FP7 Interim Evaluation: Analyses of FP7 supported Research ......C. Fotakis, Final Report (October, 2010) 3 1.Scope This report was commissioned as a contribution to the interim evaluation

C. Fotakis, Final Report (October, 2010) 1

FP7 Interim Evaluation:

Analyses of FP7 supported Research Infrastructures

initiatives in the context of the European Research

Area

by

Costas Fotakis

Institute of Electronic Structure and Laser (IESL)

Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH)

(e-mail: [email protected])


Contents

Pages

1. Scope………………………………………………………………………..... 3

2. Methods……………………………………………………………................ 3

3. The background story……………………………………........................... 4

4. European RIs through the Framework Programmes (FP) of EU……… 7

4.1. From FP2 to FP7……………………………………………………… 7

4.2. RIs under FP7…………………………………………………………. 10

4.3. RIs of the ESFRI Roadmap………………………………………….. 16

5. RIs, Industry and Innovation……………………………………………….. 19

5.1. Industry as supplier, as user, and as RI……………………………. 20

5.2. RIs and Innovation……………………………………………………. 22

5.3. The human capital factor…………………………………………….. 23

5.4. Socio-economic aspects……………………………………………... 24

6. Concluding Comments……………………………………………………… 25

7. References…………………………………………………………………… 27

8. Appendix 1: Recommendations on the FP7 initiatives………………….. 30


1. Scope

This report was commissioned as a contribution to the interim evaluation of FP supported

Research Infrastructures (RI) initiatives in the context of the ERA with the aim to examine

the rationale for the intervention, programme implementation, and the achievements of the

activities which were supported.

This report has three specific objectives:

1. To discuss the evolving initiatives for support to research infrastructures (RIs)

under the framework programmes, notably FP7

2. To examine potential links between industrial needs and the role of FP7 supported

RIs

3. To discuss initiatives for promoting innovation through FP supported RIs

2. Methods

The analysis presented in this report is based on

A review of published documents

Data and documents provided on request by Commission officers/the Commission

(sourced in text)

Personal communications with Commission officers, RI users, RI directors,

providers, managers, and other stakeholders.

Participation and/or presentations in RI conferences, EU panels on RIs since

1992, Programme Committee for RIs (2005-2007), and in ESFRI meetings (2002-

2005 and 2007-2009).

There is a wealth of analytical material and supporting studies which has accumulated

with evaluations and impact studies for successive FPs. In particular, there have recently


been a number of publications by expert groups on the role of research infrastructures in

the ERA and recommendations for strategies for strengthening top level research (1-4).

Although reference to some of this material is made here, this report does not intend to

reproduce it or provide an exhaustive review.

3. The background story

The existence of state-of-the-art top level RIs in Europe plays a critical role for the

performance of cutting edge research and promoting scientific excellence.

Simultaneously, RIs provide conducive environments for the fermentation and exchange

of new scientific ideas, as well as high level training, thus creating excellent opportunities

for innovative initiatives. In this context, RIs nowadays are recognized as central to the

triangle of knowledge, connecting research, education and innovation. With the

establishment of the European Research Area (ERA), the development of European

world-class RIs became a key issue for its realization.

The development of national RIs has been an important part in the planning of national

scientific policies in many European countries. The high costs involved for the

construction and operation of such RIs and the requirement for a critical mass of highly

qualified scientific personnel have often been major obstacles for their development and

optimal exploitation at national level. The need for strong synergies at European level

was identified early on, and specific programmes focusing on the trans-national

exploitation of RIs existing in EU Member States appeared in the context of the EU

Framework Programme (FPs) 20 years ago. Nowadays, more than 500 existing national

RIs have established RI networks in more than 60 projects in a wide range of topics as a

result of FPs initiatives, providing Transnational Access (TA) to more than 6000

researchers per year (5).

The need for building new RIs of pan-European character was also recognized since that

time but this process had been rather ineffective (see for example the attempts for the

construction of a European Laser Facility in the nineties) primarily due to the lack of

harmonization and coordination of national scientific policies and priorities in different


countries. With the advent of the European Research Area (ERA), as an outcome of the

Lisbon Agreement, the need for world class RIs became a key issue for its realization.

The obstacle of coherence deficiencies was recognized and led in 2002 to the

establishment of the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) as

an independent Advisory Board to the EU Competitiveness Council. ESFRI comprises

national delegates of the Member States and a delegation from the Commission, which

also provides secretarial support. The mandate of ESFRI was to promote a coherent and

strategy-led approach to policy making on RIs in Europe, including governance issues. In

particular, the mission of ESFRI has been to identify and prioritise RIs of pan-European

interest, corresponding to the long-term needs of European research in all scientific

domains. To pursue this mission, ESFRI undertook in 2004 the task of developing a

European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures. Following a comprehensive evaluation

procedure, 44 such RIs have been selected for the ESFRI Roadmap to date, including e-

IRs. These RIs are either single sited or distributed at different locations and their

implementation stages vary significantly. Several are already mature in their construction

phase, while others are at the design stage (5, 6).

