1. Workshop: Presentation of preliminary results on the mapping on research programs and infrastructures Preliminary results on EU programs (Session 10:00-10:45) Nicosia, 13th of October 2014

2. Summary 1-Classification of analyzed programs (country; type) 2-Thematics 3-Actions 4-Selection and evaluation procedures 5-Conclusion ( Synthesis SWOT analysis)

3. 1-Classification of analyzed programs Italy Italy reported on 4 Programmes. Among the 4 of these one is dedicated to bilateral collaborations. In addition Italy covers 19 ERANET, involving 5 Italian Ministries in accordance with the topics targeted by the ERANET. The balkan countries represent nearly half of the 11 countries with whom Italy have bilateral agreements while East Med. is represented by 3 countries and Maghreb by 2 countries. This situation differ from the most targeted partners by Italy in the ERANETS which are Israël, Morocco and Turkey while main EU Partners of Italy are France, Spain and Germany.

4. 2-Thematics : Italy Main topics covered are : Agriculture Food Environmental research Economics Social Sciences & Humanities

5. 3-Actions : Italy Most of the Bilateral Programmes are dedicated to Mobility (4) and basic research (3) while Applied Research (2)/ Technological Development(2)/Capacity Building (1) are of less importance

6. 4-Selection and evaluation procedures : Italy Programme Management : Announcement of the calls and responds to these are always done by electronic. Evaluation procedure both internal/external

7. 5-Conclusions : Italy Strategic orientations : Reasons to launch S&T Programmes : Enhancing intal. Coop. With EU MS and Neighbouring countries Human resources development Access to foreign infrastructures and improve Italian ones Training PHD/Post docs Building of knowledge to develop business activities

8. 5-Conclusions : Italy SWOT analysis and main conclusions (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) Major expectations Enhance national research capacity through international cooperation Internationalize the italian research Enhance the visibility and the dissemination of results Favor international scientific production Strengths, Weaknesses & Threats Wide networks and collaboration Bilateral program could boost participation in multilateral programs. Lack of orientation towards innovation and exploitation of results Funds availability due to recent economic crisis and drain brain

9. 5-Conclusions : Italy Main conclusions : Cooperation and international dimension are among the main issues of R&I in Italy which develop programs in order to : Foster internationalization of science, Enhance knowledge sharing, Share scientific added value of joint cooperation Enhance international dimension of Italian R&I.

10. 1-Classification of analyzed programs Germany Germany reported on 2 bi-lateral Programs with : Egypt (GERF) and Tunisia (TUNGER) funded by the Science and Technology Development Fund and the DLR (German aerospace center) acting for the German Ministry of research.

11. 2-Thematics : Germany Topics covered by the projects are the following : Economics Social Sciences & Humanities (2) Energy energy technologies (2) Some topics mentioned within the different progams focus on a transdisciplinary aproach (Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Management, knowledge and technology transfer).

12. 3-Actions : Germany The projects developed within these two programmes are focused on : applied research Capacity building technological development

13. 4-Selection and Evaluation procedures : Germany Announcement of calls & application Calls promoted through various means (Newspapers, Internet, Mail or personal distribution) used in parallel. GERF Progr. is in favour of application only via mail while TUNGER uses both electronic submission and sending of hard copies. Opened calls or periodic calls with specific deadlines are used by the 2 Programmes

14. 4-Selection and Evaluation procedures : Germany Evaluation Procedures Depending of the Program TUNGER: independent and external experts with 2 stages evaluation procedure GERF : external Peer Review, regular projects reporting

15. 5-Conclusions : Germany Strategic orientations Issues of most importance : International dimension Exportation/importation of knowledge Access to foreign infrastructures Less importance given to Breaking isolation and human resource development Regarding the implementation of the Programs, issues very much present in good practices : encouragement of bilateral activities in disciplines that are priorities in EU programs (6), the encouragement of industrial participation, an additional framework available for researchers from different countries (6), calls for RTD cooperation to potentially interested scientists are adequately disseminated (6) On the contrary there is a failure of effective communication and monitoring at all levels (2), and the lack of knowledge about other bilateral RTD activities in other countries (3).

