Eurostars

Report
Eurostars –
A Joint Programming Initiative.
Implementation and Impacts
Georg Licht
Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)
Mannheim
Innovation: Engine for Economic Growth
Sofia
October 31 2014
Agenda

What is Joint Programming?

What is Eurostars?

Virtues and Vices of Eurostars

Potential Impacts
What is Joint Programming?

R&D programmes jointly financed and governed by the
European and the level of member countries of the EU

Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) = Lisbon Treaty
“In implementing the multiannual framework programme,
the Union may make provision, in agreement with the
Member States concerned, for participation in research
and development programmes undertaken by several
Member States, including participation in the structures
created for the execution of those programmes”.
Joint Programming - Examples

FP6 2002 bis 2006
 European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials
Partnership (EDCTP)

FP7 2007-2013
 Ambient Assisted Living (AAL)
 Eurostars
 European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP)
 Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme (BONUS4
Joint Programming – Examples II

Horizon 2020 (FP“8“ 2014-2020)
 Alzheimer and other Neurodegenerative Diseases (JPND)
 Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE)
 A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life
 Cultural Heritage and Global Change
 Urban Europe - Global Urban Challenges
 Connecting Climate Knowledge for Europe (CliK’EU)
 More Years, Better Lives
 Antimicrobial Resistance – The Microbial Challenge
 Water Challenges for a Changing World
 Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans
What is Eurostars?

Programme to foster R&D in SMEs in member countries of EU and
several associated countries (Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Iceland,
Turkey)

Near-market research (two year till product/service introduction in
the market after project end)

Lead partner: R&D intensity >10%
(R&D spending/turnover or R&D employees/total employment)

Minimum: 2 partners from 2 participating countries

Partners: Firm of any size; universities; public research institute

Bottom-up approach open to all technologies and all industries

Project: <3 years; typical size of EUR 0.8-2 million
Joint Programming in Eurostars

EU fund from FP7: up to EUR 100 million conditioned on a
contribution from member states of EUR 300 million; Hence,
EU share is not more than 25%

Responsible for implementation: EUREKA

Centralised evaluation and decentralised funding decisions
(each country finance only participants from their country)

Internet-based application via EUREKA website;
 2008-2009: One call per year; 2010-2013:Two calls per years

Evaluation by two technical experts (different countries,
excluding the home countries of applicants)

Quality-based ranking of all projects by evaluation panel
(Ranking list)
Project Ranking and Funding in
Virtual vs. Common Pot System
Virtues and Vices of
Virtual vs. Common Pot System

Positiv:
 Incentive effect for national funding provision
 Each country only fund participants from there own country (and
receive a top-up on its own resources out of EU funds)
 Each country can select the amount of money it can afford to fund
R&D in SMEs cooperating with international partners
 Learning from partner how to best fund SME R&D projects
 International platform for competition on the best available SME R&D
projects

Negativ:
 High coordination effort needed
Potential Impacts

Innovation in new products / services / process

Improvement of IP position

Improve EU wide visibility

Ease market excess to large markets in Europe through
collaboration in the R&D phase and also the market
introduction phase

Easy funding procedure and quick decision on technical
quality of project

Relative small effort need for development of the proposal

Technological openess allows for high flexibility in content
of the R&D project

similar documents