VINNOVA s views and recommendation for the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

Transcription

1 1 (12) VINNOVA s views and recommendation for the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Executive summary The Europe 2020 strategy identifies investments in research and innovation as one of the key factors to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe. VINNOVA agrees, and in this paper we state our views and recommendations on the next Framework programme for research and innovation. Priority settings in FP8 must be based on a Grand Challenge approach, since it will bring about a shift from a problem oriented perspective to one where all efforts are aimed at developing solutions to the challenges at hand. Increased support for innovation. Supporting innovation in SMEs, using public procurement to create demand, stimulating the development of key enabling technologies, and providing efficient access to loans and venture capital are some important measures to strengthen the competitiveness of European businesses. An improved Cooperation programme should continue to be the backbone of the Framework Programme. Collaborative projects have been successful in stimulating cross border networks between actors from industry, academia, research institutes, and the public sector. However, VINNOVA foresees that changes have to made, both in the current thematic/sectorial structure and in the priority setting processes, in order to address Grand challenges and to further support innovation. Evaluate the current instrument portfolio. A lot of new instruments were introduced in FP7, and this has resulted in a very complex European research and innovation support landscape. In view of FP8, it is important to streamline rules and regulations and to reassess the current set of instruments with the aim of reducing complexity. Reduce the administrative burden Increase internationalization. Continue to open the Framework Programme for participants outside of Europe and develop effective instruments to further strengthen collaboration with existing and emerging knowledge nodes around the world. VERKET FÖR INNOVATIONSSYSTEM - SWEDISH GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY FOR INNOVATION SYSTEMS VINNOVA0006 W/1.2, Post: VINNOVA, SE Stockholm Besök/Office: Mäster Samuelsgatan 56 Invoice address: VINNOVA FE 34, SE Strömsund Leveranser/Deliveries: Klara Norra Kyrkogata 14 Tel: +46 (0) Fax: +46 (0) VINNOVA@VINNOVA.se Orgnr: VAT-nr: SE

2 2 (12) Introduction The Europe 2020 strategy has identified three priorities for the development of European Societies: Smart Growth Sustainable Growth Inclusive Growth One crucial factor to achieve the targets set up in the strategy is increased investments in research and innovation activities both at European and national levels. Being one of the world s largest R&D programme, and a crucial instrument for aligning academic, industrial and public sector actors in cross border R&D projects, the Framework programme will continue to be one of the most important Community instrument to achieve the Europe 2020 vision. This vision is confirmed by the recently published Innovation Union with a clear focus on societal challenges as well as on industry driven priorities. VINNOVA recognizes the increasing importance of European actions to build strong European economies able to tackle global challenges and competition, and therefore, welcomes this opportunity to make suggestions for the future Framework programme. 1. Towards a Grand Challenge-based approach There is an on going debate on how to prioritize and structure themes in the FP. In light of the many global challenges that mankind faces, such as climate change, ageing societies, the concept of Grand Challenges was launched as a way to guide future investments in research and innovation. 1 VINNOVA supports this move away from a strict thematic approach for a number of reasons: From problems to opportunities. A Grand Challenge based approach brings about a shift of efforts from studying the nature and effects of challenges and instead focuses academic and industrial creativity to find solutions to the problems at hand. From needs to demand. The Grand Challenges represent societal needs. However, needs are not necessarily or automatically translated into demands 1 Lund Declaration. From the Swedish Presidency Conference New Worlds, New Solutions, Lund, July 6-8, 2009.

3 3 (12) that will stimulate investments, neither private nor public. Real incentives are required, and these are often economic. The public sector, including the EC, under the guidance of bold and visionary politicians, must use the Grand Challenges to design powerful policies to secure the creation of demand. In terms of FP8 this means making effective use of demand side activities, such as public procurement, smart regulations and standardization. Opens up for cross sector, systemic solutions. Challenges are often identified in a specific sector or research field. However, the solutions are often found in others or require actors from different sectors to collaborate. Without the Grand challenge perspective there is a risk of choosing non optimal sector specific solutions instead of going for long term sustainable approaches on system level. Stakeholder involvement. Securing effective, systemic solutions requires involving actors from many different sectors. The Framework programmes have been and continue to be an important vehicle for stimulating collaboration between, academia, research institutes, and industry. The Grand Challenges perspective stresses the importance of multi domain project teams with participants from different sectors, such as industry, SMEs, academia, and the public sector. In this context, VINNOVA would like to emphasize the importance the ETPs have played, and the need to continue and develop this concept. Using the work done by the ETPs it is important to move forward and find effective ways for cross platform collaboration, as well as widening the range of actors involved. Operationalizing Grand Challenges. In order to use the potential in the Grand challenge concept there is an urgent need to make them operational. According to VINNOVA, the way forward is to disaggregate the current reoccurring list of challenges into a number of sub challenges. These sub challenges must be delimited in such a way that a reasonable number of stakeholders might be identified and targeted research and innovation measured might be implemented. 2. Fundamental Principles and Benefits of the Framework Programme The Framework Programme is an important vehicle for creating critical mass in areas of great importance for future European competitiveness though its support of research