16. 5-Conclusions : Germany SWOT Analysis and conclusions  This part of the questionnaire has been filled out partially.  GERF Programs aims to provide bilateral research cooperation between the two countries in area of mutual interest; the grants are intended to give – researchers – including young scientists an opportunity to address new areas of scientific research.  Research results generated in these projects are to be developed into concrete applications.  In addition a further aim of the joint research fund is to help scientific networks apply for funding under the EU’s 7th Framework or under national funding schemes.

17. 1-Classification of analyzed programs FRANCE -FRANCE REPORTED ON 19 PROGRAMS -IN ADDITION, a short analysis has been conducted on the french participation of FP7 (Coop. Programme) within the Mediterranean area (based on the e-Corda database). A short analysis of the e-Corda database shows the following things for France : The main partners are Italy (54), Spain (42) and Greece (29) Regarding MPC’s countries, the main partners of France in the FP7 projects (Med. Area) are : Turkey (23 projects), Morocco (22), Egypt (21), Tunisia (20). A second group of MPCs countries are involved in about ten projects with France (Algeria, 10, Israel, 9) while a third group of MPCS countries are involved between 4 and 6 projects with France: Palestine (4), Jordan (4), Lebanon (6). The scientific field linked to environment (SP1.06) is mainly represented (24 Projects) and the second topic of most importance is the scientific field corresponding to Food (KBBE- Knowledge Based Bio Economy).

18. 2-Thematics : FRANCE TOPICS The topical area supported by most of Programmes is Marine and Maritime scientific field and this item has been added to the complete set of topics so that we could have a more realistic view of the topics targeted by the Programmes in France. Marine issue is a rather dominating topic and it is as well due partly to the fact that IFREMER sent a complete database on the Programs where this organisation is involved. Indeed the topic “Fisheries” has been added for the same reasons More horizontal aspects have been added like databases, infrastructures, market, as they are targeted by many of the Programmes in France. This should be highlighted given the importance of these aspects mentioned by Cyprus for example. The wide range of topics covered includes the four societal challenges addressed by ERANETMED which are the following: Environment, Food, Energy, Health.

19. 3-Actions : FRANCE SCOPE In many cases Applied Research is the most targeted item by the programs launched in France which is not surprising taking into account the project-driven approach suiting generally to applied research. Basic research and Technological Development are the second and the third most targeted by the Programs launched in France. Capacity Building and Mobility are less concerned. Mobility is especially targeted by the Partenariats Hubert Curien (PHC) and by bilateral Programs for mobility leaded by research organizations like CNRS, INSERM, CEA… by Funding Agencies like ANR, or created by a developed bottom-up need such as ENVIMED lead by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and MISTRALS.

20. 4-Selection and evaluation procedures Program Management issues Calls & Applications : Calls through Internet, Newsletter, RSS feeds, information shared sometimes through social networks and on dedicated webpage of the managing institution of the call. Unique portal dedicated to H2020 managed by the Ministry for Higher Education and Research. Submission : applicants for funding requested to submit their proposals in electronic. For few cases, after the electronic submission the applicants are requested to send a complete set of original documents validated by a legal authority. The sending of hard copies is however less and less requested simultaneously with the uploaded electronic files on the server. Calls varies between one stage/two stage. Single calls are more used and Open calls and period calls less used.