Besides the scientific aspects served, the establishment of networks of existing national

RIs as a result of FPs initiatives and of RIs originating from the Road Map of ESFRI has

raised several socio-economic and cultural implications worthy of study. The existence of

RIs appears to have an impact on regional development and the pursuit of European

cohesion. The potential influence of RIs for the development of European Regions has

become particularly evident with the expansion of EU15 to EU27 and has led to the

concept of Regional Research Infrastructures. Altogether the planning and realization of a

world-class European RI is a multiparameter and challenging ambition with broad

scientific, economic and societal effects (7, 8).

Concluding, RIs role in Europe is important for:

a) supporting European researchers to stay at the forefront of scientific developments

in all Scientific and Technological fields

b) forming poles of attraction of talented young researchers and prominent scientists.


c) providing high level of scientific and technical training and

d) contributing to the competitiveness of European regions.

For the purposes of this report, aspects which evolved during the FP initiatives for the

development and use of European RIs, with emphasis to FP7, will be presented and

discussed in terms of future challenges and prospects. Issues related to deepening the

harmonization process and further enhancing the use of RIs in a cost effective way

towards the goal of a knowledge based economy as prescribed in the ERA can only be

touched on qualitatively here, but should become the topics of detailed Foresight studies.

There are several critical questions to be addressed in this respect:

1) A prime mission of RIs is serving the scientific community to promote scientific

excellence: How can socio-economic benefits be enhanced without compromising

this prime mission?

2) Have existing RIs supported by FPs achieved their goal and what are the options

for their sustainability and future evolution?

3) What are the inter-relations between existing RI networks supported by FP and

those of the Roadmap of ESFRI?

4) What should be the future role of the European Commission in supporting RIs

(existing and new)?

5) How to enhance the effectiveness of possible financial instruments for the support

of RIs (European Commission, Member States contributions, Structural Funds,

European Investment Bank (EIB), private sector)

6) What should be the future focus of ESFRI’s role?

7) How to handle disparities in decision making between different EU countries which

affect the role of ESFRI.

8) Do European RIs provide a good benchmark for an open Europe with a strong

global dimension?


Finally, there are specific questions relevant to this report about the role of RIs in

promoting European competitiveness as a major goal of ERA.

9) How RIs serve industrial needs and how they benefit from industry?

10) What measures will increase the possibilities and impact of innovation originating

from RIs?

4. European RIs through the Framework Programmes (FP) of EU

4.1. From FP2 to FP7

Initiatives for the support of RIs have their origin in FP2. In 1989, the four- year “Large

Installations Plan” was launched under the subactivity “Use of Major Installations”. The

plan was directed at constructing a “Researchers’ Europe”. A key concept introduced was

the support of trans-national access (TA) to national RIs by European researchers. This

concept has since then been in the core of all initiatives for RIs supported by FPs. TA

covers the costs of RIs for access, travel and subsistence of the researcher-users.

Besides enabling access, support was also provided for improving the use of these

facilities by adapting and upgrading them. The allocated budget for this programme in FP2

was 30 M€ but it increased rapidly in the subsequent FPs, reaching the sum of 1715 M€

under FP7 for the years 2007-2013. Also, as illustrated in Figure 1, although the field of

Physical Sciences dominated the RIs providing TA in the early FPs, in FP6 and FP7 there

is a widely balanced distribution of support across different scientific fields. Along these

lines, the importance of Social Sciences and Humanities Infrastructures has been well

recognized in FP7 and received particular attention (5, 9).


Figure 1: Evolution of trans-national access per scientific domain during FP2 to FP7

It is noteworthy that through the FPs the definition of RIs at European level evolved,

reflecting the difficulties to encompass various ideas which may have different quantitative

and qualitative features and involve different needs and priorities in different scientific

domains. For example, a strong tendency had been to define RIs in terms of their size and

costs. It is characteristic that the programme was initially launched under the title ‘Large

Installations Plan’, inspired by RIs performing mega-science projects (e.g. CERN).

Another approach was centred around the idea of uniqueness, referring to the

combination in an RI of state-of-the-art equipment or sets of instruments and highly

specialized human resources facilitating the performance of forefront science in

established or emerging fields. Within FP7, the definition of RIs appears to be

comprehensive: RIs are facilities, resources and related services which may be ‘single-

sited’ or ‘distributed’. They may include major scientific equipment, scientific collections,

archives, ICT-based e-infrastructures, or any other entity of a unique character enabling

research.

Although the concept of TA has been expanded through the FPs, under FP6 and FP7 in

addition to TA other actions were introduced such as “Networking” and “Joint Research

Actions (JRA), forming the Integrated Infrastructures Initiatives (I3), aiming to improve the


quality of access offered in a field. For example, the idea of JRAs is the support of RTD

type of activities for the investigation of new concepts, the development of advanced

experimental workstations etc., permitting the performance of new and/or better quality

research work in a specific scientific domain. The support of Communication networks and

Grid type activities, Design studies for the feasibility and preparatory phase of new RIs,

and partial support towards the Construction costs of new RIs were also new initiatives

which appeared in FP6 and FP7. Finally, Policy related issues were introduced as a

separate initiative for improving the coordination of national and Community research

policies and assessing the needs and impact of RIs.