4 4 (12) and innovation in industry, SMEs and universities. Evaluations show that the FPs have had significant impacts on Swedish actors including: 2 Expanded international networks Influence on technology development and standards Inclusion in top level research networks Strengthening industry academia interaction Support to innovation in large companies and SMEs The European Added Value perspective should be kept in mind when discussing the design of the future Framework Programme. Making joint investments in R&D activities in Europe has a number of advantages: Fostering transnational collaborations Addressing cross border challenges, ranging from regional to global Creating critical mass Stimulating industry academia public sector interaction Raising competition and promoting excellence through joint calls 3. Suggestions for FP8 3.1 Stimulating Innovation Being the Swedish national agency for innovation systems, VINNOVA encourages the increased focus on innovation in the Europe 2020 and the Innovation Union flagship project. Funding for collaborative projects through the Specific Programme Cooperation has been instrumental in: Fostering transnational cooperation, mainly between European actors Stimulating innovation as a result of the projects by having users, such as industrial participants and public sector actors, being active partners in the projects VINNOVA wishes to stress that pre competitive research at European level, which has been the foundation of previous Framework Programmes, will remain essential in the future. In these Cooperation projects, collaboration between different actors, including companies that would normally be competitors, is fairly uncomplicated with regards to 2 Arnold, Erik et al (2008) Impacts of the Framework Programme in Sweden. Stockholm: VINNOVA/Technopolis.

5 5 (12) IPR and technological development. However, as the European programmes increasingly target innovation, i.e. the introduction of products or services on the market, the role of EU funding becomes less straightforward. The reason is that the closer you get to innovation, the closer you get to outputs and impacts affecting organizations as well as, nations and regions, which will benefit different participants in different ways. Consequently, questions concerning IPR and the location of investments become gradually more important. This being said, VINNOVA welcomes the increased attention being paid to innovation both from the Commission and the Member States and suggest the following measures to be included in FP Strengthening SME participation The Eurostars programme, which is implemented as a collaboration between the Commission and the Eureka organization in an article 185 undertaking, is an attractive instrument from the point of view of SMEs and appears to be working effectively. Based on the experiences so far VINNOVA would suggest that the Eurostars model and instrument should be included in FP8. It should also be considered having two strands in the second generation of Eurostars. The first strand would be aiming at researchperforming SMEs, while the second one would be targeted towards research for the benefit of non research performing SMEs. VINNOVA urges the Commission to increase the funding for Eurostars in FP8, and calls upon the Member States to commit multiannual budgets in the Eurostars program. SME programme in FP. Any future instrument in FP8 targeting innovation in SMEs must be more oriented towards the demands of the companies. Within the thematic areas of the predecessor of Cooperation, VINNOVA believes SMEs would benefit from smaller, more flexible projects which can be rapidly implemented. This would imply setting aside parts of the budgets for calls that put SMEs in the driver s seat of development projects with a clear focus on releasing their commercial potential. Inspiration for such a policy and programme development could be gained from the experimental work on innovative SME support as developed under the CIP, eg the INNO Partnering Forum as a part of PRO INNO Europe Public procurement Public procurement has the potential of becoming an important tool to transform societal and industrial needs into demand. However, in this context it must be carefully assessed what the possible role would be for European initiatives. One potential arena for discussions regarding future public procurement activities on a European level are the European Innovation Partnerships launched as part of the Innovation Union flagship project. The partnership might for instance be used to coordinate public procurers in member states in specific fields in order to create the critical markets needed for

