National report on joint and open programmes FRANCE

Transcription

1 JOREP Joint and Open REsearch Programs [Contract No. RTD/DirC/C3/2010/SI ] National report on joint and open programmes FRANCE Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

2 Document Information Sheet Deliverable Title Abstract Authors National report on Joint and Open Programmes: France This report provides an overview of the French innovation policy and in particular on its participation to joint and open programs. Philippe LAREDO and Edwige CHASSAGNEUX Copyright 2011 The European Communities, all rights reserved. This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission. It may also change without prior advice. 2

3 Content 1 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC RESEARCH FUNDING IN FRANCE R&D funding and execution: global figures Public project research funding: overview Changes since The creation of the ANR Targeted one-off calls to structure the French academic landscape Revisiting innovation policies (1): pôles de compétitivité Revisiting innovation policies (2): a massive new tax credit Public research funding: evolutions during the 2000s MAPPING JOINT AND OPEN PROGRAMS An introductory overview: French longstanding international engagements Joint programs Opening of national programs French central operators Mapping the programs Participation to European and international programs Joint programs at the European level (with national funding) Bilateral programs with other countries OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION Availability of data and methodological issues Problems encountered with data availability and measures taken to overcome problems ANNEXES Appendix 1 : COST FACT SHEET Appendix 2: French National Research Agency (ANR) Fact Sheet Appendix 3 : OSEO FACT SHEET Appendix 4: Joint technology initiatives FACT SHEET

4 TABLES AND GRAPHS GRAPH 1: EXECUTION AND FUNDING OF R&D IN FRANCE IN TABLE 1: INTERNATIONAL FLOWS GRAPH 2: MAIN SOURCES OF PUBLIC FUNDING AND MAIN PUBLIC RECIPIENTS, FRANCE, TABLE 2: MAIN FRENCH PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS... 8 GRAPH 3: STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC FUNDING, 1982 AND GRAPH 4: MODIFIED STRUCTURE OF FRENCH PUBLIC FUNDING IN TABLE 3: VENTILATION OF ANR FUNDS PER RECIPIENTS BETWEEN 2005 AND TABLE 4: SUPPORT TO PÔLES DES COMPÉTITIVITÉS, FUNDS FOR TABLE 5: EVOLUTION OF RULE AFFECTING THE FRENCH R&D TAX CREDIT TABLE 6: MAIN FRENCH CIVILIAN OPERATORS: 2008 RESOURCES AND INCREASE OF RESOURCES BETWEEN 2002 AND TABLE 7: MAIN CIVILIAN OPERATORS: 2008 SOURCES OF EXTERNAL RESOURCES TABLE 8: DEFENCE, MINISTERIAL SERVICES AND EPIC: 2008 EXTERNAL EXPENDITURES TABLE 9: 2009 ANR INVOLVEMENT IN SEVEN STRATEGIC THEMATIC BOARDS TABLE 10: OPENING OF PROGRAMME BLANC ON SPECIFIC DISCIPLINES FOR SPECIFIC COUNTRIES IN

5 1 Introduction The report contains three main sections: - Section 2 condensates qualitative and quantitative knowledge about French public funding. We present the overall French funding and execution figures at the national level. Section 2.2 focuses on public funding and gives the sole extensive account existing on project-based funding. As it is rather old (2002), we elaborate on the major changes Public research has witnessed since, and we make an attempt to identify some of its effects on French operators. For this we rely on the most recent available set of data produced by the French statistical office in charge of R&D (2008). - Section 3 presents the main programmes with an international orientation, mostly open and joint programmes following JOREP definition, but not only. Section 3 elaborates first about existing international involvements of France, with the aim to position open and joint programmes in the overall frame of international activities. It then focuses on competitive funding sources at national and agency levels. The core of open and joint funding programmes are now managed by ANR ( fundamental and targeted research ), OSEO (support for small firms) and the industry part of the Ministry of economics and finance (mostly Eureka clusters and JTI). Specific points are made on other minor sources of funding; while two sub-sections elaborate on the exclusion of research organisations (and CNRS in particular) and on the involvement of regions in joint programming. - Section 4 focuses on the methodological issues and the problems encoutered as well as how we have solved them. In the Annexes, we develop some of the key programs and funding agencies activites in France. 5

6 Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) 2 Overview of public research funding in France This section provides an overview of the public research funding in France. Section 2.1. presents the current R&D funding and execution in France. Section 2.2., which is the core part of this section, focuses on the the changes whichh have occured during the last years in the French research landscape and which has mainly impacted the French project funding. 2.1 R&D funding and execution: global figures Graph 1: Execution and funding of R&D in France in 2008 Source: Ministère de l enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2010, Rapport sur les politiques nationales de recherché et de formations supérieures, annexe au projet de loi de finances pour 2011 (also called Jaune 2011 ) Graph 1 accounts for the flows organising R&D funding and execution in France in It splits funding and execution in two categories: administrations (including higher education institutions and not-for-profit organisations) and companies (hereafter, public and private). This simple graph helps to capture three central following elements: - Direct flows differ significantly: 87% of industry funding goes to French-based industry while only 73% of public funds go to French public bodies. - Public-private flows (3.1 billion) are 5 times higher than private funding of public research (0.6 billion). We find here a specific feature of French support to industry R&D. This feature is mostly borned out by Military R&D, which represents around 60% of total direct support to 6

7 industry R&D. This has reduced by nearly half over one decade ( ) from nearly 0.15% of GDP to 0.08% of GDP. - Funding flows outside France represent more than 10% of total R&D funding and are equally split between public and private. They are 1 billion higher than international flows to France (4.4 billion against 3.3 billion). They also are very unbalanced since flows to French public research (0.6 billion) are nearly 5 times smaller than flows to French industrial R&D (2.7 billion). Furthermore the former have remained flat between 2003 and 2008 while the latter have increased by 20%. Another striking feature deals with firm international funding: it has more doubled between 2003 and 2008 (from 1 to 2.1 billion) highlighting the very fast globalisation process firm RDI activities are witnessing. TABLE 1: International flows Public financing* Private financing Public resources Private resources Net global Net public Net private * Public financing includes French funding to EC FP source: Jaune 2011, p.157 A second important feature deals with dynamics (TABLE 1). French official statistics show a flat situation in term of overall effort since the beginning of the 2000s: it was 2.21% in 2002 and went down to 2.16% of GDP in 2008 (preliminary figures for 2009 show that this would be exactly back to the 2002 figure: 2.21%). Three points are worth noting: - The composition in term of funding of R&D expenditures (DIRD) has not changed during the decade. It is stable around 55% for firms (54% in 2008) and 45% for administrations (44% in 2008). - The internal composition of public funding has however quite significantly evolved. It has witnessed a relative regular and very strong decrease of military R&D: nearly 20% of national R&D funding (DNRD) during the 1980s, 10% in 1996, stabilised around 8,5% between 2000 and 2005 to slide again to 7.5% in 2006 (and even below in 2007). - Similarly looking at execution the composition remains relatively stable: around 63% for companies and 37% for administrations (including NGOs). There has however been a regular shift in the internal composition of administrations. 2.2 Public project research funding: overview In order to provide an overview of the main funding channels in France, this report starts by capitalising on the work done in the PRIME project on project funding (see special issue in Science and Public Policy, and in particular the article by Thèves, Lepori and Larédo, pp ). It provides an overview of the situation in 2002 (this section). This is an important landmark since there has been 7

8 Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) no exercise since to precisely locate project-based funding within R&D public funding, and thus analyses can only be indirect. In order to capture the essence of changes since 2002, we propose an analysis of the main transformations that have taken place during the last decade. We then propose an indirect analysis of evolving features of the French public landscape through a focused analysis of R&D public funding and execution. French public funding is split between departments (or ministries). Higher education and Research (that have merged since) represent 61% of total public funding, Defence 21% and the other ministries 18% (Graph 2). In 2002 half of public funding for R&D went to public research organisations (labelled State, see TABLE 2 for an overview of their importance), 25% to Universities (at large), 20% to firms and 5% abroad (Graph 2). Graph 2: Main sources of public funding and main public recipients, France, 2002 source: Thèves et al., 2002, p. 391 TABLE 2: Main French public research organisations EPST CNRS INRA INSERM IRD INRIA source: Projet de loi de finance Staff EPIC CEA ONERA CIRAD IFREMER 992 BRGM Staff The specificity of the French situation lied in the ways public funds were channelled. Using the standard definitions of project funding, a view of the French system emerged that highlighted its specificity within the European landscape (Graph 3 looking at public funding in 1982 and 2002). It shows a very slow evolution of project funding over 20 years from 11 to 21% of total public funding. This limited amount went for more than 70% to private industry. 8

9 Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) Graph 3: Structure of public funding, 1982 and 2002 source: Thèves et al., p. 392 The sources of public funding were also quite unexpected, since international ones (mostly FP+ESA) represented 32% of total funding sources for project-based funding. Within national sources, agencies accounted for only a small fraction (27% with CNES national programmes representing 15%, ANVAR 8% and all others 4%, that is ADEME for energy, ANRS for AIDS research and ANRT for CIFRE (a mechanism for PhD thesis jointly funded with industry). Ministries directly engaged all other expenditure. The Ministry of defence, which stood at 35% in 1982 and 30% in 1990, has witnessed a rapid decrease to reach 14% in 2000, remaining at that level in It was overpassed by the Ministry of research, with, in particular, its two funds (FRT for technology and FNS for science) with 17% in The Ministry of industry (with its support to information technologies, Eureka, programme supporting the diffusion of new technologies in SME, and actions dealing with key technologies) stood at 8%. In the same article, we took an alternative view of project-based funding, considering that the human and financial support of CNRS to the unités mixtes de recherche with universities could be assimilated to project-based funding (that is funds allocated to a collective project through an open call and clearly established processes of selection). When accepting this wider definition of project funding, France is back to the average features observed in other European countries (see Graph 4). In particular, project-based funding stands at 31%, and the private sector goes down to 46%. Similarly academic research raises to 43% (against 18%) with a major role of agencies (52 against 27%) and a share of international sources that is more in line with other European countries (21%). However, when considering the focus of JOREP, this approach, mostly made of the allocation of human resources, does not add anything to the potential deployment of joint funding programmes based on joint selection of projects through open calls and a shared funding (whatever mechanism is adopted). This is why it has not been adopted in this context. However it does not make things easier, since no further reconstruction of project-baseevolved. In order to assess transformations we shall have to use an indirect approach to the evolving funding has been done since, while the landscape has radically landscape of public operators (funding and execution) in order to appreciate the institutional changes that are taking place. Section 2.3 presents these changes while section 2.4. focuses on evolving trends in the French financial landscape. 9

