Brief presentation of the results Ioana ISPAS ERA NET COFUND Expert Group

Transcription

1 Brief presentation of the results Ioana ISPAS ERA NET COFUND Expert Group

2 Mandate of the Expert Group Methodology and basic figures for ERA-NET Cofund Efficiency of ERA-NET Cofund Motivations and benefits of ERA-NET Cofund Relevance and effectiveness of ERA-NET Cofund EU Added value of ERA-NET Cofund

3 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

4 The Expert Group on the assessment of ERA-NET Cofund aims to examine the preparation and implementation of the first ERA- NET Cofund actions under Horizon 2020 identify critical issues that need to be addressed, and assess the relevance of the instrument to EU policies. The assessment covers the 27 ERA-NET Cofund actions approved for funding under the 2014/2015 work-programme of Horizon The mandate of the Expert Group involves consultation with various stakeholders representing the Member States, Associated States and Third Countries, the Commission, as well as ERA-NET Coordinators, participants, and Funding Agencies.

5 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

6 74 interviews 50.3% response rate 245 responses Stakeholder type Interviews On line Workshop survey ERA-NET Cofund Coordinators X X X ERA-NET Cofund Participants X X X National Representatives X X JPI Chairs EC high-level officials X X EC project officers X X ERA-NET Cofund evaluators X Supported by desk research, analysis of existing and new data

7 ERA-NET Cofund budget by country type (only cofunded calls) EC Contribution 25% Third Countries 5% Associated Countries 7% Member States 62% Total investment M Leverage effect: almost 3 additional for each spent by EC

8 Number of participations in calls per country type Third Countries, 21 Associated Countries, 74 Member States, 369 Average budget/cofunded call: 21.6 M Average number of countries/cofunded call: 16

9 Launching and implementing a co-funded call for proposals Launching and implementing additional call for proposals Implementing joint activities related to dissemination /up-take of research results Developing a common vision in the thematic area Developing/Updating a Strategic Research (and Innovation) Agenda in the area Networking and brokerage events to extend participation to additional countries Implementing joint foresight activities to explore the future in the given area Mapping of national research in the specific thematic area Capacity building and networking activities to foster participation of LPCs Organising joint mobility and/or researcher training activities

10 In addition activities related to extending cooperation to third / non-eu countries; monitoring and evaluation/assessment activities both in relation to the network itself or the co-funded projects; collaboration activities with other initiatives in the same thematic area (that may also include joint calls with other ERA-NETs); activities promoting early career scientists and young researchers programmes; activities for the alignment of national programmes (other than call for proposals).

11 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

12 Efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used by an intervention and the changes generated by the intervention in the form of cost-benefit relation. In this regard, efficiency analysis includes analysis of administrative and regulatory burden and look at aspects of simplification.

13 Quality of support: 1. Vast majority of Coo were satisfied with DG RTD support provided but less with support from ERA-LEARN or thematic EC services 2. Most of the partners were not aware or mildly satisfied BUT 3. Coo & partners were dissatisfied with support and template regarding the funding and cost calculation (mixed levels of understanding financial aspects) Evaluation of ERA-NET Cofund proposals: 1. Overall structure and organisation satisfactory BUT 2. Certain adjustments needed to reflect peculiarity of the scheme Proposal and grant agreement preparation: 1. MGA explanations and flexibility in changing partners appreciated BUT 1. Unfriendliness of the SygMa system 2. Complexity in translating EC financial rules into internal rules 3. Lack of understanding about the use of EC contribution

14 Implementation problems reported: shrinking national research budgets limited long-term commitments financial complexity of the scheme in using the EC contribution low administrative human resources high administrative burden disagreements related to the preparation and acceptance of the consortium agreement Simplification measures appreciated: project length, reduced reporting obligations, electronic system enabling signing, making amendments and uploading deliverables, simplified, single financial reporting at the end of the action

15 Retrieving of EC contribution: 1. Main issues: Low success rates from some countries (due to low international profiles/low networking/complexity of the call scheme/inadequate relevance with national priorities/existence of similar calls with better success rates) Inability to commit budgets in advance Inability to provide sufficient budgets inequality of EC budget share via the gap filling 2. Several approaches applied in existing Actions that are good practices to disseminate