As the FP6 evaluation report of the RIs programme has shown, these schemes were

highly successful in attracting a large number of high quality proposals (1). The

corresponding financial support requested exceeded overwhelmingly the available

funding. The conclusion was that these initiatives should be maintained in FP7. This has

been indeed the case in FP7. However, following the strategic approach of ESFRI and the

definition of the European Road Map for RIs, the Design Studies and Construction of New

Infrastructures have also received an increased consideration for support.

Amongst all these initiatives, Trans-national Access is and must remain in the core of the

RIs programme. FP6 was proven highly successful in attracting a large number of trans-

national users (approximately 26.000) in particular from smaller countries (see Fig. 2).

Although it may be argued that this number is relatively small compared to the total

number of researchers in Europe, it is noted that it corresponds to researchers involved in

challenging and high quality research projects which could not have been realized in their

home institutions. About 90% of the FP6 Users declared that they would not have been

able to carry out their work at the RI without EC support (10). This demonstrates one

element of the high European Added Value (EAV) offered by the FPs supported RIs

programme.

C. Fotakis, Final Report (October, 2010)

10

Figure 2. Origin of researchers from all European countries (as a percentage of total number of researchers) benefited from TA to RIs during FP6

In addition, there are qualitative aspects of EAV created through the operation of RIs. In

this context, European world leadership in specific scientific fields has been facilitated

through the I3 schemes. An example is the cutting edge field of ‘attoscience’ (the science

and technology of ultrashort laser pulses) which was promoted through a JRA involving a

network of national laser RIs and which has become an important component of the

Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI), which is one of the ESFRI selected RIs. Europe is a

protagonist worldwide in this emerging field, due in large part to these initiatives.

Generally, I3 initiatives may provide the frame for scaling the scientific frontiers of different

fields and addressing scenarios for their potential and long term development in Europe.

4.2 RIs under FP7

In FP7 there are several step changes over previous FPs. The onset of FP7 coincided

with the appearance of the first European Research Infrastructures Roadmap of ESFRI.

Based on this and the conclusions drawn from the implementation of the RIs programme

in FP6 there were two lines of Actions followed in FP7:

a) the optimal performance and use of existing RIs , covering all fields of science in a

‘bottom-up’ approach


11

b) the development of new RIs of pan-European interest through a strategic approach

based on the ESFRI procedures. In line with the conclusions of the Informal

Competitiveness Council of July 2004, this approach required the development of a

roadmap envisioning RIs in Europe in the next 10-20 years and the development of

a new operational mechanism (6).

To account for these two lines of Actions, support for RIs within FP7 occurs through the

following schemes : a) support of existing RIs through I3 activities, b) support of new RIs

(originating from ESFRI) either for Design Studies or Construction/ major upgrades if the

latter reach the implementation phase. Targeted calls for I3 proposals have been

introduced, aiming at interfacing existing RIs to goals pursued by ESFRI RIs. Policy

development and programme implementation are also supported. This support may be

realized through Collaborative Projects (CP), Coordination and Support Actions (CSA),

and/or a combination of the two schemes.

The budget for RIs within FP7 sums up to 1715 M€ (for 2007-2013). The number of RI

projects funded up to July 2010 is 229, with a total of 1028 M€. Of these projects, 137 are

managed by DG RTD and 92 by DG INFSO. Although all INFSO projects are classified

as “e-Infrastructures”, several of these serve broader scientific domains as for example

GEANT, which enables scientists to access computational resources in many countries

worldwide (40 in Europe). In this context, e-Infrastructures form the basis for highly

distributed scientific environments (3).

A novel scheme introduced with FP7 is the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) for joint

funding by the Commission through FP7 and the European Investment Bank (EIB). The

RSFF may raise support for RIs, especially the new RIs of the ESFRI roadmap, by

providing loans for high risk R&D investments. This scheme is already experiencing

strong demand from industry and SMEs. Current loan operations cover primarily projects

in ICT, Energy, and Life Sciences.

Tables 1 and 2 provide an analytical breakdown of support for RIs through FP7 by

scientific domain and by activity. As indicated, the average funding per project ranges

from 0.8 M€ for policy development activities to 7.4 M€ for Integrating Activities. The

overall average funding per project is 4.5 M€ (20).


12

Table 1. RI Projects: total and average support by scientific domain.

Scientific domain Number of projects Funding (M€) Average funding (M€)

Social sciences

and Humanities 15 53,0 3,5

Life Sciences 28 169,4 6,1

Environment and

Earth Sciences 26 119,0 4,6

Engineering and

Energy 12 74,1 6,2

Material sciences

& Analytical

Facilities

22 107,6 4,9

Physics and

Astronomy 23 120,8 5,3

Mathematics and

Computer

Sciences

4 19,0 4,8

e-infrastructures 92 360,4 3,9

other 7 5,1 0,7

Total 229 1.028,5 4,5

It is noted that the scientific domains shown in Table 1, as defined in FP7, do not fully

coincide with those defined by ESFRI. Directly comparable domains would be useful in

the future. In addition it should be pointed out that there are RIs which may serve more


13

than one scientific domain. These can be characterized as ‘horizontal’ RIs. Examples are

the Synchronrons, Neutron Sources, and Lasers, which appear under the ‘Material

Sciences and Analytical Facilities’ heading, but which also span Physics, Life Sciences,

and other domains.

