UK businesses and the EU RTD Framework Programme, FP5 to FP7

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UK businesses and the EU RTD Framework Programme, FP5 to FP7"

Sybil Holland
6 years ago
Views:

1 UK businesses and the EU RTD Framework Programme, FP5 to FP7 A presentation based on research carried out under contract to BIS, winter 2009/2010 Paul Simmonds 29 th October 2010 The EU RTD Framework Programme A large, and expanding programme EUR 7 billion a year in FP7 An increase of around 200% on FP5 expenditure c. EUR 500M a year in income to the UK (10% of UK science budget) c. 50% expansion was driven by extension of the FP into new arenas, many with limited relevance to mainstream EU businesses European Research Council ERANETS Science in society Humanities FP7 supports fundamental and applied research across the spectrum, from agriculture to transport 2

2 Headline statistics, FP5 FP7 (to Dec 2009) UK organisations have been widely involved with FP from outset Across the last three programmes, FP5 to FP7 (1 st 3 calls) UK organisations were in 20,000+ projects, or 44% of total UK participations = 23,000, or 12% overall UK income = 5.76 billion, or 15% UK public research profile somewhat different to norm Universities = 60% UK participations; 40% EU overall Enterprises = 20% UK participations; 25% EU overall Institutes = 11% UK participations; 26% EU overall 3 UK industry income (FP7 to Dec 2009) Headline income figures UK = 270M (EC income contracted in first 3 calls) UK = 12% industry income for EU27 Germany = 428M (20%) France = 308M (14%) UK income relative to German and French industry income UK / Germany = 62% [-3%] UK / France = 87% [+7%] UK = 13% EU27 GDP; = 65% German GDP; = 80% French GDP 4

3 UK industry income by thematic priority (FP7) Areas where UK industry has a higher share of EC ind income Research infrastructure ( 64M, 64% EU; 1300% DE; 900% FR) Marie Curie Actions ( 12M, 17%; 107%; 153%) Research for the benefits of SMEs ( 23M, 14%; 123%; 164%) Security ( 11M, 14%; 151%; 80%) Ares with a relatively low share of EC income Energy ( 7.4M, 5%; 25%, 66% ) [- 11M] Environment ( 2.5M, 7%; 47%, 78%) [- 5M] Food, Agri & Biotech ( 2.9M, 8%; 56%, 58%) [- 2M] Space ( 3.4M, 8%, 61%, 23%) [- 2M Health ( 14.8M, 9%; 43%, 55%) [- 7M] ICT ( 60M, 9%; 37%, 62%) [- 28M] Transport ( 42M, 12%; 57%; 54%) [- 4M] 5 UK industry participation, by thematic priority (FP7) Key areas where UK business is most engaged, in relative terms Science in society (UK/EU ind: 12%; UK/D: 225%, UK/Fr: 450%) Social Science and Humanities (13%; 117%, 117%) Research for the benefit of SMEs (14%; 117%, 204%) Key areas where UK is less engaged Food, Agri & Biotech (10%; 55%, 79%) Transport (10%, 54%, 50%) ICT (9%; 47%, 65%) Space (9%, 73%, 34%) Environment (7%; 43%, 74%) 6

UK R&D Scoreboard and FP6 participants Top 5 sectors, by number of participating firms Pharma / Biotech: 114 / 20 (18%); Life sciences Tech hardware: 61 / 15 (25%); ICT / IST Chemicals: 60 / 15

4 UK R&D Scoreboard and FP6 participants Top 5 sectors, by number of participating firms Pharma / Biotech: 114 / 20 (18%); Life sciences Tech hardware: 61 / 15 (25%); ICT / IST Chemicals: 60 / 15 (25%); NMP Electronic eqpt: 79 / 14 (18%); ICT / IST Software & computer services: 125 / 11 (9%); ICT / IST Lower levels of involvement 1-3 UK-resident firms in each sector Healthcare, general industrials, automotive, food, oil, mining, telecoms 7 Top 10 R&D Scoreboard companies, sorted by participations (FP6) 8

