1 / 32

Möjligheterna att påverka Forskningsagendan i EU – FP7 …FP8

Möjligheterna att påverka Forskningsagendan i EU – FP7 …FP8. SLU 13 oktober 2010 Dan Andrée VINNOVA/Brussels Office Special Advisor –Utbildningsdepartementet. The changing ERA landscape. FP1 – FP5 Project based: Cooperative projects. 1983 – 2000. EU. National/regional Programmes.

kent
Download Presentation

Möjligheterna att påverka Forskningsagendan i EU – FP7 …FP8

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. Möjligheterna att påverka Forskningsagendan i EU – FP7 …FP8 SLU 13 oktober 2010 Dan Andrée VINNOVA/Brussels Office Special Advisor –Utbildningsdepartementet

  2. The changing ERA landscape FP1 – FP5 Project based: Cooperative projects 1983 – 2000 EU National/regional Programmes National/regional Programmes

  3. EU programmes interact with national/regional programmes FP6-FP7 Programme based: IP, NoE, ERANET, article 169/185, JTIs ERA 2000 - EU National/regional Programmes National/regional Programmes

  4. EU and national programmes get more ‘integrated’ EU Joint Programming National/regional Programmes National/regional Programmes

  5. FP8? EU National/regional Programmes National/regional Programmes

  6. FP8? EU National/regional Programmes National/regional Programmes Stakeholders have to get involved in priority setting of the Framework Programme

  7. Three phases Implementation Annual Work Programmes (WP) Grant Agreements etc Preparation Framework, Specific Programmes, Rules for Participation Decision FP, SPs, Rules for Participation Commission Programme Committees, NCP + External input Commission Proposal Right of initiative + External input Council EP Commission Lobbying FP7 2003-2004 2005 – 2006 2007 - 2013 FP8 2010-2011 2012 – 2013 2014 - 2020

  8. Exampel:FP7 COM proposal 2005/6, Theme 1: Health Activity: Translating research for human health Area: Translational research in infectious diseases. To address anti-microbial drug resistance, the global threats of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis as well as emerging epidemics (e.g. SARS and highly pathogenic influenza). Council/EP: Decision: Area: Translational research in infectious diseases: to address drug resistance, the global threats of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, as well as hepatitis and potentially new andre-emerging epidemics (e.g. SARS and highly pathogenic influenza).

  9. Cooperation Specific Programme,Commission Proposal 2005/6Theme 1: Health Sub-area: Anti-microbial drug resistance:the focus will be on combining basic research on molecular mechanisms of resistance, microbial ecology and host-pathogen interactions with clinical research towards new interventions to reduce the emergence and spread of multi-drug resistant infections. Decision Sub-area: Anti-microbial drug resistanceincluding fungal pathogens: the focus will be on combining basic research on molecular mechanisms of resistance, microbial ecology and host-pathogen interactions with clinical research towards new interventions to reduce the emergence and spread of multi-drug resistant infections.

  10. 2011 Cooperation WP Topic: HEALTH.2011.2.3.1-3 Management of Gram negative multi-drug resistant infections. FP7-HEALTH-2011-single-stage. Research should focus on innovative methods aimed at abetter control of Gram negative multi-drug resistant infections..

  11. You have to know what you want to give input to and the different rules/procedures to take decisions Annual WPs

  12. Attention 1: You have to understand the internal budget process! The EU’s Annual Budget Cycle Financial Regulation

  13. Attention 2: You have to understand how the WPs are prepared. 2008: 1. December 2006 – May 2007 2. June – August 2006 3. September – 29 November 2007 2010 :1. Aug/Sep 2008 – Jan 2009 2. Jan – March 2009 3. April – July 2009 2009: 1. November 2007 – April 2008 2. April – May 2008 3. May – Aug 2008 2011 :1. Aug/Sep 2009 – Jan 2010 2. Jan – March 2010 3. April – July 2010 2012 :1. Aug/Sep 2010 – Jan 2011 2. Jan – March 2011 3. April – July 2011

  14. Consultation Phase External • Advisory Groups • European Technology Platforms • PC • Expert groups/Work Shops/Conferences • (Thematic) Web – Based • Spontaneous input • (Expression of Interest) Internal • Compliance with the FP7/SPs • Certain continuity with FP6 • Budget profile of FP7 • Previous FP7 WPs • Outcome of calls from previous years • ‘Political events’ • Dialogue with other DGs (AGRI, ENV,,)

  15. To give input to the Commission: Who, what, when and how? • Who can give input to the Commission? • Which parts could be most useful to give input on? • When is the best time is to provide input to the Commission? • How do you do it?

  16. 1. Who can give input? • Everybody! • BUT • You need a strategy • Very different Strategy depending who you are!

