D5.1 - Minutes of a Workshop with other Third Country Platforms (Montevideo, 16 March 10)

Transcription

1 Project title: Grant Agreement number: Project acronym: ABEST II Argentinean Bureau for Enhancing Cooperation with the European Community in the Science, Technology and Innovation Area. Phase II Funding Scheme: INCO-BILAT D5.1 - Minutes of a Workshop with other Third Country Platforms (Montevideo, 16 March 10) Due date: 31/02/2010 Actual date: 24/06/2010 Document Author/s: CIRAD

2 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms Deliverable Fact Sheet Deliverable Version: 1.0 Deliverable Type: R Current Release Status: PU Final Release Status: PU Workpackage: WP5 Organisation Responsible: CIRAD Primary Contributor: CIRAD Reviewers: MINCYT, CONACyT, CONICyT, BBice Delivery Contributions No. Date Sections Change Editor 1 All Prepare the report CIRAD 2 10/06/2010 All Quality Review MINCyT Actual Date of Delivery 10/06/2010 Audience Public Restricted Internal Version number Status Draft WP leader accepted Quality checked Project coordinator accepted 2

3 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms Executive Summary The aim of the First WP5 workshop is to identify common issues, opportunities, synergies, best practices and lessons learnt, together with other similar LAC and EU liaison platforms and NCPs, in order to improve the future organization, performance and impacts from the liaison offices and functions. This workshop was held on 16 March 2010, in Montevideo, Uruguay, together with representatives from the 4 LAC based EU S&T Cooperation Promotion Offices, ABEST II colleagues and a European Commission representative. A concise report is produced that identifies the main meeting s objective drawn from a comparative analysis between liaison offices and NCPs. In addition, these are translated into a set of policy suggestions to be sheared between the LAC offices for further working. 3

4 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms Table of contents First Workshop Background Context: Objectives: Outputs:... 5 Workshop Description... 5 Results: Comparison Matrix... 6 Principal Messages from Analysis and Discussions Annex 1: Acronyms

5 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms FIRST WORKSHOP BACKGROUND The First Workshop Analysis of EU-LAC S&T Promotion Offices' Best Practices represents the Task 5.1 of ABEST's activities. Task leader: CIRAD Task collaborator: MINCYT Context: The EU project FP7 ABESTII is the second phase ( ) of the EU-Argentina S&T promotion office, coordinated by the Argentine MINCYT. Its WP5 aims to share knowledge and best practices with other EU-LAC liaison offices, similar regional and third countries platforms and EU information services. The following workshop is part of this WP5 activity. 1.2 Objectives: As per the DOW specifications, discussed during the KOM and further analyzed with MINCyT colleagues on 22 January of 2010, the aim of this First WP5 Workshop is to identify common issues, opportunities, synergies, best practices and lessons learnt, together with other similar LAC and EU liaison platforms and NCPs, in order to improve the future organization, performance and impacts from the liaison offices and functions. 1.3 Outputs: Through the organization of a short workshop, a concise report that identifies the main objective of the meeting was drawn from a comparative analysis between liaison offices and NCPs. In addition, these are translated into recommendations for adjustments / improvements. WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION The meeting was held on 16 March 2010 in Montevideo, Uruguay from 2 to 5:30 PM, integrated with the EULARINET set of events which took place from 15 to19 March. Participants: María Alejandra Alvarez, Monica Silenzi (MINCyT, Argentina), Paulo Egler, Carolina (BBice, Brazil), Claudia Romano, Denisse de Moraes, Rafael Canetti (MEC, Uruguay), Astrid Waltermann (CHIEP, Chile), Hector Rocha (CONACyT, mx), Maria Luiza Tambora (EC), Cornelia Andersohn (DLR, Germany), Caroline Blaché, Guy Henry (CIRAD, France). Input: a 2-page matrix listing the principal 8 functions / elements that will be used for the comparative analysis. This outline is distributed prior to the workshop (so that participants can collect their information prior to the event, and those invited unable to participate, can send in their information). Modus operandi: During the first 1.5 hours, participants presented their platform, structured by the themes, as obligatory format. During the second 1.5 hours, they discussed and analyzed the principal points and recommendations. 5

