View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Joint and Open REsearch Programs
[Contract No. RTD/DirC/C3/2010/SI2.561034]
National report on joint and open programmes
POLAND
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the European Commission.
JOREP
2
Document Information Sheet
Deliverable Title National report on Joint and Open Programmes: Poland
Abstract The report provides an overview of the Polish research policy and its
participation to joint research funding programmes. It represents a step forward
in the analysis of joint and opened R&D programme and their economic impact
according to the tender on Investments on Joint and Opened programmes funded
by the Directorate General Research of the European Commission (JOREP
project, contract RTD/DirC/ C3/2010/SI2.561034)
Authors Julita Jablecka Warsaw University
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.
Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) National Report: Poland
List of acronyms
COST Cooperation Scientifique et Technologique
CRDS Committee on Research and Development of Science
CRDE Committee on Research and Development of the Economy
CSTP Committee on Scientific and Technology Policy
ESA European Space Agency
ESF European Science Foundation
EU European Union
FP EU Framework Program
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GERD Gross Expenditures on Research and Development
HEI Higher Education Institution
MNSW Ministry of Science and Higher Education
NCBR National Research and Development Centre
NOT Polish Federation of Engineering Agencies
PAN Pilish Academy of Sciences
R&D Research and Development
SME Small and medium Enterprises
KBN State Committee for Scientific Research
4
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5
2. OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC RESEARCH FUNDING IN POLAND .. ............................................. 6
2.1. R&D funding and execution ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Public research funding: overview ................................................................................................ 8 2.3.Project funding overview ............................................................................................................... 9 2.4.Public research funding: some quantitative data .......................................................................... 15
3. MAPPING JOINT AND OPEN PROGRAMS .............................................................................. 15
3.1. An introductory overview ........................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1.Joint programming ............................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2. Opening of national programs ............................................................................................. 16 3.1.3.Mapping the programs .......................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Participation of Poland in European and international programs ......................................... 18
3.5. National programmes funding performers abroad....................................................................... 25 3.6. Cases of exclusion: revision of the national perimeter after the data collection ......................... 25
4. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 26
4.1. Availability of data and methodological issues ........................................................................... 27 4.2. Problems encountered with data availability and measures taken to overcome problems .......... 30
5. DISCUSSION ON NATIONAL PARTICIPATION TO JOINT AND OPEN R&D PROGRAMMES .................................................................................................................................. 30
5.1. Participation to joint initiatives (EU and national) ...................................................................... 30 5.2.Level of funding: general observations on national financial commitment on joint R&D activities ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.3 Relationship with other EU initiatives ......................................................................................... 32 5.4. Relationships with national R&D programmes ........................................................................... 32
6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 33
TABLES
TABLE 1. Sources of funds and their distribution among research performers in 2008 (in thous.eur) ... 6 TABLE 2. Distribution of funding coming from different sources to various performers ..................... 7 TABLE 3. Share of funding from various performers in revenues of various performers ....................... 7 TABLE 4: overview of the main funding agencies and instruments in poland 2008-2009 (does not
cover instruments of minor importance and agencies funding only one single programme .......... 14 TABLE 5. European and international programs with polish participation b.1. And b.2. ..................... 20 TABLE 6. The list of programmes excluded from the perimeter and motivations for exclusion .......... 25
5
1. Introduction
This report provides for the analysis of the Polish policy concerning participation to joint and
open research funding programs; it thus represents a first step in the tender on Investments on
joint and open R&D programs and analysis of their economic impact funded by the
Directorate General Research of the European Commission (JOREP; contract
RTD/DirC/C3/2010/SI2.561034).
The aim of the report is to provide an overveiw of joint and open programs in Poland, in
order to prepare for data collection and for the analysis of motivations and impacts of these
programs. Accordingly, it is organized in the following sections:
• first, a general overview of the national research funding system with a focus on the
organization of project funding. This information shall provide the required
background to understand the policy towards open and joint programs.
• second, an overall mapping of these programs highlighting the main patterns and
providing a first definition of the perimeter for the JOREP analysis, including of each
program by adopting the descriptors defined in the JOREP project adjusted to Polish
situation
• third, an overall assessment of the national situation and a discussion of the foreseen
availability of data, as well as of emerging methodological problems.
Finally the report introduces a discussion on national participation to joint and open
programmes, the level of funding and their connecttedness with iother EU and national
initiatives.
The report integrates information retrieved trhough the data collection exercise and some
examples are provided with citation of the joint programme according the common
numbering shared in the Jorep databases.
The report has been prepared by Warsaw University under the JOREP contract. Its contents
engage only its authors.
6
2. Overview of public research funding in Poland
This section provides a general overview of public research funding in Poland, as well as
some more specific information on project funding. This will allow to better frame the role
of open and joint programs in the overall funding landscape.
2.1. R&D funding and execution
Poland can be described as a relatively large research system (in terms of R&D employment
and number of research establishments) but with a very low R+D intensity (measured by
R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP): while the Lisbon target is GERD as much as 3
% of GDP, in 2007 it stood at 1,85% on average in EU-27 and at 0,57% in Poland (source:
EUROSTAT 2010).
Total R+D expenditure in Poland in 2007 was 1764 million EUR (EUROSTAT 2010) and
2191,4 mln EUR in 2008 (calculation based on data from CSO 2010).
In 2007 GBAORD constituted 0,67% of GDP on average in EU-27 – and 0,32% in Poland,
which placed Poland on the 5th latest position among EU countries). (EUROSTAT 2010 a).
In 2008 GBAORD was 0, 30% of GDP (MSHE 2009).
In EU-27, R&D expenditure in 2007 by the source of funds as a percentage of total spending
accounted on average for 55% by business sector, 34% by government, 3% by other national
sources and 9% from abroad. For Poland the respective data were 34% by business, 59% by
government (no other national sources) and 7% from abroad (EUROSTAT 2010). While total
GBAORD in PPS* per inhabitant (at constant 2000 prices) in 2007 was 144 in 27—EU
countries on average , it was three times lower in Poland where reached 38 . (EUROSTAT
2010).
In 2008 R&D expenditure by sector of performance as a percentage of total spending in
Poland was as follows: 30% in business sector, 35% in government sector and 34% in
higher education sector.
TABLE 1. Sources of funds and their distribution among research performers in 2008 (in thous.EUR)
Type of Units Total Sources of Funds
budgetary scientific units of PAN and branch R&D
Enterprises From abroad own funds
Total 2191384,5 1228784,3 9995,6 125511,5 118750,8 698777,1
of which
scientific units of PAN
268022,7 226279,5 3689,0 3250,0 21983,8 10624,2
Branch R&D 594603,8 372592,8 3087,6 79146,4 36897,1 101131,1
Business enterprises
499727,1 27206,5 687,2 2707,5 12569,5 456338,7
7
Higher edu. Institutions
737246,1 572963,3 2268,1 28368,5 43678,7 84696,5
* calculation based on average exchange rate in 2008 : 1EUR=3,5166PLN
source: own calculation based on CSO data, 2010
TABLE2. Distribution of funding coming from different sources to various performers
Source: CSO 2010
TABLE 3. Share of funding from various performers in revenues of various performers.