Table 2. RI Projects : funding support per activity

Activity Number of projects Funding (M€) Average funding

(M€)

Integrating

Activities 60 445,9 7,4

ICT-based e-

Infrastructures 50 297,9 6,0

Design studies 14 28,7 2,0

Construction -

Preparatory Phase 45 190,6 4,2

Construction -

Implementation

Phase

1 20,0 20,0

Policy

development 59 45,4 0,8

Total 229 1.028,5 4,5

The 60 I3 activities shown in Table 2 are the product of linking 557 FP supported facilities

(see Figure 1) into strategic networks of pan-European interest, thus contributing strongly

to the structuring of ERA. This is another demonstration of high EAV achieved through FP

support.


14

Although the funding support for RIs in FP7 was increased, the annual budget available

for TA remained at the same level as in FP6. This is shown in Figure 3, which presents

the funding allocated per year to the RIs programme from FP2 to FP7 (5).

Figure 3: Evolution of budget from FP2 to FP7

As Figure 4 shows, while the number of RIs has more than doubled in FP7 compared to

FP6, the number of users per year has not increased (5). It is doubtful that this indicates

that a saturation point for the level of use of European RIs has been reached. Rather, it

suggests that the current level of funding support for TA is inadequate for the exploitation

of RIs by European scientists.


15

Figure 4. Number of RIs and numbers of users between FP2 and FP7

Although the current level of funding is not adequate to cover the full needs of RIs,

especially if the construction and operating costs of the new ESFRI roadmap RIs are

considered (see section 4.3), and limits access opportunities to existing RIs, it has

catalyzed the establishment of the RIs programme of FP as central in the realization of

ERA. A drastic increase in support from FP in the future will be a challenge in optimizing

this impact. On the other hand, maintaining the level of funding per year at the present

level (or even worse decreasing it further), while simultaneously expanding the range of

scientific domains served by RIs, may lead to the imposition of upper funding thresholds

as has happened in recent calls. Such thresholds are rather arbitrary and may impinge on

the optimal impact of the RIs programme. Given the current economic constraints either

fewer scientific areas should be supported, (which is a rather unfortunate scenario) or the

available funding should be restructured for supporting primarily I3 activities. Emphasis in

covering through FPs only part of the RIs operational costs (also for the new

infrastructures of the ESFRI Roadmap) in exchange for Transnational Access provided in

combination with JRA and Networking activities could be an effective use of available

resources. Measures for attracting additional funding outside EU, e.g. by opening

European RIs globally may also be considered.


16

There are also critical qualitative considerations to be addressed. For example, there are

RIs operating primarily on the basis of research services (e.g. Synchrotrons), and other

RIs (e.g. Lasers) operating on the basis of collaborative projects, the natural sequel of

which is the diffusion of know-how and the creation of new facilities in users’ home

laboratories. For the latter, only the high-end of the most demanding research needs is

covered by EU RIs. Both models are important for the realization of the FP goals as long

as the complementarity issue is maintained in FP supported RI networks. It should also be

noted that there are RIs serving only a small number of users but in critical fields for

European competitiveness; for example, a network of RIs focusing on the development of

aeronautics in Europe, as described in section 5.1. In such cases the number of users

may be relatively small but the quality of knowledge obtained and the added value are

high.

4.3 RIs of the ESFRI Roadmap

The development of new RIs originating from the ESFRI procedures is based on the direct

application of Article 169 of the European Treaty. As shown in the ESFRI Roadmap (see

Table 3) 44 new RIs have been identified through the ESFRI procedures and three

additional projects are included from the CERN strategic roadmap for particle physics.

Several of these projects also involve significant partnerships at the global level. These

RIs are relevant to major existing challenges at European and global level, such as

environmental and energy issues. The global dimension of e-Infrastructures is particularly

strong in this respect.


17

Table 3: ESFRI Roadmap 2009

The ESFRI Roadmap includes single-sited and distributed RIs which are at different

stages of development. Several ESFRI projects are entirely new RIs and others are

building on existing institutes and sometimes pre-existing networks. Six single-sited RIs

are mature at this stage and already in the construction phase. These include the XFEL

(free electron laser), ESRF upgrade (Synchrotron), ILL 20/20 upgrade (neutron source),

SPIRAL 2 (particle accelerator), JHR (energy), PRACE (high performance computing)

projects (6, 7). There is provision for this road map to be revised at regular time intervals,

e.g. every two years, taking into account RIs of the Roadmap which have failed to take off,

and new needs and proposals for RIs of pan-European interest. This review procedure is

also vital given the heavy funding commitments and the inherent risks of long-term

predictability of scientific needs.

The estimated required financial investment is about 20 b€ and the estimated operational

costs are about 2 b€/year. Under the present difficult economic situation, ESFRI projects

face different challenges in raising the necessary capital investment for their realization.