10 Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) Graph 4: Modified structure of French public funding in 2002 source: Thèves et al., p Changes since 2002 It is important to get hold of important recent changes (within the last 5 years) that do not yet mirror in statistical data, to measure the state of fluxes in public funding of research. We shall consider in turn: the creation of the national funding agency for research (ANR, 2005), the one-off calls aiming at structuring the public research landscape and in particular universities (RTRA in , Plan Campus in 2008 and Investissements d Avenir in ), the radical shifts in the innovation policy with the pôles de compétitivité and with the new R&D tax credit. The creation of the ANR Nearly all funds allocated by the Ministry in charge of research until 2004 (namely the FNS and FRT) have been transfered in 2005 to a new funding agency ANR and the means of ANR have been increased significantly. Project money allocated amounted to 266 M euros in 2005, 275 M euros in 2006 to amount to 648 M in 2008 and 730 M euros in 2009 (ANR 2009 key figures). TABLE 3 presents the ventilation of funds allocated per type of recipient. (Further information is found in section 3, ANR sub-section). It is important to note that this important increase (275% in 4 years) was not compensated by a similar reduction in core funding. On the contrary the annual growth of core funding has remained on a similar trend than previous years. TABLE 3: Ventilation of ANR funds per recipients between 2005 and 2008 CNRS 24% Other EPST 10% Universities and Grandes Ecoles 33% EPIC (CEA and other public institutions) 11% Firms (small and large) 16% Other (hospital, not for profit organisations) 6% source: ANR 2008 Annual Report 10

11 Targeted one-off calls to structure the French academic landscape Reasons for the creation of ANR are worth noting. One was the need to reinforce competition within French research. Another was to make France more euro-compatible (to follow a terminology proposed by R. Barré) especially dealing with new initiatives such as ERA Nets (and we shall see that this is a clear move observed). And the third argument was that it would help in nurturing excellence (whatever meaning is given by politicians to this term) and thus structuring a national landscape often considered as too fragmented. However, as soon as ANR was created, the Government considered that other actions were needed to restructure the French landscape. Two streams were progressively joined: one considered research excellence per se, and focused on excellent networks and then labs ; the other considered universities and looked for processes to: (a) restructure the overall landscape and (b) to select, following the German experience which was openly taken as a source of inspiration, universities of excellence RTRA competition - The first step was the 2006 RTRA competition. This was a one-off call for networks of excellence (with an extension on clinical centres of excellence) (see Box 1). This competition nearly doubled the funds allocated to ANR in 2006 (236 million allocated for a five-year period, compared to 275 million to ANR to be allocated on average on a 3-year period). This call was supposed to be periodic. But the new Government (following the election of Sarkozy as French President) stopped it and instead focused on universities. Box 1: About the competition on RTRA and CTRS RTRA= réseaux thématiques de recherche avancée CTRS = centres thématiques de recherche et de soins In 2006 the Government launched a one-off competition, which selected 13 RTRA and 9 CTRS. The total Government funding has been 236 Million euros and other partners have brought 52 million euros (budget 2008, report to the Parliament). Most of it was allocated to a new type of foundation which was created by the 2006 research law at the same time as PRES, see below) and contains a variable balance between directly usable funds and endowments Plan Campus - The second step was focused on Universities. It started by the creation (within the frame of the 2006 research law) of a new institutional environment: Universities and Grandes Ecoles could join into PRES (Pôles de Recherche et d Enseignement Supérieur) and the latter could use two new institutional constructs to operationalize their activities: becoming EPCS (Etablissements Publics de Coopération Scientifique) or creating new foundations dedicated to research partnerships. This was complemented by a change in the Governance of Universities (with the 2007 law on their autonomy) and the progressive granting to Universities of the full management of their personnel, buildings and budget (this progressive move is still on-going in 2011). This new framework being stabilised, a new one-off competition was launched in 2008 for buildings and infrastructures associated to projects of excellence. The Plan Campus (as it was called) was a breakthrough both in term of institutions targeted and of finance. It chose to address geographical locations rather than individual universities. This de facto gave a central role to PRES and drove to a geographical reconfiguration where Parisian higher education institutions gathered under 6 main PRES while, in other regions, most institutions gathered in one 11

12 regional PRES (or when large like Rhône-Alpes or Provence-Alpes-Côte d Azur, in two). Altogether 13 campuses were selected (and 3 more promising ones were given complementary allocations). It allocated 5 billion euros with a new approach to funding. These funds are endowments and their revenues are there to support yearly costs associated with public private partnerships Investissement d Avenir - The crisis drove to the development of recovery plans in numerous countries. In France, this took two complementary aspects: one immediate and one for the long term. The longer-term view was prepared by a report asked for to two ex-prime Ministers, Mr Juppé and Rocard, Their report suggested to invest some 35 billion euros in Investissements d Avenir, out of which some 20 billion would be for training and research. The Parliament voted a complement to the 2010 budget law to include these and make this amount part of the 2010 deficit. It also defined in detail how the money would be spent and who would be the operators managing it over time. This drove to a number of competitions: first on specific items (such as equipment of excellence, clinical research institutes, technology research institutes, institutes for decarbonated energies and labs of excellence) and second a global competition on universities of excellence. This is still on going by the time of writing of this report. The ambition is to allocate the greatest part of funds in the form of endowments, the returns of which will provide recipients with a lasting source of core funding. Box 2: Note on Investissements d Avenir for higher education and research The investments target investments on long-lasting national thematic priorities (new nuclear generation, space and aeronautics, biotechnology and new energies), on support of innovative capabilities of French SME and start-up firms, and on university capabilities. The latter has a small component (2 billion euros) for complementing Plan Campus. But the core is focused on competitive calls for nurturing research activities and universities. As the German excellence initiative, this is done in two layers: the top layer will be the allocation of funds to initiatives d excellence (some 10 billion to 5 to 12 institutions, most of which will be PRES), while individual calls cover labs of excellence (LABEX), mid-size equipment and their corresponding projects (EQUIPEX), technology research institutes (IRT), valorisation structures (SATT and Instituts Carnot), Institutes for decarbonated energies (IEED) and Clinical research institutes (IHU). Altogether they represent 20 billion euros to be allocated, mostly as endowments. Revisiting innovation policies (1): pôles de compétitivité Regions are more and more active in developing long-term plans for higher education, research and innovation and they allocate significant amounts of funds through competitive bids. To take an overall measure of the meaning of such an investment, in 2007, the regional investments accounted for 7.6% of total civil budgetary allocation made by the central government and 1.5 times the estimated contribution of France to the budget of the FP. Box 3: French territorial authorities overall funding to R&D (source: MESR, March 2010) In , the average annual expenditure by regions, départements and city councils on R&D has been 1,14 billion, up 40% compared to the 3 previous years. The split between the different authorities was 68% for regions, 19% for counties and 13% for city councils. In 2009 the total amount planned was 1.35 billion. 35% dealt with buildings and 12% with laboratory equipment; 26% supported technology resource centres and bodies intermediating between universities and industry. The fourth central component concerned project-based funding (including doctoral grants or smaller supports for conferences). It represented 23% and nearly 300 million euros. 14% of total engagements dealt with the support of pôles de compétitivité. 12

13 This view of regions becoming active in supporting innovation is not new, but has never been included into French R&D statistics. It is thus important to take account of it and measure their growing importance. Their role has been further enhanced by the radical shift operated by the Ministry in charge of industry and innovation capabilities of sectors and firms. To understand this sudden shift, there needs to be some explanations. The French mission-oriented body dealing at Prime Minister s level with decentralisation had been promoting for years a bottom-up approach based upon local initiatives (so-called SPL) in the wake of the debates on districts, clusters or innovation milieus. It was never able to impose it as a major tool for industrial policy. One had to wait for the report of a Member of Parliament (C. Blanc) who also happened to have been a high civil servant that managed successfully the difficult events in New Caledonia in the 1980s and a high flying industry executive, having taken Air France when it was near to bankruptcy to turn it into the most profitable airline of the world when he left. His report (issued in 2004) was powerful enough to capture the interest of major policymakers, and to drive to a new major policy initiative. The competition envisaged funding 12 pôles de compétitivité of world ambition. Facing the success of the competition (more than 100 answers), the allocated budget was doubled (from 1.5 to 3 billion) and 3 types of poles were funded: world level ones (12), want-to-be-world level ones (6) and over 50 national poles. It drove to an even higher concentration than anticipated, rather than, as often said, saupoudrage. The evaluation made after 3 years of activity has shown that having around 70 was meaningful for a country like France crossing geography and sectors. It also drove to strong reshaping (and even closure) of around 20% of them. The programme has been prolonged. All funds were and are allocated through competitive calls, based upon individual projects generated by poles, most of which are collaborative (more between firms than between industry and university). Upstream projects answer to ANR calls (and when successful are given a 7% extra support for disseminating their results to members of the pole), those that are innovation driven answer to a specific fund created by the ministry of economics, finance and industry (called FUI). This fund has been transferred to OSEO for its management in 2010 but remains a specific identified line of OSEO (not included into its supports for SME see next section). TABLE 4: Support to pôles des compétitivités, funds for Main French organisations funding the Pôles Funds for (M ) de compétitivité Ministry of economy/ industry FUI (specific 765 calls) ANR (through normal calls) 367 OSEO AII (through bottom-up competitive 405 procedure) Support by regions and other territorial bodies 383 TOTAL 1920 source: Report from the Assemblée Nationale, 2009 Revisiting innovation policies (2): a massive new tax credit The classical mode, for which France is well known, lies in the large programmes (for nuclear, space, aeronautics and microelectronics), which have concentrated French support to industry. These represented the core of French public support to firms with military R&D. All have lost their importance and most are now channelled through European ventures: space and ESA, aeronautics and AIRBUS, microelectronics and EUREKA clusters and JTI. They were however complemented by three modalities: two managed by the ministry in charge of industry, and one by the inter-ministerial body in charge of research (the then DGRST). A first 13

14 mechanism dealt with the support to collective industrial research through industry-based centres techniques 1. The second one was diffusion-oriented and dealt with the support of SMEs for the adoption of new technologies (mainly computer and microelectronics and new materials). The third, and best-known one, was created at the beginning of the 1970s: aides à l innovation are projectbased free interest and risk-sharing loans to SMEs. This public support was delegated at the end of the 1970s to a specific agency, ANVAR, now taken over by OSEO. OSEO has multiplied the instruments to support the innovation capabilities of SME, and altogether, including the EUROSTAR EC funded programme, spent 410 million euros in 2009 for SME innovative activities. In 2005, following another report (by Mr Beffa, then chairman of Saint Gobain), a new agency was created to support large collaborative breakthrough projects in critical technologies and industries for France. The agency faced numerous difficulties (not least to satisfy project by project EU competition rules). It was merged in OSEO in 2008 and the support transformed, being now part of the 410 million euros of support to innovation for SME and ETI (firms with less than 5000 employees). Box 4: The short-lived AII and breakthrough technology projects The new agency, AII, was created in 2005 with a total funding capability of 2 billion euro to support co-funded projects by industry consortia on breakthrough technology. Altogether 12 projects were funded in 2006 (total research effort: 2,15 billion, AII support 0,73 billion, 130 firms participating) and 4 in 2007 (AII support 0,2 billion). In 2008 AII was merged into OSEO and the programme redesigned. The new programme focuses on SME and ETI (less than 5000 persons). In new projects were selected (78 firms and 53 labs for 81 million euros of support out of the 410 million granted to all firms through OSEO mechanisms to support innovation, 20%). source: OSEO 2009 annual report All these measures are however marginal compared to the sweeping change that occurred in successive rounds during the 2000s to make of the research tax credit the major public instrument supporting industrial R&D and innovation (TABLE 5 and Box 5 for its new definition). Progressive changes made it move from around 400 million euros until 2003, 900 million in , around 1.5 billion in 2006 and 2007 and to 4.2 billion in This has driven to a sweeping round of inquiries in 2010 (by the auditors of the Ministry of finance and by both Parliamentary Assemblies). They all have confirmed the choices made, proposing only marginal transformations to its conditions. As such the tax credit now represents 60% of total support granted to firms ( Graph 5). Box 5: French Tax Credit New definition The tax credit is borne by all legal entities (no notion of group): it is 30% of the volume of R&D expenditure until 100 million euros, 5% above. New companies have a specific rate for the first 2 years (respectively 50 and 40%). Subcontracting is accounted for in the volume and specific expenditures are doubled in volume (such as contracts with public research and the two first years of recruitment of a PhD researcher) 1 The centres techniques were created thanks to a law in 1948, and their funding was based on compulsory taxes on firms within the corresponding sector. At the turn of the 2000s, EC rule forbade that solution and the centres became publicly funded. 14