21. 4-Selection and evaluation procedures : France Evaluation and Funding Evaluation procedure : External experts even coming from other countries (proposal in English in this case), could come either from Progr. owner or other french research organization. Some organizations like National Research Agency (ANR) since 2014 proceed to an evaluation of projects in two stage for a majority of calls launched by this organization (Stage 1 : S&T interest, Relevance, Consistency/Call. Stage 2 : Sc. Excellence, Quality Consortia, Impacts). Funding : All the Programs in France are funding travel costs, personnel costs, consumables, equipment, conferences, and dissemination. In many bilateral Programs, funding of international travel costs are funded by the sending Party and funding of all other costs are taken in charge by the hosting party. Funding volumes could vary from 5K€ to 450/500 K€. Grants around 5K€ are usually used for mobility scheme (CNRS, IRD, INSERM…) while large grants are up to 450 K€ in IRD.

22. 5-Conclusions FRANCE Most of Programmes in France are opened to international participation. This is clearly shown in every Programme dedicated to Capacity building and Mobility considering the fact that France is the country receiving the most students from Africa and that nearly a quarter of all foreign students enrolled in tertiary education in France come from the Maghreb.

23. 5-Conclusions FRANCE Strategic orientations A strong emphasis is given on the Maximum use of research potential and on Ph.D and post-doctoral training support. A second group of the most targeted strategic orientations is consisting of Human resources development, Exporting and importing Knowledge.  It is interesting to notice that these last categories are as well those most cited by the MPC’s countries during the MedSpring survey showing the common need of a new frame for exchange of knowledge. A third group of strategic orientations where the emphasis is put on the improvement of research infrastructures and a better sharing of these. Political considerations are of less importance: there is no need clearly expressed for “breaking up the isolation” (of the country) or for the “stability in the region” (the less targeted strategic orientation item).

24. 5-Conclusions FRANCE Implementation of the Programmes There is a lack of information on bilateral RTD activities in other countries. The complementarity between bilateral Programmes and international Programmes is effective since Programmes in France encourages bilateral activities in disciplines that are priorities in EU Programmes and that Programme leaded in France are offering as additional frame for communication between researchers and different countries. Regarding the industrial participation, the Programmes are regarded as encouraging not sufficiently industrial participation

25. 5-Conclusions FRANCE Conclusions and SWOT Analysis The expectations related to the implementation of the S&T Programmes are the following : Internationalisation, Tackling societal challenges, Improve the general conditions of Sciences and the impact of research Strengths and weaknesses of the French Programmes openess of the national research and innovation system to all scientific fields and the scientific excellence. Bilateral and mobility Programmes are seen as the appropriate instruments to foster the participation of young researchers allowing as well to come up with creative ideas and innovative projects. The co-supervision of students, co-publications, joint project set-up organised within Programmes dedicated to young researchers is playing as well an important role for capacity building. The access to a wide variety of instruments and research infrastructures

26. 5-Conclusions FRANCE Conclusions and SWOT Analysis Weaknesses & threats of the French Programmes Poor articulation between research, innovation, training and industry. Bilateral Programmes with a limited budget covering mostly mobility which is not sufficient for managing and leveraging knowledge. The lack of financial contribution for heavy research instruments. A more coordinated action between stakeholders could be helpful to integrate a large variety of research organisations. Some Programmes should be evaluated more precisely so that Programme managers could identify the major weaknesses of the current Programmes. Threats of french Programs : the reducation of budgets and unforseen reduction of these during the course of a project.

27. 1-Classification of analyzed programs SPAIN Spain reported on 4 Programs All these are unilateral Programs that have started in 2010-2011. Theys are managed by the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) and the AECID (Agency depending of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

28. 2-Thematics : Spain The Programs are not covering a large variety of topics. Major orientations are : Agriculture, Biology-Biotech., Economics-SSH, Energy, Environment, Chemistry

29. 3-Actions : Spain The Programs leaded by Spain are mainly covering : Capacity Building, Mobility with a less interest for Basic Research and Applied Research, while Technological developement is not covered at all. These Programs are mainly designed to train professional researchers to strengthen research institutions and build human capacity for research.