The RSFF funding scheme and targeted use of Structural Funds in Member States, where

applicable, may contribute towards this end. It is noted that for the period 2007-2013 the

total structural funds allocated to RTD activities is at about the same level as the total FP7


18

budget (50b€). From this amount 9.8 b€ is allocated for “RTD infrastructures and centers

of competence” i.e. about 1.4 b€ per year (12, 19). It is clear that optimal use of funding

mechanisms in this respect depends crucially on good coordination between DG

Research and DG Regio.

As mentioned in section 4.2 and shown in Figure 3, the funding level from FP7 is far from

sufficient for funding the ESFRI RIs, but may be critical for initiating their development and

catalyzing investment from other sources. For maximizing its impact, however, future FP

funding should be targeted primarily for promoting the core initiative of FP which is

providing access (TA) in combination with JRA and Networking activities, rather than

capital projects. For the FP contribution to have an effect towards the construction costs of

new RIs, even through the RSFF scheme, would have required a significant increase of

the overall FP budget for RIs, which is not likely in the present situation. In this context,

funds from FPs allocated to covering in part the operating costs of these RIs, in exchange

for TA offered, is considered to be a cost-effective use of the available resources.

Simultaneously, considering that the same criterion is applied for existing RIs, a calibrated

and balanced approach towards all EU RIs will be achieved.

There are two major impacts achieved through the ESFRI procedures. First, the

recognition of the significance of RIs in Member States, the development of national

roadmaps and the setting of RI priorities in relation to the ESFRI roadmap. It should be

noted that not all national RIs are of pan-European interest to be considered for the

ESFRI roadmap. Second, the mobilization of many Member States to host an ESFRI RI

and/or participate in others. Both these developments contribute to the visions of ERA

and have a clear EAV.

It is noted, however, that there is an inherent complexity to the process of developing

major projects such as those of ESFRI based on partnerships between several countries.

Many delays primarily related to national decision making processes and lengthy

international negotiations have been observed. Important societal aspects which are

involved and in particular commitment for raising the required funding is a prime source

for these delays. This has resulted in slowing the development and impact of projects,


19

some of which are highly competitive at global level (e.g. the XFEL project). Sharpening

the procedures for decision making is an issue to be addressed.

In an attempt to enhance flexibility and opportunities for RIs, FP7 has introduced a new

scheme for better governance through a new legal framework, the European Research

Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). ERIC aims to facilitate the joint establishment and

operation of RIs involving at least three Member States on the basis of Article 171 of the

European Treaty. RIs in the ERIC framework will be able to operate as legal entities,

adapting their individual specific requirements and enhancing their flexibility and capability

in attracting funding from various sources (non-EU countries, private sector).

As a result of the FPs and the ESFRI procedures, the landscape for EU RIs has to a large

extent been successfully identified. As such, the original mandate of ESFRI has been

successfully accomplished and the future role(s) of ESFRI need to be re-considered. The

initiative of “targeted calls”, which has appeared in the very recent calls of FP7, aiming to

interface existing RI networks (e.g. the network of laser RIs in LASERLAB-Europe) to

related forthcoming RIs of the ESFRI Roadmap (ELI and HIPER projects) is a positive

measure. There are risks, however, that extensive use of targeted calls in this context will

undermine the contribution of existing RIs to other important scientific sectors which they

may serve. Overall, the issues of operability and more general sustainability, especially in

the frame of the current economic climate, need to be considered. Schemes for opening

EU RIs globally and also to the private sector should be devised (11).

In conclusion, all documentation available to date indicates beyond doubt that EU support

for RIs has served its purpose successfully in terms of its primary scientific goals,

although measures for dealing with future challenges which could impact on this should

be considered.

5. RIs, Industry and Innovation

Examining the potential links between (a) industrial needs and (b) initiatives for promoting

innovation through FP supported RIs has enhancing competitiveness as an underlying


20

theme. For this reason the role of RIs in relation to industry and innovation is considered

together.

5.1. Industry as supplier, as user, and as RI

A central objective of ERA is its contribution towards sustainable economic development.

This objective becomes particularly important under the current difficulties for economic

growth. RIs as one of the pillars of ERA should respond to this objective by linking to the

needs of industry and society. Such links already exist, although their presence and/or

magnitude are not necessarily clearly visible in the FP supported RI projects. Within the

structure of FP7 there is an underlying commitment to meeting the needs of industry, and

there are examples indicative of an increased industrial involvement relevant to RIs.

RIs impact to industry should be considered at three levels: industry as (a) product

supplier to RIs (b) as a user of RIs, and (c) industry as an RI. The two latter schemes are

closely related to services and innovation associated with RIs.

An important issue among these possibilities is the collaboration between RIs and industry

for their mutual benefit.

(a) Industry as product supplier

The construction or upgrading of RIs, and in particular the implementation of the ESFRI

roadmap projects, requires strong industry involvement. This link has been examined by

the ERID-Watch Study, which estimated that the EU RIs form a significant part of the

European ‘research market’, reaching the level of 8-9b€ annually (13, 14). Approximately

half of this amount is estimated to be the annual budget for instrumentation procurement.

The implementation of the ESFRI roadmap projects is expected to lead to an increase in

the value of this market sector by 20%.