16 ERA-NET Cofund is at least as efficient with FP7 ERA-NET in its core activities, i.e.: Launching and implementing a co-funded call and additional call for proposals Implementing joint activities related to dissemination and uptake of research results Building of common vision in the area addressed Mapping of national research programmes, mobility, networking or capacity building schemes or activities in relation to infrastructure are less well addressed by ERA-NET Cofund in comparison to FP7 ERA-NET

17 Cost effectiveness and resources: 1. Most time consuming activities are management of the project and call preparation 2. GA and CA preparation is dependent on the experience of the Coo 3. Most of the partners are not aware about the resource intensiveness regarding the financial reporting (probably related to the early stage of the projects) 4. UC are declared to be used to cover additional activities but also management and preparation of the co-funded call 5. EC top up (black box) is also used for the abovementioned activities

18

19 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

20 recognition of the international context of the specific challenge area opportunity to improve the international experience of the national research community access to complementary research expertise to achieve critical mass in certain areas opportunity to collaborate with other funding agencies compatibility of research theme/topic addressed by the ERA-NET Cofund with the national/regional research priorities access to complementary sources for funding nationally relevant research activities at EU level opportunity to increase experience in managing internationalisation in research compatibility of research theme/topic with the organisational strategy and focus of research opportunity to influence European policy in the specific challenge area

21 Connectivity at trans-national & international level. Capacity building, that address not only research capacities, but also research approaches (interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary) and increase quality of research at national level. Increased awareness and access to additional European funding for certain areas. Structural impacts and conceptual impacts are relatively less perceived (yet).

22 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

23 Relevance looks at the relationship between the needs and problems addressed and the objectives of the intervention. Effectiveness analysis considers how successful EU action has been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives

24 The ERA-NET Cofund scheme is placed under the framework of EU policies with relation to ERA Innovation Union Specific societal challenges of H2020. In this policy context, it is relevant to examine the contribution of ERA-NET Cofund: realising the ERA (through trans-national cooperation, mobility, dissemination of results and knowledge transfer, gender equality, international cooperation) addressing the innovation dimension to strengthening the competitiveness of the European economy and addressing major societal challenges

25 ...to the needs of EC Thematic Directorates Diverse strategies in using the ERA-NET Cofund instrument across different EC DGs, e.g. Bioeconomy DG guided by SCAR Energy DG guided by the SET Plan Others more bottom-up approaches coming from MS Selection process satisfactory - suggested topics have to attract adequate interest from MS...and synergies with other ERA initiatives and H2020? 10 out of 27 embedded in overall strategy provided by JPIs Some linked to European Technology Platforms and PPPs. Still efforts needed to improve coordination and synergies among various networks in the same area

26 National strategies not the norm but international collaboration an important aspect National participation eased by compatibility of thematic priorities with national interests and existence of national programme in area addressed Generally an existing budget line; level of funding committed by most of the countries are, in general, well adjusted to the R&D demand; however, discrepancies across national contributions may create problems Incompatible rules of participation and funding at national level may also create problems

27 Relevance of ERA-NET Cofund to national / European policies

28 Contribution to ERA objectives: Contribution to transnational collaboration highly appreciated Strengthening the international (beyond the EU) dimension is gradually happening but is also topic-specific (serves Open to the World policy) It facilitates dissemination of results and knowledge and facilitates science society dialogue Mobility and gender issues addressed within the funded projects under ERA-NET Cofund Actions

29 Contribution to H2020 objectives: Grand Challenges are directly addressed as Cofund topics are incorporated in H2020 work-programmes Contribution to European competitiveness is topic-specific; innovation dimension addressed but rather reflection of the nature of the topic addressed than a proactive approach; overall Innovation dimension has to be strengthened

30 Contribution to the ERA-NET objectives: Critical mass is created in tackling societal challenges at European level; Durable cooperation dependent on maturity of network, level of commitment of MS and availability of funding Coordination of existing programmes is achieved (although not to the level of aligning national strategies /programmes) ERA-NETs needs to be underpinned by an overarching strategy; even considered a preparatory step to formulate higher level strategies that can later be the subject of initiatives likes JPIs Facilitates widening participation to lower performing countries, although several areas of improvement in this regard.