6 6 (12) companies to embark on risk development project. Examples of such areas include smart grids, where there is a need for common standards, and antimicrobial resistance where the public sector has to guarantee the availability of a market Key Enabling Technologies Measures to support the development of key enabling technologies must be included in the FP8 in order to strengthen the competitiveness of the European industry. The ETP s will be important for identifying future technologies. VINNOVA also urges the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the Public Private Partnerships (PPP) introduced in FP7 as part of the Recovery Package. In this case, the Future Internet PPP is of special interest since it clearly addresses a key enabling technology. VINNOVA believes it is important to maintain the PPPs within the structure of the FP7, instead of outsourcing them to separate Community bodies (as were the case with the Joint Technology Initiatives). Another possible instrument are the Knowledge and Innovations Communities (KICs) funded by the European Institute of Technology. Increased investments in demonstrators and testbeds. Demonstration activities are important for bridging the gap between pre competitive research and market introduction, as well as, for developing future key enabling technologies. Providing public money to support demonstrators must be made with the intention to develop spaces for open innovation where interested parties can join forces to create critical mass Access to venture capital Risk Sharing Financial Facility The Risk Sharing Finance Facility is a debt based instrument to complement more traditional grant schemes at European level. To create RSFF, the European Commission worked in close collaboration with the European Investment Bank (EIB), with the aim to establish a fund of up to 10 billion. Financed partly from FP7, but mainly from the EIB s resources. Projects funded by the RSFF must meet the quality criteria stipulated by the EIB, including creditworthiness, financial viability and techno economic risks. So far, projects worth a total of 6.3 billion have been signed and approved, and include participants in 18 member states and 2 associated countries. The mid term evaluation argues that the RSFF is an important contribution, since it is an innovative, demanddriven instrument which has dramatically expanded European financing for R&D, and which has worked in an anti cyclical way during the financial crisis. 3 The EIB has also shown its ability to adapt and refine the instrument in the course of its first three years by developing new financing products to meet the requirements of so called pathfinder projects. The evaluation also praises the efficient implementation of the 3 Mid-term evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF). Final draft of the Group of Independent Experts (2010)

7 7 (12) Date RSFF. VINNOVA would argue for a continuation of the RSFF and an increase in resources allocated to debt based research financing, especially with the objective to increase the number and range of SMEs financed. To be able to provide support to different actors in different phases of the innovation cycle VINNOVA would like to see greater flexibility in FP8 building on experiences from national/regional programmes. This should also include the facilitation of knowledge dissemination and utilization of results. 3.2 The Future Design of Cooperation As mentioned elsewhere, VINNOVA believes it is crucial for Cooperation to continue as the backbone of FP8. However, we are not content with the current rigidity in thematic priority settings and call design procedures. The content of future calls must focus on solving Grand challenges and have clear impact logics. Moreover, for the global competitiveness of European Industry it is important for Cooperation to be more flexible in terms of content throughout the FP8. However, it is hard to foresee a complete breakup of the current thematic/sectoral division of the areas in FP8. VINNOVA also questions if this is the best way to achieve a move towards a more challenge based approach. Instead, mechanisms must be put in place to ensure: Better ways for all actors, including industry, to provide input to the design of instruments and contents of calls. According to VINNOVA, one important way of giving input to the annual FP7 Work Programmes has been the European Technology Platforms. These should be maintained and developed further during FP8. The introduction of European Innovation Partnerships is a promising idea, and if successfully implemented, these partnerships must have a major impact on the priority setting discussions in FP8. Bring together businesses from different sectors and scientific disciplines to adopt of multi disciplinary approaches that can foster innovation. Focus on scalable and flexible sustainable solutions Greater flexibility in order to meet arising challenges and opportunities Increased numbers of joint calls between thematic areas in order to address cross sectoral challenges Key enabling technologies must be addressed and efforts are needed in order to integrate them in applications which address Grand Challenges Flexibility in the composition of projects in terms of size and length Targeted bottom up research calls for collaborative trans national projects in all thematic areas (c.f NEST in FP6 and FET in the ICT programme)