15 Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) TABLE 5: Evolution of rule affecting the French R&D tax credit CIR Before % linked to firm volume of R& &D - 5% 10% 10% % linked to increase of firm expenditure Maximum amount (million euro) 50% 6,1 45% 8 40% 10 40% 16 source: IGF, 2010, Mission d évaluation sur le crédit d impôt recherche, p. 8 Since % until 100M, 5% above - unlimited Graph 5: Public funding of private company R&D, in % of GDP Source: Assemblée Nationale, 2010, Mission d évaluation et de contrôle sur le crédit d impôt recherche, doc N Public research funding: evolutions during the 2000s To describe evolutions, we need to look at classical statistical data produced by the official statistical Office. For research, this is not done directly by INSEE but by a directorate within the ministry of higher education and research. This directorate produces the yearly RERS book and data directly available on the web (CISAD). However French statistics do not consider intermediating structures, so that new constructs such as ANR do not appear as such. They are mixed with so-called Ministerial services and do not help us assess the extent of changes. We thus have to take an indirect approach, looking at the evolution of external resources of key operators and the ways through which they are funded. In order to evaluate changes, we thus had to compile data that explain what are the resources of the different French operators, where they come from, and who benefits from them. We distinguish between the following operators: Universities (including French Grandes Ecoles), CNRS, other research institutes focused on academic research (and gathered under the EPST statute, the main ones being INRA for agricultural research, INSERM for health sciences, and INRIA for computer 15

16 sciences), and technology research institutes (gathered under the EPIC statute, the larger ones being CEA by far, followed by CNES for space research, ONERA for space and aeronautics and IFREMER for marine sciences and technologies) (see TABLE 2 for a list). We then analysed funding structures, mainly civilian ministerial services (including their corresponding agencies, such as ANR and ADEME) and defence services. The situation is further complexified by the fact that CNES, as an EPIC, plays multiple roles: it provides the channel through which the French participation to ESA flows; but it is also a manager of ESA programmes (thus receiving money from ESA and channelling it to the different programme participants, including its own facilities). Finally CNES also manages the French national space programme, with quite a few projects in cooperation with NASA. The following tables help us to capture the main transformations - TABLE 6 shows that budgetary allocations of French operators have increased by 13% between 2002 and 2008, while their overall resources have increased by 21%. This means that French operators have enlarged their external resources with a 55% growth. External resources ( - TABLE 7) are made of own resources (in particular IP, 31% in 2008), industry contracts (14%), foreign contracts (including FP and ESA, 14%) and state contracts (39%), NGO making up the total to 100%. These external resources have grown very differently over the 6 years under review: 10% for industry, 25% for foreign resources, 55% for state contracts and 127% for own resources. The latter make up 48% of the total increase, while state contracts build up another 40%. - A detailed analysis is rich in lessons: (i) contracts with industry are concentrated on EPIC (68% in 2008) while universities (20% of the total) have even seen their amount decrease significantly over the period (-20%). (ii) The growth of foreign resources (including EU contracts) has been slow and only borne out by CNRS and other EPST (an effect of the launch of the ERC?). (iii) Own resources gather multiple sources of resources from rents and endowments to resources from Intellectual Property). Its growth tells about the efforts of institutions to valorise their assets (both tangible and intangible). The growth has been slower for EPIC (for which it has been a longstanding strategy, especially CEA) than for others, and in particular universities. - Finally State contracts have followed the average pattern. However once more, trends have differed widely between EPIC on one side (flat over the period) and the other operators: resources have been multiplied by 1,7 for universities, 2,1 for other EPST and 2,7 for CNRS. These are clear signs of important transformations especially when comparing budgetary allocations (+13%) with state contracts (+55%). This is even more significant when taking apart the very specific EPIC (CEA and CNES but also ADEME and OSEO). Respective growths of budgetary allocations and states contracts have been +19% vs +170% for CNRS, +30% vs +110% for other EPST and +16% vs +70% for universities. This is an indirect proof of the central role played by the changing landscape, and beyond the RTRA, of the critical role of ANR (one can even compare the 600 million increase observed for French operators with the 2008 contract budget of ANR- 650 million out of which 80% went to public operators. 16

17 TABLE 6: Main French civilian operators: 2008 resources and increase of resources between 2002 and 2008 Total resources (M, 2008) % of total resources (3) (2008) Budgetary allocations (M, 2008) External resources (M, 2008) % external resources (2008) % external resources in 2002 CNRS (17) Other EPST (12) EPIC (1) (36) Univ (2) (35) Total Total Growth +21% +13% +55% (1) With EPIC we have attached another category of institutes (EPA) which are very varied but share in common their small size, thus having marginal effects on analyses. (2) French Grandes Ecoles are included in universities. (3) In brackets the respective shares of total resources in TABLE 7: Main civilian operators: 2008 sources of external resources (figures for 2008, M ) External resources Own resources (2) State contracts (3) Foreign contract (4) Company contracts (5) CNRS Other EPST EPIC (1) Universities Total Total Growth 55% 127% 55% 25% 10% (1) CEA attracts most of own resources and industry contracts, while CNES concentrates most of foreign resources. (2) The growth of own resources is very important for all operators. Universities have multiplied their amount by 2,8, EPIC by 2,3 for EPIC, CNRS by 1,9 and other EPST by 1,7. (3) The increase is completely borne by Universities (+350 M, +69%), CNRS (+140M, multiplication by 2,7) and other EPST (+110M, multiplication by 2,1) while the amount of EPIC remains flat between 2002 and (4) Though EPIC play a central role (47% in 2008), their share has significantly reduced (53% in 2002). This is due to their limited growth (10%). This is also the case of Universities (+10%) while CNRS and other EPST have nearly doubled amounts received. This is probably associated to the launch of ERC and the major role played by CNRS (first European recipient by far). (5) The marginal growth on industry contracts is associated with a decrease for Universities (-20%) and an 18% growth by EPIC, which represents 68% of all industry contracts. When linked to own resources (which include Intellectual Property), the critical role of EPIC in technology and relations with firms is even reinforced. 17

18 A complementary view can be derived from the analysis of external expenditures of ministries (plus EPIC due to the specific role of CNES). TABLE 8 highlights critical transformations over a 6-year period. Expenditures by Ministerial Services (thus including ANR) have increased faster than other sources (Defence and EPIC). This 32% increase is mostly due to the doubling of support to public research actors (+113%) and to a lesser extent to foreign allocations while support to firms has strongly diminished (-37%). We see here a clear sign of the growing role of ANR and a changing pattern of French project-based funding. A last point is worth mentioning, that is the redistribution observed in the support of firm R&D. The role of defence remained dominant (it represented 69% en 2008 against 64% in 2002). EPIC have doubled their role (from 12% in 2002 to 18%). Meanwhile ministerial services (including ANR) have witnessed a strong decrease (from 24% to 13%), being now focused mostly on support to SME, Eureka clusters and JTI and a set of small calls by the Ministry in charge of industry. Having a precise measure would of course be a more satisfying solution. But even with indirect measures we can assess the important growth of project-based funding in the French public system, as well as an evolution of support provided to firms (which is more and more concentrated on a limited number of operators, and on specific programmes). TABLE 8: Defence, ministerial services and EPIC: 2008 external expenditures (figures for 2008) Total expenditure (M ) External expenditure (M ) Growth / 2002 OPR + Univ. contracts (M ) Foreign allocations (M ) Company contracts (M ) Defence 3081 (2) % 131 (-52%) (+28%) Ministerial services % 947 (+113%) 343 (+73%) 380 (-37%) EPIC (1) % 181 (+25%) 816 (+4%) 537 (+83%) Total Total Increase % +23% +45% +17% +19% (1) This corresponds to CNES transfers to ESA (most foreign contracts) and to industry contracts within the course of programmes (both national and European) CNES manages. (2) Internal expenditures for Defence labs have remained completely flat over the period (885 M in 2008) 3 Mapping joint and open programs This section covers the analysis of French open and joint programmes. It does so by looking at the central operators that manage them, since they individually manage a number of programmes, which tend to follow the same rules. We thus review in turn ANR, by far the largest operator today in France (and the main partner in ERA Nets), OSEO (which supports SME and ETI, and manages Eureka and Eurostars), the Ministry of Industry (operator for EUREKA clusters and JTI), and other operators, which together only play a marginal role (whatever their size, in particular ADEME). Before we consider it central to position these joint and open programmes within the longstanding international engagements of France. 18

19 3.1 An introductory overview: French longstanding international engagements Joint programs France has a long tradition of important international engagements in Science and Technology. It is made of 4 major elements, not counting the calculated contribution to the FP (0,64 billion in 2007). (a) Large international facilities constitute a first element (evaluated to over 200 million in 2008, not counting those facilities which costs are directly covered by CNRS and CEA respectively 129 and 62 M ) (Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.). It started with CERN, witnessed a major development with the ESRF, and now covers more than a dozen other international installations. It is due to expand significantly in the next decade due to ITER. There is a French roadmap (last published in 2009) and most new large investments in facilities are coordinated at European level through the ESFRI roadmap. (b) ESA is the second central dimension. The French contribution is managed by the French national space agency, CNES. The only point worth mentioning is that the French contribution to ESA is higher than the calculated French contribution to the FP: 0,69 billion vs 0,64 billion. Box 6: French contributions to international organisations for large facilities International organisations French contribution(2008,m ) CERN 108 ESO 21 EMBL and EMBC 12 EUMETSAT and CEPMMT 31 ITER 34 Other (1) 6 TOTAL (ministerial level) (2)(3) 212 ESA (through CNES) 685 (1) This included a first allocation to 2 projects included on the ESFRI roadmap and to be located in Germany: XFEL and Fair. (2) The other budgets (e.g. for ESRF or ILL) are included in the budgets of CNRS and CEA for large equipment (respectively and for and 62 million) (3) In 2009 it increased by 21 million and in 2010 again by 30 million source: budget 2008, report to the Parliament (c) The central tool for science diplomacy has been for decades what was called PAI and is now Partenariats Hubert Curien (PHC). Typically these are bilateral relationships organised around a yearly joint call. Each country evaluates separately the projects and a joint steering committee decides the projects selected. Funding on the French side only supports travel and short stays in the other country (Box 7). The ministry of foreign affairs and the ministry in charge of research have developed a number of other instruments that are all of minor importance (selecting on average 5 projects per year each). Quite a number are multilateral organising relations between France and one continental region (see Box 8 for a selection). Box 7: Partenariats Hubert Curien They correspond to bilateral agreements worldwide. They aim to favour scientific and technological exchanges. Each is organised as a programme with a yearly call, a double evaluation by each partner organisation and a selection of projects by a mixt committee. Projects allocate marginal money for trips and stays (mostly short ones). The average amount of a 3-year project is around euros for the French side. 19