31

32 Number of participations of EU13 countries in ERA-NET Cofund actions Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia 0

33 WP leaders from EU 13 : monitoring and assessment of projects resulting from cofunded call (for the Romanian, Slovakian and Cypriot partners); communication, exploitation and dissemination of the research results (for Slovenian partners); management of the co-funded call (Cypriot, Polish and Czech partners). A good example of engagement of EU13 partners in leading positions is TRANSCAN2 where both Slovakia and Slovenia partners have a major role in the project management.

34 Major factors limiting participation: Missing strategies at national level for encouraging publicpublic partnerships; Unclear/not defined national priorities for participation in ERA NETs for almost all EU 13 countries; The Cofund instrument is still not seen at national level as a framework under which multilateral cooperation with all EU countries could take place; Lack of available budget for investment; Shortage of administrative sources; Lack of awareness of the Cofund instrument; Lack of experience with the tasks at hand or WP leadership; Complicated national administrative procedures.

35 Additional factors limiting participation: The Cofund consortia are not always very experienced in widening mechanisms; The enlargement of the consortium is not always accompanied by appropriate widening measures to make the enlargement successful in terms of EU13 success rates and active engagement; The management costs are not covered by the EC in the Cofund instrument; The limited number of staff managing the Cofund does not allow to develop a widening strategy; The synergies with the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are not exploited.

36 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

37 The added value of the ERA-NET Cofund instrument is the value it brings additionally to that of other comparable options like previous versions of the ERA-NET instrument or national programmes

38 The main comparative advantages of ERA-NET Cofund increasing the quality of research activities (increased competition in research leading to higher quality and excellence) allowing countries to access complementary knowledge and/or research capacity from other countries to address specific societal challenges (critical mass) allowing countries to improve their scientific and technological capabilities increased funding and visibility of certain research areas collaboration with third countries and increased visibility and attractiveness of the EU research and innovation system

39 Overall, the merging of activities in the two previous versions (ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus) in the current ERA- NET Cofund instrument received positively by the ERA-NET Cofund community. While the new version seems to be doing at least as well as its predecessor in relation to launching and implementing calls, some think that the FP7 ERA-NET version was more efficient Yet, ERANET COFUND is seen by all stakeholders as a crucial element for building ERA, in fact, the ERA NET instrument has paved the conditions for producing solid ties of mutual trust among the countries

40 Intentions of countries with regards to participation in ERA-NET Cofund in the future as expressed by the national representatives

41 ERA NET COFUND EXPERT GROUP

42 Success factors for the ERA-NET Transparency and trust Clear and efficient procedures Committed and active ERA-NET partners Open, democratic and inclusive management style Creating a real team with synergies Good relations to funders, ministries, stakeholders Good relations with the EC The role of coordinator becomes more crucial in COFUND in comparison with FP7 ERA NET.

43 Major Bottlenecks Management of financial aspects (UC + black box) = high administrative burden; still not clearly understood by all ERA- NET partners ERA-NET Cofund generally seen in MS and within the EC as progress, but many MS / EN coordinators find the Cofund administratively heavy. Guidelines for financial management are needed Management of late comers

44 Overall, ERA-NET Cofund highly appreciate by all stakeholders as a valuable instrument for contributing to the ERA objectives; thus continuation is strongly desired ERA-NETs still not embedded enough in national programmes/ research strategies although there are some good examples. Although the COFUND ERANET is recognized as a useful and powerful instrument for achieving EU common objectives of interests for MS agencies, in general, EU countries do not have yet reached an adequate level of ERA maturity that allows a proper alignment of national policies. ERA-NET Cofund is an efficient and appreciated instrument for third countries

45 Thank you for your attention! Final ERA NET COFUND report will be available from November 2016