5 SME participations (FP7) UK SMEs UK businesses = 562 participations, out of 1,515 in total (37%) UK SMEs = 455 participations, out of 562 all industry (81%) UK SMEs = 455 participations, out of 1,515 (30%) All EU27 SMEs EU businesses = 5,140 participations of 12,173 in total (40%) EU SMEs = 4,167 participations out of 5140 all industry (81%) EU SMEs = 4,167 participations out of 12,173 in total (32%) 9 Commercial benefits similar to applied research anywhere Inputs Access to organisations with particular competences Access to financial subsidies Outputs very similar to applied research anywhere Commercial outputs not widely sought or reported New knowledge and relationships in 95% cases Reports and events are principal tangible outputs Outcomes Further collaborations in a majority of cases Improved sales and competitiveness in 10% cases Innovations in 5% cases International recruitment in a small proportion of cases 10

6 Impressions on current UK FP support arrangements Large, distributed system of national delegates and national contact points (NCPs) Covering all FP programme areas, reasonably evenly Good flow of information on future calls Poor view of demand from business, beyond the main players Poor view of project outcomes or concrete commercial benefits Systems feels a little diffuse / fragmented Tens of organisations Key positions shared across several people and organisations Resources thinly spread and very high turnover in personnel BIS coordination role is facilitative rather than strategic, by design 11 Overall, UK system is missing a strategic perspective The system relies on domain specialists Very good people within national delegations, whose longstanding experience and insight carries weight in debates in Brussels (Although PM committees much less influential than EU-level technology platforms and other agenda-setting nets) Similarly, there are some very experienced NCPs, whose depth of knowledge is palpable: on tactics, partnerships and instruments Embodied / tacit knowledge hugely valued by clients But, overall however no clear view as to how best to improve UK outcomes or extend engagement across UK business communities Certain countries investing heavily in their support networks, targeting particular programmes and implementing various support measures including financial incentives (matching funds) Caution: some positive results (Denmark), while elsewhere impact was marginal (Ireland) 12

7 Conclusions UK business participation has improved from the low point in FP5 FP7 income is broadly in line with Germany and France, in relative terms However, UK is weaker in the bigger industrial research programmes (e.g. ICT) And stronger in specialist (non-industry) programmes (e.g. Res Infrastructure) Unclear why, but looks structural (ICT dominates programme; - 200M deficit) Long-list of secondary factors (but these deter business in all countries) Timeframes: 5-7 years from first discussions to roll out of IP Costs : heavier and more restrictive burden of auditable requirements on all organisations (FP4 / FP5 evaluation revealed 50%+ firms =costs outweighed benefits) Success rates: 10% overall but much lower for new entrants Payment terms: final payments can take very many months, even years, to clear Tertiary factors UK business support somewhat fragmented UK not widely / actively engaged in all key agenda-setting EU networks Other issues Balance of FP investment profile across key challenges and sectors Gaps in FP coverage relating to e.g. high value services or public services 13 Recommendations In terms of the UK support system, one might wish to look at The network strategy: consider focusing NCP resources on key points of deficit (e.g. ICT, energy, health) The sufficiency of market intelligence available to the network New measures to engage a greater % of target communities Support for UK involvement in EU technology platforms Case material (on benefits) for marketing In terms of FP8, we suggested UK stakeholders might usefully Continue to promote the simplification agenda Push for extension of FP into support for non-technological innovation and unfamiliar sectors, like high-value services 14

8 Thank you You will find the 2010 BIS report at impact-eu-rtd-framework While our previous review, from 2004, is at 15

How to enhance New Member States and Candidate Countries participation in FP6+

How to enhance New Member States and Candidate Countries participation in FP6+ Manfred Horvat and Josef Säckl European and International Programmes (EIP), FFG - Austrian Research Promotion Agency Contents