20 They are 67 such agreements and in 2007 (source: website of the ministry of external affairs, website page last updated 7/4/2010), they were 2000 projects selected corresponding to researcher circulations Half are with European countries, and half with the rest of the world: North Africa and Mediterranean countries (however Israel is covered via another agreement), 10 Asian countries (plus Australia and New Zealand), only South Africa (partnerships with French speaking African countries are covered through other mechanisms), Latin America. For Canada there is a specific bilateral fund (FFCR which has funded over 130 projects in the decade ), and for the US funds are between France and given universities (MIT, Chicago, Stanford, Berkeley, Columbia and the FACE foundation). Box 8: Targeted multilateral thematic agreements - The ICT programme with Asia started in 2004 and includes 16 countries (10 ASEAN members plus 6 other countries including Korea, China, Japan and India). Annual calls drive to the selection of on average 5 projects (5 projects in 2010, 24 partners out of which 6 French and the rest coming from 7 countries). - A similar programme for bio with Asia was started in 2008 (first call, 5 projects selected, 25 partners, 12 French 13 Asian from 10 countries) - A regional programme for Maths with Latin America funds on average 5 projects per year (4 in 2009 with 15 partners). Like PHC, it only funds travels and exchanges. - Programme de recherche en réseau is a bottom-up initiative between France and another country (up to now Germany, India, China, Israel and South Africa). Each programme lasts between 2 to 4 years and represents a joint funding of 200 to euros. 17 programmes have been funded since 2004 (ministry website page last updated 7/4/2010). (d) The involvement in COST (see Appendix 1 for a detailed analysis). An important development of the then EEC was the creation of COST, which lies outside any clear cut situation, being neither a fully intergovernmental agency nor a service or an executive agency of the European Commission. There have been ample debates within the JOREP programme whether or not to consider it as a joint programme. The French Ministry in charge of research is very clear. COST does not provide funds for the costs of research. National Governments do not support their national participants in the projects labelled by COST (even if Switzerland has done it, being the sole country for offering research support). It thus does not correspond to the definition of joint programing, even if, like the PHC, it is the source of a large number of joint activities between researchers (see note 1 in appendix presenting the French participation to COST) Opening of national programs As mentioned in D2, the open programs have been defined as the programs allowing research organizations not located in the country hosting the program itself to be eligible to participate. These programs can deliver research founding, complementary funding (travel, coordination meeting) or no funding at all to the foreign participants. In France, and by the law, all programs are opened to foreign participants provided that they fund their own research. In most of the calls for proposals of the programs funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, it is always mentioned that the participation of foreign partners is possible if and only if the last have its own funding. We have identified several such national programs in The following table lists the national programs to which non-resident participants took part in 2009 and the amount of funding the ANR allocated to these projects. Name of the concerned programs Number of selected projects with non-resident ANR funding allocated to projects with non-resident 20

21 participants* participants Programme de recherche and 3 0,8M santé publiques (PRSP) Alimentation et industrie 1 0,54M alimentaire (ALIA) Systerra 4 2,7M Programme de recherche en 1 0,58M génomique et biotechnologies végétales La 6e extinction 1 0,6M Stock-E 1 0,5 M VTT 1 0,5 M CP2D 1 0,55 M SYSCOMM 2 1 M P3N 2 1,6 M (*) In this column, we do not include the projects which have been funded in the frameork of a specific agreement between the ANR and a foreign funding agency. For instance, regarding the program ALIA, one part of the program is opened to French-German partnerships in the framework of a specific agreement between the DFG and ANR. However, in the framework of this program, one project with Unilever Food and Health Research Institute (Netherlands) has received from the ANR (we do not know if Univlever Food and Health Research Institute received funding for its research). Because most (if not all) the French programs are opened to non-resident participants, it did not look appropriate to integrate them in the JOREP data collection. The JOREP core team is currently thinking about a new perimeter to measure the openess of the national programs French central operators In France, joint programs are mainly managed by three operators, namely the Agence Nationale de la recherche (ANR), OSEO and the ministry of industry. To a lesser extent, other operators, like the ADEME also used to managed joint programs. We briefly introduced these operators in this section. Some further interesting figures regarding there respective involvment in joint programs are gathered in the Annexes. In the last part of this section, we explain why it is not relevant to consider CNRS as such an operator Agence nationale de la recherche Sources: ANR key figures, ANR annual report, ANR specific international annual report, interviews with ANR responsibles. See Appendix 2 for a detailed analysis. ANR global picture (2009) ANR budget in 2009 was 830 million. It has held 59 calls, 14 being open to international partnering. It has received over 6000 projects and has funded 1334 (overall selection rate 23%). The average support to open projects is 390 k euros while it is 770 k euros for partnering projects. ANR is proud to mention that is ISO 9000 certified for its selection process, that in 2009 it has mobilised expertises (40% international), has mobilised in its committees (2 types) over 1900 individuals and has 200 members in its 7 strategic thematic boards. TABLE 9: 2009 ANR involvement in seven strategic thematic boards Themes M Selection rate Nb projects Nb partners Non thematic %

22 Biology and health % Ecosystems and sustainable development 56 25% Sustainable energy and environment 85 25% ICT & nanotechnology % Materials, chemistry & security 44 28% SSH 25 22% Support to Instituts Carnot 62 ANR engagement in international programmes in brief ANR key figures on transnational projects is as follows: 855 proposals submitted, 158 projects cofunded, selection rate 18%, representing 12% of total ANR projects funded but 8% of funds allocated (53 M euro, 330 keuro per project for the French side only), collaborations with 3 continents (Europe, Asia and America, Europe represents 75%). 70% of projects are academic only, but 30% involve industry partnerships (29 projects, mostly with Germany). ANR approach to cooperation All ANR programmes are open to the inclusion of a foreign partner in projects supported. However the partner has to find its own funding. Such opening is of course not accounted for in the figures mentioned above. They nearly double the amount of projects taken into consideration. Transnational cooperation is based on joint calls for proposals may these be bilateral or multilateral. ERA-Nets and article 169 initiatives are a specific form of multilateral collaboration. They entail a common call and a joint evaluation mechanism. All bi-lateral calls are based on an agreement signed with a partner agency or ministry, they entail a common answer by teams, but dates and conditions under which this call and answers are made can vary in both countries. Evaluations can be joint or separate, a common inter-agency selection committee then decides on the basis of these scientific evaluations the projects selected. ANR classification is three fold: opening of national programmes (not to mix with the allembracing opening mentioned above), ERA Nets and multilateral initiatives, and bilateral initiatives. The opening of national programmes means that an agreement is arrived at with a foreign partner on one aspect of a national programme. This is mentioned within the frame of the national programme, so that proposers can prepare a common project. This project is evaluated by the evaluation committee of the national programme and then goes through a bilateral process of administrative selection. In case of success, ANR supports the French partner(s). The two other types require a common call and a specific evaluation process which is most of the times common to participating agencies or ministries (but there are cases where they are still separate). The split is as follows in the number of projects supported: 44% for the opening of national programmes, 30% for ERA Nets and multilateral initatives and 26% for bilateral initiatives. ANR is very reluctant to common pots for multiple reasons dealing with opportunistic behaviours (playing the game of rates of return) and with different funding structures (e.g. in France ANR does not fund permament staff). One central issue for ANR is less the funding than the reporting and monitoring. This is where progress requires to be made following the responsibles interviewed (NB ANR has in 22

23 particular a practice of programme final workshops where all project results are presented in 2009 the projects supported in 2005 presented their results in 40 different thematic workshops). ANR participation to ERA Nets and 169 initiatives ANR participated in 2009 in 12 ERA Nets, giving rise to 5 calls in It is also member of the AAL 169 initiative. 38 projects have been funded in 2009 for 13 million euro (French share). This represents 25% of total international funding. For the first time, ANR became in 2009 the coordinator of a new ERA-Net, Chist-Era, with a first call in Since calls have been issued, and 55 million allocated by ANR to the French sides of 142 projects. ANR Opening of programmes There are 3 types of opening: - opening of specific themes within thematic programmes (5 in 2009: Technologies for Health with Taiwan, security and food with Germany, genomics with Hungary, chemistry with Finland). 9 projects have been selected for 4 million euro - opening of programme blanc on specific disciplines for specific countries. In 2009 there were 10 such agreements (See list below), giving rise to 303 proposals and 55 projects selected for 16 million euro of ANR support to French teams. - in a few cases without official agreements, bottom-up based projects including international partners are simultaneously proposed to 2 or more agencies. They are evaluated separately and agency staff meets to agree on funding their respective partners. This was the case of 6 projects (with the US, Germany, Spain and Switzerland) for 4.5 million euro of ANR support to French teams. TABLE 10: Opening of Programme Blanc on specific disciplines for specific countries in 2009 Countries Austria Canada Chile Germany Hungary Japan Mexico Taiwan USA Themes Chemistry, Physics, mathematics ICT, materials, biotechnoligies, environment ICT, physics, agronomy Chemistry Genomics, biology, Health ICT, nanotechnologies, robotics ICT, nanosciences, biotechnologies ICT, technologies for helath, SS&H, biology Chemistry, nanosciences OSEO Source: Annual report 2009 see Appendix 3 for a detailed analysis OSEO supports the internationalisation of French firms through 7 types of supports: (1) contrat de développement international (a loan of up to euros without guarantee required), (2) and (3) réseau entreprise Europe (which is a service provider to access information and organises a number of events) complemented by a portal for searching for European partners, (4) and (5) INNET (a European project to help clusters to link with one another, and within this frame projects to be elaborated; each partner is funded by its national agency and OSEO can grant up to euros for each project, 23