6 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms RESULTS: COMPARISON MATRIX: Functions and elements for analyzing the EU-LAC Liaison offices (Ar, Br, Cl, Mx) performance 1 - Information exchange ABEST II Argentina BBICE Brazil UEMXCyT Mexico CHIEP Chile Uruguay * 1.1 Web site tool (FP info) 1.2 Information days, workshops 1.3 Video conferences (past or future) 2 - Training Current update of the new ABEST II website yes yes yes yes Organization of Infodays yes yes yes Yes, especially as part of EULARINET Positive experience + will be actively used in future as well as Skype meetings and phone conferences. They are thinking to have a videoconference with Brussels but they do not have the EC confirmation yet. They organized some thematic meetings they have some experience They have no used it yet; however they are ready to use it if the event requires the system. In the EULARINET framework 2.1 On FP7 program and its functioning 2.2 On FP7 open calls by theme 2.3 ON FP7 project finance, admin, etc 3 Match-making General workshop. Trainer training event (ex. University of Cuyo and San Luis) targeted to scientific and UVT offices from academic centers NCP explains the call Now a new NCP: SMEs Some but not a lot Info personalized Workshops Workshops Information Days and Workshops BBice team since Brazilian NCPs are not organized BBice team through prepared learning material NCPs Together with NCPs? integrated in the workshops about FP7 program and its functioning? 3.1 Identification of EU partners on high interest themes Mostly thru informal relationships. Sometimes as a response from EU (European contact ABEST to ask for a partner) Via NCPs Use of European NCPs mailing lists and also through informal relationships. Mostly thru informal relationships. Mostly thru informal relationships. We are also requesting information to European NCP networks and research organizations with Not pro-active 6

7 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms 3.2 Co-financing country scientists missions to the EU 3.3 Organization of events in country and EU 3.4 Through partnerships in EU- LAC networks Published grants calls for researchers to travel to EU Thinking to include private sector for the next calls (#3) Argentina will be in workshop on ICT in Brussels in stand Event (with support from APRE organization) No travel grants They co-finance travel grants to the EU ICT in stand Workshop in Brazil about participation of SMEs in FP7 How to improve this participation? YES BBice has tried, but without success. Example: EULARINET ICT In stand. Experience: 40 people were to Lyon MX stand result: positive to improve visibility projects in Chile 2 scientific missions will be carry out during 2010 They plan to attend the ICT2010; they are looking for resources for a stand. They are coordinating missions to research centres. YES YES? No At the moment, they do not have expected to participate 4 - S&T offer (identification of top groups, thematic priorities, roadmaps etc) 4.1 Developing priority themes with thematic NCPs and S&T actors 4.2 Thematic priorities + roadmap by NCP 4.3 Organization and management of thematic NCPs Workshop to collect info to know themes of interest (videoconference on SICAs) Videoconference between NCP & pairs in the EC They have data based in each theme (by NCP) + prepare contacts with experts in other areas. Each NCP elaborate a roadmap in coordination and collaboration to MINCYT which alter that is agreed with his pair at the EC and presents as a document in the Bilateral Agreement SC Meeting Some NCP are very active traveling, with a lot of contacts, others much less Some of them are part of network of NCPs (e.i. Health- NCPs are not yet in place. BBice has worked very well at the institutional level, as for example with Embrapa, Fiocruz, etc Participated in SICA development Participated in SICA development Organizing a national KBBE round table to identify priority themes (project BIOCIRCLE) No NCPs in place.? Roadmaps by theme are developed NCP were appointed, but there was no financial incentive to comply with activities. It did not work. It is important to take into Strategy thru sector funds; one was established by the Foreign Ministry, and named NCP targeting of CONICYT named the NCPs but some of them resigned for lack of time Conclusion: do not need to appoint Participated in SICA development as part of EULARINET NCP are delegates from the relevant ministries (5 out of 9), hence 7

8 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms NCP-net, Bio Circle) What are the incentive for the NCPs? in Argentina: contacts, information, travel Mincyt finances the travel of NCP to Europe (incentive) Not all NCP are researchers. The NCP for PyMES is not a researcher, he is the the chief of the department of regional development, area of CyT of the Argentine Industrial Union, KBBE e INCO belong to MINCYT NCPs do not represent institutions, they are individuals designed by MINCYT in accordance with their expertise and knowledge regarding the cooperation with the UE. consideration the extent of dissemination What is the role of the NCP? What is the legitimacy of a NCP for developing a roadmap. EC negotiates only at the federal level, and do not take into account the importance of the states NCP cannot be a person, it must be an institution. The office has a mailing list by subject for the diffusion of the info (instead of NCPs) To establish this list: it depends on the contacts in the area (some difficulties to establish the mailing lists) National Institutes of Science and Technology have been supported by CNPq. They are thematic research networks (there are 123 of these networks) but there is lack of will, it is difficult to get their involvement. EU. Were named some 6-7 NCPs with a budget for 18 mths of sector diagnostics, travel etc. Other NCPs don t receive funds but they are linked to BiLat. NCP is not a person but an institution. Roadmap is a strategic output of each NCP as a sector diagnostic + proactive analysis, thematic networks. The funded NCPs are accountable and are controlled all by the Conacyt and Ministry (not a good practice) 5 Help-Desk 5.1 On-line, face2face, presence in BRX Organized activities such one person per field of interest. In the Argentine Embassy in BRX there is a person that liaisons on S&T with Mincyt and the EC. There is also a collaboration w Have a helpdesk thru telephone or direct contact. After each newsletter contact demand increases. There is a person at the Brazilian embassy in BRX Collaborators are organized by area and project. They are supported by the NCP structure: Hector as director, then a project important scientists. 4 meetings per year with NCPs. They participate in the political dialogue w the EC in the S&T coop accord framework. They define the priority themes in their field of interest. They are organizing an introduction and training for 5 new NCPs. They are looking for NCPs that have formed teams and are not just individuals. Last year there were few people available. Who was there would intervene when possible. This year we start with change with political changes). They do not receive extra funding for being NCP. Most are director level who have teams in place. Hence some w little time and hence delegate much to their networks. Some NCPs function very well: TIC Little demand can be handled 8