8 8 (12) VINNOVA would also like to recommend the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the FP7 list of themes and investigate the consequences of decreasing, adding, merging, or changing of any of the existing ones. 3.3 Instrument stability Content flexibility A number of new instruments and sub instruments were introduced in FP7. Some, such as the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) and the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) were designed to strengthen links between the FP and industry, while others sought to forge alliances and increase coordination between national financing and the FP (ERA Net+, Article 185 projects). Although evidence of the effectiveness of these new instruments is still slim, VINNOVA wishes to raise the following general issues concerning this development: Complexity. The increasing number of instruments is in itself a problem from the point of view of Framework Program participants. In addition, each of the five JTIs have set up their own legal and administrative framework, and the same development is seen in the Article 185 initiatives. Moreover, the outsourcing of management to bodies outside of the Commission has created new difficulties from the point of view of participants. As a result, the European research and innovation landscape has become more complex, especially for SMEs, which for obvious reasons lack the capacity to keep track of constant changes and penetrate the wide range of public support offers available. Devaluation of the selection process and the detrimental influence of national agendas. The mixing of Commission and Member State funding in article 185 instruments and selected Joint Technology Initiatives have led to unwanted effects in the selection processes. After the ranking of the projects via a joint peer review process based on clear criteria, the final funding decision is also dependent on the availability of member states budgets for co funding. In some cases, this has resulted in projects with a low rankings getting funding only because the partners in the consortia where from countries with budget to fund the project. 4 Moreover, as shown in the recent evaluation of the Article 185 initiative AAL, it is problematic that some types of participants are seen as ineligible for funding in certain countries and eligible in others. This might be accepted in some instances, for instance when the coordination of member state funding is valued very high. 5 However, the increased used of these kind of models of funding and project selection must be carefully monitored in order to 4 Bernotat et al (2010) First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC joint Technology Initiatives. 5 For instance, this model has been common practice in Eureka since 1985.

9 9 (12) Date avoid that the recognition and trust in the evaluation processes in the core of FP7 is being devalued. Excluding applicants. A third drawback is the creation of an insider outsider situation, where only partners from countries that have allocated national budgets can be part of applications, or at least get access to the FP funding. For these reasons, and the fact that a lot of industrial and academic partners have learned to apply for and perform R&D projects in traditional transnational collaborative projects, VINNOVA calls for the major part of a future FP8 budget to be allocated through a Cooperation like project approach with true common pots for all EU 27 member states and associated countries. 3.4 Simplification From an accounting to an investment perspective Simplification of the FP is crucial. The current set of rules result in an excessive administrative burden and discourage potential beneficiaries from participating. With the introduction of FP7, a number of simplification measures were introduced, but there is still a need for further action. VINNOVA would like the Commission to address the following issues: Uniform interpretation and application of rules. Different views on how to apply the existing rules between, DGs, Executive agencies, units, and even project officers within the same unit, add to an already heavy administrative burden of FP7 projects. Necessary actions, including streamlining of procedures and training of all involved personnel in the Commission and executive agencies, need to be undertaken before the launch of FP8 to ensure a uniform interpretation and application of rules and regulations. A better balance between sound financial management, financial control mechanisms and trust in researchers needs to be found. One possible route could be to increase the tolerable risk of error. Broader acceptance of participants internal accounting principles and practices including the use of average personnel costs. Reduce time to grant. Further efforts should be made to reduce time to grant by accelerating the administrative process (publication, evaluation, project selection, negotiation). In FP7, it is apparent that time to grant varies greatly between the different thematic areas, indicating that some parts of the Commission and agencies have been more successful than others. Before the launch of FP8, routines must be in place to reduce time to grant across all areas, which might include an exchange of best practice inside the Commission, and

10 10 (12) Date the introduction of transparent benchmarking systems between thematic areas to stimulate improvements. IT tools and processes, user support and guidance adapted for FP8 must be in place as the new Framework Programme is launched. Furthermore, VINNOVA sees the need for a reduction of the complexity of the research funding landscape. The benefit of simplifying the core of FP7 is limited if new instruments with specific rules and regulations keep being introduced. Hence, VINNOVA calls for a one to one principle in FP8 where an instrument with specific rules and regulations only can be introduced if an existing one is removed. VINNOVA would also like to urge the Commission and other bodies setting up European RDTI programmes, such as future JTIs, ERAnets, etc, to consider using the existing rules and regulations. One example, which from an administrative point of view has been appreciated by the stakeholders, was the decision to include the Recovery package PPP initiatives in the FP framework. VINNOVA recommends the Commission to identify synergies between activities and instruments such as JTIs, CIP, structural funds etc. and, where possible and use identical set of rules. VINNOVA also supports the principle to streamline implementation of the FP e.g. through externalization as long as this give clear benefits in terms of efficiency in implementation and even more important, is seen as an improvement by stakeholders. However, more important than to tamper with the existing administrative framework there is a need to change perspective when it comes to administrative procedures and monitoring of projects. What is needed is a move from an accounting to an investment perspective. What would characterize such a change in perspective? Focus on objectives of the project rather than fixed deliverables. Such an approach would introduce a greater flexibility into the projects, which is more in line with the nature of R&D projects. Explorative, pre competitive research often leads to results that have effect on the way that future R&D must be performed in order to reach the objective of a project. Such an approach would also be better suited to the demand of SMEs. Risk tolerance, but with reoccurring mile stones where the progress in the project is measured against the defined project objectives, short and long term, which were approved in the selection process. However, preconditions for introducing such a model are very clear objectives and transparent intervention logics on the programme or call level. Without these no objective criteria for evaluation of progress is available and there is a risk that a milestone process might result in arbitrary termination of projects.