24 INNET is complemented by Tactics which organises joint thinking and cooperation on clusters cooperation), (6) Eureka and (7) Eurostars. The two latest are dedicated to supporting collaborative innovation by firms on a bottom-up based process. There are 4 sessions a year for national secretariats to consider projects (after national evaluations) and deliver the Eureka label. Funding is national. Eureka supports are included into OSEO traditional funding schemes, For Eurostars (co funded by the EC objective 300 million by member state and 100 million by the EC over FP7) it needs to address R&D performing SMEs (28 projects selected in 2009 for 5,5 million euros, representing 1.3% of SME support granted by ANVAR) Ministry of industry Appendix 4 presents the detailed information on JTI. The Ministry of industry is part of the wider ministry for economics, finance and industry. The Ministry has specific supports that were traditionally very important to deal with large programmes, and especially with IT and telecommunications. Since 2004 it has developed a specific fund to support projects coming from poles de compétitivité (FUI, see section 14), which is now directly handled by OSEO. The main sources of international funding are those associated with the 4 EUREKA Clusters (CATRENE for micro nano electronics, EURIPIDES on system integration, Celtic on telecommunications and ITEA 2 on middleware) and the two JTI dealing with ICT industries (ARTEMIS and ENIAC). Ministry in charge of industry / Programmes and calls in support to innovation 2010 There are 12 specific national programmes dedicated to ICT developments both dealing with technical aspects (eg broadband, mobile territories, RFID, satellite positioning ), focused on SME and focused on specific industries (health) In 2010, 10 calls have been published. The list gives an idea of ministerial engagement: decarbonated vehicles (6/09), eco industries (12/09), mobile services (2/10, see ICT policy), metrology (2/10 and 5/10), shared multiservice centres (4/10), innovation in services to individuals (4/10), innovation for seniors (05/10), business angels (7/10), industry filières (09/10). All these calls support exclusively French entities Other operators Here will be only mentioned other agencies and ministries that participate to ERA-Nets. There are no other forms of joint project funding. A special account must be made for ADEME research calls. The calls for research that are targeted and not numerous (when they exist) do not discriminate between entities from the EU, meaning that, for instance, Belgian or German entities can participate. The number of projects directly funded to non French-based entities remain however marginal (1 project with 2 German participants in call on Factor 4). There is no systematic monitoring of such situations CNRS and joint programing The JOREP methodology explicitly mentions that national research organizations like Academy of Sciences or CNRS in France will be included in JOREP to the extent they act as funding agencies for their laboratories. More specifically, this includes two types of funding schemes: (i) Funding for 24

25 participation to joint programs (e.g. COST or European Science Foundation), where e.g. project selection is managed at the international level and national funding is provided by the research organization to its participating laboratories; and (ii) Specific programs based on bilateral agreements (e.g. CNRS MPG agreements) where there are open calls for participation (at least for internal laboratories) and an independent selection procedure. Joint agreements for coordinating research activities between research organizations without open calls are not included in the JOREP perimeter. This drove us to undertake a review of CNRS international activities, bearing in mind the definition of JOREP joint programmes, that is the competitive allocation of funds to projects, covering more than exchanges and mobility of researchers, and workshops. The answer is clear-cut. CNRS should not be taken into account with such definitions in the perimeter of JOREP. The international activities of CNRS are focused on agreements with partners based upon mostly the creation of : UMI Unités mixtes internationales (18 altogether) LEA and LIA laboratoires européens ou internationaux associés (89, 30 with Europe, 9 with Russia, 34 with Asia, 9 with America and 7 with Africa and Middle East) GRDI and GRDE groupements de recherche internationaux ou européens (90 in total, 38 in Europe, 20 with Russia, 9 with America, 13 with Africa and Middle East, 10 with Asia at large) PICS projets internationaux de coopération scientifique (275 on-going in 2009, 71 in Europe, 68 with Russia, 42 with Asia, 71 with America, and 23 with Africa-Middle East) and PRC programmes de recherche coordonnée (44 with Asia and 44 with America active in 2009) Only the last two are the object of yearly calls for proposals. They however have characteristics, which drive to consider that they are outside of the scope. The call is only for CNRS units. The amounts are small when the allocation of positions (a rare case) is taken out. Calls consider that teams bring their research capability with them and only require the extra costs of the fact of working together. To complement this analysis, we did a systematic analysis of newsletters and web news produced by CNRS as such (through its directorate of international affairs and by the directorates of the10 institutes. It enables to track all the calls (including calls from other institutions such as ANR or ERA- Nets) and in particular the calls associated with bilateral agreements with equivalent research institutions, academies of science or ministries. It enabled to verify that most if not all calls focus on conferences, visits and exchanges of personnel (see box). They thus do not qualify in our definition. The only exception we found were the 2 calls between CNRS and JST: one call on Structure and Function of Biomolecules: Response Mechanism to Environments (deadline of proposals : 28/09/2009). The call is restricted in France to CNRS labs belonging to 2 institutes. One call on genomics and marine biotechnologies between JST and 3 institutes of CNRS with 4 projects selected. CNRS and ESF Only one CNRS institute (INEE) participates in Eurocores in geo and environmental sciences. It operates the secretariat for 3 Eurocore programmes : Eurodiversity (5 projects selected), Eurodeep (3 25

26 projects selected) and TECT (Evolution of cooperation and Trading, 3 projects selected) and has participations in Euromarc and topo Europe. They all were launched before There was no one lauched in 2009 and CNRS did not participate in the one launched in Box 9: CNRS 2009 calls identified (in French) - Appel d offre CNRS Fondation Russe pour la Recherche Fondamentale (FRRF) pour l organisation d ateliers et séminaires franco-russes Appels d offre CNRS FRFRB pour l organisation d ateliers et séminaires franco-biélorusses Appel d offre CNRS ANSU pour l organisation d ateliers et séminaires franco-ukrainiens Premier appel à projets de recherche conjoints avec la Georgie (appel à projets de recherche conjoints pour soutenir l échange de chercheurs) - Premier appel à projets de recherche conjoints avec l Azerbaïdjan ((appel à projets de recherche conjoints pour soutenir l échange de chercheurs) - Premier appel à projets de recherche conjoints avec l Arménie - Appels à propositions CNRS/CAS, CNRS/NSFC et CNRS/CASS (financement de missions et d accueils de chercheurs français et chinois dans le cadre de projets de recherche menés en commun). - Appel à propositions 2010 dans le cadre de la coopération entre le CNRS et le Fonds de la Recherche scientifique-fnrs (FRS-FNRS) et Wallonie-Bruxelles International (WBI) (l envoi et l accueil de jeunes chercheurs (doctorants et post-doctorants) et de chercheurs/enseignants-chercheurs confirmés pour une période de moyenne durée comprise entre 1 et 3 mois (jeunes chercheurs) et entre 1 et 6 mois (chercheurs confirmés) Mapping the programs For the mapping, we make use of the classification provided in the JOREP tender, with the following categories: B1: programs managed and funded by international agencies; funding from direct national contributions. B2: programs managed and funded by international agencies; funding from EU budget. B3: programs managed by international agencies, but with national (co-)funding o B3-1: programs with both European and national funding o B3-2: programs with only national funding C: joint programs between national funding agencies D: programs of national agencies open to performers abroad 3.2 Participation to European and international programs France takes part to two programs which are managed and funded by the international agencies, funded either through direct contribution (European Space Agency contracts) or from the EU budget (European framework programs). The following table briefly lists these programs. Program Funding agency Type French participation European Space Agency contracts European framework programs ESA/ CNES B1 Full participation of France to ESA contratcs through direct contribution via the French National Space Agency (CNES). From 2004 to 2009, the French contribution to ESA was 685 M each year. European Commission B2 Full participation of France since the first FP. France is involved in 53.1% of FP7 projects listed in late March 2010 (particularly in aeronautics and space and nuclear sectors). It coordinates more than a fifth of the projects in which it is implicated. (source: ministère de l enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2010) 26

27 3.3 Joint programs at the European level (with national funding) France also takes part to five programs managed by international agencies and funded with national funding, with or without funding from the European Commission. Program Managing agency French funding organisations Typ e French participation EUROCORES ESF CNRS B3-2 France participates to this program thanks to the CNRS. The CNRS is also involved in other ESF programs, namely the ResearchNetworking Programs and the ESA Research Conference). For the French part, all funding come from France. ERA-NETS schems Joint European programs under the art. 185 EUREKA Joint Technology Initiatives European Commission 1/Association Ambient Assisted Living 2/ EUREKA secretariat 3/ EURAMET 4/ EDCTP secretariat EUREKA secretariat European Commission ANR, OSEO and some ministries ANR, OSEO, LNE, IRD B3-1 In 2009, France participates to several ERA-NETS programs mostly through the Agence National de la Recherche (ANR) and to a lesser extent through OSEO, the MEEDM and other governmental and independent funding agencies. B3-1 France takes part to 4 joint European programs under the art. 185: 1/ AAL Ambient Assisted Living. In France, the projects under this program are funded by the ANR. 2/ EUROSTARS, the projects of which are funded by OSEO. 3/ European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP). ANR has delegated the management and the funding of the projects under this programs to the Laboratoire National d Essai (LNE) 4/ Europe-Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP). The projects are managed and funded by the IRD. OSEO, MINEFI B3-2 From 2000 and 2004, the Eureka initiatives were exclusively funded by the MINEFI and OSEO. From 2005, the ANR also started to fund these projects. France funds Eureka individual projects and several Eurkea clusters, including CELTIC, EURIPIDES, ITEA, MEDEA, EUROGIA. MINEFI B3-1 France is particularly implicated in two JTIs, namely ARTEMIS and ENIAC.The projects of both programs are funded by the MINEFI. The organisations which received the largest amount of French funding in 2009 are Thales and INRIA (for ARTEMIS) and the CEA and ST Microelectronics (for ENIAC). Data availability It is very difficult to find data on this program on the CNRS website and other official website. Data need to be collected programs by programs. Detailed data is available on the ANR website. Much more difficult to find data through other funding agencies. For the AAL Ambient Assisted Living, data are available on the ANR website. Data were more difficult to find for the other initiatives. Data are not available throuh OSEO or the MINEFI website but thanks to a document regularly produced by the General direction for Innovation and Research. Detailed data on the funded projects and the national funding is very to find on ARTEMIS and ENIAC websites. 27

28 3.4 Bilateral programs with other countries France is implicated in many bilateral programs, inside and outside the ERA. All the bilateral programs we have identified as being part of the JOREP perimeter are managed and funded, in France, by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche. Inside the ERA, France collaborates mainly with Germany, the UK and Spain in the framework of the following programs: Responsible agency ANR ANR Program Type Comments DFG-ANR Funding Programme in Social Sciences and Humanities BMBF-ANR Collaborative Call for Proposals in the Field of "Genomics and Physiopathology of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases" C C Bilteral program between the ANR and the DFG (Germany) which has been recently integrated in a new program in social sciences and humanities between the ANR, the ESRC (UK), the DFG (Germany), the NWO (Netherlands). This program started in 2009 and follows an agreement signed in 2008 between the ANR and the DFG on medical sciences and health. It is related to the national program GENOPAT and aims at increasing collaborations between France and Germany on molecular and phusiopathological mecanisms. ANR Inter Carnot-Fraunhofer C Following an agreement signed in 2008 between the ANR and the BMBF, the Inter Carnot-Fraunhofer programme was launched for 3 years in It aims at creating lasting relationships between the Carnot and Fraunhofer institutes and funds innovative public-private research projects between France and Germany. (source: ANR annual report 2009) ANR, French Ministry for ecology, energy, sustainable development and the sea ANR ANR DEUFRAKO C Deufrako is a technico-scientific cooperation on land transports between the Mobilität und Verkehrstechnologien (Germany research program funded by the Ministry of Economy and Technology) and the PREDIT (French research program). It has been signed for the first time in 1978 broaden in (source: Plant-KBBE (Transnational Plant Alliance for Novel Technologies as basis of the 'Knowledge based Bio- Economy') DFG-ANR Funding Programme in Social Sciences and Humanities C C Trilateral program in plant genomics between ANR, the BMBF (Ministry of research in Germany), the MICINN (Ministry of research in Spain). With the recent integration of FCT (Portugal) in the consortium (2009), this program is now a quadrilateral program. Bilateral program between DFG and ANR which is open to all research areas within the Social Sciences and Humanities. France also collaborates inside and outisde ERA thanks to a program which is currently becoming a key instrument of the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, namely the non-thematic Programme Blanc. One part of the Programme Blanc, which has been opened to international collaborations in 2008, has been clearly identified as being part of the JOREP perimeter, the Programme Blanc International. In the framework of this Programme Blanc International, the ANR has signed new agreements each year since 2008 with several funding agencies inside and outside the ERA, in several fields. The programme blanc international has become the Agency's main funding instrument for transnational projects: 55 projects were co-funded in 2009 for a total sum of 16 M, i.e. 30% of the agency s international cooperation budget. (source: ANR annual report 2009). We go further in the details in the following sheets. Responsible agency Program Type Comments 28