9 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms the Spanish SOST office in BRX. Would be useful to establish additional communications between the EU country offices present in BRX IGLO that deals with S&T. Proposal: would be interesting to have better / more relations w the IGL manager and personnel by area/project. At the Chile Embassy in BRX there is a specific person on S&T paid by the Conacyt. face2face meetings. There is a designated person to reply to mail or phone inquiries. 6 Monitoring and evaluation of FP7 calls Observatory (ex-ante and ex-post analysis) 6.1 Current and future calls (SICAs) (ex-ante) Have a lot of support from the EC in terms of information sent (C. Nauen) Explanation of the open calls. The idea is to offer more user friendly infos to private sector companies like translation etc. This we are already doing. Importance: conduct the calls monitoring by the various NCPs Interviews. Survey at the national and LAC level, asking how certain infos were obtained. (task of CHIEP2, EULARINET) 6.2 Analysis + feedback of country success and failure in past calls (ex-post) Are involved in an analysis of statistics (success + failure) and implementing a survey Have conducted an analysis of successful project results. How to solve the problem of getting access to the needed information??? Web survey. Mexico also wants to analyze the nonsuccessful Project proposals. Wants to apply a type of SWOT analysis Wants to conduct an impact study, Survey at the LAC level asking how they received the information (task of EULARINET) Analyzed successes and now need to analyze the failures 7 - Integration of Liaison Office in bi-regional NCP Networks, NCP events etc + other strategic projects 7.1 Member of NCP networks like INCONTACT, BioCircle etc Partner of several (but not INCONTACT) Only involved marginally Member of INCONTACT. Conacyt is member of several networks. Also an incentive for the NCPs to apply for these calls in order to be linked up to these networks. Member of BIOCIRCLE 7.2 Best practices They are starting to do this Internally done through Made an analysis of At NCP level: internal 9

10 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms internal / external evaluations 8 - New instruments internally based on midterm reports etc. They also respond to surveys sent by EC auditors or projects. mid-term reports and analysis of the deliverables. Nothing external. But the SC could be a critical evaluator. internal, but NOT external. evaluation of the work performed. NO external evaluation. 8.1 Joint calls Eulanest 2009 in nanotechnology and renewable energy was a very positive experience. Also was diffused at national level the MX-EU coordinated call for LAC R&D groups. We met with problems in the organization of the joint call on bioenergy In Nanotechnology (11 million Euros: 5 Mex + 6 EU) experience most positive from the start. As condition: private sector partnerships. This resulted in the involvement of 18 companies. It was envisioned to participate in the EULANEST call, but because of problems they had to withdraw. 8.2 Twinning 6 projects financed with cofinancing of MINCYT. Participation from a BIOTEC delegation (of the countries) in a EU meeting regarding international opening of the ETPs. They hope to apply for these in the near future, on several themes. NO NO When Chile discussed twinning with the EC the answer was that the EC interest for this was regional and not with one country only 8.3 Other instruments w/ country cofinancing Idea to co-fund each AR partner in EU project with a PhD fellowship from Mincyt. Also, co-financing for private companies thru calls when they partner with Universities etc in Nano, biotecnology + ITC During FP6 there was a national program of additional funding for all approved projects, but that was cut for so far; the new policies are not known yet. * Please note that the Uruguayan MEC (NCP) office was included. But this is not an FP7 SSA EU S&T Coop Promotion office. NO 10