30. 4-Selection and evaluation procedures : Spain Programme Management issues Announcement : always by personal ways, mail, Internet. Sometimes or never by Newspapers. Calls : by electronic means and mail. Calls launched are only single calls. Evaluation : First step : proposals eligible/non eligible. Second step : Peer review followed by an Intal. Joint Committee

31. 4-Selection and evaluation procedures : Spain Programme Management issues Evaluation : The evaluation criterias are different, Somes of the programs use criterias such as quality of applicant as well as of the team he is going to work in, Others use scientific quality and technical feasibility of the proposal, academic and scientific quality of the teams in both countries (Bilateral frame), as well as their degree of complementarity with other actions related to development cooperation objectives. The procedures regarding the evaluation of Bilateral programmes are carried through a peer evaluation and monitored through an evaluation of annual reports. Funding : Travel costs and conferences, Travel and Personal costs for one bilateral Program. Targeted countries : Maghreb, Middle-Near East, Middle East For Inter-Universities programs : Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, all these corresponding to 1/3 of the Program.

32. 5-Conclusions : Spain Strategic orientations The strongest emphasis is put on, Ph.D and postdoctoral training support, stability of the region, and human resources development. In the contrary orientations which do not play an important role are access to foreign RTD infrastructure and improvement of Spain’s infrastructures.

33. 5-Conclusions : Spain Good practices : adequate dissemination to all potentially interested scientists of the calls for RTD cooperation, as well as sufficient information of what has been done by other RTD bilateral activities have been doing in a specific area. Progress on : effective communication and monitoring, lack of knowledge about other RTD activities in other country, and the lack in encouraging bilateral activities in disciplines that are priorities in EU programs.

34. 5-Conclusions : Spain Conclusions and SWOT analysis Strengths : Training and capacity building, Promote Intal. Activities, Development of Policies. Weaknesses : Difficulty to fit to the country’s needs, Dissemination of results, Lack of budgets. Threats : Financial crisis, lack of political and financial stability Conclusion : High interest in Capacity Building and Mobility. Management of Programs similar to most Intal. Programs. Lack of National Funding and great opportunities given by Intal Calls.

35. 1-Classification of analyzed programs CYPRUS CYPRUS reported on 7 Programmes : 3 National Programmes 2 JPIs (Water, Agriculture/FACCE) 2 ERANETS Solar-Era, EraSysApp Programmes whether National or International (JPIs and Eranets) are always managed by the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) either as the Programme owner or the funding/administering agency.

36. 1-Classification of analyzed programs CYPRUS SCOPE Cyprus is involved in the frame of the 2 ERANETs Solar-era and ERASysApp. -Solar-era involves partners from the EU mainly with only 1 MPC (Turkey) and gather Programme owners participating with national funds to the 2 joint calls launched within this project. -ERASysApp, is as well gathering partners from the EU mainly, with no MPCs involved and launched a first call for proposal funded by the following Programme owners: Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland. Regarding JPIs Water and FACCE, the distribution of participating countries is more or less the same than for the Eranets since the water JPI account 2 MPCs (Turkey, Israel) while there are two in the FACCE JPI (Israel, Turkey).

37. 2-Thematics : CYPRUS TOPICS The Programmes in Cyprus are not covering a large variety of topics. These are primarily oriented towards Biology and Biotechnology and Healthcare and Medicine scientific fields. Next preferred topics are Energy/Energy Technologies, Environmental research together with General Research where no specific topics were identified. Horizontal aspects, such as Entrepreneurship is targeted by 2 Programmes.

38. 3-Actions : Cyprus SCOPE Cyprus most Programmes target Applied Research (6) and Technological Development (6) while Mobility (5) is as well one of the most targeted item by the Programmes in this country. Capacity Building (3) and Basic Research (4) are targeted by fewer Programmes. However, Programmes in Cyprus are more oriented to Basic Research compared to other countries where the present survey has been conducted. Opened sometimes to foreign individuals/partners (limited to 30%max of the RPF’s contribution).