29 ANR Programme Blanc International C Non-thematic bilateral programs signed inside and outside the ERA, in several fields: Taiwan (NSC), China (NSFC), Japan (JST and JSPS), Germany (DFG), Austria (FWF), Canada (NSERC), Chile (CONICYT), Hungary (NKTH), Mexico (CONACYT), and the United States (NSF). DFG-ANR Funding Programme in Social Sciences and Humanities Name of the programme DFG-ANR Funding programme in social sciences and humanities Type Bilateral programme with international activities Description This call aims at funding research projects involving at least one French and one German team. It is open to all research areas within the Social Sciences and Humanities. Participating agencies The ANR (France) and the DFG (Germany) Type of projects Bilateral program, international activities Project duration Three years maximum Research topics All areas within social sciences and humanities Origin of funding Ministry of research Funding mode Co-funding. The DFG and the ANR will be respectively responsible for funding their national research teams: the DFG will fund German research organisations and the ANR will fund French ones. Budget (France) 3,5M in 2009 Beneficiaries Public, research institutes, private companies History The first call was launched in 2007, 2009 is the third edition. Duration Submission Funding requests are subject to each agency s requests, rules and procedures, as stated in the call for proposals. Each project should be submitted to both agencies (in an English common version or in two French and German versions). Evaluation First phase : evaluation by ANR and DFG separately ; second phase : joint committee Data sources ANR website Confidentiality of data A brief description of selected projects is available on ANR website. Detailed data is available in annual reports. Website BMBF-ANR Collaborative Call for Proposals in the Field of "Genomics and Physiopathology of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases" Name of the programme Type Description Participating agencies Type of projects Project duration Research topics Origin of funding Collaborative call for proposals in the field of genomics and physiopathology of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Bilateral program with international activities Bilateral scientific collaboration which promotes the identification and characterization of susceptibility genes and gene products as well as their interaction sin these diseases. By creating synergies these collaborations will form the basis for paving the way towards translation of results into benefits for medicine and industry. The primary strategic aim of the bilateral call is to promote synergy and added value by establishing high-quality, interdisciplinary research collaborations among researchers in France and Germany through funding bi-national, interdisciplinary research projects to understand genomics and physiopathology of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Germany: Bundesministerium für bildung und Forschung (BMBF) France: Agence nationale de la recherché (ANR) The call required applicants based in France and Germany to work in partnership. Research consortia can be funded for a period of up to three years. Genomics and physiopathology of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Research proposals shall focus on prevalent disorders with high socio-economic impact such as Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, obesity, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction or heart failure. France: Ministry of research and higher education 29

30 Funding mode Budget (France) 3,1M in 2009 Beneficiaries ANR funds the French research groups, BMBF funds the German research groups of consortia selected for funding, according to existing national rules, regulations and funding procedures. Higher education institutions (universities), non-university public research organisations, as well as industry, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises. The integration of SMEs or other industry into consortia is possible but not mandatory. Consortia must include at least one French and one Germany research group. Only transnational project are funded. History The agreement has been signed in Duration 3,2 M in 2009 Submission Electronic submission at ANR + postal submission of the proposal to the Joint Call Secretariat. Evaluation The Joint call secretariat, together with the national partners, assesses all proposals to ensure that they meet the call s formal criteria and that applicants are eligible to submit applications according to national rules. All collaborative proposals submitted and eligible are subject to peer review involving external referees. Evaluation and ranking is based on the following criteria: 1/ relevance and validity of the addressed research question, 2/ scientific excellence and track record of applicants, etc. Data sources Confidentiality of data Website General information available on ANR website and data available on ANR annual reports. Data available on ANR website. Inter Carnot-Fraunhofer Name of the programme Type Description Participating agencies Type of projects Inter Carnot Fraunhofer Bilateral program with international activities The goals of the German-French collaborative research and innovation projects between Fraunhofer Institutes (FhI) and Carnot Institutes (IC) are: Enhance scientific leadership on national and international R&D Prepare the transfer of technology and knowledge to industry Create long-term strategic French-German alliances between excellent research organizations The ANR (France) and the BMBF (Germany) Industrial research projects. When launched, the Fraunhofer-Carnot Cooperation was concentrated on thematic areas of energy, environment, health, civil security, transport and information and communication technology. However, the 2011 call was not limited to these areas. Project duration The programme has been launched for three years ( ). Research topics Several topics have been selected following the French-German Research Forum 2008: energy, environment, ITC, transports, civil security and health. Origin of funding Ministère de la recherche français (MESR) for France Funding mode Co-funding Budget (France) 3,8 M in 2009 Beneficiaries Consortia have to involve at least 1 Fraunhofer and 1 Carnot institute History Duration Submission Evaluation Data sources Confidentiality of data Website Following the French-German Forum for Research 2008, the ANR and the BMBF agreed, in a Memorandum of Understanding, on a 3 years joint-programme, funding German- French collaborative research and innovation projects between the FhI and the IC. This program is part of the French Programme Carnot, which has been created in A first call for proposals has been launched in 2007 with the Programme interne aux Instituts Carnot (P2IC). 3 years Projects have to be submitted to the ANR. After a peer-review process, the final financing decision is proposed by the steering committee. ANR and PICF website A brief description of selected projects is available on ANR website. Detailed data is available in annual reports. and DEUFRAKO 30

31 Name of the programme DEUFRAKO Type Bilateral program with international activities Description This program has been signed in 1978 between the French and the Germany President s in order to improve cooperation between France and Germany in the technologies of high speed trains (TGV, ICE, Transrapid). A new agreement was signed in 1998 in order to include new fields of research, namely: urban transport and mobility, freight, traffic, road safety. 30 research projects have been supported successfully since This program is made of industrial partners, research organisations and universities. Participating agencies Germany : federal ministry for Economy and Technologies France : ministry MEEDDM, Agence de l environnement et de la maîtrise de l énergie (Ademe), Oseo, ANR, ministry of industry. REMARK: At this stage of the JOREP project, we focused on the ANR part of the program (other funding agencies will be added into the following steps). Type of projects For the ANR part: collaborative research projects. Project duration Research topics Technologies of high speed trains, urban transport, mobility, freight traffic, road safety, Origin of funding Germany (Mobilität und Verkehrstechnologien program): ministry of Economy and Technology. France (PREDIT program): ministries in charge of sustainable development, ministry of environment, ministry of industry. Funding mode Each partner is funded by its own country. Budget (France) in 2009 Beneficiaries Public research institutes, private companies. History The DEUFRAKO program is a long term cooperation between the German research program "Mobilität und Verkehrs-technologien", managed by the federal ministry for Economy and Technologies, and the PREDIT, French research program for transport technologies managed by the ministries in charge of sustainable development, industry and research, as well as the ADEME, OSEO and ANR agencies. DEUFRAKO was initiated on During the French-German forums on 2002 and 2005, it was decided to intensify DEUFRAKO cooperation by organising joint calls and scientific seminars and conferences. Duration Always renewed Submission and evaluation First round: pre-proposals in English should be submitted to the Deufrako Secretariat. A specific French-German committee decides on the proposals two times a year. Second round: full proposal should be submitted to each concerned agency. Coordination is down through the secretariat of the Predit. Data sources Deufrako and Agence Nationale de la Recherche Confidentiality of data General information is available on the Deufrako website. Specific information on the funding is available on ANR website. Website Plant-KBBE Name of the programme Type Description Participating agencies Type of projects Project duration Research topics Scientific and technological cooperation in plant genome research as basis of the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy Multilateral program with international activities Given that bio-agriculture will play an increasing role in the future, France, Germany and Spain have decided to create a collaboration research program to support the Transnational plant alliance for novel technologies toward implementing the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy in Europe. In 2009, Portugal was integrated in the program as a new member. France: ANR and Ministry of research and higher education Germany: BMBF Spain: Ministerio de ciencia e innovacion Portugal: FCT Two types of modules: - Industry driven consortia: projects should involve at least 2 private industrial companies for two different partner countries. - Application-oriented consortia: mixed consortia including researchers from public institutions and private industrial companies from at least three of the partner countries. The duration of projects is limited to three years. Biomaterials and bio-based products (plan cell factory), sustainable production of healthier and safer food and feed, systems biology 31

32 Origin of funding In France, grants are assigned by the ANR, which receives funding from the ministry of research and higher education. Funding mode The selected projects are granted through the national programs. Budget (France) 3,9 M in 2009 Beneficiaries The program gives priority to mixed consortia including research from public institutions and private industrial companies. Small and medium sized enterprises are particularly addressed to participate. Academic proposals, without participation of a private industry are very exceptionally accepted. History The agreement was signed in 2003 between France, Germany and Spain. Since then, three calls for proposals have been executed: Functional and comparative genomics approaches for the investigation and use of natural diversity (2003), Trilateral partnership and beyond: the future for European public/ private partnerships in plant genomics (2006), Scientific and technological cooperation in plant genome research as basis of the knowledge-based bio-economy (2008). Portugal jointed the program for the first time in This program was launched in 2003 to accomplish purely academic research. In 2005, the participating countries adopted a common strategic document on Genomic approaches for the investigation of genetic diversity in crop plants and its use for innovation which defined the future development of the cooperation towards a more industrial-oriented research. Duration Signed in 2003 and renewed regularly since then. Submission The call secretariat is the centre for the management of the call. It deals with all the information that flows between the applicants (reception of the applications sending of decisions), the reviewers (contacting the referees, sending the proposals, collecting the evaluation reports) and the representatives of the funding organizations. Evaluation The Advisory Board is a panel of international experts from science and industry that are responsible for the scientific as well as technical aspects of the evaluation procedure. Here are the specific evaluation criteria: 1/ scientific quality, level of innovation, 2/ feasibility of the project, 3/ relevance to the aims of the call, etc. After a common meeting and discussion with the advisory board, the direction panel proposes a final list of projects that should be approved by the funding agencies. Data sources Agence Nationale de la recherche website. Confidentiality of data General information available on ANR website and data available on the respective annual reports. Website Programme Blanc International Name of the programme Type Description Participating agencies Type of projects Blanc Program Joint programming thematic in the framework of the opening of the national program Programme Blanc. The aim of the Blanc Programme is to provide a significant stimulus to ambitious scientific and technological projects that are competitive on an international level, are highly original and break away from traditional research paths. ANR funding of a project selected under this call for proposals shall be key to the success of the project, and clearly aim at enhancing the international competitiveness of French scientific research in the sector concerned. Depending on the topics: - ANR-CONACYT (Mexico): biology, health biotechnology, environment, communication technology - ANR-CONICYT (Chile): physics, mathematics, communication technology, engineering sciences, etc. - ANR-DFG (Germany): chemistry - ANR-FWF (Austria): Physics, chemistry, mathematics - ANR-JST( - ANR-NKTH (Hungary): biotechnology, agronomy, environment, biotechnologies, biology, health - ANR-NSC (Taiwan): biotechnology, agriculture, health, genomics, nanosciences, nanotechnologies, telecoms, etc. - ANR-NSERC (Canada): environment, material and process engineering - ANR-NSFC (China): communication technology, nano-sciences and nanotechnologies, engineering sciences - ANR-NSF (United States) : chemistry The call is open to all types of research: fundamental and applied research as well as to partnerships with industry. For French partners, each project must include at least one 32

