1 / 28

IFIP IT-STAR-Meeting 16 . Oct. 2003 Budapest

Austria and the IST-Programme Remarks – Lessons Learnt. IFIP IT-STAR-Meeting 16 . Oct. 2003 Budapest. Mag. Michael WIESMÜLLER Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. INDEX. Some words on Austria FP 5 (IST) – what happened + some results Conclusions from FP 5

guri
Download Presentation

IFIP IT-STAR-Meeting 16 . Oct. 2003 Budapest

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. Austria and the IST-Programme Remarks – Lessons Learnt IFIP IT-STAR-Meeting 16. Oct. 2003 Budapest Mag. Michael WIESMÜLLER Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

  2. INDEX • Some words on Austria • FP 5 (IST) – what happened + some • results • Conclusions from FP 5 • FP 6 (IST) – what is new? • IST 6 Call 1 – main results • Lessons learnt

  3. Starting point:Austria Macro-Indicators

  4. ...just to remind you... http://www.austria.gv.at/ AUSTRIA EU-Member since 1995 • Area .......................... • Population ................ • GDP/capita ............... • GERD/GDP .............. • BERD/GOVERD/OTH • GDP/EU-Share ......... • D.................................. • S ................................. • NL................................ • FIN .............................. • DK .............................. • 84.000 sq km • 8,1 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%

  5. Some remarks on AT-Innovationsystem http://www.tip.ac.at • 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) • „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 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.

  6. IST in the 5th Framework-programme

  7. IST and FP 5 – the dimensions Total: 13,6 Bill. € 3,6 Bill. € IST KA1: Systems and services for the citizen KA2: New methods of work + electronic commerce KA3: Multimedia content and tools KA4: Essential technologies and infrastructures CPA: Cross Programme Actions FET: Future and emerging technologies RN : Research Networks

  8. Keyfigures IST FP 5 EU 10.549.......... 2.687 ........... 72.733 ......... 18.503 ......... 25,5% .......... 3.463 ........... 5.983 ........... 2,7% AT 1.294 300 2.001 449 23,2% 82 126 Submitted proposals......................... Successful proposals........................ Submitted partners ........................... Successful partners .......................... Pass rate (rel. to proposals) ............ Funding (M€) ................................... Costs Partner (M€) .......................... Share funding NAS ..........................

  9. IST FP 5 – an all over picture

  10. IST FP 5 – Austrian Performance

  11. 30% 25% share of funding 20% GDP-Index (1998) 15% 10% 5% 0% D UK F I EL E B NL S A FIN DK P IRL L IST FP 5 – Share of funding vs. share of GDP

  12. IST FP 5 – Cooperation NAS – EU 15

  13. 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

  14. 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)

  15. IST in FP 6 What‘s new?

  16. Budget 6.RP (2002-2006): Thematic Priorities Total: 16,3 Bill. € Sustainable development Genomics and biotechnology for Global change and health ecosystems Citizens and Governance 6% in an open European Advanced genomics and Sustainable surface knowledge-based society its applications for health transport 2% 10% 5% Sustainable Energy Systems Combating major diseases 7% 10% Food safety and health risks 6% Aeronautics and space 10% Information Society Nanotechnologies, 3,6 Bill. € technologies intelligent materials, and 32% new production processes 12% FP 6 Budgets and structure

  17. FP 5 vs. FP 6 5. RP 6. RP Actiontyps Instruments • Networks of Excellence (NoE) • Integrated Projects (IP) • STREPS • Coordinationsactions (CA) • Specific Support Actions (SSA) New Instruments • RTD-Projects • Thematic Networks (TN) • Accomp. Measures (AM) • Take-ups • .... 12 more stairways of excellence

  18. IST – FP 6Call 1First Conclusions,Statisticson funding &role of instruments

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

  20. *indicativ Keyfigures 1st IST-Call* EU 1.397 ........... 236 ............ 19.960 ........... 4.098 ........... 17% ............ 1.071 ........... 57% - 18% - 25% 3% AT 331 61 538 122 21% 25-30* Submitted proposals......................... Successful proposals........................ Submitted partners ........................... Successful partners........................... Pass rate (rel. to proposals) ............. Indicative funding (in Mill. €) ............ Ratio instruments IP – NoE – old...... Share funding ACC............................

  21. 700 600 Funding in M€ 500 400 300 200 100 0 IP NoE STP SSA CA Instruments: where does the funding go to?

  22. Results 1st Call: Projects - Instrument 800 25% 700 20% 600 500 15% Submissions 400 Succesful subm. 10% 300 Successrate 200 5% 100 0 0% IP NoE STP SSA CA

  23. Submissions 140 30% Succesful subm. Successrate 120 Prg.-average 25% AT- Successrate 100 20% 80 15% 60 10% 40 5% 20 0 0% IP NoE STP SSA CA AT- Performance – Projects and Instruments

  24. 35% RP 5 30% RP 6 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Share submission Share successful Share funding submission SME-Performance (FP 5 – FP 6)

  25. Distribution of Funding/Instruments/Countries (standardised to programme average/17 leading countries) 40% 30% 20% IP 10% NoE 0% Old -10% Instr. -20% -30% DE FR UK IT ES BE NL GR SE AT FI CH IL NO DK PT IE Instruments: „Winner & Loser“

  26. Instruments: „Winner & Loser“ ACC

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

  28. Contact • Mag. Michael Wiesmüller • Federal Ministry of Transport. Innovation and Technology • Austrian ISTC-Delegate • michael.wiesmueller@bmvit.gv.at • Mag. Reinhard Goebl • Federal Ministry of Transport. Innovation and Technology • Austrian ISTC-Delegate • reinhard.goebl@bmvit.gv.at • Dr. Klaus Bernhardt (NCP) • BIT • Austrian National Contact Point • bernhardt@bit.ac.at

More Related