39. 4-Selection and Evaluation Criterias : Cyprus Programme management The main way to announce calls for proposals like in other countries is more and more using internet. This said, all Programme owners are going beyond that, using all the channels of communication proposed in the survey including personal contacts while it is less used in other countries concerned by the present survey. Calls for applications for Cyprus can be organized in one single way, only by Mail (Hardcopy). Regarding Calls for proposals these are organized mainly in form of one time calls with a specified deadline. Calls for proposals can be occasionally in the form of periodic or open Calls.

40. 4-Selection and Evaluation Criterias : Cyprus Evaluation : The evaluation procedure entails external experts except for Bilateral Cooperation Programme where proposals are evaluated through Peer Review and International Joint Committees. Bilateral Cooperation Programmes are evaluated following a slightly different procedure since each country follows an independent procedure.  Cyprus is following a kind of 3 steps evaluation : 1 Preliminary check- eligibility / 2 Scientific expertise by independent experts / 3 final selection negotiation by the Joint Committee taking into account the scientific evaluation results of both parties (Cyprus and the other country under the bilateral frame).

41. 4-Selection and Evaluation Criterias : Cyprus Funding : Any kind of costs Targeted organizations : For JPIs and Eranets where Cyprus is involved, any legal entity (University, Research Center, Enterprises, NGOs, Public Organisations…) are eligible for funding. Openess of Programmes: Varies according to the kind of existing Programmes in Cyprus :  Bilateral Cooperation Programme is sometimes opened to third countries e.g. within the Targeted International Cooperation Programme but their participation must be specified in the call for proposals.  For other Programmes, these are opened to Organisations and individuals from abroad and they can receive up to 30% of the RFS’s funding.

42. 5-Conclusions : Cyprus Strategic orientations The strongest emphasis is put on issues like :  Importing knowledge,  Access for foreign RTD infrastructures,  Ph.D and post-doctoral training support,  Human resources development,  Breaking up the isolation,  Exporting knowledge. Other issues are of less importance like  Enhancing links with formerly emigrated scientists,  Improvement of your country’s research infrastructures,  Representing your country’s interests,  Stability in the region

43. 5-Conclusions : Cyprus Conclusion and SWOT analysis  Programmes are designed to improve the general conditions of science in Cyprus (opportunities for young researchers, Ph.D. and post-doctoral)  The international dimension should be highlighted (efforts done to support the international linkages of National Programmes with other partner countries)  Reinforcement of the national research and innovation system  Programme management and related activities are seen as well as a strength of research Programmes in Cyprus

44. 5-Conclusions : Cyprus Conclusion and SWOT analysis  Weaknesses and threats :  The lack of resources is often mentioned either as a weakness or as a threat.  Consequences : researchers might have difficulties in raising awareness and mobilizing resources to implement the projects (e.g. national contribution to the common pot in EC funded projects).  Financial limitations in national budgets  No long term agreement for funding the collaboration.  Within an EU funded project, what is the future after the EU funding ceased?  Within EU projects, if the process or structure becomes too complicated, risk of becoming a“closed club”.  Needs to find a niche or funds to continue the project initiated.

45. 5-Conclusions : Cyprus Conclusion  The way of managing the Programmes and the projects (implementation, evaluation, procedures, submission…) the use of external experts and peer review etc. shows that Cyprus uses the same common instruments for calls as used in other countries. This indicates that for all Programmes in Cyprus the good instruments are in place for bilateral or multilateral cooperation.  Fragmentation of research which takes on crucial importance in the moment when the national funds are decreasing.  A better coordination of research Programmes should be implemented through the linkage between national Programmes and international ones (including EC funded projects) with the necessity to build up a critical mass for funding and collaboration.

46. Thank you for your attention Antoine Weexsteen antoine.weexsteen@cnrs-dir.fr CNRS-INSU