Source: CSO 2010
Figures in table 3 show that the highest share of budgetary funds (84,4%) in total revenues of
various sector of research performance was in 2008 in PAN sector and in higher education
8
(77,7%); also the share of funding from abroad in total revenues was the highest in PAN
sector (8,2%) .
If we look how money from different sources was distributed among R&D sectors (table 2),
budgetary funding was concentrated in HE sector (46%); funding from abroad concentrated in
two sectors: the HE sector (which absorbed 36% of total funding coming from abroad) and in
branch research institutes(31,1%).
2.2. Public research funding: overview
Research funding in Poland is organized along two main funding streams: institutional
funding and project funding –they are both a part of science budget. The institutional
funding stream is totally in hands of the MNSW while project funding for the last several
years has been gradually transfered from the MNSW to the intermediary bodies- new
research councils Up to 2007 the science budget in Poland has been concentrated almost
exclusively in hands of the Minister of Science and Higher Education. But since 2007 there
are gradual chages in the organization od research funding. In 15th of June 2007 a new body
– (a type od research council) National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) was
created and a part of funding for applied research and for development projects as well as for
several kinds of international projects has been transfered to NCBR from the MNSW. In April
30 2010 several new acts concerning research orgqanization and funding were passed by the
Parliament- a new act on research funding has clarified and changed the rules of research
evaluation and funding. A new act on NCBR gave the body more autonomy from the
Ministry and widened the scope of it activity. An act establishing a National Center of
Science (NCN) transfered all research project funding (grant system) and a part of funding
international cooperation ( including bi-lateral cooperaion) to this new body. So the period
between 2007 and 2011 was a constant and continuous flux and uclear rules of responsibility
in the period of transformation since the the changes were not a revolution completed in
several weeks but covered 4 years lasting gradual decentralization and transfer of
responsibility. Unfortunately, JOREP study covered exactly this period when officers duties
and responsibilites at these new bodies and at the MSHE were difficult to identify. Today the
responsibility of NCBR covers research and development projects in strategic programmes,
national research programs, international programs and european funds including a part of
multilateral and bilateral cooperation not covered by the NCN duties.
Institutional (called in Poland statutory)funding is distributed to both higher education and
government sector (institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences and branch R&D units). (It
takes the majority of budgetary research funding ). (The rules of funding has hanged sinc
new regulation in 2010 but I describe below the rules in motion before 2010 since the
description concerns years 2008 and 2009) Its purpose before 2010 was to cover full or part
of operational costs or investments costs enabling research institutions to perform research
activity on continuous basis. Distribution of money was (and stil is) based on the results of
9
research evaluation (performance based funding) Under this broad category there were
several funding streams. Core (primary) funding was aimed at ensuring the continuous
performance of long-term scientific research by scientific entities. (core financing prevailed in
the structure of public expenditure on R&D). Core funding was/is allocated directly from the
MSHE: to government R+D branch units subordinated to various ministries, to Polish
Academy of Science Institutes, to higher education institutions. Within HE sector institutional
funding receive directly basic units -which are usually faculties- who individually compete
for such funding. Additionally HEIs as a whole received also funds for so called “own” (in
house) research –which they distribute internally.
The other streams of institutional financing are devoted to maintenance of expensive unique
facilities and funding investments (devoted for new and continuous investments, buildings,
equipment and information technology facilities). The final stream of institutional funding
covers various programs and undertakings specified by the MNSW (scholarships for
young investigators, support for mobility, money for restructuring of scientific entities and so
on)
Both public and private HEIs have been eligible to apply for core funding, in-house research
and research projects if they fulfill similar requirements (a.e.must teach at least at graduate
level- leading to master degrees) . But private HEIs cannot receive investment funding or
money for maintenance of unique facilities.
From the point of view of JOREP project it is important that STATUTORY PRIMARY
(institutional) funding might cover some costs of international cooperation – projects
resulting from international agreements if such costs are not covered separately by
programs for international cooperation. It has some impliction on the total structure of
spending- the actual spending for international cooperation might be higher than
separate data on international cooperation show.
2.3.Project funding overview
Project funding has been a general name for several separate funding channels of different
kind of projects.
Investigator-driven projects –(grant system) embraces projects where the research topics are
defined by the applicant (bottom up), proposals submitted from researcher’s initiative and
reviewed by mail reviewers and peer review panels. A specific kind of investigator-driven
projects are promotor’s (supervised) projects, aimed at preparing a doctoral dissertation and
habilitation research projects. This kind of projects dominate in the project system and covers
both basic and applied research and up to 2010 have been funded by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education.
10
In case of so called ordered (solicited, thematic projects) the research topics are defined in so
called National Framework Program with priority areas of R&D. Ordered projects hav been
currently the main instruments of the government S&T policy but their significance has not
been reflected in financial terms. Since the establishment of the National R&D Centre in
2007 they have been administered and funded by this agency a part of strategic or national
framework programmes. Also development projects introduced in 2006 have been
administered by NCBR: they are designed to provide a basis for practical applications, with
the view to enhancing the greater potential and better quality of applied research and
development works performed by the R&D sector aimed at practical economy applications.
Finally, goal oriented projects have been co-funded by the user of prospective results and by
science budget (budgetary funds may make up to 70% of total research expenditures of the
project).They serve mostly cooperation between research institutions (HEIs or branch
government establishments) and business sector . Some of these projects are co-funded from
business money and budgetary or/ and structural funds.Goal oriented projects have been
funded by National R&D Centre, but part of them, submitted by SMEs has been selected and
administered by The Polish Federation of Engineering Associations NOT.
The other types of research projects distinguished from all kinds od international research
are:
international projects: international projects co-funded by national agency with support
from abroad (no return rules) and
international projects financed exclusively from national sources (no co-funding from
abroad).
They are described below.
Agencies funding research projects in Poland during 2008-2010
The Ministry of Science and HigherEducation, MNSW
The main role in financing of R&D and project funding in Poland in the period of analysis
(2008-2009) until actual gradual delegation of responsibilities for research projects funding
to the National Centr e for Research and Development (NCBR established in 2007)) and to
National Centre for Science (set up in 2010 NCN) played the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education MNSW (in 2008 and 2009 the NCBR funds were very limited at the beginning of
its existence and gradually have grown up, until now).
The Ministry was/is responsible for formulation, - and up to 2010- also for implementation
and evaluation of higher education, science and technology policy and R&D funding. The
MNSW (set up in 2002), replaced the State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN)
established in 1991. The funding structure up to 2008 was almost completely centralized,
since the Ministry of Science kept keeps the whole state budget for science differently to the
other european countries where also the other ministries have their own research money for
mission research. In Poland, there none of the ministries (except marginal research money
for international programs, of the Ministry of Economy) have own budgetary funds for
11
research except Ministry of Regional affairs administering sectoral funds. MSHE had/has
strong power in research policy formulation and up to 2007 execution and research funding
including project funding; the other bodies involved in project funding described below were
strongly dependent on the Ministry both in allocation of money (NOT) and in policy
formulation (NCBR); they had only a very small share of budget funds at their disposal.