11 Summarized comparative interpretation. Arg Bra Mex Chi 1 - Information exchange 1.1 Web site tool (FP info) H H H H 1.2 Information days, workshops H H H H 1.3 Video conferences H - M L 2 - Training 2.1 On FP7 program and its functioning H H H H 2.2 On FP7 open calls by theme H H H H 2.3 ON FP7 Project finance, administration, etc L - - L 3 Match-making 3.1 Identification of EU partners on high interest themes L L L L 3.2 Co-financing country scientists missions to the EU H - M Organization of events in country and EU L L H L 3.4 Through partnerships in EU-LAC networks H L H H 4 - S&T offer (identification of top groups, thematic priorities, roadmaps etc) 4.1 Developing priority themes with NCPs and S&T actors H L M H 4.3 Thematic priorities + roadmap by NCP M L L H 4.4 Organization and management of thematic NCPs H L H L 5 - Help desk 5.1 On-line, face2face, presence in BRX M M H L 6 Monitoring and evaluation of FP7 calls Observatory (ex-ante and ex-post analysis) 6.1 Current and future calls (SICAs)(ex-ante) H M H M 6.2 Analysis of country success and failure (ex-post) M M M M 7 - Integration of Liaison Office in bi-regional NCP Networks, NCP events, strategic projects 7.1 Member of NCP networks like INCONTACT, BioCircle H L H M 7.2 Best practices internal / external evaluations M L L L 8 - New instruments 8.1 Joint calls H - H Twinning H Other instruments w/ country co-financing L H = significant involvement; M =medium; L =little; - = zero or not applicable

12 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms PRINCIPAL MESSAGES FROM ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS 1. During the earlier years of the Liaison Offices, interactions among them were more frequent. This practice was significantly reduced at the end of the first phase. The current meeting, spearheaded by ABEST II is seen as a very positive occurrence and first step, in the hope that it may revive again the Offices interactions which are deemed important and very useful. 2. Furthermore, there seems to be both concrete opportunities + interest for creating more structural links between the 4 Offices that could generate significant WIN-WIN options. Some kind of EU-LAC S&T Cooperation virtual platforms? 3. The matrix showed that while in general the 8 key functions are being executed in each Office, there are specific practices that differ from one to the other. These include: a. Match making activities thru co-financed travel grants of national scientists traveling to EU to visit potential project partners (i.e. to negotiate an invitation for joining a consortium ). b. The construction of national thematic roadmaps (who, where, what) c. Good management, selection, incentives, financing, functioning of thematic NCPs seems very important, d. Representation facilities in Brussels; also linked with country publicity during specific events (stands in ECT 10) e. Analysis of ex-post national FP6-7 experiences to be used as strategic info to improve approach in the future calls, f. Yes/No or just a bit internal or external Office evaluation again can help to improve future performance, g. Some Offices are member in most bi-regional networks, others are in few or none.. These networks can both complement and/or boost Office activities and performance h. New instruments: joint calls and twinning (only Argentina), most important since that is the future. i. Brazilian Office has included as a work package the elaboration of a bilingual data base that includes information regarding the competences of Brazilian research and development institutions. The objective is to disseminate information concerning these institutions in order to facilitate partner searching. Another activity resulting from this data base is the elaboration of bilingual booklets for each FP7 thematic areas, which include information about the main research topics being developed in Brazil, and which institutions are developing these research areas. The use of these booklets is also to disseminate in Europe information about S&T in Brazil. 4. It is evident that the Argentina, Chile and Mexico offices have benefited from being a EULARINET member, BBice has missed this opportunity (which can be observed). The opposite applies since the Uruguayan MEC NCP has greatly moved forward, benefiting from being an EULARINET member. 5. The exercise shows also the marked differences between a Liaison Office and a regular NCP in LAC. Given that the Liaison Office Bi-Lat projects existence are conditional on formal EC S&T cooperation agreement (politically very costly) a case could be made to think about introducing Light Liaison Offices, that are NOT conditional on a full EU S&T Cooperation agreement 6. So far, this exercise analyzed LAC cooperation offices. It would be most useful to analyze these current results with champion NCP offices outside of LAC. 12

13 ABEST II D5.1 Minutes of Workshop with other Third Country Platforms ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS ABEST II: Argentinean Bureau for Enhancing Cooperation with the European Community in the Science, Technology and Innovation Area. Phase II BBice: Brazilian Bureau for Enhancing the International Cooperation with the European Union CHIEP: Strengthen Chilean European S&T Partnerships CIRAD : Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (France) CONACyT: National Council on Science and Technology (Mexico) CONICyT: National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (Chile) DOW: Document of Work EC: European Commission EU: European Union FP7: Seventh Framework Programme INCO-BILAT: Bilateral Horizontal Actions and Measures in Support of International Cooperation KOM: Kick-off Meeting LAC: Latin America and the Caribbean MINCyT: Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (Argentina) NCPs: National Contact Points PU: Public S&T: Scientific and Technological UEMEXCyT: Oficina de Enlace para la promoción de la Cooperación entre México y la Unión Europea en Ciencia y Tecnología WP: Workpackage 13