  17. 2. What to give input on? • Calls for proposals, tenders, named beneficiary • Topics (90%) – impact – funding schemes • Call budget • Horizontal issues: • INCO - International Cooperation • FP7 open to third countries (3+?) • Targeted calls (3+?) • SICA calls (2+2) • Cross-cutting issues • Coordinated calls • Joint Calls • Coordinated – INCO • SMEs • FET • Policy needs • Dissemination

  18. 3. When? • Most impact is before a Draft exists. Possibility to give input Your input should come here ‘protect’ Too early adjustments Annual Cycle Consultation Draft PC opinion Adoption

  19. 4. How? Strategy : long & short term Longer term strategy for FP7 and establishing a network Shorter term strategy adapted to the annual WP cycle

  20. How?Longer term strategy, FP Cycle‘University’ – strategic level: 1. Articulate your input – what you want to achieve – impact of the FP. • Strength – excellence • Participation in FP – coordinators • (National positions) • Synergies with national programmes • Synergies with other International cooperation • (Participation in ETP, national mirror platforms – strategic research agenda) • make priorities! 2. Establish a network (to be used to communicate input) • National PC members, experts and NCPs • Officials/nationals in the Commission • FP partners (existing/potential) • AGs, ETPs members • Other stakeholders/’like-minded’, groups • organisations and research associations • Liaisons offices in Brussels, Regional Offices • (Evaluators) • (MEPs) Allocate resources

  21. Shorter term strategy , Annual WP cycle • Useful input at the right time – WP cycle – new topics/adjustments/protect • Think European & coordinate with ‘like-minded’, justification • European competitiveness , European policy objectives, strong potential for excellent research, strong need for additional public funding • avoid continuation of projects, national interests, lack of transnational ‘element’ • Make priorities, be realistic, on-going political debate, • be active in Brussels (focused/targeted timely meetings/work shops) • Difference between negotiations in Council and convincing Commission. A well justified Topic with High European Added Value is a valuable input regardless who is the ‘sender’. ‘Political aspects’ could also require ‘political’ backing.

  22. Experiences of Pilots:Health, ICT, NMP, Climate • Report – August 2009 • Difficult to articulate input (all levels)1 • Human resources needed – activities in Brussels • The Pilots stimulates cooperation between PCs – NCPs – stakeholders • Small focused Workshops in Brussels • Creates national and transnational networks • Problems are identified 1. ‘The FPs have had limited strategic impact because there are not many strategies to impact’ – VINNOVA/Technopolis: Impacts of EU FPs in Sweden

  23. Towards FP8 Tentative time table for the Commission: Oct 2010 FP7 interim evaluation Beg.2011 COM Consultation/Policy Doc. Mid 2011 FP8 Impact Assessment Dec 2011- Feb 2012 FP8 Proposal 2012 ERA Communication (s) 2012/2013 Negotiations 3-4Q 2013 FP8 Decision 1 Jan 2014 FP8 Starts Pro-active INPUT Re-active Response

  24. FP8 Issues • Continuity • Cooperation, incl. relationship to national programmes • Bottom-up activities – ERC, SMEs, RSFF, RIS • Research and Innovation – Innovation Union • Industrial participation • Simplifications • Relationship/Synergies with other policy areas • Relationship/Synergies with non-EU programmes • International cooperation • Defence related research • Budget

  25. General aspects It is likely that FP8 will have to tackle: • Grand/Societal Challenges • Stronger links between research and innovation • continued support to the implementation of ERA – Innovation Union – European Innovation Partnerships • Continued support for Mobility and ERC • Simplification

  26. 1. Continuity (content, structure and instruments)? Normally the strongest request from stakeholders including Member States + ‘COM’

  27. 2. Cooperation Ia. Structure

  28. 2. Cooperation II b. Programme vs. project approach. • FP7 saw two trends: move towards funding of programmes (ERANET +, article 185, JTI:s) and externalisation (ERCEA, REA, RSFF). • Should FP8 mainly co-fund programmes or should FP8 continue to support projects based on standard Calls for proposals? • Instruments supporting pooling of national resources? Joint Research Initiatives? • What are the experiences of externalisation?

  29. Cooperation IV c. Instruments • What are the experiences of FP6/FP7-instruments? • Large vs. smaller projects? Large in the sense of number of participants or in budget? • Which instruments are best suited to tackle Grand/Societal Challenges • Cooperation on shorter terms 2-4 years or longer term of cooperation/integration >5 years? • Targeted transnational basic research ? • Harmonisation within the FP or diversity depending on the area?

  30. 11. Budget • Arguments for higher budget? 90 B EUR? • financial crisis • globalisation • EU2020 • social challenges • added value • growth and new jobs

  31. FP8 2014 – 2020 National - National/EU - Union (FP) - Private funding Joint Programming Joint Technology Initiatives Grand Challenges (art 185 ERANET) RSFF INCO EUREKA COST Key Technologies (collaborative projects) SME/ CRAFT CIP KT Mobility Frontier Research -ERC Research Infrastructures INCO IGO SF

  32. How to give input ERAC SFIC GPC ESFRI SGHRM KT SCAR European Commission Expert Groups, incl. ERAB Advisory groups (FP7 and CIP) European Council Competitiveness Council Coreper I Research Group European Commission RTD, INFSO, ENTR, ENER,MOVE Member States Ministries Agencies Councils European Parliament ITRE Committee of Regions Economic and Social Committee Programme Committees European Commission Groups with MSs representatives (EPG, ICT Directors etc) Stakeholders, IGO, Lobby Groups, EIT ETPs etc

More Related