Up to 2010 the Minister was advised by the Science Council (RN) which constituted a
formal representation of research community . It consisted of maximum 70 members of whom
33 were elected by scientific community, the others the Minister appointed from among
candidates designated by other ministers and organizations of research institutions. The
Council was divided into four organs of the Council):
The Committee on Scientific and Technology Policy (CSTP) gave opinions on draft
documents concerning the state’s science and technology policy and its innovation policy as
well as bills and economic and financial arrangements concerning the development of science
and technology. The other organs of RN were the Committee on Research for the
Development of Science (KRN), the Committee on Research for the Development of the
Economy (KRG) and the Committee of Appeal. (KO)
These two Commissions of the KBN were involved in the process of assessment of research
institutions and peer review evaluation of various applications within all channels of funding
from the state budget. Hence, their functions were connected to the process of distribution of
money for science.
Besides the formal Science Council standing committees the Minister set up, if it was
required, for a limited period of time, specialised or interdisciplinary groups, consisting of
members of the Council’s Committees mentioned above as well as of competent external
experts involved in institutional evaluation and peer review of research projects including
international ones. But it must be mentined that Research Council was not a body separated
from and independent of the MNSW and all funding decisions were made by the Minister.
Since 2008 the responsibilities of the Minister has been gradually diminishing, the new
bodies NCBR and NCN have been set up they have taken over a part the responsibilities of
the Ministerd RN, concerning project funding sharing responsibility for management and
evaluation of international projects. According to new regulations of 2010 a new body –a
Committee of Evaluation of the Research Units (KEJN) was set up within the Ministry, with
responsibilities for the evaluation of research organizations preceeding the institutional
funding.
National Research and Development Centre, NCBR
The other most important institutions , during years 2007-2009 in the period of
transformation, besides of the MNSW, was National Research and Development Centre. It is
a state body set up by the legal Act in 2007 whose autonomy increased according to 2010
12
regulations. The purpose of the NCBR was/is to coordinate the country’s fragmented applied
research for the benefit of economy and society (public health, public administration, culture)
and to support the Minister of Science and Higher Education in the performance of science
and innovation policy. In particular NCBR will play a role of coordinator and a centre
managing big strategic R&D programs including energy, IT, biotechnology, new materials
and production technologies but –as mentioned earlier- also a part of international projects.
The Centre is jointly funded from state budget for science (in 2008 ca 10% of governmental
funds for science were transfered to NCBR) but is administering also international programs.
The strategic programs have been established through National Program for Scientific
Research and Development (amendment to the Act on the Principles of science financing,
July 15 2007) which replaced National Framework Program abolished in July 2007. The
agency internal organization (ruled by the statutes) and the procedures of selection of
research projects have been determined in details by the legal regulations of 2010 Act. The
NCBR was first one of two agencies to be created as part of Poland’s drive to reform its
research sector. A new agency called Centre for Scientific Research (NCN) was set up by new
regulations of 2010. It is financing basic research nad a part of international projects.
The other bodies involved in research support
A body funding national research projects
The Polish Federation of Engineering Associations – NOT is a public organization affiliating
branch Engineering Associations representing all fields of technology. It has at its disposal 51
Houses of Technology all over the country, providing their members with modern technology
equipment ready for rendering different services. Since 2001 up to 2010 the Innovation
Centre of NOT, under the agreement signed with the Minister of Science and Information
Society Technologies, it has managed the program of goal-oriented projects of SMEs: called
contests for co-financing the goal-oriented projects submitted and co-funded from state
budget and from funds of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The co-operation of the
Ministry of Science with the NOT was a part of a larger tendency in Polish administration
directed at gradual decentralization and outsourcing of public tasks.
Bodies funding international projects
While the Ministry was funding mostly investigator-driven grants and a part of international
programs, NOT was funding only goal-oriented projects from SMEs, NCBR was funding
solicited projects (ordered, within national framework and strategic R&D programs) and
goal-oriented projects. In area of international cooperation, MNSW and NCBR were co-
funding (together with funds from abroad) or fully funding most of research within
international programmes: Polish performers of international projects (description of
international cooperation in par. 3.1.
From the other bodies involved in support of research carried out by international teams each
of them was involved in funding only one kind of programme.
13
Between 2008 and 2009 the Centre for Information Processing OPI, was administering and
funding the Polish Norwegian Fund.
The Ministry of Economy was administering ESA programme.
The Central Office of Measures, GUM, was responsible for EMRC programme.
The International Fund- Visegrad Fund created by the cooperating governments was
resposible for its own support programme.
In 2008 most of money for programmes and projects of international cooperation was in
hands of the MNSW. Due to the evolutionary character of transformation orf research
organization the process of decentralization of reserch funding has taken several years. As a
result between 2008 and 2011 in several cases the research projects being a part the particular
programme could be funded partly by the MNSW and- in the following years –by the new
body- NCBR. For instance several ERA-NET programmes during 2008 and 2009 were partly
funded by the Ministry and partly by NCBR. Such programmes as ENIAC, AAL, ERA-
NET, ERA-NET+, EURO-STARS, Eureka or ESA were gradually transfered to NCBR since
2008 but in 2009 stil several of these programmes were funded both from MNSW and NCBR.
European Union Framework Programmes were managed and supervised by the MNSW up to
2010 and later transfered to NCN, also the funding of other international programmes of basic
research were transfered to NCN in 2010 and 2011- like European Research Council
programmes- Eurocores, NSF programmes Polish Norwegian Cooperation operated before
by the OPI and several programmes from bilateral cooperation (with Luxemburg, Germany,
Singapour Research Council, Israel, Taiwan).
Joint and Open Research Programme (JOREP) National Report: Poland
TABLE 4: Overview of the main funding agencies and instruments in Poland 2008-2009 (does not cover instruments of minor importance and agencies funding only one single programme
National Agencies International agencies Research councils Innovation
agencies Ministries and other government agencies
European Union Other international agencies and programs
Agency National Research and Development Centre
Polish Federation of Engineering Associations
Ministry of Science and Higher Education
Framework programs European Space Agency COST, EUREKA ESF
Main instruments Thematic(ordered) goal-oriented projects Goal-oriented –industry-university cooperative projects Development projects International projects co-funded from national and international sources International projects not co-funded by foreign sources
Goal-oriented (industry- university cooperation) projects
Investigator- driven projects (grants) International co-funded International not co-funded
Main Beneficiaries HEIs, research institutes SMEs exclusively/ with research establishments or HEIS as subcontractors
Higher education institutions, PAS institutes, public research branch (government) institutes,
Higher education institutions, public research institutes, private companies
All research sectors
15
2.4.Public research funding: some quantitative data
Complete data on project funding based on OECD project are not yet available.
3. Mapping joint and open programs
This section provides a detailed mapping of joint and open programs in the concerned countries with
sufficient detail to draw conclusions on future JOREP data collection.
