date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:07:10 +0100 from: "Alex Haxeltine" to: "mike hulme" Details of how we can get funding for non-EU partners: 3. 3rd Country Participation in FP6 Louis BELLEMIN Head of Unit, Research DG Louis Bellemin began by outlining the three major routes for international co-operation in FP6: (i) Opening of the thematic part of FP6 to third country organisations (with significant funding available); (ii) Specific measure in support of international co-operation; and (iii) International mobility of researchers. In addition to these, he stressed that the international dimension is a cross-cutting issue that effects the whole of the Framework Programme. (i) In terms of the opening of thematic priority projects to third countries, Mr Bellemin said that this included TPs 1-7, as well as Specific Activities Covering a Wider Field of Research ('TP8'). Partners from any country can participate in any consortium, as long as the minimum number of partners from Member and Associated States is respected, and third-country partners are in addition to these minima. A budget of ˆ285m is available to pay for participation of third countries, although this is for INCO target countries (developing countries, Mediterranean partner countries, Russia and other Newly-independent States, and the Western Balkans) only. The general rule is that there will be no Commission financing for 'rich' countries, although the rules state that it is possible to provide some funding for them if it is deemed necessary to the project to do so. It should be noted, though, that this happens extremely rarely. To date, third country participation in the thematic areas of FP6 is low, and the take-up of the ˆ285m is small. This is unlikely to be due to lack of interest, and more likely to be due to lack of awareness of the opportunities. (ii) In terms of specific measures for international co-operation, Mr Bellemin emphasised that these need to be based on mutual interest, rather than European Community interest (as in the case of the TPs). Consequently, policy dialogue is essential. This generally happens with groups of countries, although an exception is made for some large countries (e.g. China, India, Russia), with which bilateral dialogue takes place. INCO projects can be in the same domains as projects in the thematic priorities, therefore it is essential that care is taken to ensure complementarity, as opposed to duplication. No New Instruments are used in INCO, only STREPs, CAs, and SSAs. (iii) On the subject of international mobility of researchers, Mr Bellemin stated that there was a high incentive for European researchers to go to INCO countries, as the funding available under the Marie Curie programme is generous and goes a long way in these countries, even after being adjusted according to the cost of living. He also stressed that as well as individual fellowships both to and from third countries, up to 30% of the fellow months in some host actions (EST, RTN) can be used for fellows from third countries. Mr Bellemin stressed that in research 'Europe' is wider that just the 25 EU Member States. Whilst the 25 are key in terms of decision making, participation as European is open to 33 countries in total - the 25 plus Israel, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey. This means that, for example, a Romanian researcher (European) could do an international fellowship in South Africa (3rd country), or vice versa. Mr Bellemin finished by talking about priority setting mechanisms., stressing the importance of focussing on global issues. The External Relations DG, the Development DG, and the EuropeAid Co-operation Office all contribute to policy making in this area, and there is synergy between the various Community actions, both FP and non-FP. The question and answer/discussion session covered the following: Q1: Has there been any analysis of the low participation of 3rd countries in FP6, and are there are recommendations as to how to promote participation? A: The new mechanisms for participation simply weren't known by the research community; therefore proposers didn't know about the changes from previous FPs. Mr Bellemin stressed the need for 'soft' measures, such as promotional activities, and asked that all delegates present communicate the message to their own institution. On 15 June 2004 a call was launched for Specific Support Actions for third countries with a science and technology agreement with the EU; it is hoped that this will result in the establishment of systems that allow for better exchange of information between targeted countries and the EU. Q2: Could the funding be used for third countries wanting to join into I3/Transnational Access projects under the Research Infrastructures programme? A: The Council decision with respect to the use of the ˆ285m is that it can be used in the thematic priorities only. Views on this should be fed into the consultations on FP7, in the hope that funding can be used more flexibly in the future. Mr Bellemin then expanded on his personal view that there should be an increase in international mobility in the future, which could include fellowships attached to research facilities (along the model of Transnational Access). It would also be beneficial if there was a dedicated budget line related to science and technology agreements, if there was an international ERA-Net scheme, and if there were more regional co-operation platforms on different topics. Q3: Bringing additional players into existing projects doesn't always work well. A: 'Topping up' of existing partnerships works well from a political perspective, but not from a scientific one. This is, therefore, not what the Commission envisages. Rather, they encourage partnering according to where excellence is; that is, in the niches where third-country partners best fit. Consequently, they envisage dedicated calls to achieve this. Q4: Proposal preparation (e.g. for IPs) takes a long time, and it can be hard to get organisations from developing countries on board without start-up funding. A: Mr Bellemin agreed with this sentiment, and said that INCO has always experienced delays for this reason. However, in an IP it is possible to bring a third-country partner on board later in the project. Sometimes in FP6, INCO country partners get negotiated out of projects in the TPs, following budget cuts; co-ordinators do not always realise that there is no need to do this, as their funding comes separately from the ˆ285m. Q5: It would help if the ˆ285m could be used for third-country researchers to travel at proposal preparation stage. A: Some directorates of DG Research have had targeted activities aimed at facilitating proposal development (e.g. nanotechnology meeting in Russia; visits by Indian researchers organised by the sustainable development directorate). So, some limited opportunities do exist. Q6: Is the fact that partners have to cover 50% of the project costs a barrier to participation by developing countries? A: The vast majority of organisations from these countries use the Additional Cost model, and so this is not the barrier. FURTHER INFORMATION: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/iscp/index_en.html