Food safety and health risks

6%

Sustainable Energy Systems

7%

Citizens and Governance in an open European

knowledge-based society 2%

Global change and ecosystems

6%Sustainable surface

transport 5%

Nanotechnologies, intelligent materials, and

new production processes12%

Genomics and biotechnology for health

Sustainable development

3,6 Bill. €3,6 Bill. €


Actiontyps Instruments

RTD-Projects Thematic Networks (TN) Accomp. Measures (AM) Take-ups .... 12 more

Networks of Excellence (NoE) Integrated Projects (IP)

STREPS Coordinationsactions (CA) Specific Support Actions (SSA)

NewInstruments

stairways ofexcellence

5. RP 6. RP

FP 5 vs. FP 6FP 5 vs. FP 6


IST – FP 6IST – FP 6Call 1Call 1

First Conclusions,First Conclusions,StatisticsStatistics

on funding &on funding &role of role of

instrumentsinstruments


Some draft conclusions form 1Some draft conclusions form 1stst Call Call

• Despite new regulations: several projects with top-qualityDespite new regulations: several projects with top-quality• Good coverage – good response to SOGood coverage – good response to SO• Oversubscription in tolerable marginsOversubscription in tolerable margins• IP: „center of gravity“ (60% of budget)IP: „center of gravity“ (60% of budget)• NoE: instrument in „steep lerning curve“NoE: instrument in „steep lerning curve“• Ratio STREP – IP/NoE 1:3 instead of 1:2Ratio STREP – IP/NoE 1:3 instead of 1:2• Considerable cuts of Giga-Projects (> 40 Mill. €)Considerable cuts of Giga-Projects (> 40 Mill. €)• More industry and market drivenMore industry and market driven• Shortage of IP/NoE over 48 monthShortage of IP/NoE over 48 month• SME-participation declining SME-participation declining • Accession and Associated Countries: still low funding shareAccession and Associated Countries: still low funding share• Lack of coordinators from large companiesLack of coordinators from large companies


Keyfigures 1st IST-Call*Keyfigures 1st IST-Call*

ATAT

3313316161

538538122122

21%21% 25-30*25-30*

EUEU

1.397 ...........1.397 ........... 236 ............236 ............19.960 ...........19.960 ........... 4.098 ...........4.098 ........... 17% ............17% ............ 1.071 ...........1.071 ........... 57% - 18% - 25%57% - 18% - 25% 3%3%

Submitted proposals.........................Submitted proposals.........................Successful proposals........................Successful proposals........................Submitted partners ...........................Submitted partners ...........................Successful partners...........................Successful partners...........................Pass rate (rel. to proposals) .............Pass rate (rel. to proposals) .............Indicative funding (in Mill. €) ............Indicative funding (in Mill. €) ............Ratio instruments IP – NoE – old......Ratio instruments IP – NoE – old......Share funding ACC............................Share funding ACC............................

*indicativ


Instruments: where does the funding go to?Instruments: where does the funding go to?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

IP NoE STP SSA CA

Funding in M€


Results 1Results 1stst Call: Projects - Instrument Call: Projects - Instrument

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IP NoE STP SSA CA

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Submissions

Succesful subm.

Successrate


AT- AT- Performance – Projects and InstrumentsPerformance – Projects and Instruments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

IP NoE STP SSA CA

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%Submissions

Succesful subm.

Successrate

Prg.-average

AT- Successrate


SME-Performance (FP 5 – FP 6)SME-Performance (FP 5 – FP 6)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Share submission Share successfulsubmission

Share funding

RP 5

RP 6


Instruments: Instruments: „Winner & Loser“„Winner & Loser“

Distribution of Funding/Instruments/Countries (standardised to programme average/17 leading countries)

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

DE FR UK IT ES BE NL GR SE AT FI CH IL NO DK PT IE

IP

NoE

OldInstr.


Distribution of Funding/Instruments/Country(standardised to programm-average/ACC Countries)

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

PL HU CZ SI CY RO BG MT LT EE SK LV

IP

NoE

OldInst.

Instruments: Instruments: „Winner & Loser“ ACC„Winner & Loser“ ACC


Lessons learnt & closing remarksLessons learnt & closing remarks

• Concentrate forces on „big shots“Concentrate forces on „big shots“• Money is in the IP‘sMoney is in the IP‘s• Create incentives for potential proposers Create incentives for potential proposers AT-example: funding for proposal preparationAT-example: funding for proposal preparation• Improve information services to proposers at all levelsImprove information services to proposers at all levels• Build a good and reliable NCP-NetworkBuild a good and reliable NCP-Network• Find strong EU-partners + try to establishFind strong EU-partners + try to establish long-term commitmentslong-term commitments• Improve networking at all levelsImprove networking at all levels• Enhance visibility of national excellence to EU-MemberstatesEnhance visibility of national excellence to EU-Memberstates• Integration is a long-term processIntegration is a long-term process• Get involved in strategic planning on EU-levelGet involved in strategic planning on EU-level• Try to mobilize EvaluatorsTry to mobilize Evaluators


ContactContact

Mag. Michael WiesmüllerMag. Michael WiesmüllerFederal Ministry of Transport. Innovation and Technology Federal Ministry of Transport. Innovation and Technology

Austrian ISTC-DelegateAustrian [email protected]

Mag. Reinhard GoeblMag. Reinhard GoeblFederal Ministry of Transport. Innovation and Technology Federal Ministry of Transport. Innovation and Technology

Austrian ISTC-DelegateAustrian [email protected]

Dr. Klaus Bernhardt (NCP)Dr. Klaus Bernhardt (NCP)BITBIT

Austrian National Contact PointAustrian National Contact [email protected]

ifip it-star-meeting 16 . oct. 2003 budapest

Documents