3.1. An introductory overview
3.1.1.Joint programming
Since 1990 Poland has been trying to participate in many international research initiatives. But as I
mentioned above, even before 1990 Polish scientists were involved in international research ( i.e. projects
carried out in CERN). After 1990 Poland became a regular member of the most important international
organizations in various research areas – EUREKA or COST. In the domain of space research Poland
participates in European Space Agency. In the field of EURATOM nad Polish involvement in EU
organizations Polish research teams participate in several research networks- however, their involvement
has been limited partly because of limited funds and also partly because Poland has not have well developed
expensive research facilities (we do not use nuclear energy as a source of energy- no power plant using such
energy). As I mentioned above for some reasons Polish researchers are not very active in applying with
projects for international funding, but Polish MNSW is trying to create conditions enhancing Polish research
teams in research cooperation (the Ministry launched a program financing a preparation phase of
applications to international organizations; besides, there is national co-funding or funding of projects which
have been succesfull in aplying to international organizations/ programs for funding. The share of Polish
teams in European research is gradually increasing- Poland takes part im most of European Science
Foundation Schemes –European Collaborative Research Programmes -Eurocores. Also participation in
European Union Framework Programs is increasing – the process is developing especially after Polish
accession to the European Union, when Poland became an equal partner of Western countries. In most of
international programs decision on Polish participation in new schemes or initiatives in made by the Minister
after reccomendation of the Science Council and actual participation depends on the interests of research
groups. As description of international cooperation in MNSW annual budget reports suggests, many
decisions on Polish participation in ESF or ERA-NET and other programs is made a la carte. Besides
programs of cooperation on EU level, there are several intergovernmental initiatives in which Poland
participate like Visehrad Fund or INTAS where several countries from postcommunist countres carry out
joint research. Especially bilateral cooperation is important for Poland, Particularly cooperation with
“traditional” Polish partners (where Polish scientists went on scholarships during communism) like France,
USA or Germany(unfortunately, some of these programmes of cooperation are not covered by the JOREP
joint or opened programmes, the others were not significant in 2008 or 2009 and were excluded from further
16
description) . Such contacts with well developed countries with outstanding research achievements are the
most important since Polish research teams upgrade their quality, get experienced and learn from them.
3.1.2. Opening of national programs
As a general rule, nationality of the researcher and research institution is not a criterion for eligibility to
participation in Polish research programmes. What is required instead, is the employment of the researcher in
Polish research institution or – in case of research institutions – their location in Poland; besides, such
research establishment must be legal entity. But in Poland, there is no specific program dedicated to
funding researchers from abroad – instead, Polish side is rather a beneficient receiving money for research
from abroad (i.e. Norwegian Fund and other programs) than supporter of foreing performers.
3.1.3.Mapping the programs
Before presenting the mapping connected to JOREP project, I must mention a general philosophy of funding
for international cooperation in Poland, since several specific features of Polish system stem from this
general policy assumptions.
Except for institutional funds supporting some international research projects being a consequence of
international governmental agreements of cooperation (see 2.2.), all streams (channels) of funding
international cooperation in motion in 2008 and 2009 were outlined in executive regulations (executive order
of the Minister of 25th of September 2007 to the Act on Principles of Financing Science of October 8 2004).
The general principles of support of international cooperation are subordinated to a general policy purpose-
to increase and enhance the participation of Polish research teams in international programs,. As a result,
there are two important features of support for international research:
1. Support for all kind of involvement in international cooperation of Polish research teams; it
embraces also co-funding projects, which, in other countries, are funded exclusively from
international agencies or EU budget.
2. The government supplies funds not only for completion of research projects but also for
covering costs of preparation an application to international organization or program, for
contribution ( or subscription ) to international research organizations or research facilities,
for research carried out by Polish performers in international facilities, for funding of
national contact points and so on (in structure of the government all these items are
included).This kind of funding is not covered by JOREP project, but has been included in
Polish report because it presents the national context of international projects support in
Poland:
There are several streams of financing international cooperation in Poland –they create general rules for
all forms of support for international research:
1. National funding of participation of Polish research teams carrying out research in international
institutions like CERN of JRC (Polish side is paying the contribution to these institutes and
additionally is funding Polish research teams)- it corresponds to A category of JOREP
classification and is not covered by JOREP project
17
2. International projects co-funded from Polish sources of Polish participants in international
programs with no return rules –it concerns programs within EU and other international
programs, which are funded from international international sources and get addidional funding
from national sources (examples: European Framework Program, ESA,). This kind of
funding corresponds to category B1 and B2 of JOREP project.
Project is eligible to get Polish co-financing after initial acceptance (or positive assessment) by international
organization or consortium. Applicant may apply for Polish co-funding to cover project costs up to 60% of
total costs of the project but not more than 100% of planned Polish contribution to the project financing.
Every research project is selected by relevant Committee of the Science Council (or a director in National
R&D Centre in case of administration of these projects by the Centre), after its review by panel of experts
from relevant specialization or by interdisciplinary team or working task force according to the same
several criteria:
- The significance of the research for priority programs in Poland
- Access to research results of the other program participants including possibility of practical use
acquired knowledge, skills or technology in Poland
- Category (in ranking exercise) of research units (primary statutory funding)
3. International projects without co-funding (funded exclusively from national sources, like
Eurocores of European Science Foundation, ESF): correspond with B3 in JOREP
classification.
A prerequisite for eligibility of research units to get funding from national sources is a requirement to
prove the participation in international program or initiative and acceptance by international agency.
All international projects are reviewed by Science Council panels (if coordinated and funded by the MNSW)
or by expert panels set up by National Research and Development Centre (if the Centre is funding the
program), by OPI (Polish-Norwegian Fund). Additionally, every application for projects funded from
national budget only is assessed by three reviewers (representing science field/discipline relevant for the
project), before review by panel of experts
Criteria for selection of this kind of proposals are more elaborated than evaluation criteria for co-funded
projects since the later proposals are reviewed twice- by the international organization and Polish funding
agency. The review criteria in this category of projects are the same for all kind of proposals and concern:
- Scientific quality of the project
- Track record and competences of project team, research equipment available and other eligibility
criteria
- Innovativeness of proposed tasks comparing to the state of knowledge
- Social or economic utility of planned results and real possibility of practical use (or
commercialization) or research results
18
- Access to research results commonly achieved by program participants including possibility of
practical implementation of acquired knowledge, skills or technology
- Significance of the project for development of international cooperation in science and technology
- Justification of planned budget including purchasing the equipment relevant to project scope and
subject
- Results of evaluation of research unit fulfillment of previously completed research purposes
Projects are funded for maximum 5 years and financing may be prolonged for the next 2 years.