11 11 (12) Date Leaving room for Great Ideas VINNOVA recognizes the further need for the European R&D programmes to include a bottom up strand. The ERC has been a huge success and has gained recognition from many stakeholders. However, in light of the evident challenges identified in the Europe 2020 and elsewhere, VINNOVA s view is that the ERC s share of the total budget should be maintained but not increased. Another reason for a maintained share is to safeguard the real added value of ERC, which is to ensure excellence by making the competition for grants fierce and thereby increase the attractiveness ERA for world class talents. VINNOVA also recommends the ERC to create an industrial sounding board or special scheme to promote the use and up take of results from ERC projects. 3.6 Mobility and Marie Curie VINNOVA acknowledges that the People programme has been a major success and one of the key instruments for realizing the ERA. VINNOVA wishes to stress that that one of the most important aspects of these instruments is that they are broad and inclusive, supporting diverse categories of applicants not the least industry and SMEs. In FP7, the Marie Curie actions has managed to keep a solid line of continuity from previous Framework Programmes, yet still managed to develop and introduce new instruments that have replaced old actions. Four actions have been of particular importance: The individual fellowships (IxF) Initial Training Networks (ITN) COFUND Industry Academia Pathways and Partnership (IAPP) VINNOVA argues that the Marie Curie instruments should follow a clear line of continuity in FP8 and be further strengthened and developed. The individual fellowships constitute a gold standard within the ERA (and globally), clearly setting the mark under what conditions and standards EU researchers should work. The Initial Training Networks have most likely had an enormous impact on structuring research within the ERA on a micro scale. It is likely to be one of the most important tools in structuring the ERA under FP7. The Initial Training Networks has been extremely competitive, with success rates below 10% in each call, indicating its potential impact if further developed towards the knowledge triangle and the integration of EIT and the existing master and doctoral programmes in DG EAC. The COFUND action is all new to FP7 and to some extent represents the People programme s response to Joint Programming, but in the structure of a project rather that a multi national joint programme effort. The development and continuation of COFUND in FP8 is of utter importance since the response rate of national budget cycles for research funding organizations, in order to set up new national fellowship programmes, in practice probably act on a scale of 3 to 5

12 12 (12) years rather than annually. Therefore the real impact of COFUND is to be seen. In this context, VINNOVA also would like to emphasize the importance of European efforts to stimulate industry academia mobility. In particular, the IAPP action found its successful form in FP7 and is an important contribution to the industrial participation in the Marie Curie actions in FP7. In view of FP8, VINNOVA would like to further prioritize and strengthen this and other initiatives within Marie Curie which stimulate mobility between the public and private sectors. 3.7 Internationalization - EU and the world As other regions rapidly strengthen their research and innovation capacities (with Asia perhaps being the most notable example) but also as the urgency to address global challenges grows, the ability of European research and innovation to link up with other regions, markets and research and innovation agendas and to meet global needs for innovative solutions to grand challenges becomes increasingly important. The International Cooperation Program (INCO) and the Framework Program play an important role in opening the ERA to the world. The program has strengthened European research by promoting cooperation with leading researchers outside Europe and by linking the ERA to strategic regions, markets and research agendas in other parts of the world. However, with a number of new instruments for international cooperation being introduced during the first half of FP7, some of these tend to overlap each other during implementation. In view of FP8, future instruments with such aims should be better coordinated to avoid several projects with similar tasks. VINNOVA acknowledges the active promotion of the FP s global linkages in FP7, and we believe that the general opening of the framework programme to international cooperation is of great value. However, we see the need to further strengthen strategic collaboration with prioritized countries and regions, with the aim of increasing the quality and attractiveness of European research, and its capacity to tackle global challenges. The recent reciprocal opening of NIH and FP7 Health is a promising start, since the focus of the international dimension of the Framework Program increasingly should be on engaging with partners from countries outside Europe on equal terms and in programs and activities of high mutual interest. VINNOVA urges the Commission to refrain from going too far in making third countries conform to the existing structures and mechanisms of the Framework Programme. Instead, one should look for mutually beneficial modes of cooperation.