33 public research organisation. Project duration Should be 36 months. Research topics All disciplines on any topics Origin of funding Ministry of research and higher education Funding mode Co-funding procedure. Budget (France) It is the ANR s most important programme in terms of both numbers of projects selected and funding. 16 M in 2009 Beneficiaries Public research organisations, industry, SMEs. History The programme blanc exists since the creation of the ANR. Since then, it has increased a lot: in number of funded projects and in amount allocated to these projects. The opening of the programme blanc to foreign funding agencies started in 2007 (with National Science Council (NSC) of Taïwan). Duration Submission It depends on the type of bilateral program. For instance, in the ANR-DFG program (chemistry): First step: Administrative description should be submitted to both concerned funding agencies. Second step: scientific and technical documents should be sent to the ANR. Proposals which are submitted to only one country are rejected. Evaluation First round evaluation: each agency evaluates and selects the projects according to its own evaluation procedure (each project is evaluated on both sides). Second round evaluation: evaluation of the projects by the evaluation committee. Third round evaluation: both agencies decide together which projects they will fund, among the projects which have been selected by the evaluation committee of the Programme Blanc. Evaluation is based on the following criteria: 1/ relevance to the aims of the call, 2/ scientific quality, level of innovation, etc. Data sources Agence Nationale de la recherche website. Confidentiality of data General information available on ANR website and data available on the respective annual reports. Website 4 Overall assessment and discussion 4.1 Availability of data and methodological issues Data have been collected thanks to several data sources: annual reports, direct contacts with people in charge of the programs, when possible, expert estimates. In this section, we explain how we proceeded for each type of data, namely: the characterictis of joint and open programs and the collection of funding data (funding to beneficiaries and funding to agencies). a) The characteristics of joint programs All joint programs descriptors have been identified thanks to the calls for proposals of each program either visiting the funding agency websites or/ and on the ERANETs website. These data have never been collected through direct contact with people. When available, some data have been found on additional documents like PowerPoint presentations. b) Funding to beneficiaries At first, we tried to find as many data as possible on the funding agency and ERANETs websites. The difficulty to find these data for each program depended on the funding agencies. For the programs managed and/ or funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche since 2005, all the data were available in the annual reports. Before 2005, the data were more difficult to find. Most of the time, we had to estimate the data. 33

34 For the programs directly managed and/ or funded by other funding agencies, like the ministry of research, the ministry of industry or OSEO, it was very difficult to find these data due to the fact that most of them were considered as confidential. We then contacted the person in charge of the programs in these funding agencies. If the data were still not delivered, we then had to estimate the funding regarding the available hint. c) Funding to agencies In France, the funding amount allocated to the programs is delegated to agencies. It was then not a problem to find the data. We reported the funding to beneficiaries into the funding to agencies. 4.2 Problems encountered with data availability and measures taken to overcome problems As mentioned above and most of the time, it was easy to find the characteristics of the programs. Our main difficulty was to find funding data for programs which were not funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche. When it was impossible to find the data via the annual reports or even the direct contact with the persons in charge of the programs, we had to do some logical estimation, regarding our own experiences and the few data which were available. In the following box, we explain how we proceeded for some of the programs (ERANET ERASME, MNT ERA-NET and Clusters EUREKA). Programs Available data Estimated data ERANET ERASME MNT ERA-NET Clusters EUREKA Call 2005 (funded in 2006) : 0 French participant Call 2006 (funded in 2007) : 3 Call 2007 (funded in 2008) : 0 Call 2008 (funded in 2009) : 0 Call 2009 (financé en 2010) : 0 (aggregated data for all countries) MNT 1 (between 2006 and 2009): 46 funded projects, 28 participating countries, 30 M. MNT 2 (2009): 30 funded projects, 28 participating countires, 22 M Between 2006 and 2009, = 76 projects were funded and received 30+22=52 M. 15 out of the 159 participants that took part to these projects were French. (aggregated data for all countries) Period : the total grant allocated over this period is M. Period : all the funded projects received each year 220 M. Without any further information, we estimated that each participant received We then estimate that in 2007, OSEO allocated: * 3 = Each participant received 52 / 159 = on average. As a consequence, the 15 French participants received * 15 = 4,9 M. For 2009: 40% of the projects were funded in 2009 (159 / 30 projects). We then consider that French participants received : * 15 * 40% = 1,9 M. For previous years ( ): We considerthat French participants received / 3 = 1 M each year between 2006 and We estimate that OSEO provides 40% of the total grant each year. Period : the total grant allocated each year is equal to /3 = 420 M. We then consider that OSEO allocated: 420 * 40%= 160 M to French participants. Period : We consider that 34

35 OSEO allocated: 220*40% = 85 M to French participants. 35

36 5 Annexes 5.1 Appendix 1 : COST FACT SHEET 1/ Brief overview COST is a European intergovernmental initiative whose goal is to enhance R&D-oriented cooperation in the European Research Area. Its main objective is to better communication between researchers through the funding of joint activities (like conferences, short term scientific exchanges, publications) which may favour networking above national boarders. In other word, COST does not fund R&D activity itself: R&D institutions, before applying for COST financial support, must already have their research activities' costs covered. The COST initiative is structured around the COST ACTIONS which can be defined as: networks centred around nationally funded research projects in fields that are of interest to at least five COST countries (source: In 2010, above 250 COST Actions were running in eight specific 2 and one transversal domains, involving participants from COST countries but also from non-cost countries (cf. Box 1). Box 1. COST and non-cost countries There are 36 COST countries: the 35 European Member States and Israel (as a cooperating state). Each COST country (but Israel) is represented by a Senior Official in the Committee of Senior Officials (which is the main decision-making body in COST) and experts in the Domain Committees (each of which is responsible for a particular research domain). COST has also signed specific agreements with four other countries: Argentina, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Contrary to non-cost countries, COST can support these countries financially in order to enhance their participation to COST Actions. COST also supports the participation of non-cost European neighboring countries (Balkan and North African Mediterranean countries). In 2010, 300 institutions from Non-COST countries took part to the COST actions. (source: and About COST 2010, available on 2/ How does a COST action work? Only the institutions of one of the 36 COST countries can submit a COST action proposal to the permanent open call, following a bottom-up principle. The proposal is then evaluated by the Domain committee and passes trough a several stages process. If the proposal is eventually accepted, other countries are invited to take part to the action. Each action has a specific goal, a chair, a rapporteur and a management committee. They must focus on pre-competitive research and are delimited in time (they do not exceed four years in general). An action receives euros a year on average. Contrary to the ERA NET projects for instance, COST action participants receive financial support directly from the COST offices and not from their 2 Specific domains: 1/ biomedecine and molecular biosciences, 2/ chemistry and molecular sciences and technologies, 3/ earth system science and environmental management, 4/ food and agriculture, 5/ forest, their products and services, 6/ individuals, societies, culture and health, 7/ information and communication technologies, 8/ materials, physics and nanosciences, 9/ transport and urban development (source: 36

37 respective national funding agency. Switzerland is the only country among COST members to provide financial supports to its national institutions when the latter want to participate in a COST action. Occasionally, some countries, like Czech Republic, could have help their national institutions when they wanted them to take part to a COST action. But this way of proceeding is the exception, not the norm 3. 3/ France as a COST Member State In France, the National office in charge of COST is the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. Before 2007, French institutions did not take part to more than 75% of the COST actions. Since then, French participation has been getting increasing. In 2011, French institutions are members of around 100% of the current COST actions. According to the figures we found in the COST fact sheets available for each past and current Action (source: Data collected in March 2011), French institutions chair between 3,8% and 16,7% of the Actions in which France is engaged. The following tables give a idea of the French participation in each domain. a/ Biomedecine and molecular biosciences N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) b/ Chemistry and molecular sciences and technologies N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) c/ Earth system science and environmental management N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) d/ Food and agriculture N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) e/ Forest, their products and services N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % 3 Interview of Mr. Gorlicki by phone, in March

38 N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) f/ Individuals, societies, culture and health N of running actions % N of running actions in in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) g/ Information and communication technologies N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) h/ Materials, physics and nanosciences N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) i/ Transport and urban development N of running actions % N of running actions in which French institutions participate % N of running actions in which French institutions participate and chair % (source: data collection in March 2011) 38

39 5.2 Appendix 2: French National Research Agency (ANR) Fact Sheet 1/ Bief overview The French government established the French National Research Agency (ANR) in The ANR is a research funding organization depending on the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. It ensues from a double political will which consists in dissociating research-operating activities from the funding of research activities as well as amplifying project-based research funding in France. In 2009, the budget of the agency accounted for 8% of the French public budget in R&D 4. The main agency's tools are the competitive thematic and non-thematic calls. The agency funds public and private organizations, in all scientific domains 5, for pre-competitive, fundamental and industrial research. Since the ANR was created, a significant part of the calls has been transnational. Interestingly, any ANR call is open to foreign applicant, provided the latter can prove that he already has public funding from his national funding agency. 2/ Main trends Although the ANR is relatively new, three main trends can already be observed: a) Although the agency encourages collaboration between public and private organizations, the total funding dedicated to industrial research has been decreasing in recent years (from 39 % in 2005 down to 35% in 2007 and to 31% in ). On the contrary, the funding allocated to fundamental research projects has been slightly increasing (54% of the total budget in 2005, 61% in 2007, 65,5% in ). This tendency can be explained by the increasing role played by another new French incentive instrument dedicated to French companies : the Crédit Impôt Recherche. b) The number of non-thematic calls, and in particular of the white programmes ( Programmes Blancs ) is increasing. In 2008, the non-thematic calls accounted for 25% of the ANR calls. In 2009, they accounted for 35% and the ANR plans to increase their share up to 50% of the programmes in This tendency has two implications: first, the number of thematic programs will decrease and second, the thematic calls will more and more focus on 1/ public-private research and 2/ interdisciplinary and industrial research 9. c) The white programs are also more and more internationally-oriented, following a global tendency at the ANR towards the international collaborations (see next section). 3/ International collaborations Since the ANR was created, the total funding dedicated to transnational projects has been constantly increasing (cf. table 2). In 2009, it accounted for 8,20% of the total budget dedicated to calls for proposals. The transnational projects are funded through two types of collaboration: 1/ the opening of national programmes to international collaboration and 2/ the multilateral collaborations (including participation to ERA-NETS). Table 1 provides the definition that the ANR gives to both types of collaboration: TABLE 1: ANR definition of its two types of collaboration Opening of national programmes to international collaboration Multilateral collaborations and participations to ERA- the ANR organises the co-funding of bi-national projects based on international agreements signed with partner agencies. These agreements demonstrate a common will to jointly support research projects on one or more scientific themes considered as strategic by both parties. a common call text is drawn up and a joint evaluation committee comprising international experts is created. The joint evaluation committee produces a ranking 4 Source: «Programmation 2010 de l'agence Nationale de la Recherche, 29 octobre In 2009, the calls for proposals were organized in 6 thematic priorities: 1/ ecosystems and sustainable development, 2/ engineering, processes and security, 3/ health and biology, 4/ information and communication science and technology, 5/ sustainable energy and environment, 5/ social sciences and humanities. 6 Source: ANR Annual report Source: ANR Annual reports 2008 and Source: «Programmation 2010 de l'agence Nationale de la Recherche, 29 octobre Source: idem 39