4. International research projects included in international programs or initiatives, or conquests,
announced for bilateral or multilateral cooperation (each country is funding its own research
teams).- corresponds to C: joint programs between national funding agencies- Corresponds to
C in JOREP classification
In several cases when Poland provide financial contribution to joint international program or initiative,
money from Polish agency is transferred to this research program, which funds directly research projects
from Poland: these programs are Vishegrad Funds programmes or Polish- Norway Fund
D: programmes of national agencies opened to performers abroad- does not exist
3.2. Participation of Poland in European and international programs1
For the mapping we make use of the classification of these programs provided in the JOREP tender in the
following categories
B. European/international agencies funding national research groups:
B.1. and B.2. Programs managed and funded by international agencies and /or European Commuission
throug its budgets FPs (established through international agreements) and funded from direct contributions
from national budgets. In Poland besides such national contribution they are additionally co-funded by
national sources.
1 According to JOREP classification (but not covered by JOREP project) there is also A.Participation in European and international facilities. Supranational research performers (not covered by JOREP) In Poland there are the following solutions: A.1. International facilities funded jointly by different national states. funding based on international agreements (CERN) Polish research projects co-funded from MNSW A.2. Facilities funded from EU budget (JRC). Proposals of Polish performers co-funded from EU and Polish sources (MNSW) A list of the most important international performers with Polish participation funded in 2008 covers
- CERN - JRC Joint Research Centre - ILL Institute M. von Laue-Paul Langevin - ESRF European Synchrotron Radiation Facility - DESY
(Source Kozlowski 2010)
19
The main features of Polish research policy concerning all categories of programs are described in sections
above. Below there is a list of the most important European and international agencies and programs funding
or coordinating research projects with Polish funding or co-funding of Polish research performers:
B1. ESA. European Space Agency
B.1. RFCS Research Fund for Coal and Steel
B.1. EURATOM
B.3.2. EUREKA
B.3.2. EUREKA-EUROSTARS
B.1. COST European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research
B.2. FP, EU Framework Programs (NOTICE THAT Polish side co-finances directly participation of Polish
research teams)
B.3.1. ERA-Net schemes
B.3.1. Joint European Programmes under 185 AAL - Ambient Assisted Living
B.3.2. Eurocores ESF
B.3. ETP, European Technology Platforms B.
B.3. 1. JTI/ Joint Technology Initiatives,
ENIAC, CLEAN SKY
B.3. IEE, Intelligent Energy for Europe,
B.3. ESF European Science Foundation: EUROCORES
B.3. ERA-NET, ERA-NET+
B.3. EMBC
20
TABLE 5. European and international programs with Polish Participation B.1. and B.2.
Program Funding/managing agency
Polish funding agency
Type Polish participation Availability of data on funding
European Space Agency
ESA
MNSW B-1.1. Participation of Poland since 2007. (earlier, since 2002 Poland has had a status of cooperating state -PECS) In 2008 Poland participated in programs COL Satellite Mission BEPI COLOMBO European Space Agency on Mercury and others like Rosetta, Herschel, Mars-Express, Venus- Express, Participation of Polish research projects is co-funded by ESA and by MSHE after review and recommendation of Science Council
Data not published Not available at the moment
Framework Program FP (not covered by JOREP)
E. C.
MNSW B.2.1. Participation before Polish accession to EU- in 2004 on individual basis. From the beginning of 6th FP full participation (before accession 50% of projects of RP were initiated) Program is co-funded from FP and Polish sources- directly by MSHE. Project were reviewed by Panels of Science Council, Polish co-funding up to 60 % of total costs Main beneficiaries: all sectors (government, HEIs, industry/business
Data not published Nor available at the moment
EURATOM (Not covered by JOREP)
EU FP MNSW B.2.1. Research program in area of nuclear energy. Poland became a full member in 2007 but cooperating also earlier- but still the scope of research is very limited Program is co-funded from FP and Polish sources- directly by MSHE. Project are reviewed by Panels of Science Council, Polish co-funding up to 60 % of total costs Main beneficiaries- Research institutes in area of nuclear research
Data not published Nor available at the moment
21
Name of the program Agreement (Memorandum of understanding) between Polish MSHE and
French National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA)
Type Rather application oriented Description
Cooperation focused on agriculture research of mutual interests
Participating agencies MNSW and INRA Type of projects and topics
Projects in relevant areas
Project duration Competition of applications: every 3 years Origin of funding Co-funded from both sides Funding mode
Joint support from both sides.
Budget (Polish part) Not available Beneficiaries
Research Iistitutions in relevant areas
History
2007 signed memorandum of understanding
Duration 3 years Submission
Joint projects assessed by French- Polish Steering Committee
Evaluation From among 28 research proposals 4 were selected Data sources Information about funding not public Aggregated data No data Confidentiality of data As above website http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-zagranica/wspolpraca-
dwustronna/mapa-swiata/- data on agreement, not execution and funding
Name of the program Bilateral cooperation programs between MNSW and DFG Deutsche
Forschungemeinschaft
Type
Cover 2 mechanisms of DFG : Sachbeihilfe and Sonderforschungsbereichte/Transregio
Description
Purrpose of Interegio- to improve excellence and setting up centres of excellence. Program concentrate on interdisciplinary research and young scientists
Participating agencies MSHE, DFG Type of projects and topics
Young scientists, interdisciplinary research
Project duration Project within Interregio program may be funded up to 12 years in 4-year phases Origin of funding For Polish partners-MNSW Funding mode Polish research teams funded as so called international projects not co-funded
from foreign sources (see description above) Budget (Polish part) No data Beneficiaries All History n.a. Duration n.a. Submission Applications submitted and proceeded in parallel to both agencies –for Polish
application to the MSHE assignment of research partner and his research contribution must be designed.
