1 / 43

First Policy Dialogue Nicosia, Cyprus April 25, 2014

Explore the key findings and analysis of Cyprus' performance in FP7 alongside wider innovation indicators, benchmarked to EU averages. Discover the mobility programs, target groups, and collaborative links in FP7, focusing on the country's participation in thematic priorities and structural factors affecting EU program involvement. Gain insights into funding issues, ERDF participation, and international mobility of researchers in Cyprus. Uncover key attitudes towards FP7 and potential strategic approaches for maximizing research opportunities.

eustice
Download Presentation

First Policy Dialogue Nicosia, Cyprus April 25, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. First Policy Dialogue Nicosia, CyprusApril 25, 2014

  2. Overview Main findings of the country profile of Cyprus

  3. FP Performance and wider innovation indicators for Cyprus Benchmarked to EU 28 and EU 13 averages Source: Eurostat, 2011 and Sixth monitoring report FP7

  4. FP5/FP6/FP7 evolution 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

  5. 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 tolook at the mobility programmes over time. Source: e-Corda [1] Figures for 2007-2011

  6. OverviewFP7 participants per target groups Source: e-Corda

  7. FP7 participants per target groups Participation in FP7pursuant to the 3 main categories of beneficiaries: Private enterprises, Research centres, Higher Education Institutes Source: e-Corda

  8. HEI: EU 13 TOP 10

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

  10. HEI– Cypriot organizations in FP7

  11. Research Centres performance Source: e-Corda

  12. Research Centres: EU 13 TOP 10

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

  14. REC –Cypriot organizations in FP7

  15. PRC performance Source: e-Corda

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

  17. PRC –Cypriot organizations in FP7

  18. Small and Medium Enterprises performance Source: e-Corda

  19. Geographical overview Cyprus collaborative links for all the programmes of FP7 • EU 13 countries with which Cyprus cooperates the most: • PL: 88 • RO: 67 • BG: 67 • EU 15 countries with which Cyprus cooperates the most: • UK: 383 • DE: 370 • ES: 328 • IT: 313 • EL: 312 • Candidate and associated countries: • NO: 105 • CH: 100 • IL (Israel): 76 • HR (Croatia): 34 Source: Sixth Monitoring report FP7 – Table B3 of EU27 Collaborative links for all programmes. E-Cordaestraction date: 2013/02/26. Croatia is included in the “Candidate countries”

  20. OverviewFP7 participants per Thematic Priorities

  21. FP7 Thematic Priorities

  22. SPA: Space; SEC: Securuty; TPT: Transport

  23. SPA: Space; SEC: Securuty; TPT: Transport

  24. Participation in ERC – Reference countries

  25. OverviewFunding IssuesStructural Factors affecting participation to EU programmes Source: e-Corda

  26. Returns on EU budget Sources: Eurostat and Sixth Monitoring report FP7

  27. ERDF-FP7 participation Source: DG Research and DG Regio – Cohesion policy 2007-20013: Research and Innovation • Is the ERDF perceived as investment for future participation in FP7/H2020? • Are there any projects to develop synergies in the near future? • S3?

  28. FP7 VS ERDF Source: DG Research and DG Regio – Cohesion policy 2007-20013: Research and Innovation – Eurada elaboration

  29. 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) Participation in International networks A 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. 1 Researchers’ Report 2013 Country Profile: Cyprus 2 idem

  30. Beneficiaries of the mobility programmes – FP7 People Knowledge of English among the population Notes: For % of people able to have an English conversation, UK and IE are excluded. Also only EU citizens are included Source: 5th FP7 monitoring report and e-Corda [1] Figures for 2007-2011

  31. Performance v/s Potential

  32. The Decision Tree for participating in Horizon 2020 Source: Mirris Scoping Paper - Eurada

  33. OverviewParticipation patterns Source: e-Corda

  34. Attitudes towards FP7 “By Opportunity” “By Necessity” 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

  35. Possible attitude towards FP7 – 2nd part Laziness Opportunistic Strategic/tactical Italy Denmark Finland Sweden Greece Netherlands UK Spain Greece France ……… 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 strategy Tactical 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.

  36. OverviewFindings Source: e-Corda

  37. FP Performance and wider innovation indicators for Cyprus Benchmarked to EU 28 and EU 13 averages Source: Eurostat, 2011 and Sixth monitoring report FP7

  38. Key highlights to be addressed Main 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)

  39. Questions and Answers

  40. 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

  41. 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?

  42. Questionson where to go • 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? • ……………………….

  43. For more: info@mirris.euwww.mirris.eu

More Related