40 NETS list of projects recommended for funding. Based on this ranking list, the involved funding organisations determine the projects to be funded, taking into account the national budgets available. Source: ANR Webiste (downloaded 11/04/01) In 2009, 56% of transnational calls were funded in the framework of joint calls (multilateral programmes and participations to ERA-NET programmes) 10. In the framework of these transnational collaborations, the ANR mainly contracts to other European countries, although the amount of money dedicated to projects with non-european countries mainly thanks to the opening of national programmes to international collaboration - is increasing (see table 3). Regarding its collaborations with other European agencies, the ANR participation in ERA-NET programmes counts for a large part of its transnational collaborations. Since 2006, the agency has funded 142 projects in the framework of the ERA-NET, accounting for 40,5 M 11. However, in comparison with the ANR total funding for international projects (A), the funding dedicated to ERA-NETs calls tends to decrease (see table 4). (REMARK: in order to be able to compare figures between 2006 and 2009, the figures included in the following tables (tables 2 to 4) mainly come from the Annual Reports.) TABLE2: ANR budget and ANR funding dedicated to transnational projects ANR budget (M ) ANR budget dedicated to calls for proposals (M ) ,4 839,3 644,6 830,1 650,2 International submitted projects International submitted projects with French partners Number of transnational projects co-funded by the ANR (when French partners) (A) ANR funding for transnational projects (M ) (B) 13,7 16,8 33,1 53 As a % of total budget dedicated to call for proposals 2,80% 5,10% 8,20% Source: ANR Annual reports 2007, 2008, 2009 (available on the ANR website) TABLE 3: ANR funding for transnational projects associating France with non-european countries Number of transnational calls (European+ non-european) Number of transnational calls with non-european countries 0 2* 6** 9*** Number of projects with non-european countries co-funded by the ANR (when French partners) As a % of the number of transnational projects co-funded by the ANR (when French partners) ((A) in table 1) % 8% 17% 28,5% ANR funding for these projects (M ) 0 3 4,6 12,1 (* with Taiwan and China, ** with China (NSFC), Japan (JST and JSPS), Taiwan, Brazil (FINEP, CNPQ), *** with Canada (NSERC), Chile (CONICYT), China (NSFC), United States (NFC), Japan (JST), Mexico (CONACYT), Taiwan (NSC)). Source: ANR Annual reports 2006, 2007, 2008, Source: ANR Annuel report idem 40

41 TABLE 4: ANR funding for ERA NET calls for proposal between 2006 and Number of ERA NET submitted projects Number of ERA NET submitted projects with French partners Number of ERA NET submitted projects with French partners co-funded by the ANR ANR funding for these projects (M ) 13,7 3,1 12,8 12,8 As a % of ANR funding for international projects ((B) in table 1) Source: ANR Annual reports 2007, 2008, ,00% 23,60% 38,70% 24,10% TABLE 5: ANR funding for ERA NET calls for proposal between 2006 and 2009, by projects Nb Total ANR funding Nb Total ANR funding Nb Total ANR funding Nb Total ANR funding Era net E RARE 13 2,5 11 2,2 Era net Neuron 6 2,3 7 2,2 Era Sysbio + 9 3,9 Era net Euro Nano Med 6 1,6 AAL ,1 5 2,9 Era net Pathogenomics 2,3 10 2,5 Era net Biodiversité 9 4 Era net + Nanosciences 9 1,9 Era net Nanosciences 7 1,6 Era net EuroTransBio 19 4,4 2 0,6 Era net PG 14 3,3 TOTAL 40 11,6 15 3, , ,8 Source: ANR Annual reports 2007, 2008, / Focus on 2009 Remark: in this section, the various figures we use come from our own calculation, based on the Annual Reports and on the ANR website (mainly the pages related to the calls for proposals). We note that our figures are not the same as the figures which come exclusively from the Annual reports. Bio and health Ecosystems and sustainable development Sustainable energy and environment Engineering, processes, and securities Non-thematic Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) PROJECTS ANR funded-projects (A) , , , , ,8 ANR funded projects including French and non-french partners 60 18,3 14 5,5 4 3,5 3 1, As a % of (A) PROGRAMMES Programmes JOINT programmes 7 17,6 1 3, multilateral 2 4,8 1 3, ERA NET, ERA NET +, AAL 5 12, JOINT THEMATIC FOCUS 1 0,7 2 1,6 3 3,5 3 1,7 0 National project with international participation 3 0,8 7 4, ,6 0 41

42 Partnership and competitiveness Cross-cutting programmes Information and communication sciences Social sciences TOTAL Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) Nb Fundings (M ) PROJECTS ANR funded-projects (A) 11 3, , , , ,01 ANR funded projects including French and non-french partners 11 3, , ,7 As a % of (A) PROGRAMMES Programmes JOINT programmes 1 3, , ,2 multilateral 1 3, ,9 7 33,4 ERA NET, ERA NET +, AAL ,8 JOINT THEMATIC FOCUS ,5 National project with international participation , ,38 5/ Sources for 2009 figures Biology and health: 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) 3/ PowerPoint presentation "Alzheimer, suivi du plan 2008>2012" (available here: downloaded 11/04/01)). Ecosystems and sustainable development 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) Sustainable energy and environment 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) Engineering, processes and securities 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) Non-thematic 42

43 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1,, downloaded 11/04/01) Cross-cutting programmes 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) Information and communication sciences 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) Social sciences 1/ ANR Annual report / ANR 2009 calls for proposals (available here: 5D=2009&tx_saap_pi1%5Bvalider%5D=1&id=6&no_cache=1, downloaded 11/04/01) 43

44 5.3 Appendix 3 : OSEO FACT SHEET 1./ Brief overview OSEO is a French public institution which was created in 2005 by the French Government. Its main goal is to back innovation and growth of French Small and Medium Size companies in order to improve their competitiveness at the European and global levels. It reports today to both the French Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industry and the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. Box 1. Towards a single supporting and funding agency for French innovative SMEs OSEO results from the grouping of three former French organisations: the BDPME (Bank for the development of SMEs), l'anvar (French Agency for Innovation) and the Groupement d'intérêt économique Agence des PME. Year after year, other organisations and missions have been added to OSEO initial mission. In 2009, the young French Agency for Industrial Innovation (Agence pour l'innovation industrielle or AII was aggregated to OSEO with the political aim to focus the French industrial policy on SMEs and intermediary companies (between 250 and 5000 employees). The same year, OSEO has also been put in charge of the management of the Fond Unique Interministériel (the FUI : it is a French programme which funds collaborative R&D projects in the pôles de compétitivité. Most of the French Ministries contributes to this programme). OSEO's financial resources are threefold: the State, OSEO's capital equity and external partners (like the French National Research Agency ANR, the European funding, the Civil aeronautics programmes or territorial collectivities). OSEO is involved in three activities: 1/ OSEO innovation support and funding: OSEO directly supports innovation by funding innovative technological projects; 2/ OSEO financing: OSEO funds investments and working capital requirements with banks; 3/ OSEO guarantee: OSEO guarantees bank loans and private-equity funding. We focus on OSEO innovation in this document. 2./ OSEO innovation OSEO innovation supports innovative industrial projects mainly through two programmes: Innovation support and the Strategic industrial innovation. Through Innovation support ( AI in French), OSEO supports single-partner-projects or collaborative projects in the framework of the pôles de compétitivité. OSEO inherited another programme from the recently integrated French Agency for Industrial innovation (AII): the Strategic industrial innovation ( ISI in French) thanks to which OSEO helps SME and intermediary companies (up to 5000 employees) to go ahead with large and breakthrough collaborative projects. This last programme aims at facilitating the emergence of European and global breakthrough innovations. In 2009, OSEO innovation granted 560 million euros to innovative projects. 410 million euros were in the framework of the AI programme and 150 million euros in the framework of the ISI programme. 44

45 Box 2. The State's contribution to OSEO innovation is decreasing Regarding OSEO innovation as a whole, we note that the financial supports coming from the State budget have been decreasing between 2008 and 2009 (from 661 down to 454 million euro) whereas financial supports based on other partners budgets have increased substantially during the same period of time (from 62 up to 106 million euro). It is even cleare when one focuses on the AI programme: the funding coming from the other partners has increased a lot between 2007 and 2009 (from 48 to 106 million euros). It is to a large extent due to the increasing part of the European funds (from 3,6 to 32 million euro or an increase by 800% in 3 years). 3/ OSEO innovation : European and international activities OSEO is already active at the European and international level and it should go increasing in the future. In this purpose, OSEO gave itself an International Department in The same year, OSEO decided to double the number of French companies receiving funds in the framework of the collaborative European projects within the next two years. OSEO is the main contact of French SMEs in many European innovation instruments including the PCRD, Innovation express (a programme which aims at supporting internationalisation of SMEs which belong to the pôles de compétitivité), some ERA NET programmes (OSEO takes part to ERANET MNT, MANUNET, EraSME, Euro Transbio). OSEO is also the French partner of two instruments of the Eurêka programme. We develop both instruments below. Box 3. Eurêka: Brief overview Eurêka was created in 1985 with the declared objective to challenge the increasing migration of R&D and industrial innovation to Asian and North-American countries. Eurêka is an intergovernmental initiative which aims at enhancing market-oriented R&D cooperation between public and private organisations at the European level. It is currently made of 40 members: 39 Member States and the European Commission. Eurêka is complementary to the EC Framework programme, as it mainly focuses on applied research (see the following graph). OSEO is in charge of the Eurostars programme and funds a large majority of the individual collaborative projects. It is not responsible for the Eureka clusters which are under the authority of the Source: France is involved in three types of Eurêka programmes: 1/individual collaborative projects, 2/ Eurostars programme and 3/ the Eurêka clusters. 45