Evaluation See above Proposals reviewed according to national rules. Polish support only for proposals accepted by the DFG. Proposals may be assessed also by joint international panel
22
Interregio: similar rules of evaluation and submission Data sources Data on agreement available Aggregated data No data Confidentiality of data Data on agreement available (public) on website, data on funding not available Website http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-zagranica/wspolpraca-
dwustronna/mapa-swiata/
Name of the program NIDA/NIH Program of International Collaboration on Drug Abuse USA Type
Program of international collaboration on all kind of drags abuses (covers several initiatives)
Description
Research funding program launched by the NSF to promote cooperation and support international research teams and networks Open to research groups in other countries
Participating agencies National Institute on Drug Abuse NIH, USA and other countries (in Poland research is funded by MNSW)
Type of projects and topics
All projects relvant to the program title
Project duration n.a. Origin of funding Polish partners funded from MNSW Funding mode
Polish research teams funded as international projects not co-funded from abroad
Budget (Polish part) N.a. Beneficiaries No restriction History n.a. Duration n.a. Submission American teams submit proposals to NIDA, Polish ones- to MNSW Evaluation As all international research projects not co-funded from abroad Data sources Info on funding not public Aggregated data No data Confidentiality of data available content of agreement, not funding data Website http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-zagranica/wspolpraca-
dwustronna/mapa-swiata/
Name of the program Materials World Network (MWN) National Science Foundation Type Investigator driven projects Description
Research funding program launched by the NSF to promote cooperation and support international research teams and networks Open to research groups in other countries
Participating agencies NSF and funding agencies from other countries (in Poland research is funded by MNSW)
Type of projects and topics
All projects relevant to the program title
Project duration n.a. Origin of funding Polish partners funded from MNSW Funding mode
Polish research teams funded as international projects not co-funded from abroad
Budget (Polish part) N.a. Beneficiaries N.a. History n.a. Duration n.a. Submission American teams submit proposals to NSF, Polish ones- to MNSW
23
Evaluation The same as all international research projects not co-funded from abroad Data sources Info on funding not public Aggregated data No data Confidentiality of data Not public Website http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-zagranica/wspolpraca-
dwustronna/mapa-swiata/- data on agreement not on execution
Name of the program NSF International Collaboration in Chemistry Type
Research funding program launched by the NSF to promote cooperation and support international research teams and networks Open to research groups in other countries Investigator-driven projects
Description Research funding program launched by the NSF to promote cooperation and support international research teams and networks
Participating agencies NSF and funding agencies from other countries (in Poland research is funded by MNSW
Type of projects and topics
All projects relevant to the program title
Project duration n.a. Origin of funding Polish partners funded from MSHE Funding mode Polish research teams funded as international projects not co-funded from abroad Budget (Polish part) n.a. Beneficiaries No restriction History n.a. Duration n.a. Submission American teams submit proposals to NSF, Polish ones- to MNSW Evaluation The same as all international research projects not co-funded from abroad Data sources Info on funding not public Aggregated data No data Confidentiality of data Not public Website http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-zagranica/wspolpraca-
dwustronna/mapa-swiata/
Name of the program Science and technology Cooperation between Poland and Austria Type All forms of cooperation, all kind of projects, all disciplines Description
Agreement covers all research relationships Program preparing for future cooperation within European research programs. Covers cooperation between higher education institutions and Academies of Sciences in both countries
Participating agencies MSHE Poland, Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture Type of projects and topics
Not defined
Project duration Not defined Origin of funding Each side funding Project according to national rules Funding mode In Poland research projects are funded from statutory funds – no other funding is
supplied Budget (Polish part) Not available- data on the level of research institutions Beneficiaries All History Agreement signed in 2006 Duration of program 2007-2009 Submission To MSHE for statutory funding covering research resulting from
24
intergovernmental agreements Evaluation As a part of statutory applications Data sources N.a. Aggregated data N.a. Confidentiality of data N.a. Website On agreement http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-
zagranica/wspolpraca-dwustronna/mapa-swiata/
Name of the program Agreement between Poland and Czech Republic Type Typical intergovernmental agreement
Joint Committee for Cooperation in Science and Technology set up for coordination
Description Research within Executive program for cooperation within the Field of S&T Participating agencies MSHE and relevant czech agency Type of projects and topics
No restriction
Project duration Up to 2 years Origin of funding Research projects are funded by both countries according to national regulations Funding mode
Costs of research of Polish performers covered by statutory funds Polish funding covers travel exp. of Polish teams to Czech Rep. and accommodation of Czech teams in Poland; Czech side- the reverse
Budget (Polish part) Data on the level of research institutions Beneficiaries All research institutions History Agreement signed in 2000 but cooperation for many years Duration Submission Projects submitted to national agencies and assessed according to national rules. Evaluation n.a. Data sources n.a. Aggregated data n.a. Confidentiality of data n.a. Website Data on agreement not executions nor funding
http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-zagranica/wspolpraca-dwustronna/mapa-swiata/
25
3.5. National programmes funding performers abroad
According to the definition of opened programmes provided in the previous paragraphs (see 3.1.2.) no open
programmes appear to be available in Poland.
As a general rule the researchers of foreign origin or citizenship may apply for funding if they have the legal
address in Poland and work in research institution (for more details on eligibility - see section 3.1.2).
Generally these may be the programs for which an applicant from abroad can participate without national
funding, being employed in Polish research institution. But there is no encouragement or even information
for researchers about such possibility. It would be difficult to find out how many foreign researchers are
really engaged in national programs since such informations are not collected by any institution.
3.6. Cases of exclusion: revision of the national perimeter after the data
collection
Besides general cases of exclusion defined according to the methodology developed for the Jorwep project
at early stage of the data collection the perimeter has been further revised after chacking the programmes in
detailes during the data collection. So far a final list of programmes have been developed as well as a list of
programmes excluded by the perimeter with motivation for exclusion.
The motivations for exclusions have been the following:
- Programmes do not fit the Jorep definition of joint programmes (do not fund research but rather
coordination or networking of research initiatives/ activities ).
- The scale of funding is too small to be relevant or calls issued are episodic.
- Bilateral agreement with other countries mainly to support researchers mobility However, I did not
exclude include such schemes if such funding seem to be an inevitable part of research cooperation
within a joint project (such situation is in case of research projects resulting from bilateral
agreements where also other costs exist (they may be covered within a separate funding scheme or
payed from statutory institutional funds.
- Schemes funding joint workshops and seminars.
TABLE 6. The list of programmes excluded from the perimeter and motivations for exclusion
Identification code according to JOREP database
Name of the programme Motivation for exclusion
PEU009 E-RARE Poland participates as observer PL006 Agreement on Polish- French
Cooperation in S+T Mostly mobility
PL007 Cooperatio Programme MNSW-INRA France
Mostly mobility
PL008 Agreement- Memo of Understanding MNSW-CNRS
Mostly mobility
PL009 Agreement MNSW- DFG Germany No call/ no funding in 2008-2009 PL010 Agreement MNSW-NSF Low level od funding PL012 Science and technology cooperation No funding in 2008-2009
26
agrement- MNSW-Italy PL013 Agreement with gov. of Peru Low level of funding PL014 Agreement with gov. Of Equador Low level of funding PL016 Agreement with Portugal Low level of funding PL017, Agreement with Hungary Low level of funding PL018 Agreement with Wallons Low level of funding PL019 Agreement with Spain No funding in 2008-9 PL020 DAAD Germany No funding 2008-9 PL020 S+T Cooperation Executive
Programme 2008-2009 Low level of funding
PL022 Agreement- Belgium Low level of funding PL023 Agreement Bielorus Low level of funding PL024 China Low level of funding PL025 Canada Low level of funding PL026 Russia Low level of funding Pl027 Slovenia Low level of funding PL028 Turkey Low level of funding PL029 Korea Low level of funding PL030 Czech Rep. Low level of funding PL031 Greece Low level of funding PL032 South Africa Low level of funding
Remarks:
1/The list does not cover cooperation wchich is not based on intergovernment agreements. However, It does
include cooperation based on intergevernment agreements but funded not from special government
programme money but directly from funds of research institutions. Within restricted paramete area I
inserted programmes with the highest funding and/or highest significance (for instance ERA-NETS do not
get much funding but are considered by the government documentation a highly significant).
2/.Because of lack of information it is not clear what is the mobility component in their funding, some of
these programme could be probably excluded because funding concentrates on mobility.
4. Overall assessment and discussion
In previous sections I mentioned about obstacles to widening participation of Polish performers in
international programs.
Most of research in Poland is still investigators-driven, a small fraction are programmed research however
various initiatives on European level are gradually changing the situation.
Poland government has neglected area of development of science and technology and proper level of funding
- it has been important obstacle to the participation in important international initiatives which require critical
mass of funding.