There is an additional ‘collateral effect’ for industry as product supplier to RIs: considering

that RIs are frontrunners of the ‘research market’, requiring challenging and novel

approaches, collaboration with industry may lead to the development of prototype

products which improve on those commercially available, thus expanding their market


21

base and value. Almost two out of three of surveyed companies have reported that they

have been able to move into new markets due to their activities as product suppliers to

RIs (3, 18). A good example is the development and supply of components by the

photonics industry to RIs related to advanced light sources (Synchrotrons, Free Electron

Lasers, and Lasers). Advanced detection, imaging, and measuring systems may come

about as a result of covering such needs. Interfacing to EU Technology Platforms may

enhance industrial benefits in this respect. Technology Platforms provide an excellent

base for incubating industrial solutions for the needs of RIs and design strategies towards

the exploitation of the technological innovation produced. Good examples are the

Photonics 21 and Nano-electronics Technology Platforms.

Along these lines, many companies have reported that contracts with FP funded RIs,

besides being beneficial, are also prestigious, supporting sales in other segments of the

market. Considering also that several European RIs require major constructions, such as

oceanographic vessels, aircrafts, telescopes, clean rooms etc. there are obvious benefits

for industry as supplier.

(b) Industry as user of RIs.

Information on access from FP6 projects has shown that less than 1% of the users are

from industry. For FP7 projects information is not yet complete. Of the 147 FP7 projects

which have been signed so far (other projects are still under negotiation), there are 2.240

beneficiaries. Of these, 151 are enterprises (i.e. 7% of the total beneficiaries to date)

which participate in 62 projects (i.e. 42% of the number of signed projects to date) (20). A

good example for such a project is the integrated Activity and Networking for Micro and

Nano - electronics Analysis (ANNA) which offers to EU research organizations, large

companies and SMEs reference laboratories and expertise in one or more analytical

techniques. Along similar lines, e-Infrastructures providing High-Performance Computing

(HPC) capabilities, such as the PRACE project, enable efficient integration between R&D

results and manufacturing. For example, the aerospace industry has benefited from

access to HPC RIs (21). It should be noted, however, that this use of RIs by industry

refers only to projects the results of which are open to the public domain. As such,


22

services provided to industry by European infrastructures in the legal frame of proprietary

rights, although important, are not necessarily visible since they are not supported through

FP schemes. Therefore, the use of RIs by industry is broader than reported.

Another aspect to be considered as beneficial for industrial users of FP supported RIs is

the level of refereeing on industry proposals by expert panels which ensure the role of RIs

towards serving scientific excellence and innovation.

(c) Industry as RI

There may be industries active in certain scientific and technological domains which make

their facilities available for serving the scientific community. In FP7 a good example is

provided by the European Strategic Wind Tunnels Improved Research Potential

(ESWIRP) project, which is an I3 initiative, bringing together wind tunnel facilities across

Europe (15). These facilities cover the needs for ground tests aiming to understand flight

physics phenomena and to investigate flight characteristics of future flying vehicles. They

are important for the development of aeronautics in Europe, attracting as users flight

physics researchers, engineers and aircraft designers from industry and academia.

5.2 RIs and Innovation

Innovations are key drivers for economic growth. RIs enable advanced knowledge

creation and dissemination through the scientific interactions and the networking activities

they involve. The exploitation of this newly created and often advanced knowledge

enhances the probability for innovation. It is noted that the RIs environment is conducive

for the promotion of both demand-driven innovation which is addressing primarily current

needs and supply-side innovation, which delineates the future prospects. To this effect,

many of the industrial needs of today may be satisfied by the services offered by RIs. At

the same time, the industrial developments of the future rely to a large extent on the

knowledge created as a result of innovative research. The scientific culture prevailing in

the RIs environment acts as an incubator towards this end. The training of young

scientists and the formation of highly qualified personnel in such environments is of great

importance and will be discussed separately below.


23

Quantifying the impact of innovative research produced by EU RIs in terms of specific

outcomes is extremely difficult. A usual quantitative indicator of innovative activity is the

number of patents. However, this data is not available at this stage. On a qualitative

basis, the FP RIs support the entire innovation chain in four ways:

(a) through their prime goal, that of pursuing high quality curiosity-driven scientific

research: This may lead to quantum leaps in developing various fields, leading to

unexpected novel approaches;

(b) networking and JRA activities in I3 projects: Increases of industrial participation

particularly in JRAs, which are RTD projects, is expected to facilitate industrial

innovation and should be encouraged;

(c) providing the ground for testing and demonstrating novel technologies, such as in

materials analysis and processing, advanced simulations, and control technologies

facilitated by high performance computing;

(d) through scientific and industrial synergies when upgrading or building an RI, due to

the highly demanding requirements involved. The globalization of RIs may expand

opportunities in this respect.

Intellectual Property (IP) issues related to the exploitation of research results produced in

RIs should be addressed, especially within the ERIC legal framework.

5.3 The human capital factor

Historic experience has shown that scientific research, even when it is not directly

translated into services and products, influences indirectly and long term the economy of a

country by enriching its human potential. In this context, there are also indirect links

between the EU RIs and industry. RIs scope for promoting top level science relies on the

support of high quality basic research. One major outcome of basic research is the

production of well-trained researchers, the educational issue. Indications are that

industrial research managers view that as a principal contribution to industry rather than

the specific knowledge generated by basic research (1, 6).


24

In FP7 RIs, many of the funded projects involve PhDs and post-doctoral researchers.

However, quantitative data about this participation is not available yet. Also many RIs in

the I3 activities are providing training courses to new users.

As shown in Table 4 for FP6 projects, of the 26.000 users who benefited from access,

about 50% were young researchers (undergraduate, postgraduate and post-doc). This

highly trained personnel forms an invaluable human capital resource for serving current

and future industrial needs.

Table 4: Status of users at RIs during FP6.

Researcher status Total %

Experienced researchers

12804 49

Post-doctoral researchers

4633 18

Post-graduate 7050 27

Undergraduate 1275 5

Technicians 303 1

Total 26065 100

5.4 Socio-economic aspects

TA and RTD activities in the European RIs may accelerate processes which enhance the

scientific and entrepreneurial culture across Europe. However, these alone are not

adequate for establishing coherence at regional level. As has been pointed out (13),

innovation is favoured where there is scientific talent, and where there is an attractive

environment for research and entrepreneurship. There is a rich literature suggesting that

regions with more and better public research are more successful in private sector

innovation (1, 18-19). The prospect of beneficial knowledge spillovers may induce

newcomers to locate in research-rich intensive regions. RIs can be hot spots for high

technology development in that they may facilitate the formation of regional hubs where

good science, technology, talent, and entrepreneurship may cluster.


25

RIs special role in promoting excellence in research, and through that innovation, may

have a significant socio-economic impact at regional level. By mobilizing the growth

potential of European regions, economic disparities across the EU may be mitigated and

the geographical balance of economic development may be improved, facilitating

cohesion and raising the rate of growth in the EU as a whole.

As mentioned above, knowledge based economy occurs according to a logic of

concentration. Societal and economic benefits such as procurement and employment are

linked to the presence of RIs. For new RIs of the ESFRI roadmap, as shown by the RIFI

analysis, the principle of ‘Juste Retour’ does not operate in practice (4). Instead the

effects of technology and services procurement are to a very large extent localized and

concentrated to the local environment. Construction work mainly benefits local and

regional companies, and once the RI is in operation it becomes a major local employer. A

good example of these social and economic impacts is the RI ‘GANIL’ (ion accelerator)

located in Normandy, which in 2007 spent 18.5 M€ in the local economy, and up to that

date had created 253 direct high level jobs and 345 indirect jobs. Also 28 start-up

companies have been created. GANIL is part of the RI SPIRAL2 of the ESFRI Roadmap.

Emphasis on Regional RIs for pooling resources (structural funds) and developing joint

strategies and joint planning are seen as a way for countering major societal and

economic challenges at regional level. The guiding principal should be the EAV produced

in terms of scientific and technological excellence. Regional RIs have evolved through the

ESFRI procedures and the structures of existing and new RIs in FP7 provide an excellent

template in this respect.

6. Concluding Comments

Overall, the FP7 initiatives regarding EU RIs have been successful in supporting their key

role within ERA. There are several examples of high EAV which have their origin in these

initiatives. In particular:

FP7 has enhanced the capacity for high level research and knowledge in Europe by


26

a) becoming the thread for networking more than 500 national RIs in diverse

fields and opening them to European scientists via TA, and by facilitating the

construction of new RIs of pan-European interest planned by the ESFRI

roadmap through joint funding (RSFF) and legal schemes (ERIC).

b) Providing high level education and training to young researchers through

interactions encouraged in the frame of RIs and their exposure to state-of-the-

art multisectoral research facilities

FP7 has provided a vision for the future of European RIs by harmonizing actions among

Member States through the ESFRI procedures, and in particular the roadmap for RIs.

National roadmaps are developed and many Member States consider hosting European

or regional RIs and/or participating in others.

FP7 supported RIs have an impact on European competitiveness as test-beds for

promoting innovation and creating ‘research market’ opportunities for industry.

FP7 supported RIs may catalyze processes for societal and cultural developments at

regional level.

However, the full potential impact of RIs on ERA is restricted by existing funding

limitations. Within these limitations several issues may be considered at three time scales

– immediate –intermediate and long term.

Immediate :

‐ Develop synergies of RIs with educational and training opportunities within EU

programmes targeted to young researchers (ITN, Marie Curie)

‐ Encourage industry participation through collaboration in JRAs

‐ Exploit industry/academia exchange schemes

Intermediate : Enhance the opening of EU RIs to the world by


27

‐ providing TA to researchers from third countries, thereby facilitating the

sustainability and growth of RIs. However EU support for TA of European

researchers not only must remain, but should be increased.

‐ Support JRAs in areas of common interest that benefit both EU and third

countries.

‐ Foster cooperation and networking with key third countries through thematic and

geographic targets.

Long term: As noted, a variety of socio-economic considerations slows down the

commitment of Member States to investing in single-sited infrastructures which are not

located within their national borders. Enhancing the role of regional RIs, or by encouraging

the development of satellite installations in collaborating countries which may undertake

pilot projects, training initiatives, and complementary services, may become an antidote to

this situation and facilitate the aims of ERA.