There is no policy towards opening of research programs –and no understanding for significance of
attracting excellent researchers from abroad.
At the beginning of the time period covered by JOREP projrct Poland had a centralized research policy most
of research has been funded directly by the MNSW up to 2008 when responsibility for international
programmes has been gradually transfered to a new research council NCBR. (Except the NCBR only several
international programmes were managed by individual organizations to which such responsibility for a
articular programme was commissioned by the Ministry). In spring 2010 a package of Acts concerning
27
science was passed by the Polish Parliament– as a result position of the NCBR has been strangthened and a
new council responsible for basic research funding National Research Centre- NCN) was created taking over
gradually responsibility for coordination of international cooperation in the area of basic research.
Unfortunately the changes after 2009 are not covered by JOREP analysis. As a result of 2010 reconstruction
science policy will be decentralized and responsibilities mowe transparent. However, it must be mentioned
that in case of bilateral cooperation the most of such research cooperation is carried out in a decentralized
manner- individual research organizations have research links and cooperation with individual institutions
abroad and such ties do not require intergovernmental agreements. Most of such connections concentrate on
mobility, joint conferences or exchange of researchers. In fact such research connections with foreign
partners pave the way to participation of Polish partners in international or european programmes.
Unfortunately, if such cooperation is funded from institutional funding of research organizations or from
grants of individual researchers, there is no informationa about them in any kind of statistics, may be besides
the annual reports of individual organizations.
4.1. Availability of data and methodological issues
General remarks.
In Poland, there is very aggregated level of statistical data published (Central Statistical Office) and publicly
available, selected data on international programmes enabling preparation a list of JOREP programmes ,
selection programmes to restricted area and programme descriptors are available in the following
WRITTEN documents or sources:
- on web-site of NCBR, where annual reports are presented but most of data from the reports are not
presented in the same way not only between years but also among programmes. Additionally, there
are only selected data concerning years when NCBR exist, so there are missing data on programmes
before 2008
- in confidencial annual reports of the Ministry (MNSW), unfortunately the way these reports are
prepared and data presended in constantly changing and not all information on programmes is
available. – There was no information concerning programme descriptors but some data on a list of
programmes and their funding- particularly bi-lateral cooperation.
Selected data on international research projects which are coordinated/funded by NCBR are partly available-
presented data are on website of NCBR and cover years 2008 and 2009. So far as projects coordinated by
other organizations (a.e. MNSW) are concerned – selected data on projects have been available up the end
of 2010 on ministerial wep-pages but they ”disapeared” when the transfer of their coordination and funding
of these programs began – since this time no information on projects previously funded by the MNSW has
been publicly available. (selected available data concerns only programmes coordinated by the NCBR)
Data collection on JOPREP programmes in Poland was organized in three steps. First- collection of list of
descriptors, second- data on funding and third- data on beneficiaries.
28
During the first step between April and July 2011 the filling of full list of descriptors on joint programmes
and agencies was collected . But before a list of descriptors was prepared a list of all programmes covered by
the JOREP projec was prepared and a list of programmes for restricted area. These data have been checked
step by step by the NIFU who address questions concerning inconsistencies or missing data. Data have been
validated through a further check in September 2011. Nevertherless differences in availability of data have to
be underlined with respect to descriptors collected.
Step one: programme descriptor (based on selection of JOREP programmes and choice the programmes for
selected area).
The list of programmes qualified for JOREP was performed:
- on the basis of the list provided by JOREP team (PEU 001 - PEU 046);
- on data from two kind of reports: annual reports for 2008 and 2009 of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education ( not published) and annual reports of the National R+D Centre (NCBR) for the
same years (available on the website of the NCBR) ;
- on the basis of website of the MNSW department of international cooperation (suddenly dissolved in
Autumn 2010).
The Ministry was asked to validate the list of programmes and their description, but no feedback information
from them was received.
A list of selected programmes for restricted area was prepared –the choice was based on the amount of
funds spent on the programmes and/or official priorities declared in official /political presentations
(unfortunately no answer was received when asking for validation of this information).
Programme descriptors for several programmes was based on data found at the MNSW web-side (just
before the page was phased out) but not for all. A part of data was found in annual reports of the NCBR
supplemented by the information from the officers (see below), and part was received from the MNSW, the
rest of info on programmes coordinated by the other bodies MG, OPI was found at web-pages and/or
received upon request from these bodies.
In case of NCBR programs after negotiations there were several contacts with several programmes
coordinators. According to them the list provided by JOREP (PEU 001-PEU 046) was not valid because
funding of several programs began in 2010 and a list concerned 2009; at the same time there were not all
ERA-net programs included on the list- (they were checked and they emerged to have been launched but not
funded). Additional data was asked and information on descriptors but most of them have been chosen by the
national expert.
Step two: funding flows to agencies/data delivered 3 June 2011
The collection of data on funding for JOREP programmes (except for the NCBR) was very difficult because
the annual reports mentioned earlier provide only selected information on the level of particular programme.
Sometimes in these reports there is a mixture of information on intentions and plans but no systematic data
29
on calls, selection procedures or information how much money has been spent on particular programme in a
given year. It is impossible to find out data on programme budgets and how the budget for particular
programme was spent especially for period of several years 2000-2009.
In ministerial reports there was no information about the role of the agency, national role, beneficiary
sectors- in fact the information on who can be potentially beneficiaries of some programmes which I got
from the MNSW officials was wrong because they misunderstood questions in JOREP Questionnaire. The
similar lack of understanding was in the NCBR- i had to check by myself their mistakes looking for
inconsistence in answers. Further checks in order to be sure whether all mistakes were founded are needed.
In annual reports of the Ministry the year when the Polish agency officially signed an agreement and when it
launched the funding is not distinguished. In case of bilateral cooperation which was coordinated by the
Ministry no data was available in the annual reports including beneficiaries except some data on total
funding in selected years.
Several supplementary sources were used with respect to annual reports of the agencies for different kind of
information :
- web pages of the agencies (in case of MNiSW there was “historical” information on development of
bilateral cooperation on web-pages a page phase out). In case of Ministry of Economy (MG) more or
less information on ESA programme were found but the contact with person responsible for
coordination was impossible.
- web-pages of some of beneficiaries: searching the data in internet several data were found on pages
of institutes participating in a particular programme (EFDA, EM RP).
- phone consultations with several researchers participating in programmes or managing projects.
In case of programmes coordinated by the NCBR information were retrieved about a significant part of the
programmes and their funding from the agency but the data could be only partial- because the NCBR was
established in 2008 and responsibility for funding of programmes was transferred from the Ministry in 2008
and 2009 gradually- it was suggested by the NCBR officials that a part of funding for these programmes has
been still supplied by the Ministry- and the NCBR funded only a part of programmes if a call was in 2008
but it was not possible to get in touch with a person responsible at the MNSW.
Step three: funding to beneficiaries
In case of the NCBR in several programmes the officials were not able to answer not only who are
beneficiaries but also in which programmes there could be private beneficiaries- they referred to legal
regulations which did not allow for it but at the same time some private beneficiaries were found in several
programmes. It is probably rather impossible that different general rules regulate different kind of
programmes differently and assumed that funding of private beneficiaries was not forbidden. Data were
received for several programmes but for most of them no information are available. In case of programmes
coordinated by the MNSW there is no information about beneficiaries in any kind of source of data.
30
4.2. Problems encountered with data availability and measures taken to
overcome problems
There were two kind of difficulties in completion of JOREP work
- no access to agency officials who keep the information not available from any other sources,
- sometimes wrong data provided or wrong interpretation of questions in case the data was delivered.
The way to overcome these difficulties resulting from lacking data would be a contact with persons
responsibile for international cooperation or individual programmes. Unfortunately, since 2006 there were
three reorganizations at the MNSW, a department of international cooperation does not exist any more and a
majority of officers changed a job. The persons responsible now for international cooperation at the MNSW
were not informed about the programmes coordinated by the other people and were not cooperative. In case
of NCBR there were also personnel fluctuations between 2006 and 2010. The people who stayed or took
over the responsibility for the programmes coordinated by the other officers were not well informed, and
even if some wanted to help, some of them did not understand the categories used in JOREP pproject (they
did not understand terms used in Frascati Manual and their meanings despite the fact that I enclosed to a
questionnaire a small ”dictionary” explaning the terms useful for JOREP study). A serious obstacle to my
contacts and cooperation with officials from the MNSW and NCBR was a constant process of changes in
these organizations- ”a new wave’ of reorgnizations of these institutions began in 2010 and is lasting up to
now- as a result of new legislations- 5 new Acts changing the responsibility of the NCBR, creating a new
research council- The National Research Centre (NCN) who took many responsibilities from the Ministry
and changes in system of funding. The managers in these organizations were involved in the organizational
changes and were not able to to spend a tima on consulting the JOREP project. Newetherless it was possible
get selected information from them. Unfortunately it was not possible not only to receive the required data
from agencies but even directives where to find some sort of information.
5. Discussion on national participation to joint and open R&D programmes
5.1. Participation to joint initiatives (EU and national)
For almost half a century Poland similarly to other communist countries was partly cut off from international
collaboration. May be the situation was not so dramatic as in other communist countries since relatively
many researchers went to the United States or Western Europe for scholarships or attended conferences, and
Polish Academy of Sciences collaborated with foreign partners. Polish government signed agreements
concerning science and technology cooperation with several Western Europe countries and all countries
from communist block. However, comparing to the Western world a general picture was rather not
optimistic, particularly in the area of joint research projects. The cooperation with the West was developing
when much of Polish financial contribution was not required or if the cooperation costs were funded from
foreign sources. Such cooperation was mostly developed in natural sciences and life sciences
31
As a result, after 1990 Poland had to catch up to wealthy Western countries with well developed
international links and set up research networks and all forms of cooperation. However the most important
obstacle to become a partner in research collaboration with Western world has been lack of proper level of
research funding in Poland accompanied by lack of initiatives on the part of Polish research community.
The government authorities stress very low level of participation of Polish research teams in FP and
astonishing low number of applications for research money to the European Science Foundation. It is
accompanied with a very low success rate of submitted proposals. On the other hand Poland is lacking
initiatives and instruments for making Polish research institutions more attractive to foreign partners.
Poland signed a lot of bilateral agreements – but their number is not accompanied by the high level of
funding. Many agreements is focused on mobility and scholarships but not a real joint research. The
agreements on cooperation are usually renewed after expiration. After the II world war Poland had a wide
developed cooperation with socialists countries and Soviet Union- since 1990 such ties were reconstructed as
cooperation with individual pos-socialist countries including separate cooperation with Baltic Countries and
Ukraine, Russia or Bielorus.
A lot of cooperation is arranged and completed on the level of research institutions which are often a
continuation os long term partnership and usually is in the form of mobility, visits to partner institutions or
organization of conferences . Such cooperation is often funded from institutional funds which –according to
the regulations- may be devoted for such cooperative research.
5.2.Level of funding: general observations on national financial commitment on
joint R&D activities
The level od funding of international cooperaation in Poland is dramatically low as a consequence of general
low level of R%D funding and on the other hand as a result of lack of interests on the side of scientific
community
As mentioned earlier, Polish research teams and institutions are not interested in participation in
international cooperation on European level, a relatively small number of researchers react on calls
anouncements. There was no systematic study on the reasons of such passive approach. The anegdotical
information suggest that there is not enough ”backgound money” for the development of research projects
on national level to the point that they may be interested for foreign partners. The other reason is lack of
administrative and technical services helping in project development, the third reason may be too much the
bureaucracy connected to European funds –as complains suggest, and finally- the heavy involvement of
Polish research community in teaching. But the problem od low involvement of Polish reearchers in
international programmes requires a systematic study.
The other interesting issue is that of small involvement of private sector (industrial reseach) in international
projects: the reason for that could be a general weak development of the research in industrial sector in
Poland. On the other hand the knowledge whether the private institutions may apply for International funds
is not widespread and even persons coordinating international programmes sometimes do not have a proper
knowledge on it.
32
5.3 Relationship with other EU initiatives
Joint initiatives are one of forms of european cooperation, but the level of funding of R&D in Poland is so
low that it is simply impossible to assess thereal significance of any kind of international cooperation for
Polish science.
5.4. Relationships with national R&D programmes
Several programmes of international cooperation, like ERA-NETS are a part of national priority research
programmes in various areas and fields, even if their funding is separated. One the other hand the bilateral
cooperation is not connected to national programs – the agreements on cooperation are signed on inter-
government level, but they are rather connected to and complement institutional program of bilateral
cooperation.
33
6. References
Activities of EU member states with regard to the reform of the public research sector, ERAWATCH 2008
CSO (Central Statistical Office) 2010: Nauka i technika w Polsce w 2008 r. (Science and Technology in
Poland in 2008)
EUROSTAT 2010: Science, Technology and Innovation Across Europe in 2009.
Erawatch 2010a: Country Report 2009, Analysis of Policy mix to Foster R&D Investment and to Contribute
to the ERA: Poland, (Walendowski J).
Erawatch 2010b: Activities of EU Member States with Regard to the Reform of the Public Research Base
Kozłowski J. 2010: Statystyka nauki, techniki i innowacji w krajach UE i OECD. Stan i problemy rozwoju.
Ministry of Science and Higher Education Department of Strategy jan.kozlowski@nauka.gov.pl
Kozłowski J. 2010: A questionnaire on national public funding (GBOARD) devoted to trans-nationally
coordinated research (unpublished document)
MNSW: 2000- 2009 (Ministry of Science and Higher Education), Sprawozdania roczne (Annual Reports
plus annexes)
Web pages of the Ministry of Higher Education, National Centre for Research and Development, National
Contact Point (NCP) for UE programs http://www.nauka.gov.pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-z-
zagranica/wspolpraca-dwustronna/mapa-swiata/
Interviews with representatives of NCN and MNSW
Recommended