7. References

1. EC ‘Community Support for Research Infrastructures in the Sixth Framework

Programme: Evaluation of pertinence and impact’. Synthesis Report by the

Ramboll Management-Matrix-Eureval Consortium. European Commission 2009.

2. ‘Ex-post Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes (2002-2006)’, Report of

the Expert Group. Chairman: E.T. Rietschel. Rapporteur: E.A. Arnold. EC. Feb,

2009

3. EC ‘A vision for strengthening world-class research infrastructures in the ERA’.

Report of the Expert Group on Research Infrastructures. European Commission

2010 (ISSN 1018-5593) http://ec.europe.eu/research/infrastructures

4. Research Infrastructures: Foresight and Impact. http://rifi.gateway.bg

5. D.Pasini, ‘Developments in European Research Infrastructures’ ECRI 2010: The

Sixth European Conference on Research Infrastructures, Barcelona, March 2010,


28

UKRO Annual Conference 2010: Developments in European Research

Infrastructures. Ghent July 2010

6. ESFRI: European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures: Implementation Report

2009. EC 2009

7. ESFRI Report: Research Infrastructures and the Europe 2020 Strategy. (2009)

8. Carlo Rizzuto and Nade Witzanyova 2008 ‘Report of the ESFRI Regional Issues

Group’.

9. http://ec.europa.eu/research/report/2009/ and Statistical Overview of FP7

Implementation in 2009.

10. Source: filled questionnaires http://www.cordis.lu/infrastructures/questionnaire.htm.

11. Maria Theofilatou and Daniel Pasini ‘Input to the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and

Jobs after 2010’ (Contribution of Unit B3)

12. Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 29.4.2009.[SEC(2009) 589]

Accompanying document from the Commission ‘On the progress made under the

7th European Framework Programme for Research’.

13. ‘European Research Infrastructures Development Watch (ERID-Watch): Final

Prospective Report. 15 January 2009 (ERID-Watch Project No 043004).

14. ESFRI meeting :’Role of Research Infrastructures for a Competitive Knowledge

Economy’. 29-30 June 2009, Brussels

15. Source: http://www.eswirp.eu/mission_statement.html

16. Pavitt, Keith ‘What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful?’ Research Policy,

vol.20, 1991, pp.109-119.

17. G. Buenstorf, M.Geissler: ‘The Origins of Entrants and the Geography of the

German Laser Industry’. Papers on Economics and Evolution, Max Planck Institute

of Economics, 2008


29

18. O. Hallousten, M. Benner, G. Holnberg ‘Impacts of Large-Scale Research Facilities

- A Socio-Economic Analysis (Research Policy Institute, Lund University, (2004)).

19. ‘A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area: Science,

Technology and Competitiveness key figures reports 2008/2009 (EUR 23608 EN)’.

20. D. Pasini, Unit B3, private communication.

21. ”Welcome to PRACE – Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe”

http://www.prace-project.eu/

22. GANIL-SPIRAL2 Economic and Social Impact.

http://mail.yerphi.am/~rml/GANIL.pdf

* The author is indebted to Daniel Pasini, Maria Douka and Maria Theofilatou of DG

Research, Unit B3 and Carlo Rizzuto, Chairman of the ESFRI for helpful communications.


30

8. Appendix 1:

Recommendations on the FP7 initiatives for the European Research Infrastructures

The European RIs are at the centre of the Knowledge Triangle, and as such are a pillar for

implementing the ERA. The FP7 initiatives have contributed to enhancing their impact in

promoting scientific excellence and competitiveness. Also, together with the ESFRI

procedures, the importance of RIs has become visible in the Member States and a

coherent approach for their development at European level has been established. For

achieving the optimal impact of these ambitious initiatives, the present level of funding in

FP7 is not adequate. Within these limitations, and given the current economic constraints,

the following may enhance the European Added Value and sustainability of RIs.

Restructure available funding to support primarily I3 activities, in particular

covering RIs operational costs (also for the new Infrastructures of the ESFRI

Roadmap) in exchange for Transnational Access.

Establish synergies with other European programmes, in particular those for

mobility and training of young researchers (ITN, Marie Curie, industry/academia

schemes) in RI environments.

Stimulate the involvement of industry through: industrial participation in Joint

Research Actions (JRA) and Networking activities; provisions for proprietary

research where appropriate; simplification of bureaucratic procedures; and by

encouraging the link of RIs to initiatives of industrial orientation such as

Technology Platforms, JTIs.


31

Open the RIs globally, thereby creating new opportunities for attracting talent and

funding.

Improve inter-Directorate coordination in policy implementation regarding the

targeting of Structural Funds so as to provide an optimal balance between the

support of RIs and socio-economic development.

Place emphasis on Regional RIs on the basis of complementarity; that is,

wherever these add scientific and technological value as satellite infrastructures to

a major RI and promote the opening of European RIs internationally.

Documents

FP7 Interim Evaluation: Analyses of FP7 supported Research ......C. Fotakis, Final Report (October, 2010) 3 1.Scope This report was commissioned as a